Large Scale Central

Another Scale? Making Life Easier in the Digital Age!

General Discussion
#1

Since I got my Bambu Lab X1C 3D printer, I’ve found that it is far easier to work in an intermediate scale, that pretty much fits in with everything…, that being 1:25.4.

Why 1:25.4?

The digital world is based on the metric system and the CAD programs, at least those I use, are scaled in millimeters.

In 1:25.4 scale, 1 inch scales to 1 millimeter making the conversion the easiest of any scale in current use.

Also recognize that we run diesel equipment and this is typically scaled at 1:29. So, other than using 1:32 accessories, which appear undersized and are hard to find, this would be the closest scale for the diesels.

Now recognize than many of our figures and vignettes are based around offerings from LeMax. While LeMax doesn’t specify a scale, and can vary a bit, it is undersized for the typical 1:22.5 scale, but can be near perfect at 1:25.4 scale.

Sure makes life easier!

1 Like
#2

Pretty much …used a lot of Lemax products in my structure builds over the years ( back in the day in the hood) . Not so much the figures though.

#3

the only logical solution IMHO is to model full scale, then any scale for modeling purposes can be achieved by applying a scale factor. you can then print in any scale you desire. the only limitation may be wall thicknesses, which i can alter as needed by creating different configurations.

Al P.

#4

Oh, just one more thing…

For those that run LGB, the LGB F7A is scaled at ~1:25.4.

F7A is 50’8"= 608" / 25.4 = 23.94"

LGB F7A is 24" long.

So if that’s what you run, this is the scale you should be working in.

#5

Copied from my post on ‘the other forum’.

I will not bother to attempt to educate you on scale/gauge relationships, or the fact the you are among the “My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts” crowd. What you are proposing is no less a ‘******* scale’ the Lewis Polk’s 1:29. There are a number of stories how that came to be, I won’t beat that dead horse either.

Please disassociate your foolishness from CAD. REAL CAD only works in 1:1. I’ve been working in CAD since AutoCAD was delivered on 2 360K 5.25 floppy discs (I started in AutoCAD in 1987). I work on SolidWorks, Solid Edge, Autodesk Inventor, and occasionally Pro E Creo. I know CAD and know what it is and what it isn’t. Present your theory to any CAD instructor and see what response you receive. At the kindest it will likely be a chuckle. Please provide the folks here a table of scale factors to change your models to any of the accepted modeling scales. More ******* math.

As to your allegation of the digital world is metric, more horse pucky. When I begin any model in any mainstream CAD package I have the option to use either Imperial or Metric units, and depending on the project I work in both (so I don’t confuse folks, not at the same time). I know of no mainstream CAD package that will import your ******* scale and automatically present it in either Imperial or Metirc. They will all need to be scaled to a standard unit scale.

As to your last post, LGB builds in a rubber scale solely to suit the equipment being able to traverse a 2 foot radius curve. As to scale fidelity, I have seen several threads in fora stating that LGB is known to have 3 different scales in one piece of equipment. Any equipment built to scale, especially passenger equipment, will not negotiate that tight a radius. Especially modern passenger need 20 foot diameter curves to even look remotely correct. As well built as LGB is, I don’t own any for that reason. The ‘Ten foot rule’ is acceptable if you are NOT a scale modeler. And to pick nits, AristoCraft is narrow gauge. 45mm track is standard gauge at 1:32. 1:29 makes the gauge narrow.

#6

how happy i can be, that i have lived all my life in the metric world…

and as we talk about a hobby…
i think, everything should be valid for everybody - on the own layout.

in my second to last layout i was even using some O-scale figures with 1:32 figures and 1:22.5 trains.

for forced perspective:

lostgulfalt2

1 Like
#7

Korm, how lucky you are. Our country attempted to convert in the 70’s, but it wasn’t popular so the effort failed. When I build in Fn3, I always use metric measure because it’s simple. 1 Foot = 15mm (45mm track represents 3 foot gauge). Measuring scale inches is kind of funky because 12 doesn’t go into 15 evenly, but I can cheat and use 1mm to represent 1 inch for measurements 4" and under.

I’m a novice when it comes to CAD. I use what most engineers would consider toy software; Microsoft Visio. And since I don’t have a big powerful workstation, I draw in scale, not at 100% so the files are manageable. I don’t need to worry about scale conversion since I only work in 1:20.3.

#8

So really, you are doing pretty much the same as I am doing.

When you open DesignSpark, you are greeted with a 1mm x 1mm grid to which you can apply lines, boxes, circles, and arcs and then combine and push them into 3D. Certainly the grid can be varied and you can calculate exactly how much each piece needs to be “pushed” but why fight what’s there by default when it works well enough for our purposes and saves a lot of additional time and work?

And one needs to consider the resolution of the 3D printer and the thickness of each layer. For example, the printer default is 0.2 mm thick per layer, but can be as little as 0.1 mm or as much as 0.5 mm. When you start working in scales that demand four places beyond the decimal point, you won’t get that resolution.

And, the printer “wants” to print the layers in 0.2 mm, but will change as needed. But this will increase the time that it takes to print which can be quite lengthy. The longer the print time, the more chances to FU the result.

#9

i tried CAD and 3D printing out - that was nine years ago.
but i could not achive, what i bought it for.
now these things seem to be much better, but buying, paying transport and customs would be too expensive for that handfull of years, i might have left, before i’m over the hill.

but back to topic, as an old cowboy i don’t like to bridle the horse from the back.
to introduce a new scale into largescaling, just because it would be easier for working with CAD things seems more interesting than helpfull in my eyes.
your miles may vary (from my kilometers)

1 Like
#10

All I know is I have been asking for a PONY for years and I still don’t have one but all the other kids do!

Struggling to understand why is that?

#11

As a historian you might want to check. Perhaps your parents chose free shipping, instead of ordering The Pony Express

#12

Who’s a historian ?

#13

FWIW Todd,

I like your original premise, in that if I use a metric ruler, 1 mm = 1 inch; 1 cm = 20 inches. Pretty straightforward. Get some metric graph paper, and you’re good.

OTOH, to Bob’s earlier point, in 3D space, I agree: model in 1:1 and scale as needed. Or just model in the scale you want, either way.

I’ve been working in CAD since the 80’s as well, and am still involved with strictly 2D situations where the customer’s floor plan is in Metric, but our 2D ride track plan (which can be very, very involved in all its layers) is in Imperial units. So, I routinely multiply or divide by 25.4.

After decades of that, it’s funny that I’ve never considered a model being at that scale. Makes far more sense than some other scales!

Having said that, I’'ll always be partial to 1:24, for similar reasons of simplicity, but staying Imperial.

Y’all raise great points, nice discussion.

Cliff

1 Like