Posting before introductions

[Tim Marlow]

There are more of us on here than you think......though I’m a modeller first and a gamer second....basically I just enjoy painting toy soldiers

[The Smythe Meister]

....... and it`s a warm welcome ,(again!!),from me too Chris!
Glad to see that you acted upon my suggestion,hope you hang around for a while:thumb2: .

[spanner570]

Welcome Chris.
Enjoy your time with us.

I note the S-79 Sparviero on your 'Wanted list'. I built a 1/72 one on here recently. If you ever go to 'aircraft completed', it's in there.

[BattleshipBob]

Welcome Chris

If you like StuG's you are in

Bob

[Steve-the-Duck]

If you like StuG's you are in
Bob

Closest I've ever got to anything StuG-alike is the old Matchbox Jagdpanzer Lang L/70 - that was in the days I built every Matchbox vehicle as it was released, the Purple range that is - never did get any of the Orange range - always wanted to. Oh, wait, I think my Barbarossa force had a grey StuG III. Or two

I note the S-79 Sparviero on your 'Wanted list'. I built a 1/72 one on here recently. If you ever go to 'aircraft completed', it's in there.

Saw that first day, but see, NOW you've gone and done it as that's the scheme I always wanted to do for my seria I S-79
And my Corsa (racer) conversion sits in my display cabinet looking at me reprovingly to correct the dihedral, after 10 years...

[Guest]

Y'know I do wonder where that 'foot-to-eye' thing came from, as I don't think I ever heard it before 25mm became 28
It used to be that 'N'mm was the height of a figure was foot to top of the head, like my 90mm figures aren't, what is it now 1/16th?
No, she's 90mm tall
I blame teh intrawebs!

That discussion is far older than that If you look through old (1970s–80s) issues of, say, Military Modelling, you’ll also see this come up sometimes. As far as I can tell, the British point of view is (was?) that it’s eye height, everybody else says it’s to the top of the head. I think the latter makes more sense, but I can see why you’d measure to the eyes instead: it avoids the problem of whether you count headgear or not, and if not, where do you estimate the top of the head to be if there’s a helmet or shako or something on it?

[Fernando N]

Hi and welcome Chris, nicely varied subjects you got:thumb2:

[Tim Marlow]

WRT the eye height thing, it was in common usage when I got into wargaming in the late nineteen sixties.......in fact talking about figures in ratio scales seems a relatively new thing to me, developed in the last thirty years or so....

[Steve-the-Duck]

I have only one thing to say about scales now:

HO/OO

I think we should all just agree to blame railway modellers and their toy trains...
Um... Joke? Just thought I'd mention that. Oh, there are train-makers around here - well, NOW I'm in trouble!
Blimey. Nearly wrote 'LOL' then, too

[Guest]

I have only one thing to say about scales now:

HO/OO

I have never understood where those letter designations came from, if there’s a system to them, if so, what it is … or even the need for them in the first place.

[Steve-the-Duck]

The letters define the width of model rail track gauges - but I don't know where the letrers come from - so Z is the smallest, but O is bigger than N

No, wait. I think I've just slipped into algebra
AGAIN

[KarlW]

Yeah rail scales are weird, I think the HO/OO thing came about from two real world gauges ending up the same size so when the stock was scaled it came out differently. I blame the Atlantic.......

[JR]

Welcome Chris, even if you don't like a Stug and only like Russian your even more in .:smiling2::nerd:

Welcome Chris

If you like StuG's you are in

Bob

[Steve-the-Duck]

I can only say one thing 'narrow gauge'

See this why Barbarossa failed: same scale trains, different gauge tracks...
Is that two things?

[Tim Marlow]

Original railway scales were 0, 1, 2, like brush sizes....They had to be big to fit the mechanisms available at the time. When small scale electric was developed it was half O gauge, hence HO. OO (Which is the next “brush“ size down from O) used HO scale track, but the UK rail loading gauge meant that the bodies had to be bigger, hence HO/OO. OO therefore has a narrower than scale track gauge...Really It’s 1/76.2 bodies on 1/87 track.
TT was a rarer scale, stands for table top. N scale was originally called OOO, but N was easier to market.....Z scale is just weird......and S scale is completely imperial, at I think 3/16ths to the inch....of course, railway modellers talk of scales in mm/foot, so O becomes 7mm/foot, OO is 4mm/foot, HO is 3.5mm/foot, etc....
Confused? You should be by now