The hobby is big enough for all sorts of ways to do things without the hash throwing.
Larry does his one way, you do it another. Just leave the bone alone OK?
No, you don’t have a thick skin. That’s fine. You should not need to have a super thick skin to interact with others in these forums.
But unfortunately your skin is not even of normal thickness - it is extremely thin. You are very quick to take offense from and feel victimized by things most other people consider perfectly harmless - like having others point out that a statement you have made is incorrect.
If you had learned to just say “oops - I must have been wrong, you are right” or “I didn’t know that - that is interesting”, then no problem. We all make mistakes all the time. None of us know all there is to know.
But you have an unfortunate tendency, whenever someone points out a weakness in your statements or offers a counter example, to start complaining about how people are ganging up on you and persecuting you, or even how a comment supposedly is “a lot of venom”. You are seemingly extremely quick to feel that people are “looking down on you” or disrespecting you.
&
I don´t like the way this thread is developing.
Either you all go back to discuss the issue in a civil manner and the due respect, or I will have to lock it.
Awhile ago someone I know did up a series of braided wire trunks for me, Both ends…exposed trunk roots and branches. I laid on some sculpy and did up the tree trunks with some dull coat after painting them with a mixture of brown/black/grey paints then added WS clumping ‘schtuff’…I forget the name…[D)] and then added some loose grass type stuff…again…
Do you think I can locate the pix?
No…on film…not on computer…d’oh…
Here’s a more modern approach on modeling a forest.
Photos by CNJ999 and used by permission.
Forest is made from Super Trees.
Great looking scene.
But if you re-read the article on pages 32 through 37 in the November issue of MR, you will see that Brooks Stover had a relatively large layout - 25 x 44 feet - and he wanted to see steep hillsides densely covered in trees for extended distances along his tracks - not have a close line of well detailed trees serve as a view block with a painted ridge line in the distance on the backdrop.
So his core challenge was to make a large number of trees for a dense forest canopy. Another factor is that Stover models in S (1:64) scale - and he mentions in the article that his detailed front edge trees tends to be taller than what is commercially available. He mentions trees 12" tall (ie 64 scale feet tall) - which is not that unreasonable - lots of deciduous trees in the Appalachians are taller than 64 scale feet.
In comparison Super Tree armatures tend to be about 5-8" tall if you buy a value pack of 300 super trees for about $100. In S scale 5" corresponds to a height of about 26 scale feet and 8" corresponds to a height about about 42 scale feet.
Puff ball trees probably still have their place - if what you are modeling is hill sides with a dense forest canopy.
For close and detailed trees at the edge of the forest in H0 scale or N scale, it probably is hard to beat Super Trees assembled and placed
Stein,I understand the need to cover a large area with a forest and in that light I wonder if using super tree kits combine with a photographic background of a chain of hillsides would be the better way?
Maybe its just my warp thinking but,with today’s highly detailed cars and locomotives shouldn’t we be looking for better ways to model a forest?
BTW…This is nothing against Brooks or his BC&G…
Its all about puff trees in general.