>>7652775Or you could try not being a cunt and acting like this is /v/ or /b/.
Anyway, 60/40 was something I initially said while trying to get my thoughts together on what I meant, after that conversation I came up with a much better test / way to put it.
I call this the George Bailey (It's a Wonderful Life) test. Start with some track and a train that can run and has something to do, see:
>>7650302for a better explanation, then perform the following to tell if you could benefit from more scenery or if you could do with trimming it back a bit:
Imagine your entire layout area without any trains, rolling stock or train track of any type and (where applicable) no external indicators of it being a model railway like a name attached to the side of the board and the power controller etc.
Now that you've imagined that, imagine showing the result to 100 random people who've never seen it before:
Test 1: >Is it still interesting to look at?
If no, it's still a model train layout but it would benefit from some additional scenery. If yes, proceed to the next test:
Test 2: >Would most of these people be able to quickly recognise that this was a model railway, or at least that something is missing (repeat with and without ballast)
If no in either repetition, you've gone overboard with the scenery and it's basically a diorama at this point. If yes, congratulations you've hit a good sweet spot for your layout and have neither too much nor too little scenery. The closer you are to all 100 random people very quickly realizing that there's a bunch of trains and track missing but having it still be interesting to look at anyway, the closer to perfection you are at.
