silly me

and yes TRUE scale... epic scaling is way too random..

_________________
Shapeways store: https://www.shapeways.com/shops/tinywares

Blogging about 6-15mm wargaming: http://www.lead-space.net

I think they look spot on - the rhino definitely looks too small, rather than the Baku looking too large.

How do they compare to say, epic super heavies? Do they just look bigger than everything? Also, how do they compare to other ranges like exodus wars or troublemaker's new tanks on the plastic sprue thread? Just curious really - I do think they should stay true scale.

40mm long is slightly too big, but maybe not excessivley so.

The M113 APC (real life Rhino) is 4.8m long, which in 1:285 is 17mm if I'm not messing up the scaling completely. The Rhino is actually too big, but as it's supposed to carry power armoured marines you could also argue that it should be just a bit larger than the model currently is.

Other RL vehicles are bigger - the new german IFV, the Puma, is 7.4m long (26mm), the Merkava MBT has a hull length of 7.6m (27mm) and the M1 Abrams is 7.9m (28mm).

Certain hover tanks are noted as being 8.25m (29mm) long. I'd prefer a length of 30mm for the Baku, if we're going to call it "true scale". 40mm is a bit oversized.

I doubt I'll refuse to buy them at 40mm, but I fear they'd look a bit out of scale on the table.

Printed tank looks awesome!

As for scale - i think this comes from a sci-fi expectation of scale. As has been pointed out real apcs are tiny and very cramped - anything bigger than absolutely necessary just attracts bullets.... Your mock up with the ten guys looks luxurious! Its why out of conflict guys ride on the roof. Just look at that rhino next to Modern 6mm micro armour -it looks in scale. Land riders just look silly. But they also look cool! And if trying to transport marines in 1/2 ton of power armour then its difficult to snuggle up so much! :-)

As I've always seen it, old rhinos, titans, fliers etc were all in scale - it was the infantry which started big and just kept getting bigger (made worse by standing on a base almost half as high as they are.)

So is it sci-fi scale you are going for or "true" micro armour?

Personaly i'd prefer in scale with the rhino for what it is worth.

Just checked the E40k plastic land raider - 39mm, almost exactly the same size as the Baku. The Land Raider should be noticably bigger...

So are we starting to agree on true scale but saying that the size needs to come down a bit?

I've done a bit of poking about and it does sound like 30mm might be the most appropriate length for the chassis...

Most epic transport are relatively reasonably scaled actually. Real life transport are not that big, a m113 is rhino sized and carry more than 10 men. Keep in mind that the proportion of a miniature humanoid are altered a lot to be produced and painted (e.g. they typically have hands as big as their head). This is true for 28mm, even more for 6mm tanks.

A 4cm tank in 6mm scale (=1/300) would be 12m long. a real life M1 abrams is 8m long. 12m would be more like the size of a bus IRL... a M113 is about 1.6cm in 1/300, and modern IFVs (this one or this one) are a bit more than 7.5m, which would translate as 2.5cm at 1/300. These vehicles transport 10 men squads on average, plus 2 or 3 crews.

Most of the Epic line IS true scale, except the Titans and planes, and some infantry models are a bit too big. It is a common misconception but a misconception nonetheless that 40K infantry transports are "underscaled". They are based on RL transports. The impression stems mostly of the rigidity of the figures and their otherworldly proportions.

To a degree, I hate that warengines tended to be dwarfed by ordinary planes in the FW line, And I'd hates IFVs to dwarfs my warengines in yours. I Like the scale to be consistent, but i think the things to correct are the infantry (which you do fine) and the warengines, not the vehicles.

I might be alone on this, but if you can fit 10 miniatures in it, it probably means that it could actually fit twice the amount of troops. I'd really prefer a vehicle scaled on par with real world vehicles.

So, to summarize : I love true scale, but i don't think it always means "bigger than GW models" when it comes to vehicles, so I'd like these models to be smaller.

As i stated, 4cm means a 12m long tank. This is an ENORMOUS tank, 1.5 times the size of a M1 Abrams.

The mad Maus 185T tank project of nazi germany was 2 meters SHORTER !

Apparently it is easy to get a really distorted sense of scale when watching 6mm infantry figures. Keep in mind that the infantry is what is causing this perception skew; this is okay, 6mm is a sacrifice on infantry proportion to get correct armour model on the table; but don't let then the infantry man proportion make the tanks absurd too.

As i said, here it is the Baku that is too big.

(And i don't want to sound offensive or what, but 40mm basic tanks would definitely put me off)

Preach it, Athmospheric!

'True scale' is a lovely concept – as you might gather from my avatar! In Epic, I like it on aircraft and superheavies. However, on regular vehicles, I prefer stuff that will fit in with other game systems. In addition, the practicalities of placing and manoeuvring smaller vehicles (by which I mean stuff that mostly fits on a tuppeny bit) works better for most games.

The infantry are stylised; I don't see why the tanks, which are visually stylised, shouldn't be stylised in scale

A 40mm basic transport/tank would put me off. I hasten to add that I'd like to see the superheavies in the same scale; you noted earlier that the big upcoming Grud tank would be 12cm long. Awesome!

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

Bit late to this, but that looks too big to me as well. I agree with what Athmos and Apologist has said above, 40mm APC would put me off.

Looks great in all other respect, and i'd like a couple of handfuls if smaller (and once there is europe distribution ).

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

Just want to note that I do agree with you. (The LR should be bigger than the Baku, not bigger than 40mm.)

Epic is 1:285, though, not 1:300. Or maybe even 1:250, if the Rhino is the same size as an M113. The Baku, being a hovertank, is probably longer than the equivalent tracked version. 30mm sounds (IFV sized) sounds about right.

But is this really an option for the production? They've already been printed at 40mm. I'd vastly prefer waiting for 30mm over being stuck with 40mm, but there's a cost factor here as well.

Just so you we can visualise the difference here's a quick and dirty photoshop of how it *might* look at 30mm - not exact by any means...

If these are true scale OTC vehicles, then I think they look fine. I think you have solved some of the problem by making the body of the vehicle a bit larger and chunkier compared to the "other" similar line, so they can fit 10 men without making the vehicle to big.

Matt

Cheers Alf O'Mega – that's a great visualisation. The smaller one on the left looks much better to me.

To be clear, it's not the raw size of the model that's the issue; it's the scaling. The weapons, engine and vision slit are really big on the 'true scale' one: one of those space marines could crawl down the gun barrel!

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

Oh yes, i should have stated it too : I really love the design and would clearly want quite a few of these models if they were sized a bit smaller (say 30mm, the Photoshopped pic by Alf'O'Mega looks nice). That's why I'm vocal I guess



I always thought that 6mm infantry figures translating to 1m80 at 1/300 sounded right. It seems that 6mm = 1/285th is the established convention though. That would make it 6mm = 1m71. Much slower mental calculation