Link some nice non-thingiverse designs

Thingiverse often turns out to be the place where i search for designs of stuff, since physibleexchange is down, and thingtracker is still mostly a proposal. So do you know nice (printable)designs that arent on thingiverse?

Also, any advice on searching for designs outside thingiverse, generally? I suggest putting the word 'physible' on designs somewhere, at least, that word doesnt occur much in other context, so adding it as search term narrows down a lot.

Hi, I have found one other site, but it doesn't have much on it and doesn't get much updates also..

It can be found here:
[cubehero.com]

Groetjes!

May I humbly ask if you might try out my site Jasper?

The URL is http://www.fabfabbers.com/

You might also find this interesting http://www.fabfabbers.com/openscad/

At the moment you can only add models from a GitHub repo - but I'm right now in the process of adding the ability to add models directly.

Do let me know you thoughts.

Beautiful site!

Thanks.
- Marinus


marcosscriven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> May I humbly ask if you might try out my site
> Jasper?
>
> The URL is [www.fabfabbers.com]
>
> You might also find this interesting
> [www.fabfabbers.com]
>
> At the moment you can only add models from a
> GitHub repo - but I'm right now in the process of
> adding the ability to add models directly.
>
> Do let me know you thoughts.

I'll take a look at both, already have openscad and implicitcad installed (with workflow, i just have to push alt-v and it will start them with the file) and prefer doing things locally on my own laptop.

(fabfabbers)I already have basically all my designs collected in one github repo. Which is more than twice what i released, but it aint all good .

I suppose i should just look, i might answer my own question, but i'll ask anyway: Adding from repos, can you add subdirectories, or do you need to add a whole repo at a time? I'll just split stuff i want to release from the main repo if having separate repos is technically better, but i worry i'd have rather many git repos from minor objects. Also, i am curious why they have to be github repo, ipv just a git one.(Maybe used synonomously by accident and a repo link will work)

About cubehero, it seems an okey website in principle except some info like the author is missing when you look an object and, a lot of objects miss images and readmes.(I'd just lower their visibility and put warnings to users about it, at least for the readme part.)

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2013 04:08PM by Jasper1984.

marcosscriven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> May I humbly ask if you might try out my site
> Jasper?
>
> The URL is [www.fabfabbers.com]
>
> You might also find this interesting
> [www.fabfabbers.com]
>
> At the moment you can only add models from a
> GitHub repo - but I'm right now in the process of
> adding the ability to add models directly.
>
> Do let me know you thoughts.

Nice site ! I will check it out !

Good work!

Fabfabbers looks pretty damn good, i like adding with github, and you can infact add a subdirectory. I already added three of my models.

I have a question, is it to share development or release versions? The build in suggest development. Maybe that is the proper way of going about sharing in the first place.

A would-be-nice is .stl viewing: One is simply by generating images, two recent threads on that, 1, 2, i have done the povray approach a bit, i think i'll try make a shellscript of that, as i have been making a script to make pages for designs. Not sure if figuring a decent camera angle is easy though. Thingiview.js is pretty good, i think uploading a file for viewing to the user takes aproximately as much bandwidth as uploading the .stl.(edit: tbh i dont know how much that matters) (edit: me stupid, you already have it...)

Another would-be-nice is a gallery and a way to control what is shown and the order from git.(and maybe tags too) (edit: the idea is lower the cognitive load of looking at a thing, the directory structure might differ between different things, but the gallery can be more constant.)

Edit: also tarballs/zips and git repo links. One click download, well i could easily bind "cd download_dir/;git clone `xclip -o`" to a key combination. (Probably could even make it fake control-c so i only need to select it)

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/19/2013 05:14PM by Jasper1984.

Hi Jasper

Jasper1984 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fabfabbers looks pretty damn good, i like adding
> with github, and you can infact add a
> subdirectory. I already added three of my models.
>

Thanks for trying out the site - glad adding models from GitHub worked well for you.

> I have a question, is it to share development or
> release versions? The build in suggest
> development. Maybe that is the proper way of going
> about sharing in the first place.

Not 100% sure what you mean here? I was thinking that people would only want to share release versions on the site, and rely directly on GitHub for development versions. At the moment, the site assumes the default master branch is the release branch.
>
> A would-be-nice is .stl viewing: One is simply by
> generating images, two recent threads on that, 1,
> 2, i have done the povray approach a bit, i think
> i'll try make a shellscript of that, as i have
> been making a script to make pages for designs.

> Not sure if figuring a decent camera angle is easy
> though. Thingiview.js is pretty good, i think
> uploading a file for viewing to the user takes
> aproximately as much bandwidth as uploading the
> .stl.(edit: tbh i dont know how much that matters)
> (edit: me stupid, you already have it...)

Yes it's already there - but perhaps it's not obvious. Do you have any suggestions on how to make STL viewing option clearer?

> Another would-be-nice is a gallery and a way to
> control what is shown and the order from git.(and
> maybe tags too) (edit: the idea is lower the
> cognitive load of looking at a thing, the
> directory structure might differ between different
> things, but the gallery can be more constant.)

That's a good idea - I shall add that.

>
> Edit: also tarballs/zips and git repo links. One
> click download, well i could easily bind "cd
> download_dir/;git clone `xclip -o`" to a key
> combination. (Probably could even make it fake
> control-c so i only need to select it)

I'll just add a link back to GitHub, or more generally, the 'source' (in future going to add other sources)

Thanks again for all your feedback, much appreciated.

grain3d.com is a new site for designers to post their 3d files, the company then optimizes them for different printers, or can even print it for you and ship it to you. some of the files are free, but the useful ones that people spent time making cost money, just like apps on the google play store. I think its cool because its a good way for designers to get what they earn for making 3d models.

I think they even make it available as gcode so you can just run it straight into your printer.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2013 01:29PM by aduy.

You can also have a look at Cults to find some 3D models to print
[cults3d.com]

I can't believe I haven't seen anyone mention GrabCAD yet, that place is just as good as thingiverse- if not better.

Quote
Istale
I can't believe I haven't seen anyone mention GrabCAD yet, that place is just as good as thingiverse- if not better.

Because they work with real CAD there and I'm sure all the openscad fanboys would go crazy. Plus, I don't think they support STL so files need to be uploaded in something like STEP or an actual CAD file to be seen while the STL could be stuffed in the download section.

Quote
tjb1
Because they work with real CAD there and I'm sure all the openscad fanboys would go crazy.

LOL

GrabCAD may be a great repository of designs, but it's not geared toward 3D printing.

• Most of the models are not designed to be printed
• Many models are provided in proprietary CAD formats such as CATIA or SolidWorks, if you don't have these programs you cannot open the files
• You need to register to download files which to me is a huge hindrance.

Quote
NormandC

Quote
tjb1
Because they work with real CAD there and I'm sure all the openscad fanboys would go crazy.

LOL

GrabCAD may be a great repository of designs, but it's not geared toward 3D printing.

• Most of the models are not designed to be printed
• Many models are provided in proprietary CAD formats such as CATIA or SolidWorks, if you don't have these programs you cannot open the files
• You need to register to download files which to me is a huge hindrance.

I'm sure GrabCAD would love it if the website was spammed with taco holders, owls, or stretch bracelets.

Quote
tjb1
I'm sure GrabCAD would love it if the website was spammed with taco holders, owls, or stretch bracelets.

Yes, but I think you missed the point.

Quote
tjb1
I'm sure GrabCAD would love it if the website was spammed with taco holders, owls, or stretch bracelets.

Sorry for repeating myself, but LOL

Am I the only one that gets flashbacks of the 80's when they see openscad

Quote
ddseeker
Am I the only one that gets flashbacks of the 80's when they see openscad

Reminds me of my first foray into computer graphics and 3D modeling / raytracing using POVray... POVray models were built using CSG just like on OpenSCAD... I've moved onto real modeling programs like Rhino3D, Alibre, Inventor, 3DS and most recently BobCAD... ( Have a CNC Mill and a Router (off and on... when I'm not improving or rebuilding it. ) So I've been into 3D for a long time now. OpenSCAD is quite archaic... (Usable for the most basic of things and being able to use variables for defining dimensions of features is cool... I'm not bagging on it. But beautifully designed parts is not what OpenSCAD is being touted for... It's free and aproachable by those that fear or have no desire for learning a real CAD package.

Quote
3DogNate
OpenSCAD is quite archaic... (Usable for the most basic of things and being able to use variables for defining dimensions of features is cool... I'm not bagging on it. But beautifully designed parts is not what OpenSCAD is being touted for... It's free and aproachable by those that fear or have no desire for learning a real CAD package.

I think you'll find some people that disagree with some of that. Sure, "beautiful" parts are harder to make since fillets, chamfers, etc. are harder to do in OpenSCAD. It can be used for real design and engineering though, and the result is that the design can be used by anyone, regardless of level of expertise (assuming the code for the parts is written cleanly). See nophead's Mendel90 for an example of excellent parametric design: [reprap.org]

---

Help improve the RepRap wiki! Just click "Edit" in the top-right corner of the page and start typing. Anyone can edit the wiki!

Quote
NewPerfection
and the result is that the design can be used by anyone, regardless of level of expertise (assuming the code for the parts is written cleanly).

Nothing could be more wrong than this statement.

Just building assemblies like the i3 or the Mendel90 is a challenge to someone who has never used OpenSCAD before. Because everybody assumes we will instantly know how to do it and there are almost never clear instructions.

Then when you finally succeed in building the assembly you quickly realize you cannot do anything with an OpenSCAD assembly apart from spinning it in the 3D view. Wheee. When you ask how you can check on clearances between parts you are told "why would you need to know?".

Now if one was to attempt to modify the parts, good luck. OpenSCAD is exclusively for people with an affinity for programming. It's even written on the official website ("The Programmers Solid 3D CAD Modeller"). Well I don't.

Add to that that OpenSCAD was never designed for interoperability, so if you can't wrap your head around OpenSCAD but would like to modify a design in another CAD software, tough luck. Building it from scratch from the STL files will bring you less grief.

"A craftsman never blames his tools, or puts down another man's." - Rev. Kevin Young

Currently I have I-Deas NX 6.1, Unigraphics NX 7.5, Catia v5, and Autodesk 2013 Design Suite U at my disposal
and have used MS Paint to create Automotive Component Drawings...
I choose the tool to use based on the outcome I need.

My comment about flashbacks to the 80's wasn't intended as an attack the integrity of the system.

I wish I still had HP's Mechanical Engineering 10/30 and Ford's PDGS packages
Those programs were so powerful (on computers that could not even be used to serf the web today)

Give a True Artist a Chisel and a Hammer and He will give you a Timeless Masterpiece

Back on topic (sort of)

Daz3d

Sixus1

Runtime DNA

3dcafe

(been years since I frequented these sites)

You would need to rework the models for print ability and convert the obj's to stl's

Quote
NewPerfection

Quote
3DogNate
OpenSCAD is quite archaic... (Usable for the most basic of things and being able to use variables for defining dimensions of features is cool... I'm not bagging on it. But beautifully designed parts is not what OpenSCAD is being touted for... It's free and aproachable by those that fear or have no desire for learning a real CAD package.

I think you'll find some people that disagree with some of that. Sure, "beautiful" parts are harder to make since fillets, chamfers, etc. are harder to do in OpenSCAD. It can be used for real design and engineering though, and the result is that the design can be used by anyone, regardless of level of expertise (assuming the code for the parts is written cleanly). See nophead's Mendel90 for an example of excellent parametric design: [reprap.org]

I think that we agree more than you are aware... you even support my statements with nophead's Mendel90 example. Nothing wrong with anything in it. The parts are basic... functional parts.. meeting the needs of the design. Don't let your appreciation for OpenSCAD or other products detract from the fact that real design tools (SolidWorks, Inventor, Alibre) are the appropriate tools for non-hobby work. It's okay to advocate OpenSCAD without trying to throw the other stuff under the bus...

Quote
3DogNate
Don't let your appreciation for OpenSCAD or other products detract from the fact that real design tools (SolidWorks, Inventor, Alibre) are the appropriate tools for non-hobby work. It's okay to advocate OpenSCAD without trying to throw the other stuff under the bus...

Oh, I'm not throwing other CAD software under the bus. I am an engineer and use CATIA daily, and SolidWorks quite often. I guess I misread your previous post, considering that most of what I said was in agreement with you

Of the available free CAD software packages available though, OpenSCAD just happens to be one of the most useable for me. I do wish it could export STEP files, and limited graphical interaction (such as measurements) would be extremely helpful.

Anyways, back on topic.

---

Help improve the RepRap wiki! Just click "Edit" in the top-right corner of the page and start typing. Anyone can edit the wiki!