Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile


Reprap Standard 2012

Posted by Buback 
Re: Reprap Standard 2012
March 29, 2012 03:08AM
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.

Random Precision
Re: Reprap Standard 2012
March 29, 2012 04:09AM
A poll - well, it would be outdated next week.

Generation 7 Electronics Teacup Firmware RepRap DIY
Re: Reprap Standard 2012
March 29, 2012 07:10AM
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 A poll - well, it would be outdated next week.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
March 29, 2012 07:17AM
A poll - well, it would be outdated next week.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
my own design

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.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2012 07:57AM by johnrpm.

Random Precision
Re: Reprap Standard 2012
March 31, 2012 12:55PM
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
April 23, 2012 03:48PM
it's almost the 30th. Any last minute changes anyone wants to suggest?
Re: Reprap Standard 2012
April 24, 2012 06:10AM
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.

Generation 7 Electronics Teacup Firmware RepRap DIY
Re: Reprap Standard 2012
April 24, 2012 08:23AM
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
April 27, 2012 10:02PM
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
April 29, 2012 01:11AM
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.

Re: Reprap Standard 2012
May 31, 2012 04:30PM
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.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2012 04:50PM by WildBill.
Re: Reprap Standard 2012
June 09, 2012 01:59PM
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
September 25, 2012 08:56PM
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:


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.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2012 12:06AM by Pointedstick.
Re: Reprap Standard 2012
September 26, 2012 02:15AM
... 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 ...

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

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]
Re: Reprap Standard 2012
September 26, 2012 02:20PM
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
September 27, 2012 09:34PM
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

Help improve the RepRap wiki!
Just click "Edit" in the top-right corner of the page and start typing.
Anyone can edit the wiki!
Re: Reprap Standard 2012
September 27, 2012 11:06PM
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
October 28, 2012 12:56PM
I'm starting a new topic for 2013 since it's about that time.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login