| Author |
Message |
|
Joined: March 27, 2009
Posts: 1014
Submissions: 4
Location: Southeastern Minnesota
|
| Standing Scale Questions |
|
| Posted on Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:17 pm |
Link to Post:  |
|
I was recently browsing through the weave library and came across a weave, Standing Scale, that I thought I might like to try. I noticed in the AR portion a note stating that this weave used multiple ring sizes and to check the weave description for more information. However, in the description itself, there is no mention of different ring sizes or even which sizes were used to make the example piece. Also, the description is not very clear. For instance
| Quote: | | is a modification of a very loose DS (that is, one where the smaller set of rings fits fully inside the larger rings) |
I'm not sure about anyone else, but with DS, my smaller rings ALWAYS fit fully inside the larger rings. I thought that was requisite to make DS. Based on the picture of the weave, it looks as though the smaller rings are sized to fit just BARELY inside of the larger rings. Perhaps that's what the description was trying to get at instead?
Has anyone made this weave, or knows of some ring sizes that would work with it? Does the weave truly require an AR of 9.0 for the large ring, or is the ratio between the different sizes more important? |
|
|
reform
 [ Voice ]
Joined: December 20, 2010
Posts: 71
Submissions: 0
|
|
|
| Posted on Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:14 pm |
Link to Post: |
|
| I don't know anything about that weave, but it looks to me like it uses three rings sizes, not two. One big, one small, and another that is slightly smaller than the big. Good luck with this, it looks neat for sure. |
|
|
Joined: December 22, 2007
Posts: 3615
Submissions: 99
Location: Hampton, Virginia USA
|
| Re: Standing Scale Questions |
|
| Posted on Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:59 am |
Link to Post: |
|
| Vorondil wrote: | | I was recently browsing through the weave library and came across a weave, Standing Scale, that I thought I might like to try. I noticed in the AR portion a note stating that this weave used multiple ring sizes and to check the weave description for more information. However, in the description itself, there is no mention of different ring sizes or even which sizes were used to make the example piece. |
I'm not sure where the ring sizes used went. There may not have been any in the original submission. The submission process was not very strict in the beginning.
| Vorondil wrote: | Also, the description is not very clear. For instance
| Quote: | | is a modification of a very loose DS (that is, one where the smaller set of rings fits fully inside the larger rings) |
I'm not sure about anyone else, but with DS, my smaller rings ALWAYS fit fully inside the larger rings. I thought that was requisite to make DS. |
Actually, it's not a bad description. It's just very loose floppy Dragonscale with some added rings to make it less loose and floopy.  What he means in the quote is that in Dragonscale the ring edges overlap and cause a scaling effect. In Standing Scale, the rings are so loose that the scale effect disappears because the smaller ring lays flatly inside the large ring instead of sticking up through it.
| Vorondil wrote: | | Based on the picture of the weave, it looks as though the smaller rings are sized to fit just BARELY inside of the larger rings. Perhaps that's what the description was trying to get at instead? |
Exactly! 
| Vorondil wrote: | | Has anyone made this weave, or knows of some ring sizes that would work with it? Does the weave truly require an AR of 9.0 for the large ring, or is the ratio between the different sizes more important? |
I have not made it, but I do know that you need to make the large rings very large or they will scale just like in Dragonscale. I would start with an AR of around 9.0, then find a ring that just fits inside that one and make some Dragonscale. Then use trial and error to pick a ring size that will just barely go around the two large and two smaller rings that the extra rings stablize.
If you make some, be sure and post pictures and ring sizes! We LOVE pictures and ring sizes. 
|
|
|
Joined: March 27, 2009
Posts: 1014
Submissions: 4
Location: Southeastern Minnesota
|
|
|
| Posted on Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:22 am |
Link to Post: |
|
| reform wrote: | | I don't know anything about that weave, but it looks to me like it uses three rings sizes, not two. |
Yes, that is correct. I was only referring to two ring sizes because I was talking about the relation to Dragonscale. The third, smallest ring is the vertical ring that makes this weave unique from DS. This is also why I was asking about ring sizes, because I was guessing the smallest ring was the one using a different wire gauge.
@lorraine
To be honest, I didn't really understand what you said there at first. Luckily, I had a sample of dragonscale on hand that I could study closely and look for any differences. To anyone else who might still be confused, look only at the rows of large rings. Notice that the top of one row is basically touching the bottom of the adjacent row. This is an important characteristic due to the added vertical rings in Standing Scale. In normal dragonscale, the top row would be partially covering the row underneath it.
Much to my dismay, it seems the large ARs are important here. Namely because adding the vertical rings would be too obnoxious otherwise (and because they wouldn't really fit in normal DS). Based on these observations, I would say that the relation between the rings is basically the same as dragonscale, but the ARs are much larger to give it the desired look and layout.
If I get around to making this weave, I'll try to report my results. However, I have some other sculpture-like project to work on that has a higher priority than this.  |
|
|
reform
[ Voice ]
Joined: December 20, 2010
Posts: 71
Submissions: 0
|
|
|
| Posted on Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:18 pm |
Link to Post: |
|
| Vorondil wrote: |
Yes, that is correct. I was only referring to two ring sizes because I was talking about the relation to Dragonscale. The third, smallest ring is the vertical ring that makes this weave unique from DS. This is also why I was asking about ring sizes, because I was guessing the smallest ring was the one using a different wire gauge.
|
When I went back later to look at the weave page I noticed that it even said that. I got what you meant once that clicked for me. I think lorraines post helped as well. When I first looked at the picture it was hard to tell what the medium sized ring was doing exactly. I'm definitely interested in seeing if you can figure out some sizes for this. |
|
|
