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.
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.
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.
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 co
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
