Reprap Standard 2012

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

Buback — Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:56:24 -0400

I'm starting a new topic for 2013 since it's about that time.

[forums.reprap.org]

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

JohnDH — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 23:06:14 -0400

Thanks Cameron, but are there other dimensions that are considered 'standard'? Is there somewhere that I can look to see what has been agreed as part of the 2012 Standard so far, and what areas are still under discussion?

As a Reprap newbie, that has only been involved for 6 months, I can only say that any set of standards would be good

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

NewPerfection — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:34:00 -0400

a) Pitch between X smooth rods: 50 mm
b) Pitch between Y smooth rods: No standard. Y smooth rods are adjustable.
c) Extruder Mounting hole pitch: 50 mm
d) Pitch between Z smooth rod and motor shaft: 30 mm

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

JohnDH — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:20:22 -0400

In upgrading parts of my Prusa Mendel, I find myself struggling to establish basic dimensions like:

a) Pitch between X smooth rods
b) Pitch between Y smooth rods
c) Extruder Mounting hole pitch
d) Pitch between Z smooth rod and motor shaft.

If you are going to have standard then you out to start out with a set of basic dimensions. That way if someone designs a new part, it should at least fit.

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

VDX — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 02:15:31 -0400

... agree, for new users this sort of information and links to downloads should be optimized.

But a simple list of variants is sort of distracting too ... better some sort of grouping all compatible components (hard- and software) for skill level or such ...

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

Pointedstick — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:56:02 -0400

Sorry for the threadomancy here, but I wanted to share with folks a modification to the "latest stable build" page that I was hoping to get some input on. That page, to be honest, looks a little boring and unimportant. If I were a new member, I think I might miss its significance. I didn't want to change that page without permission, so I put together a version with pictures and brief explanations on another page:

[reprap.org]

This was just a quick rough draft without much of the text that would obviously be needed, but I just wanted to get a feel for what people thought.

Additionally, I think the debate over which component should be the blessed "latest stable" one could be sidestepped by listing a few rather than just one, which is what I did on that page. Why include not the most mature and popular and two or three, with a quick synopsis of the pros and cons of each? i.e. "X hot end is compact and simple to assemble", "Y hot end is inexpensive and pre-assembled" or "P firmware is easy to configure", "Q firmware has more features", etc.

I know the desire is to have an easy-to-follow beginner's guide, but I feel like offering a few choices doesn't have to be more mentaly taxing than just one. Choice in and of itself is not a bad thing; I think it's that too much choice can be overwhelming to the beginner, which was certainly my experience as a new RepRapper. There are so many configurations everywhere! I just wanted to know what the average RepRapper was successfully using and then do that myself.

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

bitflusher — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 13:59:03 -0400

Having operated a commercial 3d printer (Solidscape R66) I think without basic assembly skills it is hard to operate any 3d printer. Many minor issues lead to major problems. Slightly too much tension on one belt, a little bit of wear or a speck of something on the nozzle and your prints turn our horrible.
Now I think almost any hobby (small rockets launching to golf) will cause some frustration on something not working as it should, it should be an opertunity to be proud to overcome the hurdles.

Now I am starting just now, The kit I bought had some undocumented variations. With the help of the wiki, obscure blogs, google and irc i got it working. It still is not working well enough it it will!

If you are willing to handle the frustration 3d printing as a hobby is something for you.

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

WildBill — Thu, 31 May 2012 16:30:26 -0400

I still feel that it boils down to personal ability, if you cannot assemble simple threaded rods then go buy a pre-built printer. If you need a pre-built printer, reprap is not for you.

Basically if you don't have the ability to do basic assembly and programming you will never be able to utilise the reprap correctly.

If reprap is too hard, get a Replicator, Mosiac, or another pre-built printer.

To be honest, I have never had a single problem finding the information needed to assemble a printer. It is in many places and there is a wealth of information in sites outside of reprap. You don't need to only look here to learn about CNC equipment. Google is your friend!

I had the ability to fully assemble my printers with no hand holding required, open source projects are not commercially supported usually so it is the nature of the beast to do a lot of your own leg work.

EDIT: I would like to note that there is MUCH MORE information available today than when I built my first printer a year ago and it is easier to find.

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

johnedko — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 01:11:32 -0400

I'll add my two cents in as a newbie.

I would really appreciate a machine that has clear documentation that I could build to get started - but with notes on where future mods and changes can be made. I have almost given up on your wiki several times because I find it so illogical that going elsewhere and starting my own has crossed my mind several times. It might not have the level of information you guys have here - but at least others could find it.

I don't care what you call it. "Standard" "Newbie Starter" "Idiot Proof 101" - but the sheer work involved in trying to find useful information to figure out how I could start building things is really wearing.

At the moment, I feel that the lack of organization and information is your biggest barrier to getting more people involved in more competition here.

-John

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

spacexula — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 22:02:32 -0400

Buback glad you’re volunteering to do all that documentation. More work than I am willing to do. Simple truth is even though I don't agree with the standardization thing, if you document a build people will follow it and it will have more gravity.

Good luck.

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

ttsalo — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:23:47 -0400

Traumflug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To be honest, I hope this effort gets forgotten
> soon.

I hope not. I'm all for diversity but there has to be something for people who don't yet have the experience to make an independent, informed decision about every part of the toolchain. Check the link How to use Prusa link on the reprap.org front page if you don't believe, it's full of embarrassingly outdated, sparse and confusing information. Same for Basic Starter Working Configurations. And as far as I can see, this is the freshest information there is, until this effort.

The "standard" was just an unfortunate choice of a word, the idea wasn't lock down a standard but to document a stable, known good configuration for people new to RepRaps. At least that's what I understood.

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

Traumflug — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 06:10:48 -0400

To be honest, I hope this effort gets forgotten soon. Competition is the hartbeat of development and this "standard" effectively tries to make competition go away.

For example: Marlin might be the most often used firmware these days, but Sprinter Experimental has an almost identical feature set. Teacup lacks some features but brings in other, unique ones. All three are as stable as a piece of software can be and I didn't even mention Repetier, R2C2 and others yet.

Three months ago, Sprinter was the most often used firmware and if such a "standard" whould have been recognized back then, Marlin likely had never gotten the position it currently has.

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

Buback — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:48:51 -0400

it's almost the 30th. Any last minute changes anyone wants to suggest?

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

bwevans — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:55:53 -0400

This is such an intrinsically flawed argument that its kind of funny. We need a reprap standard, or some other word that is not standard but means the same thing, so that beginners will have a place to start. Or so that we can design parts that fit many machines so that beginners are happy. Right? Because if you have a modicum of ability, ie not a beginner, you can go ahead as Rich has done and redesign a part to fit your needs. Hell, even then Ive seen beginners capable of all sorts of amazing things.

This argument makes the general assumption that the RepRap is the appropriate DIY 3D printer/platform for beginners or that beginners are incampable of anvigating a modestly complex emergent technology. Either way I'm not convinced the RepRap is the printer for beginners and yet I'm sure beginners could still manage just fine - we were all beginners once. What makes you think you are special here and that others can't figure it out?

I've walked 15 college art and design students through building a cupcake - no problems. New class building a Prusa - lots of problems. We're past midterms and its still not working. I dont think a Mendel based machine is really ever going to be a suitable standard for an entirely new beginner. Maybe the Huxley has come close but Dr. Bowyer and JM have purt in a lot of work to improve the documentation and start up.

Maybe the better recommendation for a machine for beginners is not a RepRap at all but rather a Mosaic for <$1000 or a Replicator for >$1000. Shocking to even suggest I know.

Finally it just seems that the effort to put together a standard would be better placed in creating better documentation and tools for DIY fabrication. Hodgson's visual guide for example is a great contribution. Now if it was built upon, improved, add more information about various aspects of this project was published to help beginners and intermediate users alike.Let's build on the content creation rather than an endless stream of printers to make more printers. This would be a much better application of you time me thinks.

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

johnrpm — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:17:34 -0400

A poll - well, it would be outdated next week.

Maybe...... I know Reprap is moving at a pace, but did not realise at such a fast pace,
software can move at a faster pace than hardware which tends to take longer.

Take for example a question on extruders
which type of extruder do you use
a
b
c
d
my own design
other

the result may indicate the most common extruder/s and newcomers may decide to go with the majority, its down to the questions asked I suppose.

Edit... Of course the results must be visable to all.

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

richrap — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 07:10:40 -0400

Traumflug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A poll - well, it would be outdated next week.

Yes, but as this is supposed to be a simple statement of community endorsed parts to get a first working 3D printer.

We don't need to have 'Generation 23' Electronics listed if they are not stable quite yet, that's a different conversation.

Maybe the questions need to be per category, and simply ask for a view of what's the most stable, robust, and 'fool-proof' hopefully based on experience not people just trying to promote 'their' product.

If we ask what electronics do you use? that will get one view, that may not help.
But if we ask what electronics are you happiest with and most comfortable using, that may get a better response.

If we want people just to tick a boxes (can be preferable for analysing data) then first we all need to give a view of what should be on the voting list, that's basically pre-deciding what's considered 'stable' enough for a new user, that's where it could all kick off or we could just all stay calm and agree we are trying to do something useful for this project and start suggesting components in the various categories.

If we pick well, good and working components that have been working for people in the community for X months/years should carry on working well for people even if they stop being made because of something better. Good is Good.

If this thread is just going to carry on generating strong animosity then maybe we just park the idea.

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

Traumflug — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:09:05 -0400

A poll - well, it would be outdated next week.

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

johnrpm — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:08:19 -0400

Just had a very quick look at the phorum site, looks like they have a poll module which could be added, would need an admin
to do it of course, then their is the sticky question of what questions to ask ????, Mmmmm, maybe a can of worms.

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

Buback — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:51:37 -0400

i've never personally set up a poll online, so wouldn't know where to start. but it's a fine idea.

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

johnrpm — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:54:19 -0400

PS. This is an interesting and needed discussion, and I really appreciate everybody's responses. it's the only way to know what the community is thinking.

Thats why I suggested a poll.

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

Buback — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:28:38 -0400

JazzyMT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's somewhat discouraging to a relatively new
> developer (myself) to have the community selecting
> (and by extension excluding) specific products or
> designs. How is a new design going to gain
> traction in the community if the (un)official
> guide says "use x product".

The existing mendel documentation does exactly this, except with outdated components.

PS. This is an interesting and needed discussion, and I really appreciate everybody's responses. it's the only way to know what the community is thinking.

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

Buback — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:04:34 -0400

Ok I moved the wiki to "Reprap 2012 - Latest Stable Build" so that it's clearer which aspect of this discussion we're talking about.

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

JazzyMT — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 23:10:55 -0400

I'm a bit late to the game here, but I think it's a mistake to continue with this whole endeavor. What you're talking about isn't a standard - it's a "community endorsement" for various products. That may serve to benefit a few lucky manufacturers for awhile, but it doesn't serve the community or the project at all.

It's somewhat discouraging to a relatively new developer (myself) to have the community selecting (and by extension excluding) specific products or designs. How is a new design going to gain traction in the community if the (un)official guide says "use x product". That is the most concerning aspect of this whatever-you-want-to-label-it to me - and I would think to the rest of the community too.

I agree better documentation really needs to be generated for nearly every step of the reprap build process, but this really doesn't serve that purpose. If you want to help people with their first build, there's a lot of generic instructions that could be generated before (or completely without) worrying about specific implementations.

I am interested in talking about an *actual* standard though - one where we decide on a minimum set of features we want, g-codes that need to be supported, types & sizes of print material, temperature ranges, required documentation, etc. etc.

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

Andrew Diehl — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:04:53 -0400

That isn't true. I've kept my business interests out of the equation.

If you look at the machines I build, they are quite far removed from what the aforementioned 'standard' machine is shaping up to be. The only similarity is I use marlin and pronterface.

I'm in this because when I first wanted to build a reprap it was extremely confusing, and I find enjoyment in improving things.

Unrelated note:

We're discussing two issues at once now, which is getting confusing.

to clarify:

1) Creation of some form of "standards" for the creation of new machines so parts can be more easily interchanged. Obviously this is optional. If people want to follow it, great. If people feel it limit's their creativity/innovation, that's cool. Just ignore it. If your ideas are better it doesn't matter if it fits the standard or not.

2) Full plans/documentation for a reprap machine that is approximately the most common currently being made/used. This way newbs have a more obvious place to start. We will make it clear this is not the only game in town, and will not intentionally favor any particular vendor/supplier.

spacexula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Andrew, your welcome to call your machine any
> thing you want. Official RepRap would mean it's
> Officially sanctioned by Adrian Bowyer, the person
> who owns the RepRap.org. Let me guess you
> Standard RepRap, will be YOUR machine. Shocker.
> So I guess that would make all the other RepRap
> non-standard. Looks like a very altruistic thing
> your trying to do there, no self interest at all.
>

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

Buback — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:09:39 -0400

WildBill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No standard, you will never be able to tell me
> what I can and cannot design for the community....

Do others reading here think that this is the intention? That some NGO is going to send the reprap police to kick down your door and disappear your designs?

I know, hyperbolic strawman... but i don't understand where this opinion, that we want to make some sort of One Ring reprap, is coming from.

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

WildBill — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:10:30 -0400

No standard, you will never be able to tell me what I can and cannot design for the community....

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

spacexula — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:44:06 -0400

Andrew, your welcome to call your machine any thing you want. Official RepRap would mean it's Officially sanctioned by Adrian Bowyer, the person who owns the RepRap.org. Let me guess you Standard RepRap, will be YOUR machine. Shocker. So I guess that would make all the other RepRap non-standard. Looks like a very altruistic thing your trying to do there, no self interest at all.

I could start selling an Official Andrew Dehl RepRap, would not be nice of me. You don't own RepRap trademark, you of course can call your "Official Standard better than the Rest RepRap" tm if you want to put words into the mouth of an org you don't own if you want. Just saying it's not your place.

The closest thing we have to a standard RepRap atm is the Sells, RepRap ProHuxley, and RepRapPro Mendel, they are commercial products by Adrian Bowyers company. He OWNS the RepRap name and is humble enough NOT to use the Official/Standard word (Though he would have every right to do so). Because he is a humble man.

Your welcome to document RepRap as much as you want, help the org like the hundreds of people who's work you stand on, your welcome to promote your commercial product which is based on all the work those people gave you free. But don't think that gives you a right to put words in the mouth of the Organization.

Andrew Diehl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> God forbid someone comes along and finds there is
> a well documented and simple place to start.
>
> Who are YOU to say we can't call something a
> 'standard' machine. We're not claiming it is
> "official" by the way, only that a group of users
> came together, looked at what was happening
> around the community, and thought; " Hey! This
> looks like the most common thing going on right
> now, lets make it easier for a new user to do the
> most common thing." If you have a better word for
> this than standard please share your input.
>
> We are not a single college student from the Czech
> Republic. We are not trying to sell machines, or
> promote our own design. We are looking for input
> from everyone to make a cohesive and complete set
> of info on one machine which is typical of the
> community right now. We answer questions like
> this on the forum everyday, and through a series
> of forum posts do the exact same thing over and
> over and over, giving a recommendation where to
> start. This is exactly like that, just easier to
> find. Hopefully those of us with more experience
> in the subject will be better input than whomever
> happened to be browsing the forum for the day and
> felt like commenting, too.
>
> //sarcasm
> I take everything back. Of course making reprap
> more accessible to potential new users discourages
> innovation. Why don't we make it even more
> complicated, so only the most knowledgeable can
> build a reprap. Then the people who never ended up
> building a machine will be sure to contribute
> their brand new ideas.
> //

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

VDX — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 03:36:58 -0400

dean448 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't understand why some admin on this site
> just create a new category called Standard or most
> stable platform or most liked by an elite, all
> knowing, group of members and move this thread,
> Saving reprap and developent incentive (I think
> there are only three) to that category and all is
> good again.

... hmmm, is this category already created, or should it be created?

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

dean448 — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:45:48 -0400

I don't understand why some admin on this site just create a new category called Standard or most stable platform or most liked by an elite, all knowing, group of members and move this thread, Saving reprap and developent incentive (I think there are only three) to that category and all is good again. Maybe members will again talk about developments in this area. The combination of Standard and development, at least they way standard is being defined, it envoking a reaction from many members.

Its a valid topic that needs to evolve in its proper place. Agree?

Re: Reprap Standard 2012

elf — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:05:42 -0400

Buback Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> elf Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I do not want to have to build an entirely new
> > machine every couple of years to take advantage
> of
> > the latest ideas.
>
> As you add parts, piece by piece, your eventually
> going to end up with a "new" machine. That's my
> experience. My machine today looks nothing like
> the machine I originally built.
>
> Another problem is that the older your machine is,
> the smaller the user base will be. If i had a
> incredible idea for the Darwin, almost nobody
> would care. so to stay topical, you need to keep
> upgrading.

I want to be able to upgrade my machine piece by piece until it is completely new, but I do not want to start with a machine that will be the next "darwin" and become obsolete because the developers have migrated to a different "platform".
Or maybe all the variants are not as different from each other as I think.