>>> Oksana Chorna wrote: Really, it is not correct to use term "Tachi's origami" for this type of origami.
>> I was referring to Tachi's technique of folding (3D) closed polyhedral surfaces...and, there are other ways of folding closed polyhedral surfaces. Of course, all 3D models, closed or open surfaces, with straight creases can be flattened, without destructing their basic folding structures. I think Tachi's method is unique, both in approach and in style. A suitable comparison would be box pleating - in that box pleating uses a square grid to define the shape, as a kind of folding system or 'rule'. Tachi's software can calculate a foldable crease pattern for (any) geometric solid. The tucking fold he uses may not be a unique solution, but the method is distinct from other origami styles: 1) because the crease patterns tend to be organic and non-square, 2) there is no distinct base or set of flaps generated, 3) the tucking folds are the main folding technique and 4) the pattern is generated by an algorithm not by human intuition or other design method. I think Cheng Chit is correct in saying there are other methods for 3D polyhedral surfaces, however for Oksana's purpose of creating a system of origami styles, I would argue there is no other style equivalent to Tachi's, it is very distinct. Though the argument is clear that Tachi's Origami does not define a whole category of origami, rather it is a unique branch in the system. I find the system an interesting idea. Thanks for sharing it with us. - Matthew Gardiner
