Your way to rate complexity?

[Gerardo]

As you know, different people have different ways to rate the complexity of models.

For example, I was using an old Wikipedia page that rated the complexity of certain folds. If one of my models had one of those folds, I would rate the whole model with one level lower of complexity. I would go down by one level because I think that my models tend to simplicity rather than complexity. So, if I created a model with a spread squash fold, I would rate it as Mid Intermediate.

HERE GOES MY QUESTION: How do you do it? How do you rate the complexity of your models?

[Bass]

If I were to compare my models to some of the more "official" systems in books out there, I'd say that the majority of my stuff viciously rides the line between intermediate and complex. I like that line because it's enough to go in depth on one flap or subject while the rest comes naturally.

The main problem with rating my stuff though is I need to figure out how difficult the origami community considers folding off of the table. Nearly all of my models must be at some point be folded in a 3-D sense, and while it's just natural with my style and there are plenty of reference points present, I don't know how difficult a time someone who is not me would have with my Manatee or Penguin.

I'm sure that will be the case with many other folders, it comes down to how difficult they rate their own style of folding.

[chesscuber98]

Yup .
I think about how i was when i used to fold such a model
I see complexity the way common folders see it
A good folder may think my model is not so complex but a common folder would consider it intermediate

[Froy]

Easy, the more odd angles it has, the more complex it is. Ryujins seem complex but it is really a part (scales) that repeats over and over again. The structure is quite simple.

The new Langs system to pack polygons seems to produce very complex models.

[Gerardo]

Thanks all for replying. The following is meant for all, including those who who haven't answered yet .

But have you really given a complexity rate to a model? Could you please give me an example of your process to do so with an specific model and arguing why you rated it like that (simple, low, mid or high intermediate, complex...)?

For example, my Coat Hanger includes a spread squash fold inside. I looked it up in the old Wikipedia page I mentioned and that kind of fold is classified as a high intermediate fold. Like I said, I go down one level in my rate of a model, so I classified the Coat Hanger as a Mid Intermediate model.



Would you please offer a concrete example ?

[Gerardo]

I'm just asking for something like: "If you ask me, my dog is of a high intermediate complexity, I think so cause of this and that". Know what I mean?

I love to learn stuff from you guys

[Brimstone]

Most people argue that a large number of steps don't mean complexity, but I disagree. From experience when you teach a model that has many folds (even if those folds are simple) and the folders are not precise enough, the final result is a complete mess, so i think that complexity besides other things has to do with the number of steps.

[cowburger13]

Well, complexity is very hard to judge in a model. For example, I have a lizard with a point split, a lot of sinks, and about six spread squashes. (here is at tutorial in case anyone wanted to fold it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixSp1pwv ... e=g-user-u). It is probably complex, but is very simple compared to the majority of stuff by Lang, Kamiya, and Chan, today.

[Gerardo]

Most people argue that a large number of steps don't mean complexity, but I disagree. From experience when you teach a model that has many folds (even if those folds are simple) and the folders are not precise enough, the final result is a complete mess, so i think that complexity besides other things has to do with the number of steps.

What complexity level have you given to your models Georigami? Care to give an example ?

Well, complexity is very hard to judge in a model. For example, I have a lizard with a point split, a lot of sinks, and about six spread squashes. (here is at tutorial in case anyone wanted to fold it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixSp1pwv ... e=g-user-u). It is probably complex, but is very simple compared to the majority of stuff by Lang, Kamiya, and Chan, today.

Thanks for your answer cowburger13. That's a cool looking lizard. Since complexity is hard to judge, you prefer not to rate the level of your own models?

[cowburger13]

Thanks! Well I could rate this complex because of all the sinks and stuff, but compared to the other 'complex' models out there, I would rate it simple.

[SpencerSDH]

I guess I would rate it based on symmetry. Take, for example, a comparison between John Montroll's symetrical bases, and the more complex and much less symetrical works by Marc Kirschenbaum.
I guess you could also rate something based on it's form. I've always had trouble with very natural and animalistic forms. But that fall more into the category of the limit's of the folder instead of the piece itself.

[Joe the white]

There really isn't a strict guideline for rating complexity, but it is really just used for diagrams or teaching at conventions. A model past the complex level is just given a super complex rating, because it is kind of pointless past that. In some cases, a teacher might request that you have folded certain models before, such as when I took Robert Lang's Dragonfly Vari-leg there was a requirement that you had folded insects from Origami Insects II before attempting the class.

One super complex model might have divisions into 80ths and have 192 closed sinks and take 15 hours, while another might come from a birdbase with edge grafts to give the model "claws" and the overall model have 5 sinks and take 2 hours. Chances are if you can fold models with sinks or box pleating, etc. you can fold both models relatively well and the main difference is the amount of time spent and accuracy with creases.

Sinks and Closed Sinks are traditionally considered very complex moves, but I have some more simple models that contain them, such as my flying kabutomushi, which comes from a bird base (two flaps form the elytra, one flap forms the head and has a split for the horn, and the last flap forms the body), but contains a flap split and a double sink, both of which might push it to high intermediate on the normal scale.

However, the model could be modified to use swivel folds on the horn, and a pleat for the scutellum instead of a double sink. I think many models could have folds like this simplified for teaching purposes. The model won't look as nice or efficiently use multiple layers, but it would be foldable by a larger audience and appear roughly the same to a "display" model.

[cowburger13]

Such as my flying kabutomushi.

You designed a flying kabutomushi from a bird base? :O Congratulations! Could I see a picture of it?

[Joe the white]

Here is a previous more simple version, it doesn't have the scutellum. I'll fold the new version and post a picture shortly.

Old: http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs18/f/2007/ ... mistro.jpg

Edit:

New: http://www.flickr.com/photos/josephwhit ... 982650858/

[cowburger13]

Oh, I thought you meant a version with legs! XD Still awesome and easily recognizable as a flying kabutomushi!