Introducing 14k Gold, read more on the blog.

Deltoidal Hexecontahedron die - d60

Not For Sale
Have to find a good size. This is a solid version.

This one is way too small. The numbers are unreadable.

(Get one of the hollow versions I have; I'm keeping this model around only because of all the comments on it.)

Dimensions

IN: 0.777 w x 0.777 d x 0.777 h
CM: 1.974 w x 1.972 d x 1.95 h

Comments

 
Well, thinking more about the depth. The rhombic d12 seemed pretty good to me, and its digits were close to 1mm deep, (which still seems ridiculously deep to me). So I've deepened the digits in the hollow versions of this die, so they're probably going to show up better.
August 19, 2010, 12:52 am
I just got my print of this; the die is indeed way too small, and at least in WSF the numbers are pretty indistinct. Detail material might be able to handle it better, but I'm not sure. I'm not too concerned about the depth; my print of the rhombic d12 in transparent detail feels pretty good to me, maybe a little shallow. But the size of the numbers and the faces... Yeah, this die needs to be at least 50% bigger. Would still have pretty small numbers, but at least readable. I'll probably also make a hollow (or filled-with-support-material) version that's double this one's size. Oh yes, the deltoidal hexecontahedron lands with a face uppermost.
August 18, 2010, 10:22 pm
Let us know if it lands with a face up, too....
August 18, 2010, 9:14 pm
You might be right about 1.5 mm. 1mm might be more accurate, though I'm not sure. In terms of Shapeways examples, I find Opresco's numbers on the Icodie and soccer ball d30 slightly too deep, and TEttinger's first version of the d60 slightly too shallow (I think he may have corrected this...). Somewhere in between there's maybe a happy medium. 1mm would be my best guess. Good luck. Would still like to see this get made.
August 18, 2010, 9:10 pm
I'm pretty sure you're right about the numbers being too small (and the die being too small also, for that matter). I've ordered a print of this myself (and another die with similar numbers), in different materials so I can get a feel for how badly the numbers really fare under these conditions. I have a double-size hollow (full of support material) version of this die; I don't know if even that is big enough. When my prints come in I'll have a better idea what needs to be done. I think I'm mostly concerned that the numbers aren't big enough. I'm pretty sure already that they aren't deep enough. 1.5mm sounds mighty deep for number markings. I don't think I've ever seen professionally-made dice with numbers anywhere near that deep. Then again, it's difficult to judge depth.
August 9, 2010, 3:35 pm
I'd say the ideal depth for numbers would be 1.5mm for a 5cm or 6cm die. That's just my suggestion. Hope it helps. I'd love to see one in person if/when it's reconfigured.
August 6, 2010, 10:20 am
I just received TEttinger's Pentakis d60 made in transparent detail in the mail today. I wrote a pretty detailed commentary on that item and will post pictures soon. Please read it if you can, as it would pertain equally to your design. I'll sum it up and say that you should definitely make this bigger and make the numbers as deep as is reasonable. 0.8 inches is definitely going to be too small to read legibly or to be able to ink. TEttinger's is 1.5 inches and is approaching the boundary of legibility. Due more to texture than size, I find myself squinting to read it, and it would definitely need to be inked to be usable in an actual game without slowing down the action to stoop and read it. I'd say at least 2 1/4 inches in diameter with slightly deeper numbers (but not quite as deep as Opresco's Icodie) would be a good start. I'd probably order one if those changes were made.
August 6, 2010, 5:23 am