Bumpy or Smooth? Next step in RTR detailing?

[bmthtrains - David]

Watching a video of a class 90 the other day made me realise how pockmarked and bumpy the metal panels of all but the latest locomotives and rolling stock really are. Take an HST for example, with its distinctive panel-beaten look.

 

Models however are always smooth, and it made me wonder - there is a demand for paint weathering but so far nobody has released a locomotive that has the dented surface detailing of the real thing.

 

is this something modellers might want to see? Certainly in O gauge this would be visible, and probably effective in OO as well. 
 

Could fully realistic surface detailing of all the various imperfections be the next step in super detailing and weathering or is the smooth but unrealistic perfection of current models more strongly desired? I guess it comes down to what we are each modelling - reality or a sort of perfect imaginary world…

 

David

[Phil Parker]

People have modelled this, but the results are subjective. Getting the right level of bumpiness is difficult, you can't scale it from the prototype as the effect of light along a model is different as you reduce the scale. It's why we dry-brush dark surfaces such as bogie sides - to emphasise the detail which doesn't appear as pronounced in model form, even though you might expect it to shows just as well as the real thing.

[BernardTPM]

On the Derby Sulzer type 4s (Cl.44/45/46) the diagonal girder framing was usually very visible in photographs.

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by BernardTPM

[wombatofludham]

In the past some of my brush painting has accidentally replicated the surfaces of some rolling stock.  That said, I can't help thinking it is a case of the problems of scaling, in that when the Mk1 eyeball looks at a real train it is looking at something the eye sees as 1:1, whereas a model will always be perceived by the brain as a small object, and as such, any ripples or dents in the bodywork won't look right.  It's a bit like smoke effects which I don't feel work because smoke particles can't be scaled.

I do also wonder if a model was released "accurately dented" if people would think it's a faulty model!

[bmthtrains - David]

Scaling certainly makes it very challenging to get any surface imperfections right. What modellers choose to include/exclude or emphasise or exaggerate is fascinating as it reveals the artistry in making a convincing model. Does it ‘look’ right being much more important than being exact in many ways. The same argument goes for speed, train length, etc.

 

I’d be interested in seeing this attempted though, but unlikely to be from a RTR manufacturer it seems.

 

David 

[Steamport Southport]

Nope. Can't see anyone wanting it. 

 

People complain about things like tiny pipes not being straight* never mind things like dents and bumps in the sides.

 

And if you do add dents and bumps correct for locomotive XX XX1, will it be correct for locomotive XX XX2 or XX XX3?

 

 

*In reality many of those little pipes were full of kinks and "wriggly" rather than dead straight

 

 

Jason

[bmthtrains - David]

4 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

And if you do add dents and bumps correct for locomotive XX XX1, will it be correct for locomotive XX XX2 or XX XX3?

 

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there - the imperfections would be identical so would be obviously fake.

 

Although curiously manufacturer-weathered models are run together - wagons etc - without too much issue.

 

David

[The Johnster]

Which prompts another thread, which I will now open; what do we think will or should be the next development in detailing of RTR models?

[ardbealach]

Here in the full size real world a telegraph pole or street lamp out of plumb is quite acceptable.  That's the way it is.  Model it out of plumb and it looks like a badly placed component l, or it has been caught by a shirt cuff.  And it looks wrong.  For whatever reason some things just don't translate into modelling terms.  Same for the reality of models and modelling all those imperfections. (Alisdair)

[Stuart Birks]

12 minutes ago, ardbealach said:

Here in the full size real world a telegraph pole or street lamp out of plumb is quite acceptable.  That's the way it is.  Model it out of plumb and it looks like a badly placed component l, or it has been caught by a shirt cuff.  And it looks wrong.  For whatever reason some things just don't translate into modelling terms.  Same for the reality of models and modelling all those imperfections. (Alisdair)

A long time ago on another forum I started a topic on exactly this subject. In that case it was about buildings but the same is true here. How do you make something look damaged or real life wonky without people thinking it is just poor workmanship. There is no real answer other than your own satisfaction that you made it that way deliberately.

Stu

[BMS]

Similary building textures - from normal viewing distances real rows of tiles have visible thickness but slates look flat. And don't start me on mortar layers.

Or model buildings that end at ground level with no apparent foundations visible.

[HonestTom]

On 22/10/2021 at 16:57, bmthtrains - David said:

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there - the imperfections would be identical so would be obviously fake.

 

Although curiously manufacturer-weathered models are run together - wagons etc - without too much issue.

 

David

I found myself wondering a little while back if it would be worth manufacturing steel-bodied mineral wagons with realistically dented sides, but then figured that it would be very difficult not to get that identical denting.

On 22/10/2021 at 19:07, Stuart Birks said:

A long time ago on another forum I started a topic on exactly this subject. In that case it was about buildings but the same is true here. How do you make something look damaged or real life wonky without people thinking it is just poor workmanship. There is no real answer other than your own satisfaction that you made it that way deliberately.

Stu

Have a figure looking at it maybe?

[Clive martin]

On 22/10/2021 at 12:42, bmthtrains - David said:

Watching a video of a class 90 the other day made me realise how pockmarked and bumpy the metal panels of all but the latest locomotives and rolling stock really are. Take an HST for example, with its distinctive panel-beaten look.

 

Models however are always smooth, and it made me wonder - there is a demand for paint weathering but so far nobody has released a locomotive that has the dented surface detailing of the real thing.

 

is this something modellers might want to see? Certainly in O gauge this would be visible, and probably effective in OO as well. 
 

Could fully realistic surface detailing of all the various imperfections be the next step in super detailing and weathering or is the smooth but unrealistic perfection of current models more strongly desired? I guess it comes down to what we are each modelling - reality or a sort of perfect imaginary world…

 

David

 

[Clive martin]

I have not been on rmweb very long i still need to work out how to submit photograhs ,but if you go to flickr and key in class 26 detailing project you should find my lima class 26 that i am detailing and have had a go at the typical BRCW uneven bodyside panels ,the model is bit of a stalled project ,that i hope to one day complete!

[Chas Levin]

On 22/10/2021 at 18:51, ardbealach said:

Here in the full size real world a telegraph pole or street lamp out of plumb is quite acceptable.  That's the way it is.  Model it out of plumb and it looks like a badly placed component l, or it has been caught by a shirt cuff.  And it looks wrong.  For whatever reason some things just don't translate into modelling terms.  Same for the reality of models and modelling all those imperfections. (Alisdair)

Yes, fully agree with this (and others' posts on the same point).

Also, I think another issue would be the identical appearance of mass-produced modern RTR: it's one thing to produce a large number of identical ex-shopped locos (because in theory that's what they'd all have looked like on day one of their lives) but if you produced hundreds of identically distressed ones, might that not look much less believable?

Edited October 7, 2022 by Chas Levin