Home Forums General General ‘accuracy vs. looking right’

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 17 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #42977
    Angel Barracks
    Moderator

    For those that don’t know, this is my preference and what I like.
    I am NOT saying this is how it is, so you must bow to my way of thinking.

    Talking about 6mm and assuming 1mm = 1 foot, which seems pretty reasonable to me, I will continue!

    I have recently acquired some Brigade Models 6mm sci-fi buildings:

    I would suggest the Brigade Models are true to 6mm, the doors are about 6.5mm high, which seems about right. The rest of the buildings also seem perfectly fine when we assume that 1mm = 1 foot.

    But place a 6mm figure in front of the door, and for me they suddenly look wrong.
    (my figure is actually 6.5mm)

    Here is my version of a similar sized building in comparison.

     

    Now there is an argument to say that in many (most even?) 6mm games, the buildings are just to represent a BUA.
    After all a single 6mm infantry figure is not normally used to represent a single trooper, so why would it be the same for a building or vehicle?
    But if that is the case why make it to scale if it is not going to be used as such.

     

    The same applies to vehicles, a very reasonable to scale Brigade Models light vehicle.

    At 6mm wide that would be 6 foot wide, which is plenty fine for car.
    But again place a 6mm figure next to it and I think it looks tiny.

    Here we see my light vehicle in comparison.

    For me it looks better, but if we were to assume 1mm = 1 foot, then mine is crazy big and is a nonsense car.

     

    On bigger scales/sizes, does it bother you if the trees are as short as they invariably are?
    Do you have similar thoughts?

    Does this bother you, is it something you even considered until now?

     

     

    #42980
    Thuseld
    Participant

    I think looking good is the most important factor. It is also worth noting that basing your figures can add another 1 or 2mm to its height.

    We are also in a great position with Sci Fi games, because you can sort of make it up as you go.

    #42981
    Angel Barracks
    Moderator

    is also worth noting that basing your figures can add another 1 or 2mm to its height.

    It certainly does.
    I have made the assumption that everyone who plays with 6mm will base their figures.
    This is also the reason I base my vehicles, to raise them up to the same height as the now based (and thus taller) infantry.

    #42982
    MartinR
    Participant

    Isn’t the problem here that your 6mm figures are actually pretty big?

    I use Timecast 6mm buildings etc with 15mm (!) stuff and it looks fine. In contrast, they dwarf my H&R/GHQ/Mainforce 6mm figures.

    As noted above, the base can easily add a couple of extra mm in height.

    My rule of thumb for buildings of whatever size is that they should be taller than the figures, irrespective of the notional figure/building scale, which is back to it ‘looking right’.

    "Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

    #42984
    Angel Barracks
    Moderator

    Isn’t the problem here that your 6mm figures are actually pretty big?

    They are bigger than most to be fair, averaging about 6.5 to 7mm.
    But here is another 6mm figure (Exodus Wars as was) and again, for me, the figure is a normal 6mm figure but placed next to the car seems to be too big to fit in it.

    I also think width is an issue around this..

    Infantry can be the right height but not the right width.
    I have just measured my forearm and it is just over 4″ wide.
    Which is 1/3rd of a foot.
    Sooo using the assumption that 1mm = 1 foot the arms on a 6mm figure should be about 0.33mm wide.
    This is simply not possible.
    I have just measured some of my 6mm troops and they are about 3mm wide at the shoulders.
    I am not aware of many people that are 3 foot wide, the average door width being about 2.5 feet.

     

    #42985
    Mishima
    Participant

    That way lies madness.

    Just make it look right.

    Compare Esci figs (1:72) to Platoon 20 which are nominally the same “size” and I think you’ll see what I mean.

    Tim from Gomi Designs. 15mm Vietnam riverine. www.gomidesigns.co.uk

    #42986
    Paul
    Participant

    “If it looks right, it is right” is the rule that I go by.

    This is something I have read on the subject before, and found it an interesting read.

    Those are brave men knocking at our door. Let's go kill them!

    #42987
    Cosmotiger
    Participant

    Yep, you’ve hit on the issue with many lines of wargames minis. They are not really sculpted to an actual, consistent scale ratio. You can say a 20mm figure is 1/72 scale, or a 6mm figure is 1/285 scale– but they are not retaining the true proportions of a 6 foot tall man shrunk down 72 times smaller, or 285 times smaller, etc.

    Your example of the “3 foot wide shoulders” is just the beginning. Most of us also don’t have pumpkin-sized heads or 12 inch long fingers, but minis are sculpted that way. Partly for durability, but also for visual impact. When you start with figures like that, applying a strict scale ratio for cars and buildings will result in the sorts of situations you show in your pictures.

    #42988
    Angel Barracks
    Moderator

    When you start with figures like that, applying a strict scale ratio for cars and buildings will result in the sorts of situations you show in your pictures.

    Indeed.

    I am not having a go at Brigade by the way in case anyone thinks I am.
    I was just struck by the disparity between 1/285th scale buildings and 6mm infantry.

     

    #42995
    Steelonsand
    Participant

    Ooooh! – good to see the 6mm versions of those buildings! – but to address the question, it is a difficult issue – I find you have to go with what you are comfortable with, if you force yourself into the ‘scale’ straightjacket, then every time you look at the layout, a little voice is going to keep telling you that something is just not right….. Or at least looks that way.

    The way I rationalise it is to use the ‘smaller’ buildings of say, Brigade when looking at actions involving units, and go for the ‘larger’ when it’s a skirmish or there are individually based figures…… A BUA is fine if we’re looking at troops of tanks, but a door that an individual figure could fit through if it’s just a few good men……

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 9 months ago by Steelonsand.
    #42999
    Steve Johnson
    Participant

    I always go with what looks right.

    #43003
    Fredd Bloggs
    Participant

    I work on a 6mm figure being 7.1 mm tall and go from there. The mdf buildings I have done use a 7.5mm high door, so that if the building is based the same thickness as the figure they look about right.

     

    The other thing missed in small scales is that you can use height, you can make things tall, without needing them to be wide or long.

    #43049
    paintpig
    Participant

    What looks right every time, of course the beauty of 1/285th scale is that front depth and height take on more realistic proportions particularly with massed troop formation armies. Of course in such a small scale being out by a millimetre is a big discrepancy so some thought has to be put in to the design.

    In my opinion model makers do lose their way at times, for instance a door for 6mm size figures will be at least 7mm in height in a domestic situation, in a commercial or industrial building it would be 8mm…. this reflects what happens in the real world. Ceilings are nominally 2400mm in a domestic building and in an industrial situation more often than not 3000mm or higher.

    I’m assuming you will put your buildings on bases to correct the base disparity? They are nice looking buildings by the way.

    I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel
    Slowly Over A Low Flame

    #43050
    Angel Barracks
    Moderator

    I’m assuming you will put your buildings on bases to correct the base disparity?

     

    My own brand of buildings are overscaled so there is no need, though I do base them to make little mini scenes.
    The Brigade ones I will base, again for the same reasons, but being on large bases which in turn will have the individual infantry bases put on them will not address the issue..

     

    #43173
    Phil Dutré
    Participant

    Always go with what looks right. Vehicles and buildings can be made to true scale. Wargaming figures usually are not (too bulky) for a lot of different reasons.

    Look at the bottom 2 photographs in this blogpost: http://dspaintingblog.blogspot.be/2007/11/m4-sherman.html

    BTW, it is common practice to use buildings at a different scale to the figures to make up for vertical/horizontal scale discrepancies. 20 or even 15mm buildings often look better with 25mm figures – depending on game scale.

    Tiny Tin Men Blog: http://snv-ttm.blogspot.com/
    Wargaming Mechanics Blog: http://wargaming-mechanics.blogspot.com/

    #43174
    Angel Barracks
    Moderator

    Look at the bottom 2 photographs in this blogpost: http://dspaintingblog.blogspot.be/2007/11/m4-sherman.html

    Just that, the height seems acceptable and pretty good.
    But the chunkiness…

    Such is the way with wargames models rather than scale models though I guess.

    #43175
    Sane Max
    Participant

    well, in the man v car example the size of his base does distort it a lot. Base the light vehicle the same way and problem solved! A man standing next to a car should still be taller than it, unless it’s a 4*4 ‘cos his kids go to school on Mount Anapurna.

    http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/tank_gallery_3.jpg

    I generally feel you can get away with one scale down anyway when it comes to buildings – 20mm buildings do not look awful with 25mm figures. The vast majority of wargames houses are very very small though.

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 17 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.