>>1346704>For an example of the second one, just look about 15 posts ago at the video posted there - the cameraman is focused almost entirely on the beautiful river scene with the boat and swan moving slowly along it and the bridge raises once it gets close enough. If you look very closely at that video, you might happen to notice a train in the background of some of the shots sometime.So the cameraman focuses on what they find novel, the animation of large water vehicles, and decides to follow the story of the canal barge, so you ignore that the layout has a station and a lineside industry.
>When I gave those numbers, to try and explain myself a little better, I mean how much of a focus is on the train and line etc and not for them to physically take up 60% of the room. So you pulled some numbers out of your arse and conceded almost as soon as an example was given as to how dumb it was.
>>1346717>I'll call Lightermans Yard borderline, that city spawl is choking the layout.The tops of only a few of the terraced houses in the foreground break LoS to the railway, and that's enough to say that the city sprawl is choking the layout? What a crock of shit. Guess urban layouts are out completely.
It's not just the retarded opinion, everyone is entitled to their own taste no matter how poorly thought out. It's the way you are trying to pass off your retarded opinion as the only proper way things can be done. The bits of you that aren't full of shit are full of yourself.
