One other consideration: if you make them tall you need to also make them wide. It looks like the foliage of even 100ft spruce would be a foot in diameter in S Scale. If you're talking about Sitka spruce, and you pick a not-so-tall 150ft, you might end up planting them two to three feet apart. Not sure about a shelf: you could build half trees against the backdrop, but a 150 ft tree would still extend 9 inches into the scene.
Didn't Jess Bennett make scale sized trees? I heard every visitor said they were too tall to be scale. I think we get used to certain wrong-sized things on layouts, and then right sized things look odd. This is down the road for me, but I think when I get to that corner I'm going to start with some 100 foot trees and see how they look in groups. I think more smaller trees might give a better impression than fewer really tall ones. -Michael Eldridge -Half done sheetrocking the new room (that's drywall for you Eastern roads) --- In [email protected], Bob Werre <bob@...> wrote: > One thought is that if you're modeling trees you may want them to the > height that Dave is talking about. This is ideal for the shelf type > layout where the background is really close. ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
