The result is a very cluttered and off-center artifact.
The octants' poles are at one end; the Equator at the other.
And if there was one, it could not match the elegance and simplicity of either Cahill's ball, or a real globe with bold-ehancement of Cahill's 3 dividing lines.
Your millimeterage may vary, so make allowances.
I, for one, can admire a geodesic dome — like the famous one I visited in Montreal — but Icannot sort out its polygons by eye.
Likewise, a spherical icosahedron laid on a terrestrial globe is a complex and confusing affair, .
7.13 below: Here is the largest Dymaxion map on the Internet.
He was ableto demonstrate the principle with a rubber ball painted as a globe,and cut along enough of the incisions to squeeze it flat under apiece of glass; the ball would return to its globe shape once the glasswas removed.
However, the icosahedron and its equivalent globe offer no such physical and visual transformation.
7.14 below: Well, technically, the next image is bigger than Fig.
Worse yet, Fuller's icosahedron does not comport with a globe's meridians and parallels — the graticule.
Rywalt's animation has done an excellent job as a and illustration of a Dymaxion map going from globe to icosahedron to flat map, but it is not a hands-on .
The next part describes how I sussed out their scales.
It is gorgeous on a geodesic bulding; it is something else again on a globe.
My point is, that the Dymaxion map animation looks great, but it is from a distance, and it omits the graticule.