Choosing the official version of your model?

[Gerardo]

When I, and I'm guessing others as well, create a new model I fold more than once the model I'm working on and as I do so I tend to make little changes each time. That made me think, how do I decide which is the best version?

As an example I'll talk to you about the differences bewteen three versions of my FIREPLACE BELLOWS:


SUBJECT A:




SUBJECT B:




SUBJECT C:






Let's see the following aspects in all three models:

EFFICIENT USE OF PAPER:

I think the more efficient use of paper would be in Subject A, since with a 2 X 3 paper I can fold a functional bellows. After that one comes the Subject B which uses a 2 X 5 paper and finally Subject C which is made from a 1 X 3 paper. I need twice as much paper for Subject C in relation to Subject A, that isn't efficient use at all!

USABILITY:

All three are quite effective for blowing (not a pun) and all three versions have a problem with the handles: Subject A doesn't have handles. In Subject B, most of the bottom of the bag isn't attached to the boards so you have to hold the first and last pleate of the bag with your thumbs for a more effective use instead of using the handles.

In Subject C the bag is attached to the boards even to the handles, so you can use the handles in the small toy version. The problem is when you use one that's of the same size as a real fireplace bellows. The weight isn't balanced so it's hard to use it by holding the handles; it's a lot more comfortable to place your thumbs in the first and last pleate of the bag (like in Subject B).

This is the way I hold both Subject B and C:




RESEMBLANCE REGARDING THE ORIGINAL OBJECT:

This is how a real fireplace bellows looks like:



Subject B is the one that resembles the original object the most. Subject A doesn't have a color change nor handles. In Subject C the bag goes all the way to the tip of the handles. Besides that, the sides of the bag aren't attached to the boards so you can see from the sides this long space between the bag and the boards. None of those things happen in a real fireplace bellows.

In Subject B the bag ends where the handles begin, and the sides of the bag are effectively attached to the boards, just like in a real fireplace bellows


In conclusion, Subject A is better at efficently using the paper, Subject B in assuming the appearance of the original object, and Subject C is a little better than the others in it's usability. How do I choose one in that case? Which one do you prefer taking into account my comments on each one?

Like I said in the beginning, this was just an example. So I would specially like to know how do you choose the oficial version of one of your models as you make small changes between each prototype?

Thank you!

Edit by Moderator:
All bold and oversized text changed back to normal. Are you mad shouting at us like that?

[Baltorigamist]

I think the "official" version should be the one that comes closest to the original purpose of the model. In the case of your bellows:
If you were trying to prove the concept, A.
If you were trying to reproduce them accurately, B.
If you were trying to reproduce the functionality, C.

As someone who focuses on display models instead of action models, I choose the official one to be the one that looks most like the subject. But obviously action models have a different purpose, so they can't be judged the same way.

[roodborst]

I totally agree with balto on this. Making a action model, lets say a jumping frog. You could make a model that does actually jumps really far but only resembles a frog, or you can make something that has all the details of a frog, but only jumps a little or not at all.
So depending on the goal of you model, one of both should be the final. Or actually when I think about it, a frog with enough detail like Lang's or Kamiya's that could actually jump should be the final!

[Gerardo]

Sorry origami_8 about the bold and large letters. I thought only capital letters meant shouting; since my message was pretty long I thought I should somehow highlight the important parts .

I think the "official" version should be the one that comes closest to the original purpose of the model. In the case of your bellows...

I totally agree with balto on this. Making a action model, lets say a jumping frog. You could make a model that does actually jumps really far but only resembles a frog, or you can make something that has all the details of a frog, but only jumps a little or not at all.

Thanks for your reply guys, I think that was the predicament here. I wanted the official version to have all three features, but I ended up with three different models

Do you also work with prototypes? Have you ever been in a situation similar to mine: with two or more prototypes that you can't combine but both are just as good?

[origami_8]

Sorry if I was a bit harsh, but it really was a bit much. It is okay to highlight some text parts by making them bold, italic or underlined, but use it rather rarely otherwise it looks like shouting. Text size 150 always looks like shouting and should therefore not be used.

There's another possible solution for your problem, If you like all three versions, you can diagram one and give hints how to do the other ones. I guess some parts are folded equally, so maybe it is possible to just show the differences and let other people choose which one they prefer. I know some models where such partial diagrams are given. Often-times on stars or boxes there are many possible ways to get a nice finish, so instead of diagramming just one version authors show possibilities how to adjust the model otherwise, that might include different starting sizes as well. Another well known example would be Lang's Koi in Origami Design Secrets where he shows a simplified version and then shows how to add scales.

[Gerardo]

Let's start with two very simple questions: do you (the person that's reading this message) creates new models? If so, do you fold prototypes before reaching the official version?

Sorry if I was a bit harsh, but it really was a bit much. It is okay to highlight some text parts by making them bold, italic or underlined, but use it rather rarely otherwise it looks like shouting. Text size 150 always looks like shouting and should therefore not be used.

There's another possible solution for your problem, If you like all three versions, you can diagram one and give hints how to do the other ones. I guess some parts are folded equally, so maybe it is possible to just show the differences and let other people choose which one they prefer. I know some models where such partial diagrams are given. Often-times on stars or boxes there are many possible ways to get a nice finish, so instead of diagramming just one version authors show possibilities how to adjust the model otherwise, that might include different starting sizes as well. Another well known example would be Lang's Koi in Origami Design Secrets where he shows a simplified version and then shows how to add scales.

No problem and thank you very much for the advice .

[Gerardo]

HI!

• When I'm making photo-diagrams or checking out the drafts of diagrams of my models made by others, I start getting new ideas about how to improve my models. Has this happened to any of you?
• What elements must your model have in order for you to say "this is the official version"?
• How many drafts of the model do you fold before saying "I've reached the official version"?

Thanks in advance !

[Baltorigamist]

For me, the official version (as I've said before) is the one that comes closest to the original purpose of the model. This also applies to the model's appearance. If a dragon is supposed to have spikes, the official version should have spikes in all the best places. If an insect has long legs, the official version should have the longest legs possible in proportion to the body.

As far as revisions go, that really depends on how much you try to improve at one time. Trying to fix several things at once is almost always a problem and usually results in several revisions. I prefer to fix one thing at a time, study the CPs that result, and pick the most accurate from those.
Let me use a design I'm currently working on as an example: a Neobarrettia spinosa. In the first draft, the wings were too short, and the legs could have benefited from being longer. I wasted several sheets of graph paper trying to remedy both those problems at once before settling with the leg length I had had all along. (And, as things turned out, I had enough paper left to add teeth as well.)
And even with this version (the official v1.0), I still might be able to improve upon the proportions. That's why it's allowed to make v1.1, etc.

[the modern einstein]

Well, even though C may be created for the "action" aspect of it, it still has more aesthetic appeal for me than the other two do, which is more important than the action part of it, or the realism of it. You've got to make your models elegant, and easy upon the eye, which is what origami is about, as opposed to just being realistic, or having an "action" part to it. After all, origami is an art. You want to try for a balance, as opposed to focusing on just one aspect of the model.

[Gerardo]

Thanks once again Baltorigamist .

Well, even though C may be created for the "action" aspect of it, it still has more aesthetic appeal for me than the other two do, which is more important than the action part of it, or the realism of it. You've got to make your models elegant, and easy upon the eye, which is what origami is about, as opposed to just being realistic, or having an "action" part to it. After all, origami is an art. You want to try for a balance, as opposed to focusing on just one aspect of the model.

Why do you consider Subject C more appealing than subject B? I'm really curious about that

If you can answer the same questions as Baltorigamist I'd appreciate it. I would love to know your opinion!

[the modern einstein]

Well, I feel like Subject B is more "sterile" if you know what I mean. It's something like what would come out of Ikea, that's meant to be the same every time. Subject C has a certain "character" about it, a sense that if you were to see something like it in real life, there'd be a story behind it. When I look at it I get the sense I'm looking at an antique, with a certain old-world charm to it, rather than a cheap plastic toy, which is how I see B, and that's what makes the difference - i.e, the paper used and the way you folded it changed the character to something that's more aesthetically interesting, rather than just having clean lines. Of course, that depends on the Subject. If you were going to do a car, or something more mechanical than this, then clean lines are important, but I don't think they are in this case, considering what your subject is.

I haven't created any original models, so I can't really answer the questions you posed to baltorigamist. I'm just here to critique your work, if you're alright with that.

[Gerardo]

Well, I feel like Subject B is more "sterile" if you know what I mean. It's something like what would come out of Ikea, that's meant to be the same every time.

I haven't created any original models, so I can't really answer the questions you posed to baltorigamist. I'm just here to critique your work, if you're alright with that.

Of course you can... thanks for explaining it to me .

[origamipete]

i would also vote for C