I recently started applying ground cover to more modules and have been rethinking my methods too. What I've come up with is apply a layer of real dirt, then fine Green Blend over that, in a rather uneven layer (some areas totally covered in green, others bar dirt showing through), then I use fine Burnt Grass to blend the two areas together and also uneven over the whole area (some places the burnt grass completely covers the green blend, other places bare dirt is still visible. After that, I sprinkle coarse Medium Green in an uneven way; putting it down by finger sized pinches results in a more lumpy look, using an old spice shaker bottle, I get a more even rough texture. Since I'm going for a W. Virginia look, I like using the shaker...it looks a little more like the lush country I see in my reference photos (you do have reference photos, don't you? lol). On top of the Med Green, I add coarse Olive Green (again, unevenly); my reasoning here is the darker green, which is on the bottom, looks more like shaded foilage, with the lighter stuff on top. Everything gets wetted with a mist of wet water, then diluted white glue is dripped over everything, thoroughly soaking it all.
I have used some of the Underbrush clumps, but they look a little out of place (too clumpy, if you will). Anyway, I think this is my base for future layers (I'm still working on the scenery); I need to get more Woodland Scenics supplies today...gonna try the Light Green color of coarse, the Med Green is too green and I think more color variation will look better. I might try to airbrush some different colors (greens and earthy colors) over the finished scene to represent different kinds of weeds. But using the same material...it all kind of looks the same (big surprise, right?).
Scenic Express and other companies might give a more realistic texture, and maybe some bits of natural material will need to be used to represent different plants better. I won't have any trees because the modules are only 18" wide and trees aren't that close to the tracks in my photos (and besides, it would make the modules too think to stack against each other so I can easily move the modules around...these are Free Mo modules). Static grass, in my situation, won't look right because it's more of a bushy area than a grassy one.
The second picture, there might not be grass between the trees and there would be more trees with low bushes and then small trees surrounding the group of trees. Under the trees would probably be sparse vegetation and a lot of dead fall and a dead tree or two among them. Maybe the covering of grass is a bit too uniform? Maybe add some variation of color (either more foam or drybrushing some other color on those areas)? I say maybe because it's possible that your reference area looks exactly like that. Use a satellite view of your reference area (bird's eye view is a better view than the straight down view) to see what it 'should' look like.
My scenery is still in progress because it doesn't look right to me either, but I'm not entirely sure why.lol We're both in the same boat...or maybe up the same tree! lol The next Free Mo event is in South Bend, IN the weekend of Sept 11th and 12th so I better have the scenery done by then. I belong to SE Michigan Free Mo, Western Reserve Free Mo and soon, Michiana Free Mo. Check our Yahoo Groups pages for updates, pics and videos of the soon-to-be-finished scenery.
http://delray1967.shutterfly.com/pictures/5
SEMI Free-Mo@groups.io
gregc i don't think I understand what is meant by texture. On the one hand, I think it can mean different types (textured) materials at different locations, such as a grassy area in one area and brush in another. On the other hand, it could mean different types materials of roughly the same color on top of one another. Clump foliage looks ok, but its too dense and homogeneous. what I see along side any road, pathway or maintained area is branches with foliage on it. low lying vegitation, small bushes, vines, larger bush, small trees, larger trees. I mostly see branches and tree trunks with sparse foliage nearer the bottom and more filled foliage (canopy) near the top. The view from the side is dark and branchy. The view from the top is greener. So I wonder if texture means branches vs foliage. And I think that requires more varied materials and patience to model. Less practical over large areas. as for trees, I agree. I paid more attention to trees on my bike ride this morning along the D&R canal in central jersey. I think most trees nearer the edges of paths are narrow, scragely and have sparse foliage nearer the bottom where shaded. I have some rounder trees in my yard where they stand alone or have few neighboring tree. it seems to me that brown twiggy stuff with small green material nearer the bottom and more dense clumpish material on top would be more realistic along RR tracks with some less dense clumps to serve as bushy foliage. But finding thin brown twiggy stuff is difficult.
i don't think I understand what is meant by texture.
On the one hand, I think it can mean different types (textured) materials at different locations, such as a grassy area in one area and brush in another.
On the other hand, it could mean different types materials of roughly the same color on top of one another. Clump foliage looks ok, but its too dense and homogeneous.
what I see along side any road, pathway or maintained area is branches with foliage on it. low lying vegitation, small bushes, vines, larger bush, small trees, larger trees. I mostly see branches and tree trunks with sparse foliage nearer the bottom and more filled foliage (canopy) near the top. The view from the side is dark and branchy. The view from the top is greener.
So I wonder if texture means branches vs foliage. And I think that requires more varied materials and patience to model. Less practical over large areas.
as for trees, I agree. I paid more attention to trees on my bike ride this morning along the D&R canal in central jersey. I think most trees nearer the edges of paths are narrow, scragely and have sparse foliage nearer the bottom where shaded. I have some rounder trees in my yard where they stand alone or have few neighboring tree.
it seems to me that brown twiggy stuff with small green material nearer the bottom and more dense clumpish material on top would be more realistic along RR tracks with some less dense clumps to serve as bushy foliage. But finding thin brown twiggy stuff is difficult.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
When I do my scenery I build in layers just like the real world in the wilderness. I do use WS ground covers but more in the mix rather than being the main ingredient. I have an old blender I use to chop up twigs , leaves etc and use this as one of the layers.
Lynn
Present Layout progress
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/290127/3372174.aspx#3372174
I agree with all the above responses. Here's a modest example of different textures, colors, and layers.
Static grass can only be used in limited aplications in the way most people do it with a machine which means larger areas. The real secret to great scenery is layering, puting one on top of the other till it looks right. Only thing I could notice off hand that is off in your stuff is the trees, some are too round, look at nature, the branches go off in weird ways sometimes.
Adding texture until it looks right, is often mentioned as the way to add scenic material and the where to stop.
For vines, briar patches and puff ball trees, I use poly fiber. Woodland Scenics has small packages of it for you to give it a try. Micro Mark has a larger package for when you have a lot of work to do. Not sure what Scenic Express has in that line. Don't be afraid to mix brands of scenic materials
Though I have not used static grass, I have seen some really nice looking results. There is information on making your own applicator from a Harbour Freight electric fly swatter, if you are into building such things.
Just remember you can redo it, if you don't like the looks. Many folks, by the time they finish their layouts, have improved their skills, so that they start redoing the areas they started in. Also, new materials and techniques come along to help us do better.
Good luck,
Richard
Take a gander at scenery solutions from Scenic Express located in Western Pennsylvania's scenic woodlands -- Woodland Scenics is not the "only game in town."
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
That scenery is pretty nice as it is, but if you want to take it to the next level, get yourself a static grass applicator.
Swedish Custom painter and model maker. My Website:
My Railroad
My Youtube:
Graff´s channel
i've been able to try my hand at ground cover scenery on the club RR. I'm not dissatisfied, using Woodland scenic materials, it seems relatively easy to get decent results.
The shell, some paint and basic ground cover have been in place for years, but bare or like a golf green. I start with fine ground turf, some fine green and clumps with some variation in color.
I'm interested in advice from experienced modelers who strive for very realistic northeastern type scenery (my forte is electronics). I've seen small British layouts where they model vines on tree trunks. I think now that I have some experience I could appreciate hearing about finer points.