On the theory of "good enough..."

[Dave V]

Given the recent discussion of modeling standards, I thought it might be fun to resurrect a blog post from last year I also posted (tongue-in-cheek) over at Trains.com.  Folks over there didn't really see the intended humor, but you guys can appreciate it for what it is.

The theory of "good enough..."
…or when to stop counting rivets!

Tony Koester of MR/RMC fame has often spoken of a so-called “good enough” philosophy (citing V&O creator Allen McClelland as the source) for model railroading. In other words, for each one of us, there’s a point at which a model or scene is “good enough.”

I thought about this as I tried to codify my own threshold of “good enough,” and it began to remind me of differential equations from calculus. “Good enough” is nothing more than a unique solution to an initial value problem.

Let’s call the solution the “sweet spot.” This solution is the point at which the amount of work required to make a model more accurate exceeds the fun the modeler would have in doing so. So, let’s define two curves:



The red dashed line represents fun (scaled on a dimensionless, normalized range between zero and unity) and the solid black line represents work (scaled the same way). As a store-bought or scratch-built model becomes more and more accurate, it requires more and more exacting, tedious, and time-consuming work to accomplish. Theoretically, the amount of fun a modeler is having is simultaneously decreasing (i.e., the law of diminishing returns). The “sweet spot” is that level of accuracy whereby the modeler is still having fun but working hard to accomplish his goal; any more work and it stops being fun. Notice the curves are asymptotic; no model can ever achieve 100% prototype accuracy.

What makes this an initial value problem (i.e., the sweet spot is a unique solution to a very specific set of circumstances) is that the slope of these curves varies greatly from modeler to modeler, and from project to project. In other words, the skills, desires, and patience of the modeler affect the sweet spot location as does the choice of prototype, starting model (if applicable), availability of after-market details, paint, decals, photos, diagrams, etc.

So “good enough” is a constantly moving target; the reference frame is always changing. Perhaps quantum mechanics is a better context than math? You decide. But the sensitivity to initial conditions reminds me very much of partial differential equations, where each variable is dependent upon the others and a minor change in the choice of prototype or starting point yields a vastly different version of “good enough.”

[Mark5]

hehe, "it was good enough for grandma - it's good enough for me"

[asciibaron]

is this thread "good enough" for this forums?  hehe.

it's a hobby - bring whatever level of whatever you want, ignore the rest.  unlike Sesame Street, doing your own thing isn't bad.


and btw, your chart is missing, amateur  ;D

[MichaelWinicki]

Interesting topic...

I think the whole concept of the "sweet spot" is valid.

What throws the monkey in the wrench for me is the massive availability of, lets call them, "realistic parts", has drastically changed the position of my "sweet spot".  Everything from Atlas code 55 track to a large variety of scenic supplies to even DCC itself has amped up the upper threshold of how realistic (appearing & operating) a layout we can create today.  

The "good enough" threshold is probably much different for folks now than say 1992 or 1977 based on all the wonderful products now available for the typical N-scaler.

[DKS]

...the massive availability of, lets call them, "realistic parts", has drastically changed the position of my "sweet spot".

TMI.

[MichaelWinicki]

...the massive availability of, lets call them, "realistic parts", has drastically changed the position of my "sweet spot".

TMI.

Well maybe...

But this ain't the Penthouse Letter's forum is it?  ;D

[TiVoPrince]

Dear Penthouse,
I never thought it would happen to me.  I was working on a Kato SD40 in SP Olympic scheme and...

[John]

Dear Penthouse,
I never thought it would happen to me.  I was working on a Kato SD40 in SP Olympic scheme and...

then I saw her. The sun glistened just so on her perfectly spaced ditch lights. I began to get that tingling feeling as the dynamics started to wind up and ...

[DKS]

This looks like it's headed for the Crew Lounge...

[asciibaron]

This looks like it's headed for the Crew Lounge...

that would be a Penthouse letter...

[wm3798]

Then I noticed her sister, an SD45.  She was a little older, but those flared radiators were to die for...

[shawnleon]

Dave, this post is awesome! I am over here cracking up right now. I would love to see the replies received when you first posted this.

I studied this topic in business school. Would have committed it to memory if the professor had used modeling as an example. 

Shawn

[Dave V]

It generated 11 pages of conversation...

http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/132326.aspx?PageIndex=1

[stuntman]

 Dave,
  What a great post!  It made me smile. ;D

[JDouglasFisher]

Wow, 11 pages. hehehe...

On a serious note though, there is some psychological benefit to this discussion, at least its thought provoking and will make people think about their hobby. but some thoughts..

1.) Money. Yes, money plays a big role. How much are you willing to spend? Must you satisfy that instant gratification urge, or can you wait, and pay it off? Are you willing to scour Ebay for it, for the right/better price?

2.) Multiples. Yes, the first 1 or 2 are a blast to build, but talking from experience, having to paint 72 stands of Russian Strelkovy for Flames of War, by the 50th one, it becomes a chore. By 72 you swear you'll never paint them again. However, there is nothing like looking at your opponent across the table, with his 24 stands of German SS and a Tiger, and you whip out a total of 90+ stands. Is it worth the drudgery for the satisfaction?

3.) Model Railroads built by "professionals". Yeah, I have to admit, nothing against those who make 6 figures a year, with super empires in their basements, but I am kind of sick of seeing it. Part of the reason why I like this board, everyone here is working class.

True story. When I was a young modeler and a member of an HO club out in Jersey, I tried the whole Super Detail an Athearn bit. And while I got great praises for my work, I realized that some details just don't lend themselves well to club use, I.E. Lift Rings and Firecracker Antennas mostly. So I stopped adding them later on because to me, it was a waste of money for those parts which were prone to constantly breaking off during handling.

Once I stopped, some questioned why I wasn't so dedicated anymore and when I explained the situation to one member, thats when he said that was the reason why he didn't bring his models down to the club to run. But my thought is, what good are model trains if your not going to have the freedom to run them on a layout?

As much as we would like to think we can take our collections to heaven when we take the dirt nap, reality is, umm, no... Egyptians proved that theory wrong many moons ago.

Still, very thought provoking to say the least. 5 stars in my opinion Dave.

J.