=====
From 93johnst@scar.utoronto.ca:
Interesting interpretation. The lighting is nice, but the overall scene looks as if it needs more. I don't know what exactly. It just looks a little empty. 

=====
From djconnel@flash.net:

A nice picture of golf balls.... I like the two-tiered engineering subject, but
the rest is a bit weak.  Geodesics are characterizes by their structural
stability; these structures don't demonstrate that.  And the pyramid subject
is a bit weakly done.

However, it's still a good picture of golf balls -- it would make a nice poster.

 


=====
From castlewrks@aol.com:
Nice Balls...That's alls?



=====
From bbowen@cswnet.com:
For all of it's obvious simplicity, it is a well composed image. Nice lighting
effects, and the stray geosphere in front leading the eye. Good
batronyx@conwaycorp.net

=====
From sonya_roberts@geocities.com:
Interesting concept.  I like how colourful this image is.  Creating the balls entriely out of blobs must have been quite time-consuming!
=====
From kaustin@tgn.net:
Unfortunatly, I cannot reason that this image falls into the category of
Great Engineering Achievements. On the artistic side, it has a fair amount
of merit, however. The framed 'simplicity' of the structure is appealing.
The stand-alone ball looks distorted. A trick of the light?

=====
From daves@wkpowerlink.com:
A clever idea, incredibly realistic looking textures and models. The image
itself is very simple, which isn't a bad thing, but it also comes across as
simple, which isn't a great thing.
=====
From chipr@niestu.com:
So that's where my ball went! <grin>  Nice stark simple image, good colors.  A
bit too simple and too tenuously connected to the topic.

=====
From bill@apocalypse.org:
*GRIN*  ...yes, a lot of engineering has gone into the golf-ball (sort of
embarassing for our culture I'd say).

=====
From gmccarter@hotmail.com:
EXCELLENT golfballs, but dubious connection to Engineering.

=====
From arcana@sinbad.net:
A good image with an interesting tangent on the theme. The only negative comment 
I might make is that I feel a viewer needs to be able to get a pretty good idea
of how an image fits into the theme without being forced to read the text file
first. The text file should serve to clarify or enhance the subtlties of the 
image rather than act as the centerpoint of the package. <bleh> Didn't mean to
get on a soapbox there. <grin>

=====
From ethelm@bigfoot.com:
Nice artistic image. The concept seems a little 'tongue in cheek'.

=====
From jaime@ctav.es:
SImple, but very nice looking...

=====
From bsieker@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de:
I really like the golf balls, Is 492 in fact the correct number of dimples on
one? I though It was something on the order of 360?
And as to the "on-topic" question, I think that a golf ball in itself is a
marvellous piece of engineering work. The near-liquid core, several meteres of
thread and a very hard, yet very elastic outer cover. And then, of course, there
was that ingenious idea of the dimples that actually reduce air drag :)

=====
From c_et_d@club-internet.fr:
sorry, l don't understand the image, none the text file.

=====
From lpurple@netcom.com:
It is different all right; but it just doesn't say "Engineering" (more like "Test Scene").
And the well-modelled golf balls notwithstanding, it does not demonstrate enough
modelling effort. If you'd had this sitting on an office desk, with the pyramids of Giza
or the TransAmerica pyramid outside the window, it would've gotten a much better
score...


=====
From r@dial-up27.webbernet.net>:
Idea has potential, but something this abstract needs a more interesting background and something to provide a rationale *in the picture*.  The extra ball and the offset placement help some, but more is needed.


=====
From r@bowerbird.cc.uq.edu.au>:
Notable for composition, textures, originality


=====
From r@ts6-14.hfx.istar.ca:
I'm sorry. No matter how long I look at this, I see no geodisic domes, and architechtural marvels. To me, it's just a stack of golf balls. A nice stank, mind you :)