1:48 Scale Cardstock Structure Flat

[finescalerr]

I actually built another model. It will be part of a three structure complex, ranging from 3 to 5 inches deep, part of a proposed waterfront scene. So all structures will be "flats".

Everything except the unpainted wood shingles and planks and the styrene porch roof framing is paper. Next time, if I continue with that material, I'll probably use individual boards. Otherwise I'll return to building with wood. -- Russ

[finescalerr]

Another view. -- Russ

[finescalerr]

Porch Detail. -- Russ

[John McGuyer]

Now to take your building into Photoshop and weather it before you print it. We'll call you "Uncle Origami".

John

[TRAINS1941]

Russ

Very nice indeed.  I thought the boxcar was excellent, now your building a whole town front.

Jerry

[marc_reusser]

Russ,

Knowing the history of this project, I have to say i think it came out superb.  I think you absolutely achieved what you were seeking to do. 

The only to comments/critiques I could offer, is that  on a prototype building of this level of care/construction there would likely be a vertical rectangular plate behind the door knob that also has a keyhole in it below the knob.

.....and.....I am not sure why that "filler strip" of wood is there under the door sill (along the wall on top of the step).

Marc

[finescalerr]

Oh, Marc, you WOULD notice those flaws! I tried building a plate and keyhole from 0.010-inch styrene but it was too thick. I have no 0.005 stock (also too thick) and paper is too flimsy. I gave up. But I did turn down the knob from a straight pin head. I'm proud of that little tidbit.

The filler on the step is there because the step somehow tore apart the wall laminations as I approached the end of construction. I thought I might have to trash the entire model. (The wall behind the step was really a mess.) When I tried to replace the step there was an unsightly two or three scale inch wide gap. Apparently either the paper behind the step had warped or just enough glue had built up to prevent a flush fit. The glue, in the meantime, had set with the step firmly in place against the wall and on the porch. Rather than leave the gap I did what any self-respecting handyman would have done; I added trim.

Had the model been made of wood, that problem never would have occurred.

No matter how hard I try, nearly every one of my models has suffered a similar mishap. If you look at enough of them, you'll find places where you'd ask, "Why is that there?" Indeed, some people would ask, "Why is the entire model there?"

At least you didn't ask, as Curt Johnson did, why I didn't fit the windows closer to one another with a single vertical trim strip between them!

Russ

[chester]

A beautiful card stock structure. But since it was brought up, why didn't you trim the windows together? (just being a smart ass no need to answer)

[marc_reusser]

I thought that was just a "builders design choice"...or maybe they didn't have a long enough header for the span

It's also noticeable that he left off the 1/4" off-set between/at the wind frame to trim joint/transition (same at door).....but we'll call that Tom's fault and not yours...so we'll let you slide on it this time Russ.

Marc

[finescalerr]

Not long ago, Crystal River's windows would have been just right for my structures. But as I've analyzed the models on this site and from the Terrapin guys, I no longer am satisfied with the framing despite its being far better than Grandt Line's parts. That's why, on my next structure, I'll use Crystal River's sash but neither the unmodified window framing nor sills. And it is why I need to re-evaluate the use of paper, styrene, and wood for the next project.

In a scale larger than 1:48, the use of wood would be a "no brainer". And, in HO or smaller scales, paper is usually superior to wood when representing painted wood. But 1/4-inch = 1 foot is an interesting scale because the grain and texture of bass and other woods to represent painted wood often are overstated. Raw plastic may lack sufficient texture and it is difficult to distress to the proper degree, let alone to finish so that it is indistiguishable from actual painted or whitewashed wood. Paper has its own shortcomings.

A few years ago the model I just built might have met my expectations. At this point I find it somewhere between marginal and very good, short of outstanding, and certainly not superb.

I'm very open to suggestion before tackling the second structure of the trio. Shall I attempt to refine paper modeling? Should I throw up my hands in despair and attack the project with wood? Maybe styrene? Modeling clay? Chickenfat?

The only limiting factor is that I hate to spend dozens of hours distressing, painting, and weathering. Construction is tedious enough without that. Yet I hope to achieve contest quality and I have some doubt that an inkjet printer and paper will provide the solution.

Russ

[TRAINS1941]

Unc

Chickenfat!!  That may be hard to stain or paint.
Well we all know what you can do with paper or cardstock so why don't you give wood a shot?
If that doesn't work the way you want you could always go back and refine paper modeling.
I'm sure you will make a wise choice!!

Jerry

[John McGuyer]

Uncle Origami,

Why limit yourself to one material? There are places where paper has real advantages and so on with every other material. I would venture that the next step in your paper is embossing. By the way, do you think a little MIG pigments in chicken fat might make cool grease stains?

John

[finescalerr]

I promise to expound on the multitude of modeling applications chickenfat can provide. I am still exploring its apparently limitless qualities.

But on a more immediate subject, my previous post was not so much to ask for votes on what "single" material to use for a model but to get some input on whether you characters think paper still has a shot against the more traditional materials for painted wood walls on a structure in relatively new condition.

Professors Doan and Birrell (among others here) seem to have come close to the ultimate expression of distressed wood on models with peeling paint. Anything I might do would simply copy their techniques. And those techniques require more time and patience than I can devote to my next model.

Doctors Reusser and Jones (among some others) are pushing the plastic frontier. I doubt I could add anything sigificant to their contributions.

That is one reason why I mess with paper. And any new attempt would dispense with scribed artwork. I would cut individual boards and build up walls as though I were using strips of wood. (I have learned, after trying every possible technique, that you can't distress paper with a wire brush or sandpaper as you can wood or plastic. You can only emboss it.)

So do you guys think the inherent surface texture of paper is superior or inferior to any other material for a 1:48 scale model representing painted wood that has not yet begin to peel? And consider how it looks under magnification versus wood or distressed styrene. The latter materials usually look too coarse when you really scrutinize them.

What is a model's most important quality -- precise replication of texture or a more impressionistic overstatement that may "appear" to be more realistic from a foot or two away?

Russ

[lab-dad]

Well since I was mentioned I will put my two cents in.

So do you guys think the inherent surface texture of paper is superior or inferior to any other material for a 1:48 scale model representing painted wood that has not yet begin to peel?
YES, brand new, perfect wood. I have had luck with "slightly" distressing paper to show the beginnings of age.

And consider how it looks under magnification versus wood or distressed styrene. The latter materials usually look too coarse when you really scrutinize them.
I agree, but it depends how the model will be viewed, shot up close with a macro lense or from 3 feet away on my layout.
Of course everything most of us builds ends up being looked at under a microscope.

What is a model's most important quality -- precise replication of texture or a more impressionistic overstatement that may "appear" to be more realistic from a foot or two away?
Thats a hard "general" statement. But for me I try to find a compromise I like and can live with
Also we are all "artists, like it or not, and like an artist we are trying to evoke a feeling.......
-Marty

Russ

[TRAINS1941]

Well that was well said Martin.

Can't really add much to that you did semm to cover most of the bases of Russ's questions.

Jerry