Martin B-26 Marauder

Discussion in 'Internet Finds' started by chrisstahl, Jun 10, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. chrisstahl

    chrisstahl Paperworker

    Hi Everyone,

    my Martin B-26/JM-1 Marauder in 1:60 is now available for (free) download.


    Check it out at:

    I hope you like it!
  2. cmags

    cmags Guest

    Wow, that looks great! Well done, and thanks for sharing it for free! :thumb:

    Wow, and to boot it comes in dozens of paint schemes, and with a target drone! Incredible!
  3. Gixergs

    Gixergs Well-Known Member

    Stunning,fantastic and amazing great models thank you so much for them.
  4. wccrawford

    wccrawford Novice Papercrafter

    I don't usually like plane models, but that one is nice! Thanks for providing it!
  5. Elliott

    Elliott Senior Member

    Beautiful models indeed!

    I get 404 errors on these files:

    "Hard to Get" USAAF 1943
    Marauder Mk. II RAF 1944
    "Grandirondt" Free French Air Force 1944
    White version

    Thanks for your generosity, Chris. I like all your Gloster Gladiator versions also. Marvelous work and so many versions!
  6. cmags

    cmags Guest

  7. MAJOR

    MAJOR Member

    Where on earth am i going to put all this lot. Have only just started to build the IAC Glady. The boss will go mental when she see's this lot being printed. look's like i'm goin' to have to live in the shed. Orange version is first on the list.
    Nice one Chris, they are fantastic.
  8. BARX2

    BARX2 Member

    Thanks Chris. Fantastic work! I'll try to build this.
  9. redwolf28386

    redwolf28386 Member

    Nice one! It'll go to the top of my "must build" stack!
  10. jagolden

    jagolden Guest

    Chris, thanks for the fine model!
    All the liveries make for a great collection!
  11. cgutzmer

    cgutzmer Guest

    how could we not like it??? :)
  12. Ronson2k3

    Ronson2k3 Member

    It's a great looking aircraft. You could perhaps do it's predecessor 'B-25 Mitchel'. Anyway I wanted to say a little the graphic work. As I've scene many times. The panel lines are black and this isn't a bad plan if the aircraft is dark (grey or other predominently dark color). From an aircraft standpoint though the plane is painted after assembly (the 1:1 version). In this case. The plane is painted and the panel lines simulated. To that end the panel lines are separations in the panels and the lines being the gaps and or shadows between the panels and other control surfaces.

    What does this all mean. Well what I'm talking about is surface modeling. When modeling or in this case creating the graphic for printing thinking like the painter painting the 1:1 version or that of a modeler that has built the model and then painted it. The panels and division points between parts are for the most part shadow. A tip if I may. You can create a separate layer for the panel lines in your graphic software and this layer can then be tweaked in darkness (opacity) till the desired amount of 'shadow' is found. This is metered by not only how it looks on screen but also how the printer prints out the parts. As that ultimately is where it is going. So a few test prints will give you a value of that layer that gives a good impression of the 'shadow' in the panel gaps.

    Just like the full size plane there is the completed aircraft (without paint) and the painted version. The completed aircraft being all the panels and control surfaces. This then influences the painted version by giving shadow to the painted areas. As the printed version of the lets say wing has no panels only simulated ones you have to simulate the shadow. It's an axiom in modeling 'Model what you see not what you know is there' As shadows are what you see panels are what you know are there.

    You can take this one step farther if you have the patience. You can also add highlights to this as well (rivets and other protruding parts). This can add depth to the model that can also be simulated from a printing standpoint. It can also draw attention to shadow area. If the shadow is subtle. Again metering from a printout standpoint. Once you have done a few tests though you will find levels that work good for both shadow and highlight (if you make a note of those levels) they should work well for many if not all models.

    So when making the panel lines you are actually modeling the shadows you see where those panels are connected to the frame of the aircraft. While not indented unless your doing that too they can be quite simulated to a degree with 'darkening layer' in your graphic software used to paint your model. Of course many other layers can be used to further enhance your models.

    Weathering Layer - Add dirt grime grease drippings ware and tare to parts.
    (Note: aircraft are nearly always well maintained so ware may not be a modeling point. However for aircraft in combat conditions this could be a bit less then a display or demonstration aircraft. You could show battle damage if you kept subtle the effect could be quite special).

    Reflection Layer - This would be for parts that would reflect other parts or the ground if the area is bare metal or painted and gloss coated. If bare metal the area would be greatly reflective and can be simulated pretty well. If it's a gloss coating it's much more subtle and more of shadowed and 'highlighted' paint with a hint of other parts of the plane being 'ghosted' in the reflection.

    Highlighted parts layers - This would be for parts that protrude (eg rivets, handles, canopy frame). As well as the leading edge of panels and control surfaces. It may be good to have more then one of these layers as there are different levels of highlight at work. Similar to the Shadow layer this would be based on the depth of the part your modeling. Less depth less of the part is catching the sun. Also as you are working for the most part in 2D you have to think of the part in a 2D way. Like painting a picture of the plane as opposed to the 3D model of the part.

    Shadow Layer - This is the most basic of layers. You can have it as black and it works pretty good. Illustrating the panel and control surface separation location. However if you just darken the 'paint' of the aircraft you will find it makes the panels and other parts sit down as it were. Black is a very sharp shadow if it was less the depth of shadow (nearness to the lighted area) is much less. So you can use shades of grey and that could work on aircraft that are dark in color or variations on black to white. If it's painted a different color or many different colors a 'Darkening (shadow) layer' will work better. This darkens the painted layer of the aircraft or model. Other added advantages are that it works on all types of surface coloring (eg aircraft ID, registration, insignia). As the surface is covered by these as well. You may not want to run a black line through them but a shadow will make the panel and insignia pop.

    Some graphic software will let you create bump map. This does all the highlight and shadow for you but the difficulty in this form is that the bump map works in 2D. As your making a 3D part in 2D form it's tedious at best and problematic at worst to use one. A manual bump map is what you would create.

    The more subtle the effect the more that will draw the eye of the viewer into the model. You can add details you would never have thought possible in a card model. It is essentially a 2D model in 3D form. 2D from the standpoint that it is printed (Flat) and then shaped. By adding shadows and highlights it will make it appear the surface is more 3D. Giving depth to the surface of the model. In essence you would be modeling with paint or lack of paint as the case may be.

    I know that's perhaps a lot and believe me it's not a critique of your model. Your skills are quite great. I'm offering the concept to further enhance your modeling as Emeril would say taking up a notch.

    Others may have more experience (working in card stock) then I in this area. I come from CG 3D and Flight sim modeling world. I have done this in technical illustrations though with great effect. As I'm not sure if it's an entirely new idea or something that someone has mentioned before I can't say this for certain. I am thinking though that bump mapping could be the wave of the future for card modeling if embossing (physically adding bump to the card stock) is too difficult.

    Hoping only to be helpful and creative.
  13. RyanShort1

    RyanShort1 Member

    For the record, there are good reasons why bump mapping is less desirable to some of us. Especially if you want to be able to scale or resize the model. Vector graphics like he's used are able to be resized without any loss of information - something you just can't do with a BMP cardmodel. That said, those are some good points above. Hopefully as the designers get better with vector illustration and techniques develop, we'll see more of the things you've mentioned above.

  14. René

    René New Member


    your models are great !!! Thank you:thumb:

    What´s the next ?!!

    maybe Bac Canberra or british jet bombers of the fiftees ( Valiant,Victor ,Vulcan etc) ?

    Greetings René
  15. jagolden

    jagolden Guest

    Ron, WOW, great stuff! Can you point me to one of your paper model kits? Love to try one of those.
  16. Ronson2k3

    Ronson2k3 Member

    That was one thing I was thinking of too. Going out on limb a bit here because I'm not exactly sure. I've never converted vector graphics to a PDF document. I have done other types though. In those other types the information is converted to a format that the PDF 'Acrobat' reader can read. A vector graphic image is smaller as the data is mathematically calculated and converted as opposed to a scan of the document (raster) image. So the resulting PDF is smaller then it's raster converted cousin. That said the original image in PDF format should be scalable no matter what the input image format was.

    If making the image for use as a vector image or to be shared in that format. Then it would be quite a bit of work to draw again the bump map as a vector layer. It could be done but would triple the production time of the image. Unless the vectored panel lines could act as a bump? I've never tried that but wouldn't take long to find out?

    Scaling is one of the big bonuses for modeling in this form. I wouldn't want to give that up for lack of nicely bumped surface map.
  17. cmags

    cmags Guest

    Why was the link removed? Looks like an admin did it? (no edit note) :confused:
  18. Elliott

    Elliott Senior Member

    I was wondering the same thing. How do we benefit from a designer's work if we don't know how to access his site?
  19. cmags

    cmags Guest

    Well, he did post it before, and only has a few posts here (maybe that's why they blocked it?)... a quick search will bring it back up. That and its called Stahlhart Papercraft - first hit in Google. I still say its GREAT work! :thumb:
  20. Elliott

    Elliott Senior Member

    Well, my post seems to have disappeared. I guess what bothered me about the link being removed was the part that said OFFSITE. That puzzles me.

    Ennyhoo, I agree. His work is absolutely first-class. btw, the 404 error links I was having trouble with yesterday are fixed. Yippee!
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page