"Establish a Common Miniatures Scale?" Topic
57 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Return to the Establish a Common Miniatures Scale? Poll
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile ArticleOur Man in Southern California, Wyatt the Odd , takes press pass in hand and reports from the Gen Con So Cal convention.
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
|
Pages: 1 2
Wargamer43210 | 04 Feb 2009 2:47 p.m. PST |
At the risk of being on the receiving end of bad things
Having a common method for measuring figure compatibility would really benefit everyone. I think it is almost as important as having pictures of the figures. * For consumers it would address the "what ranges go together" questions. * For manufacturers it has the potential to increase sales by raising consumer awareness about their products and showing how well they mix with others. It can be as simple as taking a picture next to a ruler with mm gradients or as complex as some universal measurement scale. (I never expected to see something like the CGC rating used in comics.) A good example of range compatibility in action can be found here: (scroll down to the "Are my figures compatible" section) link It would be difficult to accomplish, but most things worth doing aren't easy! Now, let the tomatoes fly
|
ChancerUK | 05 Feb 2009 5:45 p.m. PST |
I'm afraid that to try to tie down wargames figures to the same scale definations as convetional model making, will not make the figures imune to scale creep or issues of propotion. If you compare 1/72 scale figure ranges from a number of manufacturers you end up with considerable and noticable variation in size. This is especialy true of Valiant Minature's chunked out 20mm 1/72 figures when comapred to plasics by Revell or Italeri. Then you get Zevesda doing 7 years war figures that would be over 6ft4 tall and not to mention all the 6ft Romans. As for armour compare an Airfix Sherman with a Revell and Hat Armourfast Shermans. I like the fact the wargames figures have their own scale convetion, it sets us appart from tradational modelling and the railway scene, but while still being readily compitable. It also allows wargames figures to have the propotioal licence that makes for more robust figures with more readily recognisable weapons. Finaly I think the wargames scale system works better for fantasy and SF figures. Historicaly speeking how tall is a dwarf, elve or troll? |
Goldwyrm | 06 Feb 2009 7:56 a.m. PST |
I was once for a common scale but I've reversed my position based on practicality. The problem with a new scale is it won't be backwards compatible to so many ranges that deciding such a scale will be an exercise in peril when dealing with the manufacturers. Side by side comparison photos of like poses really tell the story much quicker, as long as you have at least one of the figures in the lineup. For example, when I go shopping for compatibles at Cold Wars, I'm bringing a handful of test miniatures. |
Griefbringer | 07 Feb 2009 3:31 p.m. PST |
As for armour compare an Airfix Sherman with a Revell and Hat Armourfast Shermans. The issue here is that Airfix Sherman is 1/76 scale, while Revell and HäT are 1/72 scale. However, lately some smart-bleep has decided to start labeling Airfix 1/76 kits as 1/72. Griefbringer |
Ditto Tango 2 1 | 10 Feb 2009 11:28 a.m. PST |
However, lately some smart-bleep has decided to start labeling Airfix 1/76 kits as 1/72. That began in 1994 with the re-issuing of Airfix kits for the 50th anniversary of D-Day. The box art was modified to include "1:72" and has been such ever since. -- Tim |
vojvoda | 10 Feb 2009 7:02 p.m. PST |
The Monstrous Jake 03 Feb 2009 9:19 a.m. PST wrote: The Barrett scale concept did just that. It was introduced, if I remember correctly, in the early 1990's in the Courier magazine, and was intended to provide some sort of baseline so figures from different manufacturers could be compared. Toby I think (I don't have the files here with me in N.C.) was attempting to standardize how we measured scale. I blame him for the whole thing. We as a wargame community tried to stick to it but it was doomed to fail as the inconsistencies in sculpt styles and design. But you have to ask how can some toy manufactures in plastic get it right and "hobbyists miss the mark so much" Ah bring back my Airfix "HO" toy soldiers. Toby is still around runs Thoughbred miniatures which are perhaps the best Ironclads on the market. It did what it was supposed to do, but it didn't catch on. I think some people didn't like the concept because it measured base-of-foot-to-eye-level instead of their own personal favoured method. Mostly I think most people didn't use the Barrett Scale simply because they'd never heard of it. I still think the basic idea is a sound one, but without widespread acceptance, there's not much point in it.All too true, all too true. VR James Mattes |
vojvoda | 10 Feb 2009 7:06 p.m. PST |
Goldwyrm 06 Feb 2009 6:56 a.m. PST wrote: Side by side comparison photos of like poses really tell the story much quicker, as long as you have at least one of the figures in the lineup. For example, when I go shopping for compatibles at Cold Wars, I'm bringing a handful of test miniatures.
There are just too many lines and two many eras to compare. Scale Creep has a pretty good handle on 15mm but I dont see anyone doing this for 25/28mm. I too bring figures to compare at convventions. Fact is I spend more time doing that then gaming at conventions sometimes. VR James Mattes |
Pages: 1 2
|