If you are modeling Eastern Woodlands you don't have much choice other than puff ball trees. Many folks on this site have them. Scenic Express Super Trees are an alternative, but don't really portray Easter Woodlands type trees very well. Todd and VR one trick I've used before is to use hairspray and some Woodland Scenic's Fine Yellow and lightly sprinkle some on every 4th tree or so. Todd you've used different greens, good. However, a close look even in June/July will show that all trees are not a perfect uniform green like shown in your picture. Plus, don't forget to put in the odd 'dead' or 'dying' tree. All these little hints will make your layout look much more 'real'. Jim
I think they work well in certain circumstances. My biggest issue with them is the uniformity. I tried to break this up by creating different sized puff balls and placing lichen in between them:
I beg to differ with the opinion that Scenic Express Supertrees do not easily and much more realistically represent eastern woodland trees and forests. In fact, I regard puffball trees as far more unrealistic and very much of an old-school approach to modeling trees. I have never seen a convincing scene using puffball trees, as the treetops of any heavily forested area always has far more texture than the artificially rounded and uniform tops of puffballs. Although still favored by some building layouts these days, puffball trees are an early 1980's approach to modeling trees and one long since superseded by the growing desire for realism among more serious modelers that have surfaced in the hobby over the past 15 years. Recently MR attempted to justify their use of puffball trees on their latest project layout, but their argument was very weak. Granted that such "project layouts" are basically intended for the rank beginner, but I feel introducing newcomers to more up-to-date techniques and approaches is a far more valuable and instructive. My entire layout is done in Supertrees, as are those of many of my friends. In discussions on the subject we usually agree that puffball trees are pretty much in the same category as using lichens to represent trees which, although they served the purpose for many years, have also largely passed into history. I think the that the supposed problem with Supertree is the average hobbyist's unwillingness to expend the extra effort needed in workmanship that is required to build the trees and really bring their layouts to life. Below are a couple of shots of the Supertrees on my layout, which is set in the peak of autumnal color. I can't even begin to image how one might go about attempting to create a similar scene using puffballs trees. NYW&B
From my perspective I have seen usage that was done extremely well and in some cases very poorly. To me the idea is that they look like trees based on the location your are trying to represent and if you achieve that it does not matter what method was used. All the photos above look to be extremely well done because they look natural. When I've see them done poorly they look like someone just toss round colored balls onto the layout and/or stuck on a stick.
NYW&B, I agree with you about the use of Super Trees. In fact I have my third box arriving today. I was simply giving Virginian Railway, with 72 posts and possibly not as far along in his modeling career as you or me, the answer I thought he needed/wanted. Many folks would rather get their work over and done with. I simply gave him the tips to make what it seems he wanted to do better. If I was to do an Eastern Woodlands layout I would use Super Trees, trust me. Jim
Puffball trees don't look like anything in my area, but I live in the Pacific Northwest where we have lots of tall, pointy, jagged conifers. As far as layouts, I have seen good uses of puffball trees and bad uses. I think it's important to consider placement of the trees, trying to mimic natural distributions as much as possible, and consider "distressing" some of the trees to make them look less uniform. Also, don't put them on steep slopes in a stacked on one another fashion or they'll look like Tribbles. Adam
Curious - how far to your backdrop is it from the start of the tree line in your shots? While you have created a masterpiece of Supertree scenery, it seems (at least from your two shots) that it doesn't go all that far back.
Your right, I am a new modeler, but I've read and re-read my complete 3 or 4 years of MR. I live in and want to model Appalachia, but I realize that trees are probably the the greatest thing that can make or break an Appalachian layout, but since a mountainside is in view of were I'm typing this I think puffballs don't work for the bottom of mountains cause of the trunks, but yet sometimes you don't see the trunks at the bottom! Yet mountains do look very puffablly:tb-biggrin: sometimes so Hmmm what to do?
Take a peek at the link Mark posted, it shows Tree Trucks at the edge with Puffballs behind it which created a very natural
The puffball approach is just like every other approach in this hobby. What you get out of it is exactly what you put in. I've seen some terrible bulk clump examples, and I've seen some terrible SuperTree examples. I've also seen perfect examples of both. The choice basically boils down to the look you want, and the means to achieve it. If thought out and constructed properly, the forrest in a flash example, as seen by Jim Reising is a very realistic approach, and compared to the prices I've seen on Super Tree labels, is a very cost efficient approach as well. Worst case scenario, you get to try something new and see if it fits your style. If not, it can be quite fun tearing out the failed attempt to make way for the new.
Thanks for the compliment, but I honestly regard my efforts as pretty standard compared to many modelers of my acquaintance. Per your question, the first scene is about two feet in depth, while the second exceeds 30". Filling in such scenes does take time and effort, but when done using Supertrees the effect is dramatically more realistic in appearance than would be possible with a hillside consisting of puffballs. In my experience puffballs only become really convincing as tree tops when viewed from considerable distance, as on a club layout when viewed from 20-30 feet away from the scene itself. That might equate to viewing a real heavily treed hillside from the better part of a mile away, where any real intricate detail is completely lost to the viewer. However, scenes on most home layouts are viewed from only a matter of a foot or two, changing the circumstances of the situation entirely and this is why the puffball approach is not generally employed on most newer layouts today. NYW&B
I do admit supertrees are cool, but I'd rather not go broke on trees when I could go broke on Top Gons, coal mines, and such. :mwink: Jim's forrest in a flash does appeal to me, I could try it, and I might like it, but if your model railroading and you are not enjoying it, than where is the fun in that?:mbiggrin:
A few decision factors have emerged in the discussions here: level of detail, prototype, budget, and simplicity. I submit another: scale. In N scale, some details need not be modeled in order to suggest their presence. Tree trunks are one of those. Given the typical viewing distance and altitude on my layout, most trunks will be obscured by either the tree canopy or undergrowth. Here's an example: WS clump foliage placed as undergrowth hides tree trunks just as the real vegetation does in Appalachia. If I were modeling in HO or larger, I would be more likely to throw in an exposed trunk occasionally. Another approach to planting forests (as opposed to individual trees) is to guide the viewer's eye to the primary scenes on the layout. Models of forests should be sufficiently convincing that the viewer gets bored with trees and visually scans elsewhere to see the trains in scenes you intend to showcase.
Nice observation, and it hit me that with N's high ratio of scenery to track you'll need alot of scenery, and I think the more scenery on a layout you would probalbly take in the whole thing than a tree at a time, no offence supertrees, though. Also, your more than likely looking down on your small train-baised world and from views from planes and such trees look more puffbally.
You don't have to show the trunks for realism, but like suggested before, random dead trees and awkward lone trees help make the scene.
