Question about minifig scale

[Paulski]

The typical LEGO sets are smaller than the real thing, when you compare them next to a minifigure. Still they fit minifigures. I don't know if it's clear this way, so I'll give an example. A LEGO City truck fits 1 minifigure in the cabin, while a real truck would fit 2, maybe even 3 persons. Is it then still called minifig scale?

[Lasse D]

The typical LEGO sets are smaller than the real thing, when you compare them next to a minifigure. Still they fit minifigures. I don't know if it's clear this way, so I'll give an example. A LEGO City truck fits 1 minifigure in the cabin, while a real truck would fit 2, maybe even 3 persons. Is it then still called minifig scale?

The problem with minifig scale is that it isn't in "scale". You can say minifig scale is 1:37.5, 1:40 or 1:45, but a minifig is a caricature of a human and will thus never fit into a vehicle built to scale. 6 wide trucks simply look correct next to 4 wide cars and 5 wide vans.

[Siegfried]

The problem with minifig scale is that it isn't in "scale". You can say minifig scale is 1:37.5, 1:40 or 1:45, but a minifig is a caricature of a human and will thus never fit into a vehicle built to scale. 6 wide trucks simply look correct next to 4 wide cars and 5 wide vans.

Yes. I couldn't put it better myself. I tend to go by the height, and work with the width. Take a look at the Speed Racer sets.

For some silly reason these sets went for width, and for that reason they were waaay too big.

[Aanchir]

Yes. I couldn't put it better myself. I tend to go by the height, and work with the width. Take a look at the Speed Racer sets.

For some silly reason these sets went for width, and for that reason they were waaay too big.

I wouldn't say way too big... after all, they aren't meant to be regular streetcars. A better example of "way too big" would be the Agents theme, whose flagship set, 8635 Mobile Command Center, was a semitrailer truck measuring in at nearly 16 studs wide. Of course, the Agents theme was one of my favorite themes, and the excessive size of the sets allowed each one to cram in like a billion play features. The truck mentioned above is by far one of my favorite sets due to the amount of play value it contained (crammed into the trailer were 2 ATVs, a boat, a jetski, and a plane, along with the jail cell, projector screen, crane, and computer consoles). But still, I wouldn't even consider trying to reconcile the theme's ridiculous scale with the scale of typical LEGO City sets.

[kyphur]

I always thought the scale described in the original post was "System Scale" and that "MiniFig Scale" is something like the UCS Millinium Falcon and the Speed Racer Sets where they get the hight spot on figuring the MFs are average 6ft and the width pretty close (not going double wide like the MFs are).

[LEGO Guy Bri]

Sitting here thinking about the "minifig scale" it hit me that I (I'm sure most of us) can recognize what one can recognize this scale. Its when it come to explaining it gets difficult, at least for me. There are to many variables in this but, some how it all can come together in a nice blend (if you know how to pull it off). An example 4 wide with 6 wide; trains; open-back and modulars. They all seem to have their own scale that looks relatively accurate to the minifigs. Some more than others of coarse. I suppose this is what I view as the "minifig scale"

[Jargo]

Minifigs are short. I'd guess with their short limbs and large heads they more closely resemble children than adults. designed to resemble the physiology of the little people playing with them.

[Paulski]

Minifigs are short. I'd guess with their short limbs and large heads they more closely resemble children than adults. designed to resemble the physiology of the little people playing with them.

Hmm, never looked at it that way. Sounds logical, though.

But to formulate my question a bit simpeler: Would it be correct to call this model "minifig scale"?

[Brickdoctor]

But to formulate my question a bit simpeler: Would it be correct to call this model "minifig scale"?

[snip]

As mentioned earlier, we (or at least us SW fans) call this System Scale, which is the not-quite-minifig scale that looks like it could be minifig-scale used for official sets.

[davee123]

But to formulate my question a bit simpeler: Would it be correct to call this model "minifig scale"?

I think the error is in the question-- there is no "correct" or "incorrect", there's merely an accepted convention among hobbyists that has a wide berth. Some people would probably tell you that the Speed Racer cars were NOT minifig scale, and others would tell you that the 6623 police car from 1983 is too small for minifig scale. And then there's things like the 600 police car from 1978, which won't even FIT a minifig, but is arguably "minifig scale" because it includes a minifig.

Basically, minifig scale is generally accepted around roughly 1:43 or so. The further away from that you get, the more hobbyists will start to disagree. By the time you get to 1:32 or 1:55, it's in the iffy ballpark. But there's nothing exact. Some people like 1:38, some like 1:44, some like 1:43, etc, etc. If you want to ask the *community* whether something's minifig scale, you're asking the wrong people!

Sometimes, it's important to be consistent. If you have a bunch of 4-wide cars on a layout, and then you throw in an 8-wide sedan, it'll look out of place, even though it might still be "minifig scale" according to the builder. So if you're planning a creation, you might want to agree on a scale with all your participants. But general consensus among hobbyists is pretty all over the place.

DaveE

[Endigo Vandane]

I would call that truck minifig scale.

The proportions of the truck look fine compared to the minifig.

But let me ask you, is this minifig scale?

You could argue that it is, since it is built to fit a minifig.

Now, a real Humvee is about 7 ft wide, if you were to scale this thing up it would be 12 ft wide with monster truck sized wheels, hardly to scale.

Yet within the theme (Dino 2010 / Dino Attack) it looks okay, because all the big vehicles are, well, big.

I think that minifig scale depends on the theme. Most of the City sets look fine together, so do the Star Wars sets. The problem only arises when you start to mix themes together.

Let's imagine the big T-Rex from Dino 2010 attacking the new space port. The humvee comes to the rescue and through some space/time fluke so does an X-Wing.

You now have a single-seat fighter that's bigger than a Space Shuttle and a car that looks like it could drive over the both of them, together in one scene.

So I would have to agree with DaveE, that it is important to be consistent.

Pick a scale you think looks good and stay within those boundaries. A little variation won't hurt, but don't park an 8 stud wide sedan next to a 4 stud wide truck.

[Ralph_S]

There isn't much I could write that I didn't already write before.

What works best depends on personal preference and on the particular use you have for your vehicle, as long as you are consistent and your regular cars aren't bigger than your trucks!

I prefer the smaller end of the scale (with 5-7 wide vehicles) because when used together with minifigures as pedestrians and minfigs riding bicycles they don't dwarf the figures.

Cheers,

Ralph

[Paulski]

The reason I asked the question is I'm working on a WWII Destroyer in LDD, and although it isn't "minifig scale" als with the UCS FAlcon mentioned earlier, it will (hopefully) fit some minifigs at the bridge ie. And I was just curious if I could call it "minifig scale" or not. Maybe I should have told in the OP that it's about a naval model, instead of mentioning the trucks. Although my question WAS meant for LEGO models in general.

[fred67]

But to formulate my question a bit simpeler: Would it be correct to call this model "minifig scale"?

System scale? I dunno... I prefer what people have been calling "minifig illusion" scale. That is, the object seems appropriate for the size of the minifigure, but it's not really to scale.

[davee123]

The reason I asked the question is I'm working on a WWII Destroyer in LDD, and [...] I was just curious if I could call it "minifig scale" or not.

Call it whatever you want :)

If it's between 1:38 and 1:44, you'll likely get NO complaints from anyone. If you do, that's ok, nobody listens to those complainers anyway.

If it's between 1:32 and 1:50, you MIGHT get someone that will call you on it. If you do, that's ok, you shouldn't listen to those complainers anyway.

If it's between of the 1:25 and 1:60, you probably will get a few people questioning you if you call it "minifig scale". But so what? They're not an authority on the matter. You can still make an argument, and it ultimately it still doesn't really matter.

If it's outside of the 1:25 and 1:60 zone, yeah, I guess that'd be pretty silly to call it "minifig scale". But again, there's no accepted scale, it'd probably just look wrong.

DaveE

[Brickdoctor]

The reason I asked the question is I'm working on a WWII Destroyer in LDD, and although it isn't "minifig scale" als with the UCS FAlcon mentioned earlier, it will (hopefully) fit some minifigs at the bridge ie. And I was just curious if I could call it "minifig scale" or not. Maybe I should have told in the OP that it's about a naval model, instead of mentioning the trucks. Although my question WAS meant for LEGO models in general.

System/Minifig Illusion Scale will likely draw no complaints from anyone but the most serious fans of WWII ships. I'd decide whether you consider lower cost or more detail to be more important, and work from there. Alternatively, you could prototype key sections that look like they would be difficult at certain scales (5-wide cylinder, for example, wouldn't look nearly as good as 4-wide or 6-wide for which there are half-cylinder pieces) and decide based on those portions.

[Paulski]

Well, I don't really care about complaints since I build ships that are based on real life ships, and not exactly the same ;)

But one thing is sure, I won't be calling my current ship minifig scale, hehe.

[Rook]

I found this on another website:

System Scale: This scale is created by TLC to keep their models numbers of pieces down in order to kep cost down. For example a car being only 4 studs wide which can only seat one minifigure. Check your car can 2 or three people sit beside each other?

Minifigure Scale: Meaning things in our reality are in proportion to the reality of the Minifigure. Example:

UCS or Ultimate Collector Scale: Meaning larger then Minifigure Scale. Example:

Mini Scale: Meaning smaller then Minifigure Scale. Example:

Micro Scale: So small that cars and ships are so small they can would be made out of a 1x1 plate or smaller. Example:

(The above scales are very approximate and have no set boundaries, but you should get the idea.)

So using a car width as example:

Micro (AKA Nano) Scale: Width = 0-1 stud

Mini Scale: Width = 1-4 studs

System Scale: Width = 4-6 studs

Minifigure Scale: Width = 6-10 studs

Ultimate Collector Scale: Width = +10 studs

Theme Park/Legoland Scale: Width = 10 studs to Life sized

Edited April 6, 2011 by Rook

[Ralph_S]

Well, I don't really care about complaints since I build ships that are based on real life ships, and not exactly the same ;)

But one thing is sure, I won't be calling my current ship minifig scale, hehe.

The issue with building 'minifig scale' models of ships is that you are likely to end up with some seriously huge models. I'm not into building ships myself, but I was involved in this project (I designed the aircraft):

USS Intrepid by Lego Monster

USS Haggard by Babalas Shipyards

These ships were scaled 1/40. The carrier is 6.5 m long. The destroyer is a lot smaller, but still is close to 2 m. It's not exactly practical!

Cheers,

Ralph

Edited April 6, 2011 by Ralph_S

[Aanchir]

The reason I asked the question is I'm working on a WWII Destroyer in LDD, and although it isn't "minifig scale" als with the UCS FAlcon mentioned earlier, it will (hopefully) fit some minifigs at the bridge ie. And I was just curious if I could call it "minifig scale" or not. Maybe I should have told in the OP that it's about a naval model, instead of mentioning the trucks. Although my question WAS meant for LEGO models in general.

I tend to use 1:36 scale for things that are meant to be to scale with people in real life. My reasoning for this is that if you assume a person is 2 feet wide and 6 feet tall (both measurements are a bit generous), then a minifigure to scale with the person by width would be 1:24 scale (1 inch is equivalent to 2 feet/the minifig's height without hair or stud is equivalent to 3 feet), and a minifigure to scale with the person by height would be 1:48 scale (1 inch is equivalent to 4 feet/the minifig's height without hair is equivalent to 6 feet). Since both of these measurements are a bit ridiculous (one making the minifigure too wide, the other making them too short), I take the halfway point between them (1 inch is equivalent to 3 feet and the minifig's height without hair or stud is equivalent to 4.5 feet).

This scale works well with 6-wide or 7-wide proportions on large cars and SUVs. It fails to factor in the hair or stud, which can easily be a problem, but the reason I continue using this scale is because it works well with imperial rule, and having lived in the United States all my life it's easier for me to visualize sizes according to that system. Not sure if it works for you.

Also, this is a fun tool to use when calculating what type of "minifig scale" you prefer to use. Good luck on your destroyer!

[davee123]

Micro (AKA Nano) Scale: Width = 0-1 stud

Mini Scale: Width = 1-4 studs

System Scale: Width = 4-6 studs

Minifigure Scale: Width = 6-8 studs

Ultimate Collector Scale: Width = +8 studs

Theme Park/Legoland Scale: Width = 8 studs to life sized

Generally speaking, I think "micro" scale is bigger than "nano" scale. Micro-scale would probably be cars that were 1-2 studs wide, and in nano-scale, you wouldn't even SEE any cars :)

Also, System Scale is often regarded not so much as a *scale* per se, but as a style of building. LEGO builds things with what's known as "selective compression"-- certain things are shrunk proportionally, and others aren't shrunk as much. As a building style, it's probably about as disproportionate to reality as a minifig is to a human. Building at a particular "scale" however, implies that you're obeying the proper rules of proportions on your model.

Miniland scale (the scale for things at Legoland theme parks) is about 1:20, but often times, larger objects are still selectively compressed to fit into the space.

"Ultimate Collector Scale" is just about as widely disputed as "minifig scale", but is roughly to scale with Technic figures (roughly 1:22 I think?).

Minifig scale is centered around 1:38 and 1:44 (wide berth)

System "scale" is ~sorta~ the same as minifig scale, but typically a little smaller (1:44-1:55)

Mini and micro scale I guess I see as "smaller than minifig scale", but usually have people represented by 1x1 round bricks or thereabouts... so, ballpark 1:190? (another really wide berth)

Nano scale generally is reserved for things like capital ships and such that are supposed to be super-large. I'd guess anything in the 1:1000+ range would be nanoscale?

DaveE

[Aanchir]

Generally speaking, I think "micro" scale is bigger than "nano" scale. Micro-scale would probably be cars that were 1-2 studs wide, and in nano-scale, you wouldn't even SEE any cars :)

Also, System Scale is often regarded not so much as a *scale* per se, but as a style of building. LEGO builds things with what's known as "selective compression"-- certain things are shrunk proportionally, and others aren't shrunk as much. As a building style, it's probably about as disproportionate to reality as a minifig is to a human. Building at a particular "scale" however, implies that you're obeying the proper rules of proportions on your model.

Miniland scale (the scale for things at Legoland theme parks) is about 1:20, but often times, larger objects are still selectively compressed to fit into the space.

"Ultimate Collector Scale" is just about as widely disputed as "minifig scale", but is roughly to scale with Technic figures (roughly 1:22 I think?).

Minifig scale is centered around 1:38 and 1:44 (wide berth)

System "scale" is ~sorta~ the same as minifig scale, but typically a little smaller (1:44-1:55)

Mini and micro scale I guess I see as "smaller than minifig scale", but usually have people represented by 1x1 round bricks or thereabouts... so, ballpark 1:190? (another really wide berth)

Nano scale generally is reserved for things like capital ships and such that are supposed to be super-large. I'd guess anything in the 1:1000+ range would be nanoscale?

DaveE

As I've always understood it, "Ultimate Collectors Series" sets aren't unified by a scale so much as by a level of detail. If LEGO were to release an "Ultimate Collectors Series C-3PO", he wouldn't be to scale with the "Ultimate Collectors Series TIE Interceptor"-- he'd be at a much larger scale with a similar level of detail and complexity.

As for "System scale" and "minifig scale", I don't see the difference. They're both fairly arbitrary designations based on basically the same terms-- after all, most sets with minifigures are System sets, and pretty much any set with a minifigure can be called "minifig scale" without being dishonest. Other scales are similarly arbitrary. Trying to assign specific numbers to them is basically like throwing darts at a wall.

[Paulski]

The issue with building 'minifig scale' models of ships is that you are likely to end up with some seriously huge models. I'm not into building ships myself, but I was involved in this project (I designed the aircraft):

Image

Image

These ships were scaled 1/40. The carrier is 6.5 m long. The destroyer is a lot smaller, but still is close to 2 m. It's not exactly practical!

Cheers,

Ralph

Well, actually I started building a minifig scale destroyer like the one in the second picture, but I think I need more experience with designing before I can get the results I want. Therefore I started building the "system scale" one. All in LDD though. I do like building large models, but I do think it's a good practice for me to also build models in a smaller scale :)

I tend to use 1:36 scale for things that are meant to be to scale with people in real life. My reasoning for this is that if you assume a person is 2 feet wide and 6 feet tall (both measurements are a bit generous), then a minifigure to scale with the person by width would be 1:24 scale (1 inch is equivalent to 2 feet/the minifig's height without hair or stud is equivalent to 3 feet), and a minifigure to scale with the person by height would be 1:48 scale (1 inch is equivalent to 4 feet/the minifig's height without hair is equivalent to 6 feet). Since both of these measurements are a bit ridiculous (one making the minifigure too wide, the other making them too short), I take the halfway point between them (1 inch is equivalent to 3 feet and the minifig's height without hair or stud is equivalent to 4.5 feet).

This scale works well with 6-wide or 7-wide proportions on large cars and SUVs. It fails to factor in the hair or stud, which can easily be a problem, but the reason I continue using this scale is because it works well with imperial rule, and having lived in the United States all my life it's easier for me to visualize sizes according to that system. Not sure if it works for you.

Also, this is a fun tool to use when calculating what type of "minifig scale" you prefer to use. Good luck on your destroyer!

I actually did some calculations like these too, but with the metric system. I don't remember exactly, but I think 5 bricks high, or 6 knobs wide was 2 meters.

[BrickArtist]

Minifig Scale is a matter of interpretation , some things are proportionate to TLGs minifigure(The shape of the fig,) While other things are proportionate to the shape of humans, yet still can fit a minifigure.

Here's a comparison of realistic person, and a lego fig:

Now here's a comparison between two models of a vehicle made for this figure:

This first one is TLGs, notice how it's fatter than the other one? While it's proportionately inaccurate compared to the real-deal, it's proportionate to the sqaure shape of the lego minifig.

Now here's a rendition done by a MOCer:

This MOCer(Brickdoctor) made his model proportionately accurate compared to a real human, however he still puts a minifig on it.

Here's the real thing:

As you can see, both are proportionate in the designers eyes.

[davee123]

As I've always understood it, "Ultimate Collectors Series" sets aren't unified by a scale so much as by a level of detail. If LEGO were to release an "Ultimate Collectors Series C-3PO", he wouldn't be to scale with the "Ultimate Collectors Series TIE Interceptor"-- he'd be at a much larger scale with a similar level of detail and complexity.

Ah yes, welcome to the debate :) There are those out in the Star Wars community who are quite passionate that UCS has an exact scale (I forget what it was), and "to heck with the LEGO company if they call something else 'UCS', it's not REALLY UCS." Really, "UCS" is a branding designation that LEGO hands out to particular sets. But in the hobbyist community... it's occasionally regarded as something else. And when referring to UCS as a "scale" (which I'd argue it really isn't), fans tend to mean "at the scale of the UCS X-Wing, UCS TIE Interceptor, etc".

As for "System scale" and "minifig scale", I don't see the difference. They're both fairly arbitrary designations based on basically the same terms-- after all, most sets with minifigures are System sets, and pretty much any set with a minifigure can be called "minifig scale" without being dishonest.

Generally, it seems among fans (for those that care to debate these finer points) that LEGO sets themselves aren't really "minifig scale", but that they're instead "something else". The houses only have facades, the cars only fit one person, the airplanes used to only be 4 wide, trains are 6-wide, etc. Their proportions are just generally ... off. They're designed to be toys, sort of the way that the Kenner X-Wing fighter had shorter wings, a shorter nose, etc, but a "figure-scale" cockpit. It's more of a *style* than a scale.

Other scales are similarly arbitrary. Trying to assign specific numbers to them is basically like throwing darts at a wall.

Yeah, it's sort of an accepted standard that's based on vague concepts. For example, people have been building at a scale that uses 1x1 round bricks as people for a long time. People would refer such constructions as "microscale", and it sort of became a convention among hobbyists. But there aren't any formal rules-- it's effectively arbitrary. But generally speaking, when someone says "microscale", that's what they mean.

Basically, a guide to LEGO "scales" is really more like a guide to etiquette and culture rather than a textbook definition.

DaveE