Purist or hybrid?

[sgoti]

"What is your intent?"

I come from a background in microferroequinology.

I see this discussion as a parallel to someone who builds a railroad model completely from scratch because they want the challenge versus someone who uses various materials and commercial parts because that's what they want.

In my view, neither is the right way or the wrong way, they are simply different approaches to re-creating something in miniature.

It is truly fascinating to see someone who has the time, patience, and skills turn out a fantastic model that is 100 percent paper.

It is also inspiring to see someone turn out a beautiful model that uses whatever gave the best results, whether it be paper or something else.

Or something to that effect...

[paperPino]

I am not a purist, although I do try to create my patterns entirely with paper. But for me it is easier because I do not reproduce reality in scale, but, as Walter Ruffler says: "the paper-machines do not try to imitate reality in a smaller scale, but fundamental is the idea of movement or the intention to tell a story. In this sense the designs are original in a 1 : 1 -size". So I can do whatever I want, and I try to design my models in such a way that I only ever use paper. And there's another reason: if I want to share my designs with the rest of the world, I try not to make life difficult: it's all in that pdf file, without any other need (wood, plastic, metal, etc...).

[Laurence Finston]

Also not a purist. One of the things that's interesting to me about paper and cardboard is that they can be used to make prototypes for things to be built with other materials with a minimum of mess and noise.

I used to have a workshop, mostly for woodworking, but unfortunately I don't have it anymore. I can work with paper in my apartment without disturbing my neighbors.

I think the more materials one is familiar with, the better. I did a lot of needlework at one time and got some ideas which are applicable to working with paper.

I agree that there's a certain charm in limiting the tools or materials one uses for some projects but I wouldn't want to do this for every project.

[dhanners]

While a model that is entirely paper is nice, it is probably unrealistic, at least for most of us. Even with the best modelers, there are some shapes and features that other materials are just better at replicating. I applaud those who wish to remain a paper purist, but also don't begrudge someone who steps outside of paper. (As long as they're not using styrene, that is....)

Also, maybe we should expand our definitions. Wood is just "pre-paper," so if you're using a wood dowel or a kabob skewer, it is basically the same as paper. It just hasn't been processed into paper yet.

[gotham]

I wouldn't worry about 'pure' paper models - remember some companies provide laser-cut components for their paper models.

[Lex]

Originally Posted by gotham

I wouldn't worry about 'pure' paper models - remember some companies provide laser-cut components for their paper models.

Aha, but laser-cut is still paper! I think you mean photo-etch...

[Butelczynski]

I'll use anything and everything I can think of to make model better or stronger. I used pretty much everything Airdave mentioned plus few more like x-ray films (windows/canopies),glass,welding rods of various sizes,lead,screws,nuts etc. Being welder very heavily contributes to my model making (and takes time away in turn).

[Isaac]

While I prefer paper models over plastic ( and I built hundreds of each ), there are many things paper can't do no matter how you try. For example, curving 3D sections as in the nose cone of an aircraft. Some designers resort to petal design that at best is difficult to form, but still look goofy.


case in point :
My Yak-25M radar nose made of paper. Looks like crap!



and a plastic vacuform nose I made and painted. Looks great.




So the conversation on purist is the same as which religion is right or wrong. Neither will get you anywhere.


My input.


Isaac

[Dane]

This is an eternal conversation. The decisive argument: "I like it ...." This is while we are building for our own pleasure.
But, if we start a competition, then clear rules will be needed for evaluating models. Otherwise, we will never be able to figure out who is the best modeler: the person or his CNC machines.
On this topic, I wrote a small work called "Theoretic declaration about paper model. Reasonings about the arrangement of model made from a paper, structure of its materials and appearance." (Only in Russian. If it is needed I could translate in English). I tried to present my view on paper modeling as a separate genre of modeling.
So you can build anything and from anything. The question is, will it be a paper model?

[AP40rocktruck]

Fantastic responses and thoughts from so many. This is the enviroment for model sharing and discussion I have been searching for. I'm grateful to all & to be here. About 7 years ago there was a forum for Timber modeling (logging related) that was as open and relaxed as this forum. Sadly the fellow that started it passed away & no one else could access it administrative side to keep it alive.

As I add non-paper elements to my paper models, this will be clearly explained in my future posts. Such as adding an ABS sub structure to the paper frame of the MST2200 currently in the beginning stages.

Which brings me to yet another question:

On of the sections with in my Manufacturing Processes course I teach we do hands on "Sheet metal folding". With in that the most important consideration is "bending allowance". Paper / Card/ natural fiber sheets, etc. all have varying thickness. Do you find that there is sufficient allowances in paper models (printed form) to account for these variables?

Cheers
AP40
aka Rick