Bernd 08/12/2017 (Sat) 08:04:06 No. 9542 del
>>9538
>>9540
You both fell victim of optical illusion. Thanks to the wonky numbering the cube looks more wonky than actually it is.
First all the irregularities are within 0,2 mm which hardly noticeable with naked eye. Second the optical illusion created by the numbers this discrepancy comes apparent but still in the wrong way. For example, the side Five in the direction of Six and One seems shorter then the Three and Four, however in reality it's the other way around: the direction of Three-Four is shorter then Six-One by 0,1 mm.

>>9538
>He would be mad if he'd seen your dice.
I hope so.

>>9540
>I was mad seeing that abomination.
Your welcome.

>>9541
>corners
Now the corners are the parts of my dice I would call incorrect it's fairly obvious with naked eyes. I made these the last of course (well I made the numbering last, but they are negligible) after I realized I won't use this dice ever to play. It's just too lightweight to feel comfortable to me.
It rolls fine btw, random as much as one can expect. I cannot replicate the same result with same throws while it's true I've even never held loaded dice. Btw loaded dices are fairly precise dices which were tempered in a way to give same results with a certain throwing technique. They has just one inaccuracy (like wrong balance due misplaced center of gravity) which can be exploited. My dice has too much tiny inaccuracies to function as loaded dice. Conclusion: mine are perfectly usable (for someone who can cope with it's weight).

Message too long. Click here to view full text.