Forced perspective on your layout-Tips/techniques or a bad idea!

Forced perspective is rarely done well from the times I’ve seen it done. Most of the times I’ve seen it, the layout went way too small in way to short a distance. If you have, say, a mountain town in the background that’s a few feet away, then using a scale that’s not as great as 50% difference, you can pull it off. Slight differences work better. For example, using S scale stuff in an era a few feet away from the O scale stuff, with a tree line between, can work well. Not so much in HO right behind your O scale.

I use 1/48 and 1/50 scale trucks and figures in a background area, which is a slight difference with the mostly 1/43 scale figures I have in the foreground areas. I don’t even know if anyone notices the difference in scale as it’s such a slight difference, but for me, knowing the real sizes of things, it looks much further away into the trees than it is in real life. My layout isn’t deep enough to go smaller than that without looking silly.

A lot of things I have seen say that forced perspective is fairly common with O Scale layouts, to give a sense  of depth. As to what you can expect I haven't done any thing like that on my layout, but from what I have seen if done well, it can look very good. Perhaps soon people that have done it on their layout will input their thoughts soon.

What you're describing can be very effective.  There are a couple of things to keep in mind though.

1) O-scale trains should not run too close to the HO scenic elements or the illusion is lost.

2) Forced perspective is most effective when viewed at eye level.  HO buildings placed in the rear of an otherwise O-scale scene look good in this case.  Here is a photo from my layout.  The town in the distance behind the hills is HO.

If the layout is built low and you have a "helicopter" view of the trains then HO buildings look like what they are.

Here is another example of forced perspective from a layout in New Hampshire.  The grain elevator is O-scale, the house and barn to the left and above are HO and the farm is the distance is N-scale.  This scene is less than 3 feet deep.

The trick to successful forced perspective is to create a visual discontinuity between the changes in scale. This is most often done by interjecting a ridge top of some kind or a row of trees between the foreground and the background. So, for example, attempting to make a short roadway look like it is receding by making it narrower toward the back is likely to fail visually. OTOH, having the full-sized road disappear over the top of a hill and continue at a smaller scale further back can easily be made to look convincing.  The same is true with buildings or track. You can see this principle at work in Bob's pictures above. 

This is a timely post since I have this mountain and am thinking about putting a small lodge up on its flanks and was thinking about using forced perspective, perhaps HO or S Gauge.

I think that's a great idea and I think Bob did a really good job on his layout.

Myles, for your mountain I would seriously consider an N-scale lodge (partially hidden by trees) about 3/4 of the way up the slope.  A larger structure will make the mountain look smaller.  N and O can work well together, see my second photo above.  I also have an N-scale house nestled into a spot on one of my mountains and it looks good.  An HO house would stick out too far above the tree line.  Use very small trees in the distance to enhance the perspective.

We all know that modeling at scale is a compromise of one sort or another and we all have priorities that vary when we build layouts.  I see forced perspective as just another tool that can help make our layouts more interesting and more fun when it is done well.  With a 2' wide layout, it would be more challenging for me, but I love the concept!  As an architect full time, forced perspective is a design tool that can make an average space very dynamic.

You all have already helped me immensely.  Right concept, wrong execution. I will put this back in the drawer for another layout. As you can see from the picture I only have 10" track to corner with circa 20" legs. Not enough room to pull it off.  Please continue the discussion however cause I'm learning. And I need the ideas for this corner. Ted

Thanks Bob! I hadn't thought about N. It makes sense. As you can see, I have done any tree work on the beast yet waiting for all the good ideas to come forth.

Trainman2001 posted:

This is a timely post since I have this mountain and am thinking about putting a small lodge up on its flanks and was thinking about using forced perspective, perhaps HO or S Gauge.

I agree with Bob about the N-gauge lodge (in fact, I agree with Bob about almost everything, since his layout was the major inspiration for mine). 

Your situation is different, since the mountain provides a large expanse of undifferentiated terrain that provides few cues to depth. That makes it much easier to pull off a change of scale. In addition to using different size trees, you can really make the depth pop by also steadily reducing the size of the ground cover (ground foam, etc) as distance increases. Use course materials up close and very fine textures "far away". This creates a texture gradient that the eye will see as distance. 

In the below image, the mountain on the right is just a flat (ground foam on foam core). The sense of depth comes completely from varying the texture and color of the ground foam.

In graduate school, I remember taking a course in visual perception. A whole chapter was dedicated to "cues to depth".

Avanti posted:

Trainman2001 posted:

This is a timely post since I have this mountain and am thinking about putting a small lodge up on its flanks and was thinking about using forced perspective, perhaps HO or S Gauge.

I agree with Bob about the N-gauge lodge (in fact, I agree with Bob about almost everything, since his layout was the major inspiration for mine). 

Your situation is different, since the mountain provides a large expanse of undifferentiated terrain that provides few cues to depth. That makes it much easier to pull off a change of scale. In addition to using different size trees, you can really make the depth pop by also steadily reducing the size of the ground cover (ground foam, etc) as distance increases. Use course materials up close and very fine textures "far away". This creates a texture gradient that the eye will see as distance. 

 

So given these parameters could you attempt an alpine village in N?  Or, do we respect the less is more concept?  Ted

Yet another trick is to use high-contrast, bold colors in the foreground, and low-contrast, soft colors in the distance. This is called "arial perspective". In real life, distant views are always less sharp due to moisture and dust in the air.

My Christmas layout is 11' deep.  I tried forced perspective one year using HO buildings in the rear.  For ME it didn't work.  I think for 2 reasons:

1. My eyes, in person, could easily tell they were just small non-O buildings, and,

2. Like was mentioned above, my track ran right by them and when the train was in the area it really looked dumb, bluntly speaking.

BUT.... and this is always something that I believed in: forced perspective looks great in pictures where your eyes are only seeing that 2D image.  When 3D your eyes 'know'.  As long as some of the advice given above is followed.  Maybe on some of the gargantuan layouts that we see in print it could work in person, but on layouts like my smallish 11' deep one I don't think it works well in person

- walt

walt rapp posted:

My Christmas layout is 11' deep.  I tried forced perspective one year using HO buildings in the rear.  For ME it didn't work.  I think for 2 reasons:

1. My eyes, in person, could easily tell they were just small non-O buildings, and,

2. Like was mentioned above, my track ran right by them and when the train was in the area it really looked dumb, bluntly speaking.

BUT.... and this is always something that I believed in: forced perspective looks great in pictures where your eyes are only seeing that 2D image.  When 3D your eyes 'know'.  As long as some of the advice given above is followed.  Maybe on some of the gargantuan layouts that we see in print it could work in person, but on layouts like my smallish 11' deep one I don't think it works well in person

- walt

I presume you mean 11" (inches) deep.  I'm thinking I agree. This element needs a little more depth to work. Maybe a couple of feet in either depth or height, or both. There have been some effective examples of the concept shown here though. 

TedW posted:

walt rapp posted:

My Christmas layout is 11' deep.  I tried forced perspective one year using HO buildings in the rear.  For ME it didn't work.  I think for 2 reasons:

1. My eyes, in person, could easily tell they were just small non-O buildings, and,

2. Like was mentioned above, my track ran right by them and when the train was in the area it really looked dumb, bluntly speaking.

BUT.... and this is always something that I believed in: forced perspective looks great in pictures where your eyes are only seeing that 2D image.  When 3D your eyes 'know'.  As long as some of the advice given above is followed.  Maybe on some of the gargantuan layouts that we see in print it could work in person, but on layouts like my smallish 11' deep one I don't think it works well in person

- walt

I presume you mean 11" (inches) deep.  I'm thinking I agree. This element needs a little more depth to work. Maybe a couple of feet in either depth or height, or both. There have been some effective examples of the concept shown here though. 

I meant 11 FEET.  In person that distance can't fool eyes, at least not mine.

I do have some nice "forced perspective" pictures of that year that I tried, as long as no trains were near the smaller buildings.

- walt

TedW posted:

You all have already helped me immensely.  Right concept, wrong execution. I will put this back in the drawer for another layout. As you can see from the picture I only have 10" track to corner with circa 20" legs. Not enough room to pull it off.  Please continue the discussion however cause I'm learning. And I need the ideas for this corner. Ted

Cut the corner off and round the edge to follow the track - use Masonite to bend for a fascia.

Trainman2001 posted:

This is a timely post since I have this mountain and am thinking about putting a small lodge up on its flanks and was thinking about using forced perspective, perhaps HO or S Gauge.

Where do you want a viewer's eye to go?

You have directed attention to the tunnel portal near the wires on the wall with the lighting.

I suggest doing it with lighting and keep everything to scale. Play with some spots and floods.

You have a nice for result on that whole area worthy of the effort that you put into it!

Although a little blurry, the buildings on the second level in the corner are HO and blend in really nicely.