Dale,
I tried it as you described and it worked great! One base extrude and one cut extrude. thanks, keep up the good work...
Dan
Dale,
I tried it as you described and it worked great! One base extrude and one cut extrude. thanks, keep up the good work...
Dan
Hi Dale,
Using your method, I made a Icosahedrons,
2.55195242in in between upper pentagon and lower pentagon.
10.81231698deg draft between upper and lower pentagon (downward extrusion)Can you make this in less steps?
Thanks,
Dan
WHY are there only N regular Platonic solids?
Uhhh...The geeks know this. N = 1 which is what Platonic relationships are all about.
Bo
The only refinement I could think of was combining the first two boss extrudes into a 2-directional extrude with different draft angles. The icsoahedron has those inconvenient 5-sided pyramids on top and bottom. They simply have to be added.
Dan,
You can do the icosahedron in two if you don't count the plane to sketch the second extrude on since you can extrude in two directions from each extrude feature.
And not for something completely different, remove the vertex figures* from both the dodecahedron and the icosahedron. Voila, you get the same solid in both cases.
Vertex figure: On each face of the solid put in a split line between midpoints of the edges. Once you have done all, use delete face to remove the faces adjacent to the vertex and insert a plane surface in the hole.
snipped-for-privacy@cbd.net (P) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:
I forgot about extruding a cut in both directions. Probably because it would have required adding the plane. For some reason, I try to avoid having to add planes. I should break that habit.
So which is a better solution, 2 bosses and 1 cut, or 1 boss, 1 plane, and a cut? Only 2 extrudes seems to me to be the more elegant solution, even with the addition of the plane. It may even solve faster.
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
But the question was "WHY"?
That question was answered in a September 25th post. For your edification follow this link:
Actually, that says that there are proofs of the number that exist for M dimensions. (It does not provide the proof.) Not WHY . I suspect that my question may be a bit deeper than
Guess you will have to look them up.
Proofs prove that something is true or not true based on assumptions that probably can or can't be proved. Your why ends there.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.