Realistic vs Believable
- Thread starter troyphoto
- Start date
SuwanneeDave
Member
I think a layout should be believable in overall concept and general execution and realistic in detail, which I guess agrees with the idea of his video!
First off what do you mean by realistic and believable. To me, realistic means it is something that actually occurs and believable means that the observer would thing that it could actually be or have occurred.
If it's not realistic, it's not believable. If you do something that would not occur in the real world (not realistic), then people aren't going to believe it could have happened (not believable).
If it's not realistic, it's not believable. If you do something that would not occur in the real world (not realistic), then people aren't going to believe it could have happened (not believable).
troyphoto
Snarky Old Fart (in training)
it's a bit complicated the way the video guy explains it, and it's in the nuance that matters.
is it realistic if you compress distances? Or is it believable, but not realistic? Is a painted plastic building realistic on the layout, compared to a lasercut wood kit of a similar building? Is one of those more "realistic" than the other, while both are "believable"?
Selector
Well-Known Member
I like the illusions of a good layout. So, there has to be a lot of realism. But, one railroad a mile out of the yard looks much like any other mile out of the yard, scenery variations and seasonal effects notwithstanding. So, I protolance. I make it up, adding water courses, bridges over them, a tunnel here and there, and add trees. The rest, with a decent backdrop painted on the wall, is sufficient for me to make up any deficiencies in my imagination. Keeps time, effort, and sometimes expenses to a minimum.
Then, comes the photography. This one made the top 20 or so in MRH's recent edition of their first ten years of publishing:
Then, comes the photography. This one made the top 20 or so in MRH's recent edition of their first ten years of publishing:
jhn_plsn
New Member
This is what is neat about the hobby. You get to choose. I like a bit of whimsy, but only to a certain point. The whimsey on my layout will include a tall viaduct bridge yet the area I model does not have such bridges. I may even add a tunnel, but more than likely hide its existence. The furthest from reality I intend to get is having a few patched UP locos for the SP.
Model Railroading is fun when I get to run trains through the entire layout.
Model Railroading is fun when I get to run trains through the entire layout.
KB02
Well-Known Member
(Caveat - I have not yet watched the video)
There is a concept used in Theatre/TV/Movies called "The willful suspension of disbelief." Essentially, we know that rooms don't have only three walls, cars really would not be drivable after jumping over a creek, and (most) people cannot fly. Yet, we allow ourselves to believe in these things in order to enjoy the story being told. I feel the same is true for our model railroads. I know that with the exception of a few railroad museums, that trains do not just run in circles (https://coloradorailroadmuseum.org/), yet that's what the trains on my layout actually do. I know that my hoppers cars are not really delivering a commodity to a customer and that no one (other than the manufacturer I bought them from) is actually getting paid, yet I run them anyway. There is zero earthly reason any railroad would build three tunnels under a river on one side of a waterfall and then three bridges on the other, but my Whistlestop Railroad has done just that.
The first bridge I ever scratch built was made from scrap pieces of wood just to complete a simple cross over - and it looked like scrap wood. I didn't like it and soon replaced it with something else that looked better (in my eye). The first trestle I even built looks... okay... and still stands and carries rail traffic. It may get replaced in the future with a better looking model, or it may not. For now it looks good enough for me to enjoy the hobby. My NEXT one, though, will look far better and more prototypical and be much more detailed BUT I know it will just be balsa and wooden dowels and the like and the trains crossing it will be mostly plastic.
And I'm okay with that.
There is a concept used in Theatre/TV/Movies called "The willful suspension of disbelief." Essentially, we know that rooms don't have only three walls, cars really would not be drivable after jumping over a creek, and (most) people cannot fly. Yet, we allow ourselves to believe in these things in order to enjoy the story being told. I feel the same is true for our model railroads. I know that with the exception of a few railroad museums, that trains do not just run in circles (https://coloradorailroadmuseum.org/), yet that's what the trains on my layout actually do. I know that my hoppers cars are not really delivering a commodity to a customer and that no one (other than the manufacturer I bought them from) is actually getting paid, yet I run them anyway. There is zero earthly reason any railroad would build three tunnels under a river on one side of a waterfall and then three bridges on the other, but my Whistlestop Railroad has done just that.
The first bridge I ever scratch built was made from scrap pieces of wood just to complete a simple cross over - and it looked like scrap wood. I didn't like it and soon replaced it with something else that looked better (in my eye). The first trestle I even built looks... okay... and still stands and carries rail traffic. It may get replaced in the future with a better looking model, or it may not. For now it looks good enough for me to enjoy the hobby. My NEXT one, though, will look far better and more prototypical and be much more detailed BUT I know it will just be balsa and wooden dowels and the like and the trains crossing it will be mostly plastic.
And I'm okay with that.
