Regarding angst, Smod, FreeMoS, etc., I've posted a file that I hope will facilitate communication and help disspell some of the mis-perceptions that have been discussed in this list recently. http://trainweb.org/mhrr/mhrreast/smod-p.gif
This file shows off a bit of the diverse wealth of operations oriented scale model SMODules that NASG members have constructed. I view the recent photos of FreeMoS modules as extensions of the diversity shown by the modules in this uploaded drawing. The modules in the drawing show modules with single track, wooded scenery, stub ends,extensive switching (both industry and railroad yards), straight and non-straight trackage, with and without the standard setback, modules that do and don't have matching front faces, etc. I don't think DCC was invented back then, so this drawing uses blocks and DC, but use of DC and blocks is NOT a requirement of SMOD; DCC is totally acceptable. There are some SMOD recommendations which are for the purpose of making it easy to fit modules into a standard oval. If you don't have that intent, you don't need to use those recommendations. My objective here is to help demonstrate what others have said, the similarities between SMOD and FreeMo are far greater than their differences. I believe that S modelers will be best served by keeping the differences minuscule. I encourage the FreeMoS fans to write FreeMoS standards so that they are a sub-set of SMOD as much as possible. I urge NASG to bring FreeMoS standards into NASG. If there is something preventing that, I hope to hear from NASG what that is. I urge NASG to review the way that SMOD is presented to help prevent further misperceptions of what SMOD is. I urge the upcoming convention committee to invite FreeMoS modules in addition to SMODules. WE have way too many divisions in S. We don't want to create another one. I really don't believe that any of these suggestions will hinder FreeMoS in any way. I believe that FreeMoS can do anything it wants to without conflicting with SMOD (except rail height from floor). I want to build FreeMoS modules that are SMOD compatible (by changing leg height). There is no intention here to state incorrect facts. If you think I'm doing so, please let me know. I believe that we do need to fully discuss this issue while the differences are small. IF new FreeMoS decisions get made which ARE in direct conflict with SMOD, it will be much harder to undo them. Far easier to prevent such decisions in the first place. If there really is an SMOD specification that hinders FreeMoS, perhaps it can be changed. That's my view based on what I know........ Ted Larson > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "T Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > /. . . . . not everyone wants to have all this angst on the yahoo site./ > > I presume that he refers to the discussion on SMODules and FreeMoS. > > > > > > > > *I have not seen or experienced any angst. Maybe he meant something > else. We need a good factual discusstion of S-MOD and S-Fre-Mo.* Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
