Pendraken Miniatures Forum

Wider Wargaming => Painting & Modelling => Topic started by: hammurabi70 on 28 February 2020, 03:30:50 PM



Title: Size
Post by: hammurabi70 on 28 February 2020, 03:30:50 PM
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=335369

According to this 2014 post the vehicles are now modelled at 1/150th.  Is this equivalent to 12mm?  If I get  a CENTURION (MDV5), which is a 25 foot long tank, will it be 2 inches long [51mm] (1/150th) or 1&2/3 inches [42mm] (1/180th) {10mm}.  This makes a significant difference as while the latter means a 40mm base might be used, if it is the former a 50mm base will be needed.  The M46 Patton is even longer being nearly 28 feet long, about 10% longer, so about 56mm and 46mm.


Title: Re: Size
Post by: Leon on 28 February 2020, 03:58:56 PM
The vehicles are scaled to 1:150th so your Centurion hull would be 50mm long.  The infantry are 10mm to the eye level which equates to around 11.5mm overall height.  At 1:150th again this makes them around 5ft 9inch in real life.

'12mm' is a slightly different scale and 12mm infantry would be around 14mm overall height and noticeably different to anything in 10mm.  The vehicles are usually 1:144th so a little closer in size, but still a visible difference.


Title: Re: Size
Post by: hammurabi70 on 28 February 2020, 04:44:50 PM
Very helpful; many thanks.  I will need to adjust matters accordingly.


Title: Re: Size
Post by: Leon on 28 February 2020, 05:30:51 PM
Very helpful; many thanks.  I will need to adjust matters accordingly.

No worries, give me a shout if there's anything else I can help with.


Title: Re: Size
Post by: Last Hussar on 28 March 2020, 11:31:20 AM
INCOMING RANT WARNING
 >:( >:( >:( >:(

THIS IS A LOAD OF @@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@

And shows why we need to start actually using scale and not size.

Also when did this idiotic idea about measuring to the eye come in? It always used to be to the top of the head  My passport doesn't say 165cm/5ft 5 inches.

I will warn you I currently have a spreadsheet and 2 calculators open at the moment. This is how serious about this I am.

if it is 1.5mm eyes to crown then the distance represents 2/15ths of the figure. In reality it is 1/17 approx. (about 5% of total height.) eyes to full height is 8-10 cm (3-4 inches)

Therefore 10mm to eyes = 95% of figure. The total figure height is therefore 10.5mm

(For old people who are still stuck with out of date measurements 5'7 is approx. 170cm, 5'9 = 175cm)

1700mm/10.5mm = 1/161th. Lets say 1060th for marketing
1750/10.5 = 1/166th, ditto 165th

11.5mm @ 1/160 = 1m84 (6'0)
11.5mm @ 1/165 = 1m90 (6'2)

Research by Oxford University shows the heights of an average Englishman for the last 2000 years has varied between 165cm and 173cm (5'4 to 5'8), and this correlates pretty much with diet - in times of famine the heights decreased (well, slightly after, allowing for the fact it would affect those growing up, not adults as much)

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-04-18-highs-and-lows-englishman’s-average-height-over-2000-years-0# (http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-04-18-highs-and-lows-englishman’s-average-height-over-2000-years-0#)

(Look, I'm citing sources. That's how much this annoys me!  :'( )

Measure the weapon.
SMLE - approx 1130mm (varies with mark)(Not Orcs Mark)
Brown Bess - 1,490 mm

Even on a '28' mm figure the forehead is less than 2mm.

I'm a crap painter, and can't model (that time in stockings aside) but I can do maths.  I am open to consultation for any forum member.  :D


Title: Re: Size
Post by: howayman on 28 March 2020, 12:04:01 PM
A few questions.
Does the 11.5mm final height includes headgear? No headgear follows the head contour.
Is the average height person in stocking feet?
Missed where the 1/160 comes from.
      Be NICE in your reply please.   ;)
 


Title: Re: Size
Post by: steve_holmes_11 on 28 March 2020, 12:18:58 PM
A few questions.
Does the 11.5mm final height includes headgear? No headgear follows the head contour.
Is the average height person in stocking feet?
Missed where the 1/160 comes from.
      Be NICE in your reply please.   ;)
 

If 'includes headgear'  were true, your 18th century Grenadiers would all be little fellas.


Title: Re: Size
Post by: howayman on 28 March 2020, 12:28:02 PM
Yep. Which could be why eye height is used.


Title: Re: Size
Post by: Orcs on 28 March 2020, 12:55:11 PM

Is the average height person in stocking feet?


Not may soldiers wear stockings - even the female ones  :)


Title: Re: Size
Post by: Westmarcher on 28 March 2020, 01:12:48 PM
When it came to measuring in ancient and medieval times, the human body was used. The length of a man's foot, the distance between your elbow and your finger tips, the width of a thumb, and the distance of a pace were all accepted measurements. As there are no standard sizes of humans and their limbs, perhaps we should just accept that there will be variation throughout different manufacturers in the same scale.

The alternative is to use inanimate* objects as the means of standardising scales. On the Brown Bess musket, the 1,490mm quoted above would be the Short Land Pattern version used by infantry during the AWI. But there are other patterns like the Long Land Pattern (1,590mm) used during the SYW and AWI, and the India Pattern (1,403mm) used during the Napoleonic Wars. So basically you would have to be very specific when stating what your scale size is based on.

The simplest solution would therefore be to use, say, a standard metre (or yard) stick scaled down to the chosen scale. So a 170cm tall man (approx. 5ft 8 inches), would be 10.2mm high in '10mm' scale. This would mean your 'standard' scaled down metre stick would be 6mm long (just under a quarter of an inch) .... I think.   :-\

* bloody autocorrect originally changed it to intimate. ;D


Title: Re: Size
Post by: Leon on 28 March 2020, 03:36:03 PM
Measuring to the eye was done precisely for the reason given above, it's an easier reference point than the top of the head due to whatever headgear the figures are wearing.  We've not invented that metric, it's been done with wargames figures for years. 

Now, there wouldn't normally be 1.5mm (22.5cm @ 1:150th) between someone's eyes and the top of their head, but with the exaggerated proportions needed in smaller figures, 1.5mm is about the level that the figure looks right, which is the most important bit.  You can make things proportionately accurate if you want, but it's going to look odd and be a nightmare to cast.  Your figures wouldn't have any discernable fingers, barely any noticeable facial details, no buttons, no lacing, no plates on the front of your shakos.  Bayonets would be thinner than tin foil, spears would be about 0.1mm thick, etc.  Things have to be adjusted to make the figure look like what's it's supposed to be.

So, our 11.5mm figure scales up to a 5ft 8inch human, which we'll take as a reasonable average for the past 3000-ish years!


Title: Re: Size
Post by: Last Hussar on 28 March 2020, 03:42:50 PM
Call them 12mm then.


Title: Re: Size
Post by: Leon on 28 March 2020, 03:49:31 PM
Call them 12mm then.

But then they'd be 14mm tall... You're trying to start a revolution here, so 6mm figures should be called 8mm, 15mm's should be 18mm, 18mm should be 21mm, etc.?


Title: Re: Size
Post by: Chad on 28 March 2020, 03:52:29 PM
You know I have never really considered this subject, but then I have slightly more important things to do in my life. 🤪


Title: Re: Size
Post by: Steve J on 28 March 2020, 03:53:14 PM
I played a WWII game using my Pendraken 10mm Italian figures against some 12mm American ones and there was a noticeable difference, especially in the armour.


Title: Re: Size
Post by: Techno on 28 March 2020, 03:54:10 PM
Hold me back.....Or I'll really go off on one.

I won't reply to this until I've calmed down.

A lot of folk DO get the problems of making and selling the wee men.....Others....Just don't start me. =)

Phil.


Title: Re: Size
Post by: hammurabi70 on 28 March 2020, 06:45:41 PM
But then they'd be 14mm tall... You're trying to start a revolution here, so 6mm figures should be called 8mm, 15mm's should be 18mm, 18mm should be 21mm, etc.?

If 1/300th is 6mm then surely 1/150th is 12mm.  I am not too worried what it is called but one needs to agree on meaning.  As the height of individuals varies between +/- 10% this does not give a modelling problem but objects like tanks are very precise.  1/285th is noticeably bigger than 1/300th and such variations are not absorbable when dealing with tanks!  To match the tank a 1/150th infantry man at 11.5mm is 5'8", which seems fine to me.


Title: Re: Size
Post by: Last Hussar on 28 March 2020, 06:49:51 PM
But then they'd be 14mm tall... You're trying to start a revolution here, so 6mm figures should be called 8mm, 15mm's should be 18mm, 18mm should be 21mm, etc.?

NO THEY BLEEDING WOULDN'T.

You'd just have labelled them correctly.  :D


Title: Re: Size
Post by: Last Hussar on 28 March 2020, 06:59:41 PM
Hold on...

Just realised..

Quote
We measure to the eyes because of the headware

but

Quote
They are 11.5mm tall

HOW DO YOU KNOW?

If they are wearing a hat so you can't measure to the crown then they are 10.47mm tall. - 1/163
If they were 150th then they'd be a 10.9mm to the eyes.

at 150th/160th 1mm is approx. 6 inches.


Title: Re: Size
Post by: Last Hussar on 28 March 2020, 07:01:02 PM
Sunjester is reading this thing "Good, I'm glad it's somebody elses turn."  ;D  ;D  ;D


Title: Re: Size
Post by: Leon on 29 March 2020, 12:53:38 AM
If 1/300th is 6mm then surely 1/150th is 12mm.  I am not too worried what it is called but one needs to agree on meaning.  As the height of individuals varies between +/- 10% this does not give a modelling problem but objects like tanks are very precise.  1/285th is noticeably bigger than 1/300th and such variations are not absorbable when dealing with tanks!  To match the tank a 1/150th infantry man at 11.5mm is 5'8", which seems fine to me.

Well that opens up another can of worms as to which of the 'mm' vs scales is correct and which one do we work from?  If 28mm figures are 1/56th then 10mm would be 1/157th ish.  6mm figures are often paired up with both 1/285th and 1/300th vehicles and it works fine.  I'm sure I'd heard that the new Baccus vehicles are scaled to somewhere around 1/220th, which might be the right scale for them to look right next to the figures.  Similarly 28mm gamers will argue that the vehicles should be 1/48th, 1/56th or 1/64th, depending on which figure ranges they're using. 

HOW DO YOU KNOW?

If they are wearing a hat so you can't measure to the crown then they are 10.47mm tall. - 1/163
If they were 150th then they'd be a 10.9mm to the eyes.

at 150th/160th 1mm is approx. 6 inches.

Because the guys without hats on are 11.5mm tall, the ones with hats will be varying degrees taller than that.  Again, 11.5mm at 1/150th gives a 5ft 8inch person and seems about the right 'scale' to attribute to them, because it works for the sculpting and matches with our vehicles.  If you decide that the average person would be 6ft tall then our figures are 1/160th scale.  If you think the average across 2000 years should be 5ft 5inch then our figures are 1/144th...

At the end of the day, as someone above said, applying a scale to a figure is always tricky and open to opinion.  So we apply the scale to the vehicles and make sure that the figures look right next to them.


Title: Re: Size
Post by: paulr on 29 March 2020, 07:01:42 AM
At the end of the day, as someone above said, applying a scale to a figure is always tricky and open to opinion.  So we apply the scale to the vehicles and make sure that the figures look right next to them.

Which is what we all want :)


Title: Re: Size
Post by: Steve J on 29 March 2020, 07:51:35 AM
It's looking right that counts. Afterall Michaelangelo's 'David' was sculpted to be looked at when high up and (on a building IIRC) so the proportions were adjusted accordingly, but nobody notices this when he's 'on the ground'.


Title: Re: Size
Post by: Chad on 29 March 2020, 11:01:12 AM
This conversation was becoming so interesting I fell asleep. 😜


Title: Re: Size
Post by: Orcs on 29 March 2020, 08:57:14 PM
This conversation was becoming so interesting I fell asleep. 😜


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ !!!!!!    - Who really gives a $%&*. A manufacturer produces them to his interpretations of the scale/size. Its not only height its the build of the figure, Some are thinner than others.  You look at a range of figures if your happy how they look and mix with another manufacturer buy them. If not don't.

I have 10mm figures from other manufacturers, Close Up I can tell who made them, but once on the table its almost impossible until your 2nd or 3rd look.

I am continually amazed at the skill and quality of the castings out there especially in 10mm. 

The bottom line is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  I like the old Mikes Models Renaissance range. Yes they are not anatomically correct, but I like them that is all that matters to me.



Title: Re: Size
Post by: O Dinas Powys on 30 March 2020, 01:57:55 PM
Hold me back.....Or I'll really go off on one.

I won't reply to this until I've calmed down.

A lot of folk DO get the problems of making and selling the wee men.....Others....Just don't start me. =)

Phil.

Leave it Phil! ‘ees not worth it…

Dum, dum, dum, da-da-da!

Dum-de-da-de-dum, dum, dum…


Title: Re: Size
Post by: Techno on 30 March 2020, 03:05:53 PM
Oh...All right, Meirion.....If you insist. ;)

Cheers - Phil.