Just say NO to puffballs...unless...
Well, since you asked, I have to say no, it doesn't look okay. But that's because I really don't like puff ball trees. Since I first saw them I have never liked them. Sorry. If they look good to you, go for it, but here are a few things to consider.
Let me make this as constructive and helpful as possible. I was born in Virginia, grew up in Florida, and spent alot of time traveling around the southeast, so I 'studied' Appalachian forests like most people know art - they may not know anything about it but they know what they like. It just has to have a certain look. Puffball trees never seem to do it for me. They're too dense and compact, too uniform, and too often are placed on a layout in such a way that the aforementioned forced perspective is not used to full advantage.
But then I actually learned more about why I like the look I do, and why puffballs don't work (for me). First, trees have trunks and branches, and they rarely produce a manicured, round blob of foliage except in public places where they're trimmed or city parks where they can grow full and round - if the variety naturally makes that shape. Many varieties in appalachian forests, if left standing alone in an open field, would NOT make a simple round shape, but more of a spade or triangle or lumpy oval. Grown in a forest they would definately not make a vast carpet of evenly spaced bumps. So the argument about "this is just a canopy" just doesn't hold water in my book. To my eye it should be less round and more pointy.
Also on trunks - at the edge of the forest, especially along railroad cuts, fence lines, etc. You can see trunks. The 'canopy' should not just roll down onto the ground. The smaller trees and shrubs that take advantage of the extra light a forest edge allows are a different look from the canopy. Also the full vertical aspect of the tree is more easily seen at the edge of the forest. Even if you only put a few trunks under the edge of the canopy, it'll still be an improvement to suggest the illusion that this is a forest, not a shrub farm.
Density - shrubs are dense, trees are airy. Again, this is just my opinion and how I perceive a big appalachian forest look. Poke some holes in that fiber and stretch it thin. This will create more relief texture for a closer forest. Of course there are exceptions to that rule like many rhodies & mountain laurels are spindly and scraggly while others are dense and round naturally...but these are forest floor shrubs, not canopy trees.
Color and texture. Joe has some good words on this subject in his Tenmile DVD series. I think you're already off to a good start using the leaf flake foliage and the variety in color. Again, personally, I prefer brighter greens; Woodland scenics colors are a little too muted for my taste and I usually end up spraying them with a brighter shade.. I think there's a negative connotation with these bright greens for many modelers because some poorly made toy train set trees that look far from realistic were painted in these colors. Just a guess.
I could probably go on and on about trees, but this is enough for now. I hope this helps provoke some thought. Like I said, if you're happy then great, but there are many options for modeling forests convincingly.
Galen
