Chris, just move the decimal two places to the right to get the per cent. In the above example to reduce from 1/60 to 1/100 you divide 60 by 100 and get .6 as the answer. Move the decimal two places to the right and you get 60%. You would print the original pieces at 60% of their current size to get the smaller size model. To enlarge from 1/100 to 1/60 you divide 100 by 60 and get 1.67 (rounded to two places). Move the decimal two places to the right and get 167%. You would print the original pieces at 167% to get the larger size model. That works for any scale conversion. 1/32 to 1/76 would be 32/76 or .42 or 42% reduction. 1/76 to 1/32 would be 76/32 or 2.38 or 238% enlargement. 1/300 to 1/700 would be 300/700 or .43 or 43%. 1/700 to 1/300 would be 700/300 or 2.33 or 233% etc..

Well hey that makes sense. Thanks Being the lazy bum I am I would still like a calculator though Chris

The only problem I see with upscaling is when you say to increase the model size 167%. For someone who is in a rush and isn't paying attention at the moment, might accidently increase overall size by 267% instead of 167%. I guess the brain seems to work that way sometimes when we don't mind our work. They'd think to increase size by 100%, in turn doubling it and increasing it another 67%. I think it'd be much easier if we said to increase your model size an additional 67% to reach 1/60th scale from 1/100 scale. It would be much harder to mistaken a phrase such as that, well at least in my belief. :-D

Thanks for the scaling tool. It would be incredibly fantastic if it had a function to calculate pixels, since chances are that you're getting your paper model on the computer. I think it would be much more accurate in the computer world than using standard measurement scales. If you really think about it, a pixel is incredibly small in size so calculations using pixels would result in very precise measurements whether upscaling or downscaling.