What Is The Most Difficut Scenic Effect to Achieve ?

mwb posted:

and 4'x8' sheets, really?  My layout is wrap around the room and little is more than 30" deep, and the room is only 11' x 13' with the layout covering just barely 60' sq.  There's a good stretch along the one side that will have nothing there except trees, brush, and other rural scenery stuff framing the tracks. 

Which is exactly why "around the walls" layouts are preferable, as we both realize, for creating individual scenes where just about everything can be full scale. It is also the most efficient way of using space in most rooms.

But, Martin, you also have to realize that a large portion of the audience around here think only in terms of "center of the room island layouts". It's a hard sell to convince them otherwise. 

That audience is obviously the reason why I chose the 4' x 8' plywood sheet reference to compare layout dimensions to prototype areas....just using a frame of reference many can relate to. It's definitely not a recommendation as to how to build a layout.

I'm also not sure why you seemed to equate selective compression for buildings mainly with the RTR products on the marketplace and something to be avoided.

Of course, it's not necessary or desirable for modeling most rural structures, but it's featured often enough in the hobby press (including the magazine to which you contribute) as a way to create a big city atmosphere or that of a large railroad terminal building, etc. in a reasonable space. Many beautiful models on great model railroads have been scratch built with selectively compressed dimensions.

Maybe you didn't mean to pan selective compression in general, but it came out that way.

I would prefer to point out ways that the typical modeler who wants yards, engine terminals, city scenes, etc., etc. can create a more spacious feeling in a small amount of real estate. Selective compression is a prime modeling technique for this purpose....and one that can be applied not only to structures, but also to trees, landforms, etc., etc. on a model railroad.

Jim

Jim Policastro posted:

But, Martin, you also have to realize that a large portion of the audience around here think only in terms of "center of the room island layouts". It's a hard sell to convince them otherwise.  

It's also hard to convince modelers (in almost any scale larger than N) to use the right sized stuff where they can use it. The only reason O scalers use mostly HO scale trees is because most of the time, that's the biggest you can get without taking out a bank loan for custom made trees or taking so much time to make them by hand, you'd have been better off going with a smaller scale in the first place.

I'm continually baffled as to why people chose to use compressed sized... everything on a layout in places where they don't need to do so. We as modelers have almost been collectively brainwashed into thinking that's the only way to do anything.

I agree with the "Lots of Trees" challenge. I'm just beginning a large mountain project. It's almost 8' X 8' which is almost 64 sq ft. of surface area that will need terrain, landscaping, ground cover and then foliage. It's going to freak me out. I want it to look sort of Appalachian like Bob Batizek's layout. At the minimum it's going to take bags of lichen, and some trees. As noted, O'scale needs big trees!