A matter of scale...

[trevor]

From the first day I started using MBS I have always been confused about scale... 

That is, I understand the standard modelling scale sizes, but I have always been confused as to its importance within MBS. When I looked at the catalog and discovered the tracks are listed by manufacturer, I sort of assumed the tool was intended, at least originally, to be a drafting tool to use to design a real life layout. That's great I guess, though I have to wonder how many of us actually do that.

So now it is three months down the line and, unless someone can explain to me otherwise, the only real difference in which scale you pick within MBS has more to do with terrain than ANYTHING else. Yes I know, you can pack more into a specific size of panel with N-Guage than you can with O-Guage, but, for a virtual layout, panel size is not that important...

an HO-Scale 2m / 2m panel with 2cm grid is almost identical to an N-Scale 1m by 1m with a 1cm grid when you boil it down to data...

Now, as currently implemented, the minimum panel grid size ends up being the limiting factor in terms of how detailed the layout looks. Currently that minimum is 1cm...
(Which is kind of large for the smaller gauges in my opinion ! ... but I digress)

That means, the larger the scale you choose, the higher the detail you can potentially achieve.
So.. that HO-Scale panel, if set to 1cm grid, gives you four times the terrain and texture resolution over the N-Scale panel.
Or to put it another way.. best resolution = biggest scale with smallest grid size.

However, since big panels with small grids are hard on your system performance, there must be a trade-off point somewhere.

So that leaves me wondering, which scale is best....

It would be great to have a table or calculator that you could use to indicate expected relative performance for any given map size in real world Km by Km with a selected model scale and grid size. Or better, it would be nice if the grid size setting were in real world (scaled up) measurements.... so the smallest grid size was effectively the same no matter which model scale you were using. Come to that...it would be nice to simply have MBS use real world measurements as a standard option.
 

Regards
Trevor

(Wishing I hadn't started this model in N-Guage...)
 

Bearbeitet 5. Dezember 2016 von trevor

[Curt84328]

don't know if this will help, but...

Z is 1:220

N is 1:148

TT is 1:101.6

HO is 1:87.1  (Most popular in the world)

O is 1:48

1 is 1:32

IIm  aka 2 is 1:22.5  64 mm track

G is 1:22.5 as well.

I usually use HO gauge, and will then scale buildings and other objects to a slightly smaller gauge.

 

[N-Bahn-Bastler]

Hi @ both of you,

first @ curt: in my mind (and i am a user) N-gauge is 1:160 normally.

second @ trevor: yes i agree, because i'm building in N and i have the difficulties in attaching landscape. There were at less 2 mm (better only 1mm) necessary instead of 1 cm to form heights beneath curved tracklines. You may see on pictures of my 'projekt home' in thread Michel's Bahnen.

AND excuse my english !!!

greetings Michel, the N-Bahn-Bastler

[N-Bahn-Bastler]

once again

see in N-Bahn-Bastler's test-anlagen

[Curt84328]

N Gauge is 1:148 rail to rail, and 1:160 for rolling stock and buildings. N Scale is the only one that has this oddity.  Track gauge of 1:160 would result in track being too narrow to look proper.

 

[trevor]

1 hour ago, Curt84328 said:

N Gauge is 1:148 rail to rail, and 1:160 for rolling stock and buildings. N Scale is the only one that has this oddity.  Track gauge of 1:160 would result in track being too narrow to look proper.

 

Actually Curt, I believe N-Guage differs depending on country...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_transport_modelling_scale_standards

Since this program comes from Germany, I'm assuming 1:160 is used here, but perhaps NEO can confirm,
However the math ..

HO = 1:87  / 0.54375 = 1:160 would indicate that's what we are using here.

Bearbeitet 6. Dezember 2016 von trevor

[Curt84328]

I've had it backwards.  N Gauge (Track Width) is actually 1:160 (.354 inch * 160 = 56.6 which ends up being 4' 6" and the scale of rolling stock and buildings being 1:148 which makes the buildings etc larger than true scale (necessary to obtain any detail)   Gauge is always 1:160, necessary to obtain track width that is true to prototype.  Scale can vary   UK is 1:148,  Japan is 1:150, 

 

[trevor]

4 minutes ago, Curt84328 said:

I've had it backwards.  N Gauge (Track Width) is actually 1:160 (.354 inch * 160 = 56.6 which ends up being 4' 6" and the scale of rolling stock and buildings being 1:148 which makes the buildings etc larger than true scale (necessary to obtain any detail)   Gauge is always 1:160, necessary to obtain track width that is true to prototype.  Scale can vary   UK is 1:148,  Japan is 1:150, 

 

Yes.. regardless though... in MBS... N is scaled to 0.54375 of HO throughout, which is 1:160.

[trevor]

Nice to see u back though Curt...