...and here is the more artistic version with four objects.
Printable View
...and here is the more artistic version with four objects.
One more version with a background. And I could have made the shadows fit in a bit better but that is no biggie. You can fix that yourselves with the previously posted xar-file.
Paul, that's a great solution. I would say, there are only 3 objects, because the bevel tool add's the 3 additional objects and if you create the rings like in your first post, there are only 3 objects and I think, this is the solution with the fewest rings so far. :)
But.... unfortunately it is not exact the same as in my reference picture. So, perhaps there are more rings necessary, in order to achive the goal...?? :D
Xhris' solution with none shape break the rules, as he says. :p
Remi
Oh crap! You're right! Well, here's another try, and this time it's five objects of which two are duplicates.
Five rings is the best solution, so far...
:)
All the rules you specify are met. To generate the bitmap I broke rules, but the use of the bitmap in the actual submitted solution breaks none of your rules. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by remi
Ok, Xhris. :) How is it, if I spend you a beer within the next days? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Xhris
I'd prefer a cheque...:)Quote:
Originally Posted by remi
This is my way. There are 3 shapes.
Ooops. I`m so sad but I didn`t see Paul`s solution and so I am too late. Sorry.
Russ - your solution is very correct (and very same as mine) but you fail where I failed too: the overlapping is incorrect when you compare to Remi's model.
Anyway, here's my last try: TWO objects. But I guess this will be classified as a cheat as I used two bitmaps. But to my defense I have to say that I used only the original three rings and I did not use cut or slice or anything that was not allowed. The only things I did was making two bitmap copies of the rings (which were untouched) and applied transparency.