Message Areas - "Why the huge differences in size."

Train-Sim.Com Message Areas

"Why the huge differences in size."

Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
Previous Topic | Next Topic Conferences MSTS Engine And Livery Skinning (Protected) Original message
controll (319 posts)
Jan-12-02, 08:05 AM (EST) "Why the huge differences in size." Hi All,Does anyone out there remember the posts about scale in MSTS?
Do we have a set measuring scale to place all designers on a
equal size for cars and locos? Should we? Is this a problem
for anyone or is it just me and the way the units look side
by side?Here are the measurements I use.....1 foot = .3048 meters...
then I measure the photo or drawing and convert the measurement
I have taken into a scale based on real world data about the
W x H x L...So if my measure ment is say 4"'s of drawing size
for the side of a unit from bottom of box to top of box side then the equasion is (10.666 (real world height) / 4 (the size I measured)= 2.665 feet ( which is to say that each inch = 2.665 feet )) now I take the known number of feet involved and
convert it to meters by real world conversion scale which is
1 foot = .3048 meters, so ( 2.665 feet X .3048 = .812292 ) round
this number to third decimal and you come up with .812.
This number then becomes the size of the boxcar (or whatever) from the box bottom to the top of the box side. The above is just an example , but I think we need to get on a
correct measurement scale so as to allow everyone who makes a
unit to be working from the same page and we won't end up with as big a difference between units as I have seen in the pic below. Either I am way off (mine cars seem to fit well with the Boxcars in KUJU dimensions (I know we all said they were not
the correct scale)) or some other folks are.)Well its just an idea ( and it's been around before ).Sorry for the mathematical confusion in the middle of this message, just trying to get my point across...;)Let Me know.Controll
Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Table of Contents

Subject Author Message Date ID RE: Why the huge differences in siz... mdeming Jan-12-02 1 RE: Why the huge differences in siz... Starlight Jan-12-02 6 RE: Why the huge differences in siz... clashley Jan-12-02 2 RE: Why the huge differences in siz... controll Jan-12-02 3 RE: Why the huge differences in siz... clashley Jan-12-02 4 RE: Why the huge differences in siz... controll Jan-12-02 5 RE: Why the huge differences in siz... clashley Jan-12-02 7 RE: Why the huge differences in siz... controll Jan-13-02 8

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Messages in this topic
mdeming (21 posts)
Jan-12-02, 08:37 AM (EST) 1. "RE: Why the huge differences in size." Most of us are running on standard gauge track which is 56.5" a 50 foot boxcar is about 600 inches long or about 10 times as long as the width of the rails. While I haven't done any work with the shape files the dimensions should not be that hard to figure out. I was noticing the same thing and I am going to go thruogh my files and rework all my cars so they are about the same size or a little closer than they are now. Thank God for the tgatool programn it makes reskinning a breeze.
Mike Deming Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Starlight (56 posts)
Jan-12-02, 10:22 PM (EST) 6. "RE: Why the huge differences in size." I hate this new math.Critter Werks, skinners of moderate models everywhere. Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
clashley (188 posts)
Jan-12-02, 08:38 AM (EST) 2. "RE: Why the huge differences in size." LAST EDITED ON Jan-12-02 AT 08:40 AM (EST)Well, I know this topic has been well-discussed in the past, and the Kuju models are way out of scale. I use this method to ensure my models are as close to scale as possible:First, I find schematics that contain dimensions for the locomotive/wagon I intend to model. I then convert all the measurements to inches, and then meters (1 inch = 0.0.254 meters). I can then place all the necessary measurements (width, height, length, wheelbase, etc.) on paper, and then use keyboard entries in 3d studio max to create basic shape. I then use photographs and line drawings as a basic visual reference. By calculating the dimnesions on paper first, this ensures I can accurately recreate the desired model down to the exact millimeter. It's a lot of math, to be sure, but the results are worth it.The key is starting with schematics and line drawings that include exact, real-world dimensions.Just a little insight into the process I use...Cameron Lashley Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
controll (319 posts)
Jan-12-02, 06:09 PM (EST) 3. "RE: Why the huge differences in size." Hey Cameron,I am trying to figure out why some people use .0254 as the scale
and others use some other number...the scale of .0254 is what I
use just the 12" version or .3048...so if we are on the same
scale size then why a huge difference in heights...the measurements of the drawings or photos shouldn't matter if you can get the size of the drawing/photo to match your scale..Example..the boxcars are 14.6' high and 50.2'long so if you use
the scale of 1' = .3048 meters then going into your CAD software
you should be able to get models that are to scale no matter
what medium you use for the drawing or photo....does that make sense? And I have modelled my Boxcars and SD40 to these exact
dimensions...so again why the difference in size if all else is
relatively the same?
It is currectly baffeling me and I cannot see making more models
to go with the MSTS units or anyone elses units until this is worked out. And guys talk about the KUJU stuff being out of scale but they match up to my models fine with the .0254 scale
being used....so what gives.Any ideas.Controll Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
clashley (188 posts)
Jan-12-02, 08:06 PM (EST) 4. "RE: Why the huge differences in size." Well, I suspect that some of the drawings are slightly out of scale to start with. That's why I don't rely on drawings to determine scale, but actual numbers from builders' schematics. Once I've determined the overall size of the model, I simply use the drawing as a visual reference to determine the placement of varous details once the basis model has been created.Cameron Lashley Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
controll (319 posts)
Jan-12-02, 09:04 PM (EST) 5. "RE: Why the huge differences in size." Hey Cameron,I still am not getting across my message I don't think so anyway.
He's how I tried to picture it.Take a square Make a drawing of the square OOPS we drew it as a rectangle….this will not matter.The real world dimensions of our square are 1’H X 1’WThe dimensions of our drawing we are going to take measurements from is 3”H X 8”WNow we do a little math:For the conversion of height in our drawing we measure that for each 1” of height in the
drawing we have 4” of real world height, so that 1” = 4”s on our drawing.Now for the conversion of width in our drawing we measure that for each 1” of width in the drawing we have 1.5” of real world width, so that 1” = 1.5” on our drawing.Now all the measurements we make use these scale conversions.The after making the measurements we need we convert them with the formula –1” = .0254 metersby doing this we end up with the following number measurements.Height of square on drawing 3” and using our formula we get 3” X 4” = 12” = 1’Width of square on drawing 8” and using our formula we get 8” X 1.5” = 12” = 1’Then converting it all to meters we get 12” X .0254 = .3048 metersSo in our CAD program we use 1’ = .3048m and everyones drawings come out the same.
(no matter how screwed up the drawing is)
I hope everyone can agree that this thing works for any drawing
and any scale.....just make sure we all use the same conversion
number to put the measurements into or CAD program (be it 3D Canvas or 3D Studio or the new Abacus train designer).LaterControll Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
clashley (188 posts)
Jan-12-02, 10:49 PM (EST) 7. "RE: Why the huge differences in size." Controll,I think the problem occurs because people are relying solely on line drawings to determine the overall dimensions of their models. I don't even look at the drawings until after I've created the basic model shape and established the dimensions... I use schematics that include real world dimensions and just use numbers for length, height and width. The problem with drawings (especially the ones available on the internet) is that they lose resolution after they've been scanned, sized and resized several times. Consider this example:You have a line drawing of 50-ton hopper, which is marked at 1:102 scale. The drawing measures approximately 4 inches wide. The real-world length of the hopper (excluding couplers) is 34 feet (10.3632 meters). Therefore, you can determine that your line drawing is at scale of 1:102 (1 inch = 102 inches, or 2.5908 meters). At this extreme scale, slight variances will become exagerrated quickly. Let's say that you inadvertantly measure the drawing as 3 15/16" instead of 4". This in reality changes the scale to 1:103.6. If you still adhere to the conversion factor marked on the drawing, there's going to be variance of 6.4 inches in the model. However, if you know that the model is supposed to be 34" long, simply draw a box that is 10.3632 meters long and be done with it.This is why I don't perform conversions from line drawings, but use actual dimnesions. Most of drawings are old, and of varying quality, which will allow for slight variances in sizes. I imagine that some of the varying scale models out there are occuring because the creators are relying on a single source of data (line drawings of varying quality) without performing extensive research first.As far as making the problem go away, it's probably not going to. One thing that could be done (and it will be a huge task) is create a database of exact dimensions for nearly locomotive or wagon that may be modeled in MSTS. As long the developers are relying on proven numbers, instead of attempting to determine the scale of a poorly-drawn or badly-degraded line drawing, this will help considerably.Cameron Lashley Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
controll (319 posts)
Jan-13-02, 12:47 PM (EST) 8. "RE: Why the huge differences in size." Cameron,I agree with your understanding about the degrading of the drawings and possible miscalculations in measurements...however
we can make fiarly close approximations of the real units from
drawings if we start (as you have suggested) with a basis HxLxW figure for different models. I am submitting my figures for this database and welcome others to do the same.40' boxcar (general) H = 15'0" or 4.57m
L = 46'10" or 14.27m
W = 10'8" or 3.25m
Height above rails to floor bottom = 4'2" or 1.27m
Wheels 33" = .84m / 36" = .91mHy-Cube H = 16'11" or 5.16m (the other dimensions are the same)50' boxcar (general) H = 15'1" or 4.59m
L = 56'2" or 17.12m
W = 10'8" or 3.25m
Height above rails to floor bottom = 4'1/2" or 1.23m
Wheels (see above)Hy-Cube H = 17'0" or 5.18m (the other dimensions are the same)60' boxcar (general) H = 15'6" or 4.72m
L = 68'0" or 20.73m
W = 10'8" pr 3.25m
Height above rails to floor bottom = 3'10" or 1.17m
Wheels (see above)Hy-Cube H = 17'0" or 5.18m (the other dimensions are the same)86' boxcar (general) H = 17'0" or 5.18m
L = 91'0" or 27.74m
W = 9'11" or 3.02m
Height above rails to floor bottom = 3'0" or .91m
Wheels (see above)Hy-Cube (no information)
Hopefully with a concerted effort we can get the scale issue in
MSTS to come to a close and everyone can get on to making accurate and pleasing units.LaterControllP.S. the above figures are just general dimensions not for a specific unit or road....let me know if they are not correct.Controll Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Lock | Archive | Remove

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic