What scale are the vehicle kits?
- Thread starter Cergorach
- Start date
SkeletonKey Ed
Mongoose
I measured from the back of the boot to the top of the helmate on the front most Marine. The M1A2 is more than twice that width. I'm guessing that the perspective is a bit missleading on the height. I think with the bases the tank is still taller than the men.
Cheers - Ed
[/img]
Cheers - Ed
It might be scaled with the model itself, but it doesn't look right at all. I've stood next to one of those APCs you see from Vietnam, the M113. I'm effectively 6'6" tall in person, and if I was to stand upright inside the thing my head would be in the Hatch on top or I'd wang it pretty badly. If ScipioAmericanus makes an appearance here, he's actually been with an M1A2 in person, and has expressed an overall wrongness with the scale of the tank. Also, the work you did, while commendable, assumes that they're in line with the vehicle's front section, all at an equal distance from the camera.
Effectively, while they say the models are 28mm, here's another except from the figures comparison sight:
In effect, to get it to look 'right' we'd need to find a source of 1/63 vehicles, an example for this is:
Effectively, while they say the models are 28mm, here's another except from the figures comparison sight:
In effect, to get it to look 'right' we'd need to find a source of 1/63 vehicles, an example for this is:
These are Libyan occupation Italians from Frontier (25 mm or about 1/72), next to a Corgi model toy car in 1/60th scale (about 28 mm). This difference in scale looks OK to me and is about a 10% difference.
Hiromoon said:It might be scaled with the model itself, but it doesn't look right at all. I've stood next to one of those APCs you see from Vietnam, the M113. I'm effectively 6'6" tall in person, and if I was to stand upright inside the thing my head would be in the Hatch on top or I'd wang it pretty badly. If ScipioAmericanus makes an appearance here, he's actually been with an M1A2 in person, and has expressed an overall wrongness with the scale of the tank. Also, the work you did, while commendable, assumes that they're in line with the vehicle's front section, all at an equal distance from the camera.
Effectively, while they say the models are 28mm, here's another except from the figures comparison sight:
In effect, to get it to look 'right' we'd need to find a source of 1/63 vehicles, an example for this is:
These are Libyan occupation Italians from Frontier (25 mm or about 1/72), next to a Corgi model toy car in 1/60th scale (about 28 mm). This difference in scale looks OK to me and is about a 10% difference.
Besides, average male hieght is 5'10"...
Yes but the Tank is twelve feet across right? (is it?), and SkeletonKey pointed out theres a little left over, so our man may well be 5' 10". The scales arnt the problem, you yourself said they are right. The problem comes from an optical illusion due to the soldier bases. Mongoose are seeing what they can do to change the base, which, even if it doesnt fix the problem, it should help aleviate some.
My fear is changing the scale hurts more than it helps. Production would have to re-start costing 'goose a fortune, the Tanks will no longer be truely scaled and tweaking to remove an optical illusion from one direction will only throw it off for others. If you base the tank, the infantry will go up to the right height, but the proportion will still look out height-wise. Making the Tank wider to look right next to based infantry will make the Tank look too squat and it wont look long enough.
Going by absolute scale measurements is the best way to go. It gives a standard they can stay to, meaning Tanks made in two years time will be scaled right to ones made now. If we start tweaking them now to look right, then tweak the next one, and the next, you could end up way out.
The problem is the base, so thats what should be fixed. Basing the Tank and putting it at an angle (driving over rubble for example) might help remove the direct comparison.
Just my 2 cents.
My fear is changing the scale hurts more than it helps. Production would have to re-start costing 'goose a fortune, the Tanks will no longer be truely scaled and tweaking to remove an optical illusion from one direction will only throw it off for others. If you base the tank, the infantry will go up to the right height, but the proportion will still look out height-wise. Making the Tank wider to look right next to based infantry will make the Tank look too squat and it wont look long enough.
Going by absolute scale measurements is the best way to go. It gives a standard they can stay to, meaning Tanks made in two years time will be scaled right to ones made now. If we start tweaking them now to look right, then tweak the next one, and the next, you could end up way out.
The problem is the base, so thats what should be fixed. Basing the Tank and putting it at an angle (driving over rubble for example) might help remove the direct comparison.
Just my 2 cents.
Not exactly...currently, according to ScipioAmericanus, there's di-cast models that look oddly similar to the M1 going to be offered by Mongoose shortly currently available. Besides, if you're still measuring from center point, going with something that looks slightly larger (see the picture in the previous post) won't even effect gameplay.
dyssnowman
Mongoose
Hiromoon said:
Do you perhaps mean "availabe soon"?
:lol: Personally, I agree with Tathlum. If they are currently done to scale, just keep them that way and hopefully they will improve on the bases in the future. Rescaling things now, two months from the initial release, would be a total disaster and only set things back by months to try to satisfy the realists out there. It just wouldn't make any sense.
How about waiting until we actually have the minis to make size comparisons, rather than trying to do so from a picture that is at the wrong angle to give a definitive answer? Seems more logical to me, but that's just my 2 cents.
technicaly no
average hieght is all dependant on how you measure it
for example you could take the shortest person and the tallest person and add there hieghts together and divide by 2 or you could do it buy population spread, trouble there is that people bellow 5 foot out number people over 7 foot by an astronomical amount so again the gap sways past 6 foot to bellow 6 foot.
if you took all 30 year old european heritage men and measured them then did a list there would be more 6' tall men than 5'10 for example, and the cloathing industry works on the assumption from cloathing sales that there are more 6' tall men than any other height so aim there cloaths for that, thats why 5'10" men often complain about trousers to long or sleeves to long.
so average is a mathamatical equation that isnt presise, a better way to word it would be to say a more common height for a european man is 6' while the average height in europe including ethnic herritages and people with restricted growth (dwarfs) is 5'10".
the average height is also dependant on a persons genetic age ie growth stage when measured. if every body was measured at the end of the day it could effect result by as much as 2" over an average.
as far as the cloathing industry is concerned 6' is the common size for england, as a side note shop manaquines are 6'2" heigh for a male on average. i only know this from stuff im doing for my massage course.
and any way nobody would admit to being shorter than 6' lol.
average hieght is all dependant on how you measure it
for example you could take the shortest person and the tallest person and add there hieghts together and divide by 2 or you could do it buy population spread, trouble there is that people bellow 5 foot out number people over 7 foot by an astronomical amount so again the gap sways past 6 foot to bellow 6 foot.if you took all 30 year old european heritage men and measured them then did a list there would be more 6' tall men than 5'10 for example, and the cloathing industry works on the assumption from cloathing sales that there are more 6' tall men than any other height so aim there cloaths for that, thats why 5'10" men often complain about trousers to long or sleeves to long.
so average is a mathamatical equation that isnt presise, a better way to word it would be to say a more common height for a european man is 6' while the average height in europe including ethnic herritages and people with restricted growth (dwarfs) is 5'10".
the average height is also dependant on a persons genetic age ie growth stage when measured. if every body was measured at the end of the day it could effect result by as much as 2" over an average.
as far as the cloathing industry is concerned 6' is the common size for england, as a side note shop manaquines are 6'2" heigh for a male on average. i only know this from stuff im doing for my massage course.
and any way nobody would admit to being shorter than 6' lol.
Found an intersting article concerning average heights, though it's mostly focused towards the UK. Still has an interesting excerpt:
"The mean height of UK citizens is 1,755.1mm (5ft 9in). Among European men only the Dutch are taller, averaging 1,795mm and with a clear height advantage over the US men's average of 1,760.4."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,781616,00.html
"The mean height of UK citizens is 1,755.1mm (5ft 9in). Among European men only the Dutch are taller, averaging 1,795mm and with a clear height advantage over the US men's average of 1,760.4."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,781616,00.html
OK, it's settled. Now that the human genome has been thoroughly mapped, I've put in a request to the scientists to "adjust" the human race to a specific fixed height. That way, the miniature manufacturers will have a much easier time in deciding how to scale the model masters :wink: . Aren't you glad we all had this discussion, now? :shock: Heh. I wonder if we should all insert our height into our forum profiles and do some research. Nah. BTW, I'm 5'10" (177.8cm). Just to fog up things more, for historical miniatures (say 1800's) you'd need smaller castings. Back then, the average height of people was far less due to nutrition I believe. Once, I was in an antique store and fell in love with a naval officer's "fore and aft" cocked hat. When I tried it on, it was horribly small, as if meant for a child. The store owner told me that people were smaller then due to a general lack of nutrition, which until then I didn't know.
Soulmage
Mongoose
I'm just amused that now that it looks like the paint jobs are going to be decent as advertized, folks have moved on to griping about the tanks being off in scale a few mm this way or that.
My prediction is this stage will last until the game actually comes out, when people will abandon scale griping in favor of rules griping. There's just no love for game companies these days! LOL!!
BTW - Until somebody measures the damn tanks in inches, I've got no freaking clue how big they are! :lol:
My prediction is this stage will last until the game actually comes out, when people will abandon scale griping in favor of rules griping. There's just no love for game companies these days! LOL!!
BTW - Until somebody measures the damn tanks in inches, I've got no freaking clue how big they are! :lol:
britneyfan97
Mongoose
Chiwie said:
Not to mention the inch and a half to two inches from the kevlar helmet...
Lane Shutt
Mongoose
Mr Evil said:
I would.
IMHO you freakishly tall people are a waste of human flesh, compared to me.
If it weren't for you cars coul be smaller and more effieient, making you a waste of natural resources as well.
Similar threads
