Talk:RepRap Options

From RepRapWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Note: Before posting a Mendel Variant here

Each design on this page should be at a minimum proven to successfully print a 3d object and be able to reproduce some of it's parts. Also, available drawings/models under an open source license are expected. This page is meant to be a landing page for RepRap users and should not include non-working designs or those that are in development, Category:Mendel Development is intended for that.

Slicer software

I wonder if the section of CAM STL>G-Code software is up to date. I have seen Slicer being used by some and there may be others, I am not a specialist yet so will not make edit here but looks like there may be some bits missing.

KalleP 09:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Appears to have been taken care of. Will remove this comment soon. Thanks!
NewPerfection (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2014 (PDT)

So many RepRaps, yet no seeming structure nor order? Confusing

It seems, last time I checked, a year ago, amount of various RepRaps have grown quite much, however, there seems to be no sorting, no descriptions, just images and links. Thus, could someone experienced consider forming RepRap-models into a comparison / table with sortable total cost, how easy the model is to source, rigidity, portability, etc? Just a suggestion.

-- Copycat (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2013 (PDT)

There are a lot of ways to sort the various variants. Everyone will prefer their own. I am also frustrated because there are many designs on this wiki that are not linked from anywhere and they do not get exposure to test them for popularity. The problem with the table you suggest is that the ratings will be rather personal and it is not going to be relevant to someone somewhere else with different skills and resources.
As it mentions on this talk page the options listed here should be those that can call themselves RepRap 3D printers. They need to be able to replicate (so must be working) and they need to be open source (so others can make them). There are a lot of other designs that exist that fail on one or both of these tests.
They need to be "open-source", I agree. So... all of the *-NC licensed models shouldn't be, at least in this page, IMHO. Xoan Sampaiño (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2014 (PST)
I have been making a purely scientific classification (that is not perfect) of all the designs that I have found in the wiki based on their mechanical arrangement. I did not start this process but have tried to clean it up a lot to include every design I find in at least one type of classification.
I think this page should contain olny the relevant models even derivatives (but important millestones, not only by changing and endstop holder :) Xoan Sampaiño (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2014 (PST)
Obviously you can become the specialist you seek on this user edited wiki and learn a lot in the process when you edit the relevant pages, even if you just take the initiative to design and create the start of such a table it may spur others on to fix/improve/maintain it if it has perceived value.
-- KalleP (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2013 (PDT)
The mechanical arrangement page looks nice. There was a blog site that categorized nearly every RepRap-based machine (and some other hobby-level CNC machines) by movement style, but I can't find it at the moment. If I find it I'll post a link here, which might help with getting that wiki page updated.
NewPerfection (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2014 (PDT)

Would it not make a lot of sense to create a category called 'models' with subcategories (i.e cartasian, delta and other/experimental) and then have each model inside those categories. There's a huge lack of organisation in this wiki and something as simple as correctly categorising everything would go a long way towards helping.

In addition I really dont think Reprap Options is the correct page to be directing people to when they click 'Build a RepRap'. A much simpler page is needed that explains that there are multiple variants, and show a brief overview of those different types, with links to the categories and recommended builds. Giving people a wall of text to read just puts them off. --Rmwebs (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2014 (PST)

Maybe when I get some time I'll set up a tentative page for this and see what people think before it replaced the link from 'Build a RepRap'.
NewPerfection (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2014 (PDT)

Software repo moved

The parts repo has been moved (by the folks at source forge) to for the bit before trunk instead of , but I can't add the link because I'm too new here, can someone else please do so?

Fixing this now. Thanks!
NewPerfection (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2014 (PDT)

License links

The links to the license model for the various models should preferably point to local pages with extra RepRap Project relevant information and also to prevent people from clicking away from the site.

The links to the Wikipedia GPL page should be replaced to the local on site GPL page that has project specific details on the licence model.

The links to the Wikipedia Share-Alike page should be replaced with links to the relevant page CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-NC-SA

I will make the edits one day when I revisit here if there is no insurmountable objections.

KalleP (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2013 (PST)

Looks like this has been done, I'll remove the comment about it after a bit so it doesn't clutter up this page. Thanks!
NewPerfection (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2014 (PDT)

CAD tools

Rather than have two different pages each having a long section describing CAD software ("RepRap Options#CAD Tools" and "Useful Software Packages#2D and 3D CAD software"), I suggest it would be better for each those pages to have a short summary and a link to a separate third page "CAD tools" describing CAD software. --DavidCary (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2014 (PDT)

I totally agreed that ; I add topology optimisation softwares and lattice engineering softwares. Moreover, if anyone knows an open-source or at least free lattice engineering software it would be really appreciated. --User:froitu (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2014 (PDT)

Undoing Removing "Not Open Source" options

Hi All, I just reverted several of Traumflug's edits to this page and others. Traumflug had removed two machines because they were "not open source". I clicked around a bit, and it seems like adequate source files are available for these two machines, and therefore we cannot be justified in removing them from the list based on them "not being open source". I do not mean to step on Traumflug's toes by making these edits - I just want to make sure that we have a fair and consistent procedure for removing items from the list. Just to be clear: I am not a vendor myself, and I am not affiliated with the vendor whose products were removed from the list.

Personally, I think this page has way too many commercial machines that are simply boring clones of established designs. I think it would be very good if we could figure out a way to remove the machines that are all essentially repeats of the same design, but we need a fair and well documented procedure for removing things from the list. MattMoses (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2014 (PST)

I would tend to agree with Traumflug's actions in deleting the entry, while the stl files are available and hidden on the build manual page the actual sources (solidworks,sketchup,scad... etc) are not also there is no dxf or laser cuttable file for the acrylic components published, the printer was added to the wiki around last April and 3 of the 4 pages haven't even been created let alone anything put on them, and there is no sign of it being completed

to be honest the page looks more like and ad for a product than anything else and really the only purpose of the page is to drive people to visit the vendors page in the hope of buying a printer than actually self sourcing and building it.

i think we need to be realistic with these kinds of entries and look towards removing them completely as we are not obligated to keep around half/quarter completed pages for printers made solely for the purpose of making money by people who have also been removed from the buyers guide for carrying counterfeit components.

an alternative to removing them completely is to email them and give them the option of finishing off the pages and making actual sources available.--Thejollygrimreaper (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2014 (PST)

OK, that is reasonable. Since the dxf files are missing, then clearly there is not enough information to make a working copy. MattMoses (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2014 (PST)

Well, I'm not enthusiastic about this either.

  1. (about incompleteness, removed)
  2. If you disagree with my work, please speak up first. There's no hurry to resolve these.
  3. You step in for designs which are pretty clearly changed just for the purpose of being different and gaining some market advantage, still you also want to clean up. Doesn't really fit together for me.

There's apparently a need to talk about this, so I started a forum discussion:,443661 --Traumflug (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2014 (PST)


I suggest merging the Resources page into the RepRap Options, leaving behind a redirect from "Resources" to "RepRap Options". As far as I can tell, the content of these two pages is almost identical, except for some well-meaning improvements that people have made to one or the other page but not both. It would be better to have one page with all the improvements, right? --DavidCary (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2015 (PDT)