Constraint Based Modelling For Custom Chips (1 Viewer)

[texas_foldum]

Hi! (New here, been lurking for a while)

I'm looking to design a custom set of chips using largely several geometric designs. I have a few high level ideas:

1. I like the Aurora Start tournament chip style where there isn't an inlay/sticker, and the number is just printed straight on it
2. I want each chip to have the same set edge patterns of 1/6th the surface, but a different face pattern (see examples attached)

I think I need to consider:

1. Color schemes
2. I'm primarily looking at the "China Clay" group buy that's happening, so how the centering (an different center shapes / colors) will look with an inset
3. The numbering themselves (and font & legibility of any words encircling it)
4. The reverse image (does it need to be flipped since it will be dye-sublimated directly on?)
5. The edges and alignment

I've come up with these and a few others using some CAD software so that for example:

1. The circles are all the same size, and intersect perpendicular to the chip edge
2. The inner hexagon is the same size as the outer hexagons

Things like that I think are hard to achieve in Inkscape (afaict), but I've found it tedious to try to output to SVG in a way that lets Inkscape recognize the areas that can be filled in with color. It's surprisingly hard to go from an SVG of just lines to ones where it the areas can be painted in. As I understand it, the group buys that @justincarothers runs require SVG output, so it's not exacty like I can go use the fill paint tool in MSPaint

Any tips or tricks on designing custom poker chips?

 

[allforcharity]

Any tips or tricks on designing custom poker chips?

Yes, take your time. You will likely go through several iterations and revisions. You may even decide on different materials and customization options.

 

[upNdown]

You have some cool ideas, but you don't seem to know much about what you're talking about. The Aurora star chips you mention had the denominations hot stamped onto the clay. The group buy you mentioned isn't china clay, it's ceramic chips made in china. China clay is a different thing altogether. You mentioned the word inset - I'm not sure if you're referring to what would be an inlay on a clay chip or a label on a ceramic hybrid. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I'm not trying to make you feel bad for lacking the right vocabulary. I'm just saying you should take some time and learn about chips. The vocabulary will come as you learn, but it isn't about the vocabulary; it's about the learning. Get it? So take some time - spend some days and weeks browsing this site. Because plenty of people rush to design their own chips and it seem like most of them regret it.
Welcome aboard, and as I said before, cool ideas.

 

[texas_foldum]

Thanks! Agreed that the vocabulary is a lot, been reading a lot over the past few weeks and tbh still don't understanding anything. Understood on the hot stamp, but since that isn't possible with the GB approach I think there was one a while back that did it just through the dye-sublimation process? In that they didn't have a label.

I'm referring to "China Clay" as the types of chips which are made in china designed to look like a clay chip (obviously not made of clay). In that vein either the "Web Mold" or "Card Mold" from Tina. I thought "Ceramics" generally referred to a flat surfaced chip, but it definitely confuses me it's a material (and it's all plastic). Anyway, if you have a link to the proper nomenclature would definitely appreciate it!

Regardless, not married to a chip yet as I still haven't ordered samples. But I think it's possible to do dye-sublimation directly on a chip like the "Web Mold" even though it has a recessed center if I've read things correctly.

Here's some more outlines I threw together. Really like the aperture look and think it's pretty unique, and constrained them on different aspects of the chip (both considering the 24mm inlay area and without.

Here's one of them very basically colored in (pls ignore the edges.. as that's obviously wrong)