Reprap Standard 2012

PLEASE remove the word STANDARD from the page(s) URL and the project name.

There are no such thing as a standard RepRap so.. this project should not be presented as there is either.


Using only RepRap 2012 is no problem at all. If newbies enter the RepRap project believing there is one official standard machine will not be helped by this.. rather confused..

Wake up dudes!

I have to agree RoTorIT, I am an admin and I still go to great pains to make sure no one ever things what I say/do is "Official". That's part of the reason why people change the names of the machines they build/run as projects.

Prusa Mendel was named as such because Prusajr did the project. How fair would it have been for some college student from the Czech Republic to call his the Offical RepRap 2010?

Hell, even Adrain Bowyer does not call his RepRapPro Mendel the "Official" RepRap, and it's it's his org. What makes you think YOU, or the small cabal of people who are contributing have a right to designate your prefered machine as the official one?

Let's hope this does not catch on.

---

repraplogphase.blogspot.com

Couldn't have put it any better myself, spacexula.

This is a terrible idea on every level, and discourages innovation.

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.
//

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2012 01:33PM by Andrew Diehl.

---

www.Fablicator.com

The problem is not with trying to help newbies with a place to start, or even providing a "one stop shop" guide to a stable set of hardware/software, the problem is calling it a standard.

Calling it anything but "standard" would remove confusion, and actually help people understand what it is really about. So "Newbies start here" or "Serving suggestion", "Latest stable" "Get started project", "Reprap for Dummies(tm)", "Reprap Quick Start Guide", really there are many ways to describe what the project is and avoid suggesting what it is not.

Why not put up a poll on the index page, with sections such as firmware, extruder, etc,
this may show the most popular setup and maybe indicate to new users a possible avenue to follow.

---

Random Precision

All the "things" mentioned in this thread should have been replaced by better "things" within 5 years and so cannot be called a Standard, a better name would be a "list of recommended parts".

To me a Standard will mean that new parts("things") developed 5 years from now will fit whatever machine that I build in the future, provided my machine is also designed with the Standard in mind.

Think of when the railway standardised the width of the railway track, it did not stifle innovation, thousands of different types of rolling stock have been developed, confident in the knowledge that they would fit the tracks.
A Standard that deals with dimensions and techniques/processes will encourage new development since those new developments will fit any machines that follow the Standard.

This Standard will not prohibit development that does not conform and these non-conformists may become a new or alternate Standard if it is shown to have benefits the existing Standard cannot replicate.

That's right, elf.

What we need are standards, like those from DIN/ISO/ACME/whatever. "This electronics complies to RepRap electronics standard 1.3, so you can use this setting here-and-there". "This firmware complies to the standard, so you can be sure it works with that other G-code sender". "This extruder complies to the standard, so you can use it with that bot, which complies as well". Like M8 nuts always fit on M8 bolts, even if there are 146 different ways to make a thread. That's what we need.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

There have been some previous efforts like this, called Working Configurations

That might be a better name, or maybe "Reference Configuration 2012" to sound a bit more authoritative, without mentioning the s-word?

Whatever it's called, I would have liked to see a design documented to a level where you can drop in a precompiled firmware and expect the machine to work correctly with that. That, and using Slic3r which is way easier to figure out than SF, would make the road to quality prints a lot smoother for newbies.

I have re-read this thread more carefully and see that traumflag has already said what I said in my post, I also see that some people say that a Standard will not be followed because it would cost slightly more, but if it works the extra cost will more than pay for itself in better, faster prints and less wasted plastic.

I see in this thread concerns about electrical safety, EMI shielding and connector types and sizes, all these should be addressed in the Standard, people, even manufacturers can ignore the Standard but buyers will know that those products that do conform are probably better than those that don't.

EMI shielding is an earthed metal box 20% larger than any current electronics set needs, to allow room to fit future boards which may do more than current boards, such as additional extruders, scanners to allow the electronics to "see" what it is doing for Quality Control purposes and the box should have pop-outs to allow additional connectors to be fitted.

The Standard is less concerned with what is available now, but allows the possibilty of a long service life with regular upgrades (evolution).

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2012 09:43AM by elf.

I may use the forbidden 's' word below, but only in the loosest possible definition and I may ramble a bit.

I'm still trying work out if we are now trying to define some general goals for people to work on/with/towards or if we are trying to specify an entry level starting point for newcommers to RepRap and 3D printing.

Anyone following this thread and these threads Development incentive , Saving RepRap may well think 'we' are trying to do both and more.

I can understand not wanting a set of 'standards', after all, we do seem to work on survival of the fittest (both designs and people), even if a lot of this is from companies selling a lot of machines or parts with 'standards' that work for them commercially, conveniently or technically.

But we have more people revising and refining the 'standards' already out there, for every part of every machine ever released, again good designs will shine and others will sit on thingiverse or wiki's unfinished or unused. (It would just be nice to collaborate a bit more).

At Christmas I was disappointed to learn that my new X carriage I was designing around the X bar spacing of Prusa/Mendel/Max was not going to be 'compatible' with the new Mendel90, but I was equally thrilled to learn Mendel90 was not a single machine, but a script to build whatever size and spec machine you like. So really I should have made a parametric model (I'm just not able to do that at the moment), if the idea does not die a death, someone else may make a parametric one.

So for Point 1 - setting future development's - maybe we need to define a set of things we would like to work on (as in the development incentive thread) and some ideas (not standards) of how we may do them. - I'm very interested in this, lots of ideas for things but few people to collaborate with.

Point 2 - Listing a set of sensible starting points for beginners - everyone should be able to vote on what works for them and maybe we can present some opinions from people that have already been there and done it. It would be nice if as many of the first machines parts can be reused to make the next etc.
If you look at that Wiki page Basic starter working configurations it shows how horribly out of date things get in just a few months - I would not point anyone new to start fighting with Repsnapper or Tonokip-Firmware from now even if they are perfectly good and work ok.

And if you are a RepRap Admin, put forward your ideas, opinions and guidance, it's not always best to attempt to stay neutral, I doubt it's part of the 'job description', after all it's highly likely all the Admins have some of the most experience here.

We had a local meet-up at the weekend, it's very clear that many people just don't know where to start with RepRap, they don't know what they don't know. We had a lot of discussions about what really works for people (hot-ends, electronics, hobbed bolts, plastic, materials, software, firmware etc.).
We also had quite a few people during the day point to the MendelMax stating 'I want that one' I was equally as impressed when Allan pulled a fully built Huxley out of a small backpack along with a very complete set of tools and a laptop.

Ramble over.

---

[richrap.blogspot.com]

Well said, Rich.

I admit I used the S word partly to provoke a large response, to bring out the reprappers who care about the future of the project.

I'd guess the s word is putting people's hairs on end and clouding the issue at hand, which is a newbie build, refreshed regularly. The best alternative I've seen is maybe "Latest Stable Build". The only reason for such a compilation would be for clear and sensible documentation. There are many users that have never edited the wiki, i think because there's no clear direction on where to add your contributions.

The other issue, that of connectors and such, is also useful. There are many de facto standards that we adhere to that you only learn about after lurking for 6 months. Putting some of those down on a wiki page, or discussing them here in the forums, isn't a bad idea.

---

As more people build stuff with extruded aluminum, we will find and share more vendors, so supply sources should become easier, just like plastic suppliers have. However, I think we should start with a threaded rod frame just in order to get the documentation up to date, for posterity sake.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2012 03:53PM by Buback.

This and other threads have started because there were no "general guidelines" or DNA for the variations so we ended up with many species of reprap and no indications of what are the strengths and weaknesses of each design, demanding a lot of research by the builder as to what to build.
But, if we have some common ground between all developments, then all machines can be upgraded with the ideas that work resulting in just a few species instead of many.

I have not yet built a reprap because I don't know which of the variants is better than the others , or what new ideas will be compatible with the machine that I will build, but with a Standard it does not matter since I will be able to upgrade the starter machine to reverse any "evolutionary dead ends" I encounter.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2012 12:18PM by elf.

I really like the "Latest Stable Build" nomenclature.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2012 04:02PM by Andrew Diehl.

---

www.Fablicator.com

Andrew Diehl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I really like the "latest standard build"
> nomenclature.

Quit using the word standard.

Call it what it is. Community recommended build or Community approved or Community supported or ?. Just not "Standard"

---

FFF Settings Calculator	Gcode post processors	Geometric Object Deposition Tool Blog
Tantillus.org	Mini Printable Lathe	How NOT to install a Pololu driver

I apologize, I had the word standard on my mind. I meant Stable :p

---

www.Fablicator.com

I do not understand why you are afraid of the word standard, you can call it whatever you like BUT, I do not want to have to build an entirely new machine every couple of years to take advantage of the latest ideas.

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.

Of course, your printer will happily print forever as long as you can get plastic and print parts. the only thing that would force anybody to upgrade would be if you couldn't buy or make an integral part anymore.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2012 04:55PM by Buback.

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.

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?

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?

---

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

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

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.
> //

---

repraplogphase.blogspot.com

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

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.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2012 05:14PM by Buback.

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.
>

---

www.Fablicator.com

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.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2012 11:42PM by JazzyMT.

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.

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.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2012 11:39AM by Buback.

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.

---

Random Precision

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