In message <web.42d322fa811cc7c3ad93754b0@news.povray.org>, PM 2Ring 
<nomail@nomail.?.invalid> writes
>Alex <pov### [at] lazysodorguk> wrote:

>> Currently unemployed, I decided to have another crack at doing Penrose
>> tiles, the hard way. After a week I gave up and did them the easy way :)
>
>They can be tricky! :) What technique did you use? Here's one I posted back
>in April:  <web.425b6e5da45a985aad93754b0@news.povray.org>
>
See other post. I'm afraid I must have missed your post, I've been 
subscribed to the group for some time but skipped some posts recently in 
order to catch up. I shall attempt to request it with my newsreader!

>I first started using Penrose macros from Boxer by John VanSickle, but I
>ended up making up my own macros. I can post the sources if anyone's
>interested.
>
I remember seeing some of those animations. Some interesting patterns & 
objects. Can't say I can remember any Penrose tiles, I may go look 
later.

>> I also wanted to create some more Geomag models. Geomag consist of 27mm
>> long magnetic rods, and half inch diameter steel ball bearings. I
>> originally modelled it 2 or 3 years ago, based on a set I bought as a
>> present for my sister. Since then I've bought a load for myself, which
>> has a new rod design, and different colours. The shapes here are very
>> simple, I have built shapes with up to 540 rods and weighing over 3Kg
>> (As soon as I'm earning again I must go buy some more...).
>
>They lok like fun, but a bit pricey for what you get.

Yes it's expensive, but very very good. Once you have some you want to 
go out and buy some more, to make bigger things! There are some cheap 
copycat sets about (I have some), but they are pathetic.

>FWIW, you can get very
>powerful magnets out of dead hard drives.
>
I've taken 2 apart before. I have several other dead ones I could 
dismantle. The magnets are very brittle, though.

>>JPEG compression has done strange things to the
>> magenta piece.
>
>I normally try to use JPEG quality of 90% for pics I post here, and a little
>smoothing to hide artifacts, but sometimes using .png is the only way to
>show the true quality of an image.
>
The .png version was 851KB, I couldn't find any guidelines for 
attachment sizes, but I thought it a little big.

>Anyway, here's a close-up of an earlier Penrose tiling I did. We seem to
>have chosen similar colour schemes.
>
I chose my colours so they averaged to 50% grey, that was the first pair 
I found that didn't look awful. I thought it might help the appearance 
of the blurred reflections of distant tiles.

I notice you've divided your tiles up to show both the rhomb and the 
kites/darts tiling together, that's pretty smart. And you've done proper 
curved edges, I just did a flat bevel by intersection of planes.
-- 
Alex

Post a reply to this message