Re: Flat car underbody question


Armand Premo
 

My gripe is that you have to deal with the implied and cast on detail.Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: Tim O'Connor
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 11:31 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Flat car underbody question




I know Walt, I agree with you. I know that's what Richard means,
although his statement was more broadly expressed. This is a very
old argument. I'm not in the same league as Jack Spencer or Ted
Culotta, but those guys like to model the WHOLE car (at least the
exterior parts) and so do I. I understand the "Hollywood" approach
too -- in the movie business, stuff that is not seen is simply not
there. (Several people at Naperville have drawn this analogy before,
I didn't make it up!)

This same issue has come up many times before with respect to the
interiors of hopper cars and gondolas. How detailed should they be?
There are many examples of every approach -- no detail at all,
some detail, lots of detail. Obviously, no real consensus there,
except that maybe it's easier to remove detail, than to add it.

Tim O'

>Tim,
>
>While standing and operating the typical height layout, no, but the center sill, brake rods, tank, and cylinders can be seen when viewed from track level. That's the angle from which we usually photograph our models, from the point of view of a scale person standing at trackside. In that case, things like the trainline, some brake piping, and the minor crossbearers are NOT visible and I'd say that these are the parts that Richard refers to, not the entire underbody.
>
>Walt

Join main@RealSTMFC.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.