I have a spot where I need to have the scenery sloping down from the facia to the backdrop. I love to see pictures where others have done this.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
It seems to me that that would be a tough one to make believeable-looking. There's only one area on my layout where the scenery between the track and the backdrop drops down, but it then rises towards the backdrop, with a ground-foam-on-painted-Masonite low hillside rising at the wall.
It's difficult to even show it (besides the not-too-good photos)...
...these views are in the same area...
It doesn't look too bad when viewed at eye-level, but also doesn't really answer your request all that well, either.
I do have one area when the scenery doesn't drop, but it doesn't rise, either, and it's this scene looking under the bridge over the Maitland River, and in the distance is Lake Erie (I'm aware that the real Maitland River flows into Lake Huron - call it modeller's licence)...
...and in the nearby town of Lowbanks (just out-of-frame to the right in the photo above), the ground rises as it nears the backdrop, but the assumption is that it then drops, unseen, with more of the town, and beyond that, the shore of the lake (none of that, of course, is modelled)...
The ruse works for me because I want it to, but it may not have the desired effect on visitors (or even on those viewing photos). Like you, I'd welcome seeing some such scenes, as I'm sure that it can be done better.
Wayne
I've done this in several locations.
Here the wash drains toward the backdrop. From a typical viewing angle, the fill hides much of the slope on the back side of the track.
In this scene trees occupy most of the scene where it joins the backdrop.
As long as the 3-D to 2-D transition is handled appropriately, having a scene slope up or down toward the backdrop shouldn't matter.
Rob Spangler
Nicely done, Rob!
Rob does a nice job. I am guessing the scenery slopes down to the back drop because Rob correctly built the mainline up on a grade so naturally the ground slopes away from the track for good drainage. That is something I didn't do as well as I should have on my last layout but definitely plan to do next time.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I had forgotten that I do have fairly large area where the scenery (what little there is) drops away rather severely, but no backdrop is involved (and to date, no other kind of drop, either)....
carl425 I have a spot where I need to have the scenery sloping down from the facia to the backdrop. I love to see pictures where others have done this.
Hey Carl-
Do you want to slope the entire benchwork from front to back at a constant more-or-less uniform grade? Or, do you want to just lower the terrain behind the right-of-way and trackage a bit?
Another thread mentioned the North American Prototype Modelers. I went to their website and followed a few other links for videos. There are parts of their (terrific) layout where the rear of their benchwork is a good 3 or 4 inches lower than the front. In some places there is a vertical retaining wall to effect the separation. I thought this was kinda unusual because the normal approach is to raise the rearward terrain for easy reach and viewing, but they must have had a good reason for doing what they did. At any rate, it looked really good and perfectly natural.
Here's a link to get started: napmltd.org
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
ROBERT PETRICKDo you want to slope the entire benchwork from front to back at a constant more-or-less uniform grade? Or, do you want to just lower the terrain behind the right-of-way and trackage a bit?
I'm trying to model one of the many curves that follow a river around the end of a ridge. I'd like to figure out how to put the mountain top at the aisle and the river and track down in the valley to the rear of the benchwork. I'm basically trying to put an end of the peninsula scene into a corner of the room. Square peg, round hole.
It depends upon the height of the mountain, no? If very high, I'd expect to see a huge chunk of flat fascia staring me in the face. Is there any way that won't happen?
Like Rob Spangler's photo, I think the key would be to have the fascia side as low as possible, then have where the scenery meets the back drop still sort of a high point, or crest, relative to what's perceived to be beyond that crest.
IOW, in Rob's photo, I'd expect the creek to be flowing into the backdrop and turn into a waterfall right at the backdrop, or an area of rapids, since the tree line appears to reveal a more rapid decent.
- Douglas
I am doing this...mostly...on my present build. My plan is to make the reasonable and proper slope with the rest of the surrounding terrain, but the backdrop must look like it is part of a distant scene. Low ground beyond the immediate slope, and then a ridge or town in the distance. If using a photo, the photo would have to have been taken from near the top of just such a scene so that the intervening mile or more of low ground is depicted. This way, the negative slope away from the operator/viewer will appear entirely realistic.
selector I am doing this...mostly...on my present build. My plan is to make the reasonable and proper slope with the rest of the surrounding terrain, but the backdrop must look like it is part of a distant scene. Low ground beyond the immediate slope, and then a ridge or town in the distance. If using a photo, the photo would have to have been taken from near the top of just such a scene so that the intervening mile or more of low ground is depicted. This way, the negative slope away from the operator/viewer will appear entirely realistic.
Yes. You've pointed out the fact that the angle of any photo backdrop would have to appear as if was taken from above. Most commercially available backdrops are taken at eye level, with a gentle angle of looking up, not down, on the scenery.
The angle is especially troublesome for pictures of buildings, where looking down onto them from our elevated position as modelers would reveal a lot of roof.
DoughlessIt depends upon the height of the mountain, no? If very high, I'd expect to see a huge chunk of flat fascia staring me in the face. Is there any way that won't happen? Like Rob Spangler's photo, I think the key would be to have the fascia side as low as possible, then have where the scenery meets the back drop still sort of a high point, or crest, relative to what's perceived to be beyond that crest.
I have areas where the fascia is much higher than the track, and don't see a problem at all. The fascia simple represents a cross-section of whatever scenic contour would exist, and can be as high or low as appropriate.
Here's a wider view of the scene I posted above, at an earlier stage of completion. The fascia gets quite a bit higher than the track toward the right because that's where it slices through the cross section of the hill. I have other areas where the fascia is higher still.
I've never paid attention to the conventional wisdom of having scenery sloping up from the aisle. If it does, it does, otherwise so what?
That area represents a more or less flat valley bottom, with the trees roughly the same height on the backdrop and 2-D scene.
It's intended to look something like this prototype locale, where the foreground slopes down to the water course, and the ground rises above it on the far side. I only had space for the foreground slope down to water level, and everything else is on the backdrop.
Several years ago (two clubs ago), we had the layout go into a tight corner and make a 90-degree turn. The double mainline in that area was pretty close to the front fascia. I don't remember the depth of the benchwork, but it was probably in the 24- to 28-inch range.
If we made the full turn so close to the front edge, the radius would have been very sharp, about 15" or so. N scale.
I reworked the geometry so that the tracks swooped toward the rear, forming a very broad ess reverse curve with about 30" radii for the curves and a 12" straight tangent in between.
To provide a visual justification to explain why the tracks veered away, we built a small mountain on the inner corner of the 90-degree bend. Not really a mountain, more like a rounded hill. About 8 or 9 inches tall.
To the outside of the curved tracks (skyboard side) we dug a small creek about 2 inches deep, and it paralleled the tracks all the way around.
There was no change in the elevation of the tracks or the ground plane of the benchwork (other than the small mounded hill on the inner corner), but the illusion was that the land sloped down to the creek (as land is wont to do).
I don't have any photos at hand, but the final scene looked similar to Rob Spangler's. BTW, nice work Rob!
wp8thsub IOW, in Rob's photo, I'd expect the creek to be flowing into the backdrop and turn into a waterfall right at the backdrop, or an area of rapids, since the tree line appears to reveal a more rapid decent. That area represents a more or less flat valley bottom, with the trees roughly the same height on the backdrop and 2-D scene. It's intended to look something like this prototype locale, where the foreground slopes down to the water course, and the ground rises above it on the far side. I only had space for the foreground slope down to water level, and everything else is on the backdrop.
Nice work Rob. Its really well done.
Yeah, the tree height on the backdrop was deceiving to my eye, and I figured as much. All of the trees are the same height, except that one in the back next to where the stream would be. Because they are all the same, I expect that other one to be the same, and since its shorter, it looks like it sits on land that would be that much lower than where the other trees sit. So it looked to me like a steepish decent in the backdrop, if that all makes sense. Photo angles can be fooling, and 2D configurement can create perceptions.
I think if that one short tree was the same as the others, or other trees vary in height, I would immediately perceive the land to be relatively flat instead of the way I do. Its just the way it hits my eye, and others might see it differently.
Bravo to all those posting pictures. Hats off to you guys for making me feel worse about my scenery capabilities (or lack thereof!).
I think making scenery either slope upward or not at all is more realistic. Doing that would give the impression that the layout blends into the backdrop. You always can do what I do: go on the forums and see what others do and question my value to this hobby, lol!
DoughlessYeah, the tree height on the backdrop was deceiving to my eye, and I figured as much. All of the trees are the same height, except that one in the back next to where the stream would be. Because they are all the same, I expect that other one to be the same, and since its shorter, it looks like it sits on land that would be that much lower than where the other trees sit. So it looked to me like a steepish decent in the backdrop, if that all makes sense. Photo angles can be fooling, and 2D configurement can create perceptions.
I see what you mean. There's a group of shorter trees back there that's supposed to be on the far bank of the creek.
Here's the same location with no 3-D trees.