RepRap sucks -- it's the worst of all 3D printers

After many time building my RepStrap, printing parts for Mendel and finally build my Mendel, I asked on dev mailing list about "RepRap roadmap" -- seems there is no defined roadmap.

Because there is no roadmap, I can't know what will be RepRap in next 1, 3, 5 years. Will RepRap improve and be userfriendly, being useful for people? --- I don't think so, because none developers expressed that intention. It's clear not and objective and nor a priority.

If we go to market to find other 3D printers, we have Makerbot CupCake, BFB RapMan, UP printer, etc. Maybe that 3 printers are the well known in pair with RepRap Mendel. Which is better and worst? In my opinion, RepRap Mendel is the worst because:
- it's very difficult to access one because have to build it yourself and many problems arise, from mechanics, electronics, firmware and software. There are a lot of probabilities you will get some problem and you will take many time and money to resolve it;
- software seems unfinished, is difficult to understand and slow;
- there are a lot of confusion, because there are many stores and many options when you try to buy all the parts to build it yourself. Even now there is a new version of RepRap, the V3 which have different mechanics parts.

For me the best and cool printer is CupCake CNC from Makerbot, I wish I had invested my money on it instead on RepRap. CupCake CNC is userfriendly! You can buy it almost assembled and it just works, including the latest technology as Heated Bed. Almost every artist prefer CupCake CNC over RepRap Mendel, CupCake CNC is like the Arduino of 3D printers while RepRap Mendel is some obscured printer just for techies.

The only thing I like on RepRap is the self-replicating idea -- however is not enough if people can't access to it and use it.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/05/2010 06:44PM by casainho.

---

---
New cutting edge RepRap electronics, ARM 32 bits @ 100MHz runs RepRap @ 725mm/s:

[www.3dprinting-r2c2.com]

I'm rather surprised you would write this Casainho - and I wonder if you mean it, or are just writing it to provoke a strong defence of Mendel.

The print quality I've seen on most RepRaps tends to be as good or better than the CupCake CNC, and the print area is certainly larger. Their technology is always an option even for RepRap users - their circuitry is running my Darwin, for example, and I could also be running their software if I wanted. But I think even Makerbot would consider themselves a fork of the RepRap project, and they owe a lot of their technology to the RepRap project. Including their development of the new heated bed and Mk 5 extruder, both of which I believe were spurred by RepRap pioneers.

The quality of the machine always will depend on the quality of the hardware that it's built from, the care with which it is assembled, and the calibration of the software. I think RepRap has made truly groundbreaking progress in achieving a high quality for a low cost, and using parts that are easily sourced. I consider it a dramatic success so far. It's certainly inspired Up! to do the same, which I think is a resounding endorsement of our approach.i

As an engineer, I certainly appreciate RepRap's designer-friendly nature and ease of upgrading. I have a lot of ideas to implement that might make RepRap even better than the rest, and I don't need to ask a company's permission to try them out. I think that you seem to have been enjoying the development process as much as any of us.

I know it's easy to lose hope when companies such as Up! and Stratasys can achieve higher quality prints than most of us can manage right now. But it is important to keep in mind that both they and we are constantly innovating, as a weekly check of the Pipes "Blog of Blog" will show. And we don't charge for filament. =)

RepRap is difficult to build and tune, that's for sure, but it takes perseverance. I would have much more pride -- and faith -- in a printer that I'd built and helped to design, than in a closed-source competitor. But this approach is not for everybody.

Even now, many people prefer to assemble their own overclocked, hot-rod computers than to purchase a pre-built Dell or Macintosh. But not everybody does it. The cost is that it takes time and expertise, and there's no warranty. But that's always been the nature of DIY.

I think Stratasys will always have the advantage of being able to guarantee success or your money back. But I only see RepRap moving into the really interesting domain of multi-material fabrication, for example.

There's still a lot of room for improvement, and I would be happy if more groups could offer good RepStraps at a low price point. Laser-cut parts seem to have been a boon in this regard, enabling technologies like the Makerbot. If we'd like to surpass the UP! printer, we could aim to do a lot more could be done with sheet metal. Designing a flat-pack folded sheet metal RepStrap has been a project I've had on the backburner. Having access to an OMAX waterjet cutter, I might be able to produce precise parts from steel or aluminum cheaply. Maybe once I've renewed my SolidWorks subscription I can do that. Anyway, topic for a different thread...

I'm always excited about RepRap because every time I see another printer come out, I just see a new way for us to improve ours! As long as there is an internet, the project can only grow. Even if quality 3D printers come out on the market for $500 or less -- it will just mean more RepStraps, from which people can print more RepRaps so they won't have to pay ludicrous amounts for plastic. Also, I bet UP! would be charging twice as much if they weren't competing against Makerbot, BFB, and yes, RepRap.

That said, you do have a very good point Casainho. RepRap can go a long way to becoming more accessible. I think we have been making good steps in that direction, although there's definitely more to go. I entered the project in 2009, the last days of Darwin, and for me the biggest entry barrier was the extruder. Repeated extruder failures brought my school project to a standstill and nearly caused us to miss our deadline. Wade himself came to our rescue with his brand new geared extruder design. After that, we only had to solve the problem of an unreliable nozzle, caused by PLA backflow.

It's only been six months since then, and RepRap's extruder technology has come a long way: Wade's and Adrian's geared extruders have become widespread and standard. Nozzles are improving too, with hybrid PTFE and stainless designs replacing more failure-prone models. I personally think that glass nozzles will be the next step, but we'll just have to see.

The amazing thing is how quickly these developments have been produced and circulated, especially when nobody is getting paid.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/05/2010 07:58PM by jbayless.

i have to agree with the first two posters, there are things with this project that are both good and bad, to me this is an engineers project, it is not for some one who is just joe blow from the down the steet, i have been learning allot has i go, and trying to make my own contributions, but i still dont even have a working repstrap yet, but that is changing. but my unit is a bit of a Frankenstein by any measurement. just have a look at my blog.

yes i do think this project could use some more clearly defined goals, but has much has i would like to see more standardization of the hard ware that is this projects strong point, it will always be by far more adaptable and agile than any other project, but that will always come at the price of ease of use. for now i am happy to keep on learning and adapting what i know to make my project get that much farther along.

but i hope to see some more things happen soon. but i cannot recommend this project to just any one, but i do hope to see more and more people hop on board, the more people we have the faster it will evolve and grow.

---

[mike-mack.blogspot.com]

I'm rather surprised you would write this Casainho - and I wonder if you mean it, or are just writing it to provoke a strong defence of Mendel.

Jason,

Casahino brought up the subject here in reprap-dev:
http://reprap.org/pipermail/reprap-dev/2010-September/000511.html

He's currently extremely frustrated with RepRap's typical unfocused, "galloping madly in all directions".

(Aside to new readers: We had a vote and decided to nuke Adrian's inbox from orbit. We're now an open mailing list, and I'd be honored if you would join us in reprap-dev. Just please don't ask for a road map until you've lurked for a bit. )

Casahino, I appreciate your position, although I think if you had gone positive and asked "what are the important things RepRap needs to work on?" I think you'd have gotten a different response. Going negative is sometimes necessary, but often degenerates into bickering rather than a strong new direction.

You did a damn fine job of organizing the heated bed working group, by the way. That's the way to make reprap better, to pick a direction, start a wiki page, and then build community and go with it.

But, an unfocused, "we're losing and we need to standardize on one strong vision" is not not going to work at RepRap.

Also, Road Maps, if badly written, lead to tyranny. Or worse, they minimize community and contribution, or lead to corruption.

If we had a road map for software, your emc stuff would never have ended up in the wiki.
If we had a road map that specified Mendel, Frank Davie's Saurrus-bot wouldn't be in the wiki.
If we had a road map that specified thermoplastic, VDX and Unfold's paste stuff wouldn't be in the wiki.
And if we had one official electronics board, that would piss the nipples off every other, "non-official", enterpreneur-developer. (Boards tend to get fabbed by entrepreneurs.)

---

If RepRap were a corporation, we'd have one software, one electronics, one bot, and one extruder. We'd standardize on one cad program for design, and one software language.

We'd also have 1 entrepreneur and a dozen developers working the blog. And they'd all double document in the wiki.

Rambling aside:

Company-driven blogs can recruit all their devs to post on one blog.
They can also _order_ their devs to double-document in a blog and
wiki.

I have had mild to extreme difficulty convincing some devs to
double-document. Or triple-document, if we include stuff which is
thingiverse and personal blogs, but quasi-absent or entirely absent in
reprap-wiki.

Meanwhile, Adrian and I are actually in the position of telling all of
our new devs "We can't give you posting access to blog.reprap.org".

And that makes me uncomfortable, but ... if, two years from now, they
become a RepRap entrepreneur, then we have to take their keys to
blog.reprap.org away, which will lead to bad feelings, or we have to
give all 10,000 RepRap entrepreneurs keys to the blog. And the front
page of the wiki.

Which would be insane.

---

there are a lot of confusion, because there are many stores and many options when you try to buy all the parts to build it yourself.

Ummm... It's not like I can go out and shoot 90% of our entrepreneurs. Which is the only way to simplify that problem.
Can't do it. Violates Generic_Ethical_Guidelines and Handgun_Test.

---

Even now there is a new version of RepRap, the V3 which have different mechanics parts.

Can't freeze development to work on one feature, or better, to to work on docs. Wish we could.

---

Casainho. One of the issues of RepRap is that I work my tuckus off making sure everyone feels welcome, and making sure that people have spaces to work in. That means we have a fairly healthy vibrant community, but it also means that most of the community will never agree on one Road Map, feature set, or CAD program, even.

That means something called "Forth", and something called "EMC", along with RepRap-Host, which may be less "Official" than EMC according to me.

---

Try to make a Road map from this:

(arduino mega or linux box with parallel port-driven closed source generic 4 axis cnc board from ebay)
(reprap host or emc)
(Solid Works, OpenSCAD or BRL-CAD)
(Forth or Ruby)
(Cartesian Robot, Delta, RepOlaRap, )
(Mini-Mendel, Huge Mendel)
(Thermoplastic or MetallicaRap)

---

-Sebastien, RepRap.org library gnome.

---

Remember, you're all RepRap developers (once you've joined the super-secret developer mailing list), and the wiki, RepRap.org, [reprap.org] is for everyone and everything!

Casahino,

The good news is that we have a Road Map of sorts:
http://reprap.org/wiki/Gada_Prize

We're getting stuff like this:
http://reprap.org/wiki/Columbus
out of it.

That said, I think two of the sexiest things I've seen in RepRap recently are WolfStrap and MetalicaRap. Neither one is really Gada Prize territory. And they aren't on any of the roadmaps.

---

Casainho, if you had one area you wanted RepRap to focus on, and that you're working on, what would it be? EMC support, and pc104 board-based electronics?

---

-Sebastien, RepRap.org library gnome.

---

Remember, you're all RepRap developers (once you've joined the super-secret developer mailing list), and the wiki, RepRap.org, [reprap.org] is for everyone and everything!

... i've already stated previously that this 'fuzzy' and chaotic structure of the RepRap-community is one of the main reasons of it's succes and magnetism.

Three years ago i've found out about fab@home and reprap ... and found contact to Evan from f@h and Zach from reprap ...

Now compare the 'evolution' of the much better documented f@h-printer with a clean roadmap to the actual status of the repraps and surrounding activities

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

SebastienBailard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Casainho, if you had one area you wanted RepRap to
> focus on, and that you're working on, what would
> it be? EMC support, and pc104 board-based
> electronics?

I would like to focus just on RepRap Mendel, as 3D printer. Make it simple and easy use for everyone, so all common mortals can take advantage of it to print/create things -- just like happens with Arduino (you buy it and it works perfectly out of box, for everyone and not just electronic engineers).

I would not close the wiki to any other works, but I would define objectives/goals and priorities for RepRap Mendel, to achieve the simple and easy use for everyone. Then I would work for it, define standarts for communications between all parts of the project like firmware<->software, try motivate the developers community to achieve the goals defined before, talk with shops, etc. Yes, maybe it's much more easy to do this if you create a company, maybe as Makerbot...

I think RepRap project sucks because there is nothing defined (roadmap written) to make "a simple and easy for use to everyone" self-replicating 3D printer.


VDX Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... i've already stated previously that this
> 'fuzzy' and chaotic structure of the
> RepRap-community is one of the main reasons of
> it's succes and magnetism.

I don't think so because I don't see any success.


> Three years ago i've found out about fab@home and
> reprap ... and found contact to Evan from f@h and
> Zach from reprap ...

Maybe it was also because of this I am discussion here, that Zach decided to build his company, the Makerbot, and so they have a better product for everyone use instead of RepRap.


> Now compare the 'evolution' of the much better
> documented f@h-printer with a clean roadmap to the
> actual status of the repraps and surrounding
> activities

I just can see Makerbot here shinning, not RepRap.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/2010 06:05AM by casainho.

---

---
New cutting edge RepRap electronics, ARM 32 bits @ 100MHz runs RepRap @ 725mm/s:

[www.3dprinting-r2c2.com]

Quote

I just can see Makerbot here shinning, not RepRap.

The only thing I see better about the CupCake is that it is easy to buy a complete kit and the documentation is better due to very few variants. It certainly doesn't work straight out of the box because you have to calibrate it due to the fact that it uses a DC gear motor. A few people seem to get get good results from it but the vast majority get much worse print quality than a Mendel.

I see as many people struggling and frustrated with it in the Makerbot forums as I see struggling with Mendel here.

Mendel should be much easier to use straight out of the box because it use a stepper extruder. Once you put in the correct numbers for the extruder gear ratio, pinch wheel diameter and feedstock diameter one machine should behave exactly like another.

I would also suggest the Mendel is far more reliable than a Makerbot. Mine has been printing non stop, unattended for about 2000 hours now. A few things broke but each time I identified why and fixed it so it doesn't happen again.

---

[www.hydraraptor.blogspot.com]

Hi Casainho,

Makerbot is a derivate-reprap, defined and 'frozen' to a specific status - not so bad, but it's only one possible alteration.

With the different versions and numbering out there you can see some of the problems - when you 'freeze' to a specific version, you'll receive problems when other branches evolve to better usability ... if "Version X12" ist better than "Version X11", then nobody will put money or effort in an 'outdated' system

The CupCake is maybe better than the RepMan or another variant, but maybe it's only better marketing?

For a 'perfect' system you need time, skilled peoples behind and many design-steps, until its mature.

And in the time you need to realize your defined system, anywhere around another better/faster/cheaper or only 'different' system can attract the people more, so you'll starve with your 'perfect' but outdated machine

If i had only one percent of the support invested in the actual systems some years ago, i'll have some really sophisticated machines running with different RP-methods ... but until now i'm a 'one-man-army' working on a separate route with some different methods and goals not really suitable for the common reprapper ...

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

nophead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just can see Makerbot here shinning, not
> RepRap.
>
> The only thing I see better about the CupCake is
> that it is easy to buy a complete kit and the
> documentation is better due to very few variants.

And software is much more "clean", easy to understand and use, don't you agree?

I am being following Dissidence blog and is "funny" what he wrote just now on this topic: "but i cannot recommend this project (RepRap Mendel) to just any one". Shouldn't RepRap developers and leader(s) be worried with this?? It's important or not to develop a machine to help, be useful for people?


VDX Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> With the different versions and numbering out
> there you can see some of the problems - when you
> 'freeze' to a specific version, you'll receive
> problems when other branches evolve to better
> usability ... if "Version X12" ist better than
> "Version X11", then nobody will put money or
> effort in an 'outdated' system

That should explain the RepRap menu, linking to: RepRap II Mendel and RepRap III Huxley. Many users (maybe like Dissidence) started by trying to build RepRap II Mendel, should they stop trying to build Mendel and go now for Huxley?? How about the shops that believed on RepRap II Mendel, invested resources and made stocks?

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/2010 09:14AM by casainho.

---

---
New cutting edge RepRap electronics, ARM 32 bits @ 100MHz runs RepRap @ 725mm/s:

[www.3dprinting-r2c2.com]

How about providing a URL to the Dissidence blog.

---

Bob Morrison
Wörth am Rhein, Germany
"Luke, use the source!"
BLOG - PHOTOS - Thingiverse

Casainho: Mendel and Huxley achieve different goals.

Mendel is designed to be expandable, possibly to have multiple print heads and/or other tooling options, whereas Huxley isn't. Huxley isn't a REPLACEMENT for Mendel, and Mendel will still be around for a while.

Cefiar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Casainho: Mendel and Huxley achieve different
> goals.
>
> Mendel is designed to be expandable, possibly to
> have multiple print heads and/or other tooling
> options, whereas Huxley isn't. Huxley isn't a
> REPLACEMENT for Mendel, and Mendel will still be
> around for a while.

That's why I think RepRap project sucks, because it wants to have many possibilities: be expandable, possibly to have multiple print heads and/or other tooling options, etc BUT in the end is the worst 3D printer, it just can be because new users are saying: "but i cannot recommend this project (RepRap Mendel) to just any one <-- I think just the same and I think RepRap main page should be fair and alert new users for this, and provide them with links to others printers on market (even if not OpenSource or self-replicating).

---

---
New cutting edge RepRap electronics, ARM 32 bits @ 100MHz runs RepRap @ 725mm/s:

[www.3dprinting-r2c2.com]

And what about this quote:

Quote
RepRap builder
Although RepRap Mendel is a bit complicated to build if DIY, I am learning a lot and I love it! Also I know that RepRap Mendel have the best technology available on any Open Source 3D printer ;-)

Oh wait... THAT WAS YOU on YOUR BLOG!

And you've also made PCB's with your Mendel.
Try that with the $3,000 Chinese 3d printer!!

---

Bob Morrison
Wörth am Rhein, Germany
"Luke, use the source!"
BLOG - PHOTOS - Thingiverse

rhmorrison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And what about this quote:
>
>
> Although RepRap Mendel is a bit complicated to
> build if DIY, I am learning a lot and I love it!
> Also I know that RepRap Mendel have the best
> technology available on any Open Source 3D printer
> ;-)
>
>
> Oh wait... THAT WAS YOU on YOUR BLOG!

I were really wrong when I wrote that on 18 June 2010!! Since after that I summed all the time spent and money and verified that I endup with the worst 3D printer -- I really should invested on Makerbot instead or on UP printer. Maybe I could close my eyes and still saying RepRap Mendel is the best printer :-)

Would any common user do the same I did to build a RepRap Mendel? take 9 months to build it and end have the worst/userUNfriendly 3D printer of the market?

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/2010 10:28AM by casainho.

---

---
New cutting edge RepRap electronics, ARM 32 bits @ 100MHz runs RepRap @ 725mm/s:

[www.3dprinting-r2c2.com]

You obviously have a working Mendel with a geared extruder (Wade Version).
I am positive that you could sell this and obtain enough funds to buy the MakerBot kit with money left over.
With your experience you should be able to assemble the MakerBot in one weekend (assuming you have no other activities planned on that weekend).
Then you can work with your MakerBot and add posts to the forum and your blog telling us how much better it is than the RepRap!

In any case quit moaning and groaning and come up with some positive improvements/suggestions or switch to a MakerBot!
Or the Chinese 3d printer if you can still get one for $1,500.00...

Quote
Eldridge Cleaver 1935-98
What we're saying today is that you're either part of the solution, or you're part of the problem.

---

Bob Morrison
Wörth am Rhein, Germany
"Luke, use the source!"
BLOG - PHOTOS - Thingiverse

Although I haven't started building mu own Mendel yet, its the fact that it isn't a finished product between strict lines that attracted me to the project. I can choose between all the different designs and take what looks the best to me. I don't want an off-the-shelf product like the Chinese 3D-printers, I want it to be fully customizable. That is why I have chosen for RepRap and not something like UP or Makerbot.

The only thing that I don't really like is that the designs also have numbers. I think they should only have names, because now it looks like Huxley is newer and better than Mendel on the first sight. Only after reading a little more one realizes that they exist next to each other. But this simple naming-convention doesn't make it a bad printer for me.

---

---

my blog: [reprap.tman.be]

If you go to the main RepRap page (homepage) they only talk about the RepRap II (Mendel) and the RepRap I (Darwin).

---

Bob Morrison
Wörth am Rhein, Germany
"Luke, use the source!"
BLOG - PHOTOS - Thingiverse

i am a little disappointed by this thread so far, i was hoping to see some more good and productive things come out of it.

it is sad to say that i do not recommend that just anyone build one of these, i do it so that in a few more years when things get more refined and easier to not only build but use, they will not have had the bad experience of trying to build it and put allot of money into it just to give up, but i do try to tell people about this project every time i get a chance, i think people need to see it and know that there is technology like this being made.

i want to help out more with this project, but my skill level is just not there yet, but i still try to do what little i can. i am also trying to stay active in the community has well. and i am thankful for allot of the support that i have gotten.

but there is a like to my bloge here dissidence blog

but i will say this, the fact some one like me who has had very little electronics experience in the past can now get involved and start to learn not only how to build it but use it too, is a great testament to how far this project has evolved. but there is still allot of work to be done, one example is some instructions on how to install the firmware i need on my arduino. i think this step is sorely lacking.

---

[mike-mack.blogspot.com]

rhmorrison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you go to the main RepRap page (homepage) they
> only talk about the RepRap II (Mendel) and the
> RepRap I (Darwin).

That's weird, I see them both in the menu on the left. Is there a problem with my browser? (using Chrome 5.0.375.127)
But I suppose this isn't where the topic was about?

---

---

my blog: [reprap.tman.be]

@tman: True, it is in the menu. Could definitely be misleading to noobs. But I was referring to the content of the page not the menu.
@dissidence: You are building a self designed RepStrap which of course means it's learn by doing. If you were building the Mendel everything is well documented - of course there are now different choices for the electronics possible.

I agree that the Host software needs some work. It crashes often. After creating gcode you have to exit and restart...

Also we desperately need a way to auto calibrate the system, for example a special Skeinforge calibration sheet print (or prints) that allow easily setting the most important parameters. That is still my number one problem. I have yet to get a good print using the Host software to generate the gcode. Skeinforge on the other hand gives great results when you get the parameters configured properly.

---

Bob Morrison
Wörth am Rhein, Germany
"Luke, use the source!"
BLOG - PHOTOS - Thingiverse

For what it’s worth from a newcomer I may as well chip-in.
If you only want to print things without hastle then maybe buying something in a kit or completed is what you need. But after you have printed some things with your off-the-shelf printer what are you going to do with it? Probably feel annoyed when the next model comes out.

I think the Reprap Wiki does a very good job of showing just what you are getting into, maybe this was not the case 9 months ago, but after reading the Wiki and the posts on this Forum I felt very confident about not buying a kit and started hacking together a repstrap. I have had so many problems along the way but they have all been fun, and now I understand all about why the electronics have ended up the way they are, and some of the odd ways the firmware operates and I feel even more convinced to tell people to have a go if you feel you are up to it.

Ironically I think the self-replicating thing actually holds back newcomers as it’s still hard and expensive to get hold of the RP parts, but that will not always be the case. That’s why many build a repstrap, but when you look at what developers like Nophead have achieved on Mendel hardware it makes a goal that’s worth perusing. Things are becoming more streamlined with electronics and suppliers, so it’s now easier than ever to get something working quickly.

All the problems you and I have had are exactly the information newcomers need to make it easier and faster for the next.

I’m 90% finished now on my Repstrap, and with a bit of luck maybe printing (slowly) at the weekend (famous last words).

Enjoy the cutting-edge, make things better and if you’re not having fun doing it… stop.

Quote
casainho
Would any common user do the same I did to build a RepRap Mendel? take 9 months to build it and end have the worst/userUNfriendly 3D printer of the market?

Why do you say that? Why did it take you 9 months? Apart from being harder to put together, doesn't it outperform a Cupcake in every other respect and is also cheaper?

---

[www.hydraraptor.blogspot.com]

first i thought: reprap should have a strong vision (because the first impression of the website is that things aren't organized).
but then i noticed that there are very different ongoing developements, there is no single center encompassing all of the projects complexity.

i tend to put it in my mind the following way: the official reprap project has dedicated people in part funded by a university bringing new technologies to the table and going down the fundamental route.

then there are tinkerers who have fun, are dedicated and experiment (this obviously has overlaps with the first group).

then the third group of people who want a 3d printer.

i think it would be cool if reprap had one central site, about the work of the central group, but all other groups as well. people would become more aware of each other. a diverse set of developers and users can be highly beneficial, but outsiders also want to know what's going on, what were the basic developements of the past and what's state-of-the-art? non-redundant, all in one place for easy access (a must have for any open source project imho), giving information on what has been accomplished, e.g. mendel buying and building manuals, while still allowing for different marches of different people. it would make it more easy to "get the big picture".

the wiki could become this place. and then there is this nice aggregation software: [www.planetplanet.org] (used for example on [planet.ubuntu.com] for hundreds of developers).

nophead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Would any common user do the same I did to build
> a RepRap Mendel? take 9 months to build it and end
> have the worst/userUNfriendly 3D printer of the
> market?
>
>
> Why do you say that? Why did it take you 9 months?

It took 9 months because was very difficult to source all different parts!! I started to build a RepStrap and with that printed the Mendel parts. Just right as you did NopHead, although you my not took all that time but you are much more experienced than me.

Should everyone take many months to build a RepRap? does they need to have tools for/know about mechanics, electronics, firmware and software?


> Apart from being harder to put together, doesn't
> it outperform a Cupcake in every other respect and
> is also cheaper?

I do not own a Makerbot CupCake, but for what I tested their software, is much more quick and simple to print than with RepRap software.

rhmorrison just wrote about RepRap software: I agree that the Host software needs some work. It crashes often. After creating gcode you have to exit and restart...

Also we desperately need a way to auto calibrate the system, for example a special Skeinforge calibration sheet print (or prints) that allow easily setting the most important parameters. That is still my number one problem. I have yet to get a good print using the Host software to generate the gcode. Skeinforge on the other hand gives great results when you get the parameters configured properly.

NopHead, and you maybe could say why are not using RepRap electronics, firmware and software! I am sure that if they were good, you would use them.

And CupCake is cheaper for sure, because it is sourced just from one shop and the kit is tested/working. For having a Mendel in kit, assembled, the market price is the $1545 from BotMill.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/2010 02:01PM by casainho.

---

---
New cutting edge RepRap electronics, ARM 32 bits @ 100MHz runs RepRap @ 725mm/s:

[www.3dprinting-r2c2.com]

Casainho, we can't compare apples to oranges. Even Makerbot's deluxe kit comes unassembled, and that's at $950 without the Mk5 extruder, heated bed, or relays. The Mk5 extruder -- almost a necessity, given how failure-prone the previous one was -- is a further $185.00. The heated bed is another $50.00. So that adds up to $1185. And you still then have to build it yourself and tune the software to get good prints.

BotMill's unassembled printer plus electronics kit together cost $1252.75. And they're using Stratasys-printed parts, which contribute significantly to that cost.

BitsFromBytes' RapMan comes unassembled, for $1225.25. The BFB3000 comes assembled, at $3074.70.

So you can't compare the cost of a fully assembled printer with the cost of a bunch of parts. For a fully assembled and running Mendel, I think BotMill is offering an incredible deal.


Finally, as I've mentioned, you can run a RepRap on Makerbot software. =)


Overall, comparison:

Unassembled complete printer kits:
Makerbot - $950 to $1185
Rapman - $1225.25
BotMill Mendel - $1252.75

Assembled complete printer kits:
BotMill Mendel - $1545
UP! 3DP - $3000
BFB 3000 - $3074.70


If you're willing to put research and effort into purchasing parts and looking around for good sources, such as buying RP parts from Ebay, the cost of a Mendel can drop significantly even from what BotMill is offering. This is also partly an option for Makerbot, as you can save money by switching to their basic kit if you can find your own power supply, tools, plastic, etc.

It's not an option for Rapman, BFB 3000, or Up!.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/2010 03:01PM by jbayless.

Casainho: You have some valid points here, but by framing the whole issue as an attack on the RepRap community, you have lost any credibility to deliver those points. In the Dev list posting, you lost all credibility when you made statements that were flat-out wrong (that the Reprap lacks support material, for example).

Think of the Reprap project as analogous to the beginnings of the automotive industry or the PC industry. Right now, there are a bunch of people working on different designs. That is a GOOD thing. Mendel may be a good basic design, but I doubt it is the best one, so other people need to be exploring alternate concepts. At the same time, as you note, Mendel is not perfect, so we need people working on making improvements to it's design. And separate from any one design, we need people working on improving extruder designs, materials research, etc. THESE ARE ALL VITAL PROJECTS!

If these people feel limited by a roadmap, they may choose not to follow a whim that may lead to the next big breakthrough. Take the HBP for example. A year or so ago, I was talking about building a bot with an extra-large build platform, and I was told that there was no point since the parts would warp anyway. Sometime since then, someone came up with the idea of the HBP, tested it, and got great results. What if the person who thought of the HBP had been working on some roadmap and didn't follow that inspiration through, what would be the state of the Reprap project today?

Like in the car or computer industires, as the designs become more robust and refined, you will see exactly the thing you seem to be wanting: A readily available, off-the-shelf, simple to use, inexpensive bot kit that beats the Makerbot for price and the Mendel for ease of use. But these options won't come about because of some grand roadmap, they will come about because the wild and disorganized reprap community continues to improve the state-of-the-art on a daily basis. A road map won't help this, and in fact would likely slow it down (or even more likely be ignored by everyone but the people who come up with it).

Roadmaps work great for top-down organizations with very specific goals. The RepRap community is neither. It may seem like we have a well defined goal: To make the best 3d printer possible, but that is actually quite vague. One person's "best" is someone else's "eh, it's ok". For example, I personally find the goal of self-replication to be a distraction from the goal of improving print quality. For that reason I choose to focus my skills on making the best bot possible, at the best price possible, without regard to whether it is self-reproducible. That is not to say that the core Reprap goal is not a good one, it's just not where I choose to focus my efforts.

@dissidence: I have been following your blog for awhile now and I have not yet seen any negative comments or got the feeling that you thought the RepRap was a waste of time. In fact you were working on creating your own Mega board instead of using what is already available. It was also your choice to build a RepStrap using a chair frame - pretty cool actually...

I feel like the RepRap 3d printer is like home computing when I started with it 35 years ago.

I bought my first computer my second year in college (Georgia Institute of Technology) in 1975.
A 4k SWTPC 6800 computer.

I built my own serial terminal using the SWTPC Termnal kit and then had no mass storage capability at all.
I did use the terminal with a 300 baud acoustic modem so I didn't have to go to the computer center to drop off my batch jobs. I could then later go by and pick up the output.

I purchased the cassette tape interface to have a way to save/load programs.

After my receiving my commission as a 2nd Lieutenant in the Air Force I was first assigned to Keesler AFB for communications school. During this time I was able to buy a dual floppy system for my SWTPC 6800 that cost $1,000.
My first assignment was to Communications and Computer Programming Center (CCPC) at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma.
There I joined the Oklahoma City computer club where we first developed 16k memory boards and then a video board.

I can't tell you how many hours I spent reprogramming the monitor program for the computer to work with the video board instead of the terminal, or to move the I/O to 0xE000 from 0x8000 so we could have a whopping 56k of memory (instead of the original max of 32k). Then I bought (and built - because it was a kit) my first dot matrix printer from Heathkit. It cost $650 and took an entire weekend to assemble. All in all I spent at least $4,000 on a computer that has less computing speed and capacity than a digital watch does today (at least the programmable one from TI).
But I learned more about computers and programming than you can learn by any other method.

I could program the Motorola 6800 (and 6809) in hexadecimal (because I had to).
When I finally got an assembler I understood what it did and why the output looked as it did - because I understood the process. Then I got the UCSD pascal compiler and could see how the high level code was converted to assembly language (that I understood) that was converted to binary machine code (which I could read/write and understand).

The kids coming out of school nowadays almost always only have experience with a high level language but when you have problems with a program you often have to look at (and understand) the machine code that is being executed. Hell, most of them don't understand what a pointer is or how to go about debugging a problem with their program.

I have been following the RepRap and fab@home projects for a couple of years now but only after the Mendel version was released the end of last year (I first noticed it sometime in Nov 2009) did I like the design enough to say that I wanted to build one. I like the A-frame design and the way Ed Sells constructed the axis with all those bearings.

Did I think about buying a MakerBot - of course I did. The price (for the cheaper of the two kits) wouldn't really have been much more than making a Mendel (considering the price for the RP parts) BUT I would understand it much better, it has four times the build area, and there is something cool about saying you cut all the metal rod and threaded bar from parts bought at the hardware store around the corner.

Would I have had a working 3d printer quicker with a MakerBot - certainly, and just as certain I would not understand it nearly as well. MakerBot is also going with the flow. They now have their MK5 extruder which although very large appears to be very study and certainly more reliable than previous versions. I still think a DC motor is the wrong way to go but what they have continues to improve. They also have a heated bed that can be bought separately and added later.

The average consumer never understands the technology which is fine when you can buy consumer items cheap that are reliable, but not so good for new technology that doesn't always work right. Take my wife (please) - she used wireless internet for a full year before the removed the electrical plug from the wall allowing the laptop to run from battery and was amazed to find out that she still had an internet connection. She asks, how can that be? I give her the only answer she understands - "It's magic honey!".

Something that is a kit (even a complete kit such as MakerBot or the new BotMill Mendel) will only be used by early adopters of a technology. The home computer didn't take off until you could purchase the product pre-built for an affordable price. The C-64 was the first computer that hit the proper price point such that many people bought them. I would guess that over 90% of computers bought today are production models. Only the computer savvy elite piece meal their systems using separate components - or people that have very limited funds but still want a top system. Or individuals that want/need the best of the best. Joe Blow normal consumer goes to K-Mart, or Computer whatever and buys whats on sale. And even then putting the red jack into the red plug, blue jack to the blue plug and yellow jack into the yellow plug is too much for many of these consumers.

Within five years it should be possible for the average consumer (that is the average well funded consumer) to purchase a plug and play 3d printer. But they will still have to learn how to use it. How to avoid it's limitations and exploit it's strong points. My wife couldn't program the video recorder if her life depended on it (because it doesn't and she has me to do it). I would think that the current Chinese 3d printer could be sold for $1,000 and still make a good profit. As more competition develops (and the technology improves) prices will drop.

So buy the Chinese printer, or the new BitsFromBytes pre-assembled 3d printer, or a MakerBot (although you still have to build it) and leave the RepRap to those that understand that you learn by doing and can save money at the same time.

---

Bob Morrison
Wörth am Rhein, Germany
"Luke, use the source!"
BLOG - PHOTOS - Thingiverse

i am a little disappointed by this thread so far, i was hoping to see some more good and productive things come out of it.

At some point it will. I'm hoping to get Casainho to start a working party in reprap-dev. Hopefully on his emc-reprap stuff. Although if he'd prefer to work on reprap-host, which is "official", I guess that is ok.

Casainho, what do you think?

---

i tend to put it in my mind the following way: the official reprap project has dedicated people in part funded by a university bringing new technologies to the table and going down the fundamental route.

nonchalant noman, Adrian and Rhys are at a university, this is correct. And they do tend to have a bit of seniority, meaning we often listen to them, unless *oooh, a shiny thing*. What was I saying? Ah yes. We really don't do "official" any more. The very idea, for electronics, means favoring one entrepreneur-developer over the 10,000 others. And that would be a little bit corrupt.

Also, I'd like to see Tim Schmidt's Eiffel and Frank Davies' Sarrus stuff become more official than Mendel. Once we know they're better, which means I'll have to build each of them. Also, they've been absent from reprap-dev for too long, I need to email them.

---

Casainho, you mentioned in reprap-dev that we use the Mendel pages should point new-developers at reprap-entrepreneurs who sell built Mendels as opposed to lots of random suppliers.

This page is weakly biased towards that. http://reprap.org/wiki/Mendel_Buyers_Guide. But beyond that, I'd rather we host a marketplace so that people can buy mendel parts from you, as opposed to one or two "I sell everything" Suppliers.

Because it's a lot cheaper to buy your mendel parts from Casainho then to buy built Mendels from one or two devs in the US.

---

Regarding the sidebar, Rob, then I, then Adrian just edited it. Once Adrian's not looking, I'm going to sneak in and put WolfStrap back in there. And maybe MetalicaRap. Also, I'm favoring Brutis over Huxley.

---

-Sebastien, RepRap.org library gnome.

---

Remember, you're all RepRap developers (once you've joined the super-secret developer mailing list), and the wiki, RepRap.org, [reprap.org] is for everyone and everything!

Finally, as I've mentioned, you can run a RepRap on Makerbot software. =)
Technically, replicatorg, like sanguino, is RRRF's rather Makerbot's. It's not clear to me if it is RepRap's, although I should create a replicatorg forum. In operational terms you are correct that replicatorg and sanguino belong to Thingiverse. I mean Makerbot.

(Development may be slightly forked.)

---

Unassembled complete printer kits:
Makerbot - $950 to $1185
Rapman - $1225.25
BotMill Mendel - $1252.75

LaserCut Mendel, $799

Also, we had people selling assembled Pirated_CupCakes at the RepRap booth for Bay Area Maker Faire back in May. Don't remember the cost. $1200-$1300?

---

-Sebastien, RepRap.org library gnome.

---

Remember, you're all RepRap developers (once you've joined the super-secret developer mailing list), and the wiki, RepRap.org, [reprap.org] is for everyone and everything!