laager50 | 23 Apr 2014 1:54 a.m. PST |
Don't know if this has been posted before.
|
138SquadronRAF | 23 Apr 2014 7:43 a.m. PST |
That is useful. Thank you. |
ACWBill | 23 Apr 2014 8:10 a.m. PST |
FYI Starfort is now Plank Road and is owned by Good Ground, LLC, my company which makes and distributes Cracker Line Miniatures. |
EJNashIII | 23 Apr 2014 4:13 p.m. PST |
Funny. look at the difference between Kallistra and GHQ! I guess you could do the cadets battle from the Horse Soldier movie. |
Trajanus | 24 Apr 2014 2:06 a.m. PST |
To be fair, Kallistra are now marketing as 12mm. |
donlowry | 25 Apr 2014 9:24 a.m. PST |
How big are the squares on the graph paper behind them? |
Lion in the Stars | 25 Apr 2014 1:35 p.m. PST |
How big are the squares on the graph paper behind them? Looks like 1/8" squares, given 4 divisions between the bold lines and 8 divisions between the bold lines numbered 1 and 2 at the top of the picture. Looks like the GHQ, the Baggage Train, Starfort/Plank Road, Cracker Line, and new Pendraken minis will all work well together. Perrin/Magister Militum might work with those, too, though not in the same unit. Were there any units on either side known for having all big, tall troops? That big lump base of the Old Glory mini does no favors. I understand that a base of some size makes for better casting, but seriously! I prefer my bases as thin as possible without screwing up casting, and in fact will not buy minis with big lump bases unless there is absolutely no other way to get that model/equipment. And then I spend a lot of time turning pewter into dust with a big flat file. |
1968billsfan | 28 Apr 2014 8:35 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the picture, but it might be better if a mm scale was in the background with the "0" at the soles of the foot of the figure. (nag nag nag). Also I have another comment on maybe improving these all too rare but treasured figure comparisons pictures. People are of many different heights. 5'2 to 6' would be found in many units and units raised in limited areas often were fairly uniform in height. So on a first pass, we could live with different height figures The problem I find in matching figures is not the height of the figure but the s size of the most uniform item of equipement- the musket. Smaller figures (true 15's) are carrying childrens pellet guns and 18mm figures are carrying BOYES A/T rifles. That is a big reason why they can't be used together. |
1968billsfan | 28 Apr 2014 8:45 a.m. PST |
Table of height of miniature figure(soles to top of head) in mm with independent variables of scale & tallness of man. height inch 100 110 120 130 scale 5'2" 62 15.7 14.3 13.1 12.1 5'6" 66 16.8 15.2 14.0 12.9 5'8" 68 17.3 15.7 14.4 13.3 5'10" 70 17.8 16.2 14.8 13.7 6' 72 18.3 16.6 15.2 14.1 6'2" 74 18.8 17.1 15.7 14.5 6'4" 76 19.3 17.5 16.1 14.8 6'6" 78 19.8 18.0 16.5 15.2 So "true 15mm" seems to be modeling a 5'6" tall man at a scale of 1:110 and 18mm is ? a 6' tall man at 1:100 or a 6'6" tall man at 1:100 or a 5'8" tall man at 1:96 or a 5'6" man at 1/93. |
1968billsfan | 28 Apr 2014 8:56 a.m. PST |
For 10mm figures 5'2" man is 10mm at 1 :158 5'6" man is 10mm at 1:168 5'8" man is 10mm at 1:172 5'10" man is 10mm at 1:177 |
Leon Pendraken | 28 Apr 2014 10:06 a.m. PST |
Figure measurements are usually to the eye level, so 10mm to the eye would equate to 11.5mm or thereabouts to the top of the head. We work on the average person being 5' 8", which at 11.5mm to the top of the head equates to 1:150 scale. |
Lion in the Stars | 28 Apr 2014 12:15 p.m. PST |
18mm is ? a 6' tall man at 1:100 [
] 5'11"/180cm at 1/100, assuming you're talking 18mm from boots to top of head. This seems to be about right for modern US troops. (I was 6' tall in the height line and a third of the way back!) I understand that either the Danes or one of their Scandahooligan neighbors average better than 6' tall these days. |
Inkbiz | 29 Apr 2014 6:22 p.m. PST |
Still can't quite grasp why we collectively apply "scale" in terms of mm in figure heights/eyes/helmet/toes/whatever when it's absolutely meaningless and utterly arbitrary. Even IF, we, one and all, agreed to a measurement of height across the hobby, it wouldn't make one iota of difference in moving the final product towards a better representation of reality
(hmm..average ACW soldier height vs an average Austrian Grenadier height vs a Pict vs a Conquistador, etc..) because there exists no corps of fighting men on earth where each man is/was precisely the same height. Can't we all take a step forward and apply standards to our wee little warriors that actually make sense? How's this for starters
find a common denominator, an unchanging variable such as, oh, maybe the length of a Brown Bess, or a Springfield, or whatever relatively mass produced item was around at that time. Scale it down to whatever size you want, and there you go. Gaming at a scale of 100:1? Well your Springfield 1861 model should be as close to 14mm long as you can get it, and damn the guy carrying it.. same goes for his standard issue backpack, cartridge box, etc. At that point, the differences in height/hat/eyebrows/bottom of toe/whatever between manufacturers is rendered absolutely impotent, and it just comes down to one fellow being taller and broader than this other short, thin fellow a few ranks over.. but oh my look how their weapons and gear all match up the way they should
almost like they're in the same scale. And gee, now I can mix and match a few different manufacturers together without my unit looking like a joke with one fellow carrying a relatively nice looking musket, and another carrying a telephone pole. Sorry to rant, but I'm sick to death of the scale talk..manufacturers and sculptors should spend more time trying to work together and bring more standardization to the hobby as a whole..which I guarantee will do nothing but help them in the end, individually, rather than pushing the limits of reality and aesthetics to come up with lines that force players and consumers to choose based on size alone. Cheers, Bob |
ACWBill | 30 Apr 2014 1:20 p.m. PST |
Most of us miniatures manufacturers are scattered to the four corners of the earth with little opportunity to communicate. On top of this, very few of us make a living in this hobby. Almost everyone I know that owns a miniatures company works a real job. That is the case for me and many others. There is no organization setting standards for this, unlike other industries. Perhaps someone will do it some day, but until then, I have not the time to work, run my side business and have any time for wife and family. I took the figures I liked the most and tried to match their scale and girth in as much as possible. I am afraid that the best we will do based on the small margins on which our companies exist. Miniature gaming is also a miniature business. |
Inkbiz | 30 Apr 2014 3:25 p.m. PST |
I hear you, Bill. I've been dabbling with my own little line for nearly a decade and financially it's a slowly leaking bucket but what keeps me going is my love of the hobby, and I'm sure that's the case with more established manufacturers, as well, rather than any substantial financial windfall. I just get a little miffed when I see the degree of confusion the lack of a standardization creates among consumers and fans of the hobby. Add to that the 'big' manufacturers just enabling this pattern with oddball sizing like '28mm', 1:58, or whatever. All they do is either force smaller manufacturers to comply to their sizing, or relegate themselves to the 'miniature business' realm you mention. If hobby-driving entities like them got on board with an actual standardization based on equipment or weapons then it would make life a lot easier for the small manufacturers out there to flesh out lines, or offer some variability to existing ones. That said, I absolutely respect and admire anyone who plays an active part in the business side of our hobby, and I apologize for any offense I may have caused. Sincerely, Bob |
ACWBill | 01 May 2014 2:42 a.m. PST |
In no way am I offended. Just participating in the discussion. It is good the debate and discuss this kind of subject. Maybe someone with a few million bucks or pounds will decide to become the standard setter and he or she is reading this thread! ;-) |
Lion in the Stars | 01 May 2014 9:44 a.m. PST |
@Bob and Bill: That's why I'm not too picky about variation between the humans. As long as the rifles are about right, I'm fine with mixing ranges from all over the map, heightwise. If I was sculpting or commissioning minis, I'd tell the sculptor to make masters of all the equipment, and then sculpt models around the cast equipment. |
ACWBill | 02 May 2014 5:48 p.m. PST |
Indeed, when one looks at period photos, the heights vary to widest extent possible. link link |
Inkbiz | 03 May 2014 8:32 a.m. PST |
Great links, Bill, and boy that officer standing in the center of the second photo sure stands out. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes when the firing started! |
ACWBill | 03 May 2014 11:17 a.m. PST |
His nickname most almost certainly Hoss. |