Watched Cody's office where they showed how to make puff ball trees. I've seen these in the past, but haven't used them myself. While they do look somewhat like an eastern forest canopy from a distance, up close they look totally under scale; much more like a shrub or garden bush than a tree.
Looking at the close up intro to the video, it seems like you need full detailed trees to set the forest edge and then , almost a second level of tree tops scenary above the "forest floor" level of ground foam. I've seen pictures of forests made of detailed trees, and of puff ball forests, but haven't seen the two in combination. Does anyone do that?
Well, you're exactly right. Puffball trees aren't meant to stand in for individual trees, or for trees that will bear close inspection. They are meant to simulate the roof of a forest canopy in the background, and for this, they do quite well.
Generally, the first row or two of trees in your forest will need to be more detailed ones, either homemade or commercial.
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
Puff ball trees are one of the hobby's old technologies, dating from thirty or so years ago. I'll admit that when they were first introduced in MR they were quite an innovation as compared with what had come before. But by today's modeling standards (unless you have a basement-sized forest to create and need to find a cheap approach) they just don't make the cut any longer.
I have to say that I'm really rather surprised and disappointed to hear that Cody illustrated their making as if they were still regarded as a modern and highly acceptable approach to tree making. And the reason that you virtually never see things like SuperTrees and pull ball trees combined in a single modeled scene is that, unless viewed from a dozen feet or more away, the combination looks pretty awful!
The fact is that puff ball trees are meant simply to be basic "representative", or "implied", depictions of trees and on anything approaching even modestly close inspection, fail as being in any way realistic looking.
CNJ831
CNJ831 Puff ball trees are one of the hobby's old technologies, dating from thirty or so years ago. I'll admit that when they were first introduced in MR they were quite an innovation as compared with what had come before. But by today's modeling standards (unless you have a basement-sized forest to create and need to find a cheap approach) they just don't make the cut any longer. I have to say that I'm really rather surprised and disappointed to hear that Cody illustrated their making as if they were still regarded as a modern and highly acceptable approach to tree making. And the reason that you virtually never see things like SuperTrees and pull ball trees combined in a single modeled scene is that, unless viewed from a dozen feet or more away, the combination looks pretty awful! The fact is that puff ball trees are meant simply to be basic "representative", or "implied", depictions of trees and on anything approaching even modestly close inspection, fail as being in any way realistic looking. CNJ831
Puff ball trees are one of the hobby's old technologies, dating from thirty or so years ago. I'll admit that when they were first introduced in MR they were quite an innovation as compared with what had come before. But by today's modeling standards (unless you have a basement-sized forest to create and need to find a cheap approach) they just don't make the cut any longer. I have to say that I'm really rather surprised and disappointed to hear that Cody illustrated their making as if they were still regarded as a modern and highly acceptable approach to tree making. And the reason that you virtually never see things like SuperTrees and pull ball trees combined in a single modeled scene is that, unless viewed from a dozen feet or more away, the combination looks pretty awful!
Because, of course, anyone without the modeling skills, resources, and time to make trees like John here shouldn't be in the hobby anyway.
CTValleyRR CNJ831: Puff ball trees are one of the hobby's old technologies, dating from thirty or so years ago. I'll admit that when they were first introduced in MR they were quite an innovation as compared with what had come before. But by today's modeling standards (unless you have a basement-sized forest to create and need to find a cheap approach) they just don't make the cut any longer. I have to say that I'm really rather surprised and disappointed to hear that Cody illustrated their making as if they were still regarded as a modern and highly acceptable approach to tree making. And the reason that you virtually never see things like SuperTrees and pull ball trees combined in a single modeled scene is that, unless viewed from a dozen feet or more away, the combination looks pretty awful! The fact is that puff ball trees are meant simply to be basic "representative", or "implied", depictions of trees and on anything approaching even modestly close inspection, fail as being in any way realistic looking. CNJ831 Because, of course, anyone without the modeling skills, resources, and time to make trees like John here shouldn't be in the hobby anyway.
CNJ831: Puff ball trees are one of the hobby's old technologies, dating from thirty or so years ago. I'll admit that when they were first introduced in MR they were quite an innovation as compared with what had come before. But by today's modeling standards (unless you have a basement-sized forest to create and need to find a cheap approach) they just don't make the cut any longer. I have to say that I'm really rather surprised and disappointed to hear that Cody illustrated their making as if they were still regarded as a modern and highly acceptable approach to tree making. And the reason that you virtually never see things like SuperTrees and pull ball trees combined in a single modeled scene is that, unless viewed from a dozen feet or more away, the combination looks pretty awful! The fact is that puff ball trees are meant simply to be basic "representative", or "implied", depictions of trees and on anything approaching even modestly close inspection, fail as being in any way realistic looking. CNJ831
No. Rather the fact of the matter is that they should be shown how it's done today, not by a virtually obsolete approach. There's a skills level difference between being a model railroader and simply someone playing with a train set on a board that I'd hope most folks here might aspire to. Hobbyists come to MR's site supposedly to learn how to do things the correct and latest way, not by the archaic techniques from a generation ago, now long supplanted.
Unless a forrest is well manacured, the edges often have young. low growth, whether young trees or bushes of a different species. Trunks of the forrest trees do not stand out like the ones on trees standing n their own. A few trunks may show, but low limbs usually conseal most of them.
I thought the method they used seemed a little messier than the other two methods I have seen before
The first was using matte medium (probably could use glue) in a 3:1 ratio, puttling a lot of balls in the solution, squeezing the solution out then shaking them in a bag of ground foam. Individually dipping the balls in the solution then the foam seemed to me to be slower. The thick solution looked messier too.
The second method I have seen and tried was spraying each ball with cheap hair spray, then shaking the balls in the foam. I wasn't as impressed with my end result. (I may not have had enough spray on the balls.) t do think a final spray of the hair spray over the finished trees could help hold the foam on.
The part I thought was the best was using a tray with slightly different colors so they could have the lighter colors on top (sunlight). I have thought of spraying the hair spray on a spot to add either a lighter top or color to indicate an early turning limb, something I commonly see. Just mixing the colors in the bag gives an even color. I do vary the color of the batches of puff balls to indicate different species of trees.
Have fun,
Richard
CNJ831 CTValleyRR: CNJ831: Puff ball trees are one of the hobby's old technologies, dating from thirty or so years ago. I'll admit that when they were first introduced in MR they were quite an innovation as compared with what had come before. But by today's modeling standards (unless you have a basement-sized forest to create and need to find a cheap approach) they just don't make the cut any longer. I have to say that I'm really rather surprised and disappointed to hear that Cody illustrated their making as if they were still regarded as a modern and highly acceptable approach to tree making. And the reason that you virtually never see things like SuperTrees and pull ball trees combined in a single modeled scene is that, unless viewed from a dozen feet or more away, the combination looks pretty awful! The fact is that puff ball trees are meant simply to be basic "representative", or "implied", depictions of trees and on anything approaching even modestly close inspection, fail as being in any way realistic looking. CNJ831 Because, of course, anyone without the modeling skills, resources, and time to make trees like John here shouldn't be in the hobby anyway. No. Rather the fact of the matter is that they should be shown how it's done today, not by a virtually obsolete approach. There's a skills level difference between being a model railroader and simply someone playing with a train set on a board that I'd hope most folks here might aspire to. They come to MR's site supposedly to learn how to do things the correct and latest way, not by the archaic techniques from a generation ago, now long supplanted. CNJ831
CTValleyRR: CNJ831: Puff ball trees are one of the hobby's old technologies, dating from thirty or so years ago. I'll admit that when they were first introduced in MR they were quite an innovation as compared with what had come before. But by today's modeling standards (unless you have a basement-sized forest to create and need to find a cheap approach) they just don't make the cut any longer. I have to say that I'm really rather surprised and disappointed to hear that Cody illustrated their making as if they were still regarded as a modern and highly acceptable approach to tree making. And the reason that you virtually never see things like SuperTrees and pull ball trees combined in a single modeled scene is that, unless viewed from a dozen feet or more away, the combination looks pretty awful! The fact is that puff ball trees are meant simply to be basic "representative", or "implied", depictions of trees and on anything approaching even modestly close inspection, fail as being in any way realistic looking. CNJ831 Because, of course, anyone without the modeling skills, resources, and time to make trees like John here shouldn't be in the hobby anyway.
No. Rather the fact of the matter is that they should be shown how it's done today, not by a virtually obsolete approach. There's a skills level difference between being a model railroader and simply someone playing with a train set on a board that I'd hope most folks here might aspire to. They come to MR's site supposedly to learn how to do things the correct and latest way, not by the archaic techniques from a generation ago, now long supplanted.
That's because you persist in your very restrictive definition of the Model Railroader as only someone who will accept nothing less than picture perfect miniature representations of reality and will not admit to any other "correct" way of modeling. That's not the audience MR is looking for, nor is it a definition most of us would agree with. But I'm done with that discussion.
Laying aside the terminology difference, I have to disagree with you. The so called "puff ball" forest has alternatives, yes, but it's in spite of it's age it's still a fairly inexpensive and relatively quick way to create background scenery that is "good enough" for many modelers and layouts. It doesn't have to be good enough for YOUR layout, just the OP's.
Well here is an example of puff balls with super trees and others in the front
This was one of the first parts of my layout and whilst the puff balls really don't stand up to close scrutiny they serve the purpose of suggesting a hillside of trees. I do think it is important to hide the margins with better looking trees, and of course foreground trees need to be much more detailed. I think what they do is to provide some sense of forced perspective. The hill feels like it goes much father into the distance than it would if they were all Super Trees.
Simon Modelling CB&Q and Wabash See my slowly evolving layout on my picturetrail site http://www.picturetrail.com/simontrains and our videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/MrCrispybake?feature=mhum
I totally agree with Simon.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
Remember that a model is a simulation or representation of something real.
When in summer bloom around here the trees on the hillsides DO look like "puff balls" with a few conifers thrown in for good measure.
Even up close along side the freeway, the only "trees" you really "see" are the base ones at road side. The reast all look like puffballs.
So I see nothing wrong with using puffball "trees" to simulate a hillside landscape at least for here in the NE part of the country.
They are far cheaper than buying a bunch of model trees to fill up a space.
-G .
Just my thoughts, ideas, opinions and experiences. Others may vary.
HO and N Scale.
After long and careful thought, they have convinced me. I have come to the conclusion that they are right. The aliens did it.
I've made approx. 1900 puff ball trees, using Dave Frary's method. Some have detailed trees in front, some don't, depends on the scene. JMHO. DJ.
Excellent illustration Grampy, some really nice photos. Your hillsides look really good.
Thanks, Simon. DJ.
In defense of John's position, with which I somewhat agree, some versions of puffballs really don't look good....at all. They look more like styrofoam balls sprayed with glue and covered with ground foam, all uniformly spherical, and uniformly ground foam covered. However, I have seen some really credible efforts at improved puffball trees and they look darned good.
To me, the trick is to make them have slightly different shapes and heights, and the ground foam, whether fine or flocking, or a mixture, should be a bit varied....more than it often is.
My two cents worth...
Let us debate the points of puffball trees, fine and coarse, and not get into jabbing fingers into chests.
Thanks.
Crandell
Crandell,While I am not a big fan of puff ball trees,I think if they are used correctly-at the top of hills with modeled trees in the foreground I think they may pass as tree tops other then that...
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Larry, if done well, some might even look decent at the very front. They may need some shrubbery ground foam at their bases to cover up their ball-like nature, but they won't stand on their own, surely.
I think that most of us agree...for the amount of time they are meant to save us, and expense, they aren't likely to be acceptable if they are substituted one-for-on for the finer products we can either make or purchase these days. If we are willing to spend some considerable time on making them look good out front, you might as well go with another product if time is important and not so much the money.
It's the old trade-off problem we all face in the hobby. For a while, puff-balls throughout may have to do, but later on they are probably going to be pushed back in favour of something a little more convincing nearer the eyes. I think this is John's message. Of course, some are willing to take them as they are, and see them as eminently suitable. Others find them to be a bit contrived.
I would have used puff ball trees (made from poly-fibre) if I had had more than 6 inches to work in. As it was I was forced to use sea-foam trees and home-made wire ones for Sweethome Alabama.
Puff ball trees have the advantage that when you need hundreds, or even thousands of trees, they can be made quickly and cheaply.
Jon
Sweethome Chicago is now on Facebook
Sweethome Alabama is now on Facebook
Hudson Road is now on Facebook
my videos
my Railimages
I swear by them. The trick is to use them wisely.
I've got a ton of them providing the "distant" background on my layout. (Actually about 12" behind the locomotive, maybe less...)
I have more detailed trees I've made from organic material in the foreground, so it gives a better impression... at least in low angle photos!
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Wow, didn't mean to start this. I've been studying the forests for ideas how to model one realistically. While the puff balls or even old lichen kind of represent the tops of a forest when viewed from a distance, they lose all reality when viewed from ground (or "layout") level. From that level the forest understory is much more visible than one would suspect. Pine forest even more so than deciduous. And I'm sure it differs across regions of the country. Perhaps a way to model it would be to have a couple of layers of individual trees with camo netting forming an "escarpment" to tree top level covered by puff balls for the deep layers of the forest. Have to do some experimenting on that.
The other thing I've noticed when studying tress in a forest is the branch structure is nothing like what we normally picture tress as. Rather than the spreading tree, it's more often a tightly packed branch set all heading upward. If you remove most of the trees to leave individual specimans, no matter how large, forest grown trees are unimpressive standing alone.
Yep, got to get to experimenting.
You're right. Leaves need sunlight, so only the tops where they get enough light to keep the leaves alive. In areas where maple syrup is made (at this time of year), the trees are thinned so that they will have more leaf surface area. Roadside trees, the type you describe as having spsreading branches produce more sap. The more branches, the more leaves, the more sap.
Connifers are the same, though to produce good timber trees they want them to grow close, so they grow straight and tall with few limbs, which produce knots.
jmbjmb The other thing I've noticed when studying tress in a forest is the branch structure is nothing like what we normally picture tress as. Rather than the spreading tree, it's more often a tightly packed branch set all heading upward. If you remove most of the trees to leave individual specimans, no matter how large, forest grown trees are unimpressive standing alone.
Very true, particularly regarding the often crowded stands of eastern second growth trees when bare...and, although one might think this easy to model, such trees are actually very difficult to render in 1/87 scale in a truly realistic and believable fashion. In fact, the only hobbyist I've ever encountered that can pull it off absolutely convincingly is Mike Tylick, who often models rural New England scenes.
Examples of his outstandingly realistic scenery have appeared in the pages of MR many times. In particular, the October 1993 issue of MR has an article by Mike that includes photos of his depictions of a New England forested lanscape in late autumn, with many of the trees nearly bare. Look at the degree of realism in his modeling...and that was what was being done nearly 20 years ago!
Grampy, that's about as good a simulation of an eastern U.S. forest as I've ever seen. It looks like you've used a very good mixture of all different methods of tree making. Where did you come across Dave Frary's method?
Jarrell
Grampys Trains I've made approx. 1900 puff ball trees, using Dave Frary's method. Some have detailed trees in front, some don't, depends on the scene. JMHO. DJ.
Thanks, Jarrell, from his book, "Modeling the Pennsy Middle Division". I used a combination of "puff balls", WS clump foliage, Super Trees, and "bottle brush" conifers.