Regarding NSR
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
   
Author Message

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 776
Submissions: 43

Regarding NSR
Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:02 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Maybe I am beating a dead horse, here, but I "Hate" the NSR tag. I might have talked about this before, but I really dislike it...

While the following weaves cannot be recreated without NSR;

http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=152
http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=574

the following can; and I need to argue:

http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=227
Armadillo Skin, uses Washers, which have the properties of rings; I have never seen washers being used without them being interchangeable with rings.

Should washers be deemed NSR; then
http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=116
Needs to be tagged NSR.

http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/images/313-j6in1plate.jpg
J6-1 With plates is just a duplicate of J6-1. The plates here substitute a part of the pattern, but does nothing to change the structure.
(J6-1 for reference)
http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=16

http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=219
Saddle is just a duplicate of orbital (Link below for reference)
http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=364

http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=1042
http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=1043
http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=1044
http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=1045
http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=1046
All use key rings. While Key rings could be used for structural differences, but here, they are used, indistinguishable from rings, structurally.

http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=362
even admits to being just regular hp4-1(for reference)
http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=50

and finally;
http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=657
Scalemail is structurally indistinguishable from E4-1 (for reference)
http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=6

Just my pet peeve...


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer.

Joined: June 20, 2012
Posts: 334
Submissions: 22
Location: France

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:59 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

While I agree washers and split rings don't really qualify as NSR; scales, plates and bent rings do.

Scales and (some) bent rings make the weave behave differently, even if the connections remains the same. So the resulting weave variant is not the same than its standard version.
If washers or split rings have a similar effect in a specific configuration, I'll call it a NSR-weave too.

Plates have more the one hole. You simply cannot have the same connections with a standard single-hole ring.


J6-1 with plates: Indeed, the plates substitute a part of the J6-1 pattern, but you cannot substitute back a plate with a single ring.

Tower of Scales is not identical to HP4-1. The rubber rings are bent to give the weave a new shape.

Viking Scale Front's description and picture is even worse than Armadillo Skin, so I can't tell what the actual weave structure is. I presume it has an underlying E4-1 (that's how I would recreate its shape), but it's hard to be affirmative without seeing the rings.
"Weaving is very similar to pop tab armour, mixed with E4-1" <- Does it mean the actual structure, or just how it feels???

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 776
Submissions: 43

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:19 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Shirluban wrote:
While I agree washers and split rings don't really qualify as NSR; scales, plates and bent rings do.

Scales and (some) bent rings make the weave behave differently, even if the connections remains the same. So the resulting weave variant is not the same than its standard version.
If washers or split rings have a similar effect in a specific configuration, I'll call it a NSR-weave too.

Plates have more the one hole. You simply cannot have the same connections with a standard single-hole ring.


J6-1 with plates: Indeed, the plates substitute a part of the J6-1 pattern, but you cannot substitute back a plate with a single ring.

Tower of Scales is not identical to HP4-1. The rubber rings are bent to give the weave a new shape.

Viking Scale Front's description and picture is even worse than Armadillo Skin, so I can't tell what the actual weave structure is. I presume it has an underlying E4-1 (that's how I would recreate its shape), but it's hard to be affirmative without seeing the rings.
"Weaving is very similar to pop tab armour, mixed with E4-1" <- Does it mean the actual structure, or just how it feels???


I take it you agree with armadillo/Trinity, then?

Regarding Scales, Plates and bent rings;
Scales primarily change the aesthetic, but the way the weave expands is intact. Usually, Scalemail Combine E4-1 and J4-1; resulting in my biggest gripe with VSF being the lack of information. It does not belong in the weave library. From what I infer, VSF is E4-1, unlike many modern scale projects being J4-1.
The plates, may not be substituted by a single ring of the same size, but may be substituted by either a large ring, or a section. to me, it's "not really maille".
As for bent rings; while I agree that structural differences can be dependant on them being bent, but in the case of saddle vs orbital; they exhibit no non-aesthetic property differences.

regarding TOS, it behaves just as HP4-1. I have made both variants, and the result is clear. TOS is a duplicate. The rubber ring makes no noticable difference.


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer.

Joined: August 05, 2010
Posts: 623
Submissions: 28
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:15 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

This thread seems familiar. In fact, far too familiar. Almost as if it is a recitation of this thread without all the comments.

There are some very important key items in the end of that thread that have not changed.


while(!project.isFinished())
project.addRing();
// Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Eo.n Fper MFe.s Wsm Caws G0.8-1.6 I2.4-8.0 Pn Dcdejst Xw1 S07

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 776
Submissions: 43

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Jan 20, 2018 5:54 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

I disagree.

This is more like a breakout.

I am not arguing for the removal of most weaves.

I am just arguing that the tag NSR is bad; and only Two weaves truly are NSR.

Furthermore ”key items in the end”? What do you refer to?


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer.

Joined: August 05, 2010
Posts: 623
Submissions: 28
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Jan 20, 2018 11:47 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

This comment, specifically with respect to Trinitymaille and how it mentions "persian 3 in 1 sheet" in the text description.

This comes to the similar point that if the example image uses non-standard rings, it is tagged with NSR. As per the submission rules, we can't change the submission picture. (Not to throw this off into a tangent... but I've been thinking about making a tool that could truly bring the entire library into a uniform representation format.)

I see the NSR tag as an "example image contains NSR". IMO, the ones using washers that you've pointed out should get the tag (despite only the 2 using NSR as essential components).


while(!project.isFinished())
project.addRing();
// Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Eo.n Fper MFe.s Wsm Caws G0.8-1.6 I2.4-8.0 Pn Dcdejst Xw1 S07

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 776
Submissions: 43

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:09 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I don’t see How it relates to the topic here, möre than the concept of discussing something to death.

So we agree on that trinitymaille should be tagged NSR?

Would you elaborate? The tool described in the topic seems to not be what i understand from your comment here?


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer.

Joined: August 05, 2010
Posts: 623
Submissions: 28
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:24 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

The related topic is about changing things in the library (ie replacing pictures, or altering text descriptions). The current state of the NSR weave tag is based exclusively on the contents of the image presented (were the rings used in the example standard or not). To remove the tag, that image would need to be changed to provide an example without using NSR.

IMO, Trinitymaille should not be NSR. Square wire still falls into the "standard rings" in my book.
That being said, the gallery usage of the NSR tag includes square wire and multi-strands as NSR. For consistency, Trinitymaille should be tagged unless the image is changed.

I referenced my tool (in progress) because it could possibly add in a great deal of information that would help with your searches (and thus make all these complaints about the altering existing tags irrelevant).
Honestly, the NSR tag is better as the gallery tag. I think it's simply included in the weave attribute as well for completeness. It definitely functions as an image tag moreso than the structural interest you are looking for.


while(!project.isFinished())
project.addRing();
// Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Eo.n Fper MFe.s Wsm Caws G0.8-1.6 I2.4-8.0 Pn Dcdejst Xw1 S07

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 776
Submissions: 43

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:39 pm || Last edited by Karpeth on Sat Jan 20, 2018 5:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
Link to Post: Link to Post

As we seem to agree that There’s only ”2” ”true” NSR & that the easy solution is to and the tag to trinity, I’ll leave that for now.

I love your tool idea, but I feel you need to and tags or something like it for it to function? Am I off, or How would you add the information?


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer.

Joined: August 05, 2010
Posts: 623
Submissions: 28
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Jan 20, 2018 5:01 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I've replied to that question here, as to keep the discussion about that work in progress in its thread.


while(!project.isFinished())
project.addRing();
// Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Eo.n Fper MFe.s Wsm Caws G0.8-1.6 I2.4-8.0 Pn Dcdejst Xw1 S07

Joined: July 23, 2006
Posts: 2278
Submissions: 97
Location: Standish, Michigan, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Jan 27, 2018 8:37 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

TCG is correct about how the tag 'NSR' is being used. It's being used more to let people know that nonstandard rings were used for the submission and so the AR info may not be fully accurate if they wish to recreate the submission with regular rings. While square wire may be commonly used, it is not the 'standard' wire and the AR will still be different for square wire than for round wire (if only slightly).

And yes, as far as structure goes, very, very few of the NSR tagged entries are truly NSR weaves, but ,as stated, the tag was used more for an identifier of materials than structure.

Personally, I hate the NSR tag. It's a mess and the vast majority of the submissions tagged that way should never have made it into the library in the first place. Unfortunately though, they did, so we had to have a way to tag them.

An edit request was sent to the submitter of the split ring weaves some time ago requesting that they be changed to regular rings. If he ever does, than that tag will be removed from them.



Insistence is futile.

We are the Quartz, lower your shovels and surrender your rocks. We will add your gemological and mineralogical distinctiveness to our own. You will adapt to service us. Resistance is rutile.

Handmaden Designs LLC
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Handmade Artists Shop
Author Website

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 04, 2020 7:50 am
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
Display posts from previous: