what is the right vehicles scale for 28mm miniatures?

[Connectamabob]

snip

Basically an elaborated restatement of what I was saying: you can establish a hypothetical true scale, but because the deciding variables are unfixed in practical reality, no such hypothetical scale will be applicable/accurate beyond a specific figure or range within a given mm scale.

Thus no ratio scale can be considered "true scale" in this context. The best you can do is establish a "fuzzy logic" range of ratio scales for a given mm, but not a single "true" scale.

You and I are thinking the same things, I just don't see how this train of logic supports any "true scale" in a more than illusory way. You came up with a figure of 1:57.5, but by your own admission that is dependent on particular assumptions and variable values which are anything but universal. That means it's only really "true" for certain figures under certain conditions, not in general.

[supervike]

Thus: If it looks right, use it.

That's good enough for me.

[Michi]

That's good enough for me.

I think this is the consensus...

[Antenociti]

You and I are thinking the same things, I just don't see how this train of logic supports any "true scale" in a more than illusory way. You came up with a figure of 1:57.5, but by your own admission that is dependent on particular assumptions and variable values which are anything but universal. That means it's only really "true" for certain figures under certain conditions, not in general.

I'm sorry, I'm not really sure what you are trying to say: Perhaps the use of the term "true scale" was missleading?

All i meant was that the correct scale of a 28mm figure was 1/57.5 using the given parameters, which are what are usually hoiked out for show as "the industry standard"... as indicated in the post.

(I had forgotten the miasma that is the "one true scale" arguments, it was in no way intended to mean that in any way, shape or form... it merely meant "correct" using the stated parameters.)

[Connectamabob]

I'm using "true" to mean the same thing you mean when you say "correct".

I'm saying that in my observation there is no "industry standard": the parameters are defined differently by different sculptors/manufactures (or more accurately, usually not at all- things are just done to eyeball spec), so a mathematically correct scale can only be determined for individual figures or figure lines. I don't know to what degree any scale is touted as an official standard within the industry, as I've never seen the issue addressed outside of forum discussions like this one (i.e. never in an official industry context). That's irrelevant though, since there's no verifiable  de facto standard, and without that no claimed standard is meaningful. The assumed variables have to be born out consistently when the equation's reversed.
 
So you can determine the mathematically correct scale for a given figure or line, but not for 28mm as a category. Any scale assumed to be categorically correct will be limited in accuracy by practical variation, and thus similarly limited in correctness.

By assuming a standard that exists in principal (if at all), but not in practice, you're placing yourself in the realm of the very "one true scale" miasma (by your definition) that you wanted to avoid.

Or so it seems to me.

[Hawkeye]

Another problem is that scales that are supposed to be the same (or at least close) vary wildly. Case in point: Hot Wheels G-Machines is a line of really, really nice die-cast muscle/classic cars. They look more or less perfect alongside 28mm minis like Copplestone Future Wars, or the slightly larger Hasslefree minis (even beside Dionne). They might look a little wide to a purist, but in terms of height they're great, and the length looks good too.
With that in mind, I picked up some Siku 1:55 vehicles (only a couple, thankfully), and while they are very nice die-cast cars, they look tiny with a based Copplestone Future Wars mini beside them. With the minis off the bases, would the cars look right? Maybe, but I'm not sure that they would, to be honest. For this reason, I tend to stick to 1:50 for die-casts, and 1:48 for plastic kits. A little overscaled, perhaps (but only a little), and for something like tanks and planes, I have no problem with that.
It's a tough one to call, no doubt about it.

[Antenociti]

I'm using "true" to mean the same thing you mean when you say "correct". *snip*

By assuming a standard that exists in principal (if at all), but not in practice, you're placing yourself in the realm of the very "one true scale" miasma (by your definition) that you wanted to avoid.

Or so it seems to me.

I offered an example using a common size of figure.

Anything else is of your own creation. 

[Glitzer]

Another problem is that scales that are supposed to be the same (or at least close) vary wildly. Case in point: Hot Wheels G-Machines is a line of really, really nice die-cast muscle/classic cars. They look more or less perfect alongside 28mm minis like Copplestone Future Wars, or the slightly larger Hasslefree minis (even beside Dionne). They might look a little wide to a purist, but in terms of height they're great, and the length looks good too.
With that in mind, I picked up some Siku 1:55 vehicles (only a couple, thankfully), and while they are very nice die-cast cars, they look tiny with a based Copplestone Future Wars mini beside them. With the minis off the bases, would the cars look right? Maybe, but I'm not sure that they would, to be honest. For this reason, I tend to stick to 1:50 for die-casts, and 1:48 for plastic kits. A little overscaled, perhaps (but only a little), and for something like tanks and planes, I have no problem with that.
It's a tough one to call, no doubt about it.

I second that

Let me show you two examples of 1:50 models with minis next to them: Valmet harvester and cars

1:50 works especially well with the heroic 28mms which would be about 35mm high if they were not in dynamic poses.

[Commander Vyper]

Just use what works for you, either the scientific way or to the gut/gut feeling. At the end of the day, the fun's in the playing not always the scaling of the vehicles!

[Connectamabob]

Anything else is of your own creation. 

1/48 is 0.5mm off a 28mm figure on a 5mm base (33.5mm v 33mm)

1610/28 = 57.5 scale, so that is your "true scale" for 28mm figures.

All i meant was that the correct scale of a 28mm figure was 1/57.5 using the given parameters, which are what are usually hoiked out for show as "the industry standard"... as indicated in the post.

Hope you can forgive me for getting the wrong impression?

But it's true: no matter what, I let myself get waaaaaayyyy too pedantic there for a bit. Dunno why. Sorry about that, shan't happen again.

[Glitzer]

Hope you can forgive me for getting the wrong impression?

But it's true: no matter what, I let myself get waaaaaayyyy too pedantic there for a bit. Dunno why. Sorry about that, shan't happen again.

You can't be too pedantic about scale. Because we all know: Scale Wars are religous debate (I think there was a funny LL Strip about scale debates somewhile ago)

[Antenociti]

Hope you can forgive me for getting the wrong impression?

Not really, you're just being an arse as far as I can see.

All i meant was that the correct scale of a 28mm figure was 1/57.5 using the given parameters, which are what are usually hoiked out for show as "the industry standard"... as indicated in the post.

that quote is perfectly correct... you chose to ignore the important bits I have underlined, as a very odd attempt at, well, I'm really not sure: I dont know what point you are trying to make to be honest. I think you are trying to say that I am wrong, although i dont know what I am supposed to be wrong about....

If you think the method for calculating scale is wrong then please just post what you think is the correct method...if it is something else can you just say so plainly, without the arse-hattery?