Hello! My first post here - hope it doesn't offend anyone.
I've fallen into a daily habit of checking Thingiverse -> Newest
Things on my iPhone. It's unbelievably cool seeing things that people
have designed and printed, and then being able to make mental note of
that piece to try printing later. (If the iPhone web view let you
"Like" an object I'd be even happier - instead I later rate items I
like while at my desktop. But I digress).
The one thing that I'm starting to want though is something that lets
me limit the things I see to ones that I have a chance of actually
making. It's cool seeing laser-cut parts, but not having easy access
to a laser cutter, seeing those assemblies is always a bit of a
letdown. I'd still want to see them, but maybe when I'm bored and I
browse past "newest things you can print" to a more broad view.
It was one thing to mentally filter out the laser-cut pieces - it's
pretty easy to visually recognize something made with laser-cut parts.
Harder than that was seeing a model uploaded (whose picture was just a
rendering, not a printed object) and mentally trying to determine
whether that could actually be printed without any support material,
or if someone had just decided to post a model before ever printing
it. But now even harder than that, we have several uploaded things
complete with pictures of their 3D printing, but it's only printable
with either support material or worse yet a liquid bath style
expensive 3D printer with insane resolution.
Again - I think those files *should* be on Thingiverse, and hell
someday even a RepRap will hopefully be able to print all of those
(with mounted laser cutters, geared down stepper motors with insane
precision and some far advanced extruder head, rotatable and
switchable heads, temporary support materials, or even laser-
solidified chemical baths - who knows). ..but until I have access to
something that prints that well, it morphs from a fun-thing-to-see-
each-day to an almost-depressing-reminder-about-the-limitations-of-the-
current-hobby-solution.
Sorry if that's a delicate subject, especially with the most recent
blog post. I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, I'm just trying to enjoy
the current hobbyist state of the art.
No feathers ruffled here, so don't worry. In fact, you've hit on an
issue that I think is very important. From the beginning, Thingiverse
was designed as a place for people to share their designs for
digitally fabricated objects... regardless of the method used to
create them. If it's digital information that can be used to
automatically produce an item, then we want it!
However, the technologies to produce such items are wide and diverse.
Even within each technology group (3d printing, lasercutting, etc)
there is an amazing amount of variation. I completely agree that we
need better filtering and such. I think that part of it can be
software based... we could run an object through some software and
determine what the minimum requirements to fabricate it would be. The
other half is probably social, provided that the appropriate tools for
categorizing and reporting the 'buildability' of an object.
If you have any concrete ideas on how this might look, I'm interested
in hearing about them.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Jeff Keegan <jeff.kee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello! My first post here - hope it doesn't offend anyone.
> I've fallen into a daily habit of checking Thingiverse -> Newest
> Things on my iPhone. It's unbelievably cool seeing things that people
> have designed and printed, and then being able to make mental note of
> that piece to try printing later. (If the iPhone web view let you
> "Like" an object I'd be even happier - instead I later rate items I
> like while at my desktop. But I digress).
> The one thing that I'm starting to want though is something that lets
> me limit the things I see to ones that I have a chance of actually
> making. It's cool seeing laser-cut parts, but not having easy access
> to a laser cutter, seeing those assemblies is always a bit of a
> letdown. I'd still want to see them, but maybe when I'm bored and I
> browse past "newest things you can print" to a more broad view.
> It was one thing to mentally filter out the laser-cut pieces - it's
> pretty easy to visually recognize something made with laser-cut parts.
> Harder than that was seeing a model uploaded (whose picture was just a
> rendering, not a printed object) and mentally trying to determine
> whether that could actually be printed without any support material,
> or if someone had just decided to post a model before ever printing
> it. But now even harder than that, we have several uploaded things
> complete with pictures of their 3D printing, but it's only printable
> with either support material or worse yet a liquid bath style
> expensive 3D printer with insane resolution.
> Again - I think those files *should* be on Thingiverse, and hell
> someday even a RepRap will hopefully be able to print all of those
> (with mounted laser cutters, geared down stepper motors with insane
> precision and some far advanced extruder head, rotatable and
> switchable heads, temporary support materials, or even laser-
> solidified chemical baths - who knows). ..but until I have access to
> something that prints that well, it morphs from a fun-thing-to-see-
> each-day to an almost-depressing-reminder-about-the-limitations-of-the-
> current-hobby-solution.
> Sorry if that's a delicate subject, especially with the most recent
> blog post. I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, I'm just trying to enjoy
> the current hobbyist state of the art.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Zach 'Hoeken' Smith wrote: > software based... we could run an object through some software and > determine what the minimum requirements to fabricate it would be. The > other half is probably social, provided that the appropriate tools for > categorizing and reporting the 'buildability' of an object.
> If you have any concrete ideas on how this might look, I'm interested > in hearing about them.
Are you? I've been trying to get your attention for the past year because of some software that I've been working on that does that. :-(
That looks really cool. I remember emailing back and forth a bit a
while ago but sometimes I get buried in email. I also dont have as
much time as I'd like to work on Thingiverse as I'd like either. Lets
pick up the discusison again and find out how we can make your stuff
work with my stuff.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Zach 'Hoeken' Smith wrote:
>> software based... we could run an object through some software and
>> determine what the minimum requirements to fabricate it would be. The
>> other half is probably social, provided that the appropriate tools for
>> categorizing and reporting the 'buildability' of an object.
>> If you have any concrete ideas on how this might look, I'm interested
>> in hearing about them.
> Are you? I've been trying to get your attention for the past year
> because of some software that I've been working on that does that. :-(
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Zach 'Hoeken' Smith <hoe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That looks really cool. I remember emailing back and forth a bit a > while ago but sometimes I get buried in email. I also dont have as > much time as I'd like to work on Thingiverse as I'd like either. Lets > pick up the discusison again and find out how we can make your stuff > work with my stuff.
I am always online, on the phone, and available for chat. If you do the IRC thing, I have a legion of developers in #hplusroadmap on irc.freenode.net (as well as some thingiverse committers apparently). If not, I'm on any of your favorite chat networks, and my phone number is 512 203 0507. We can also do it by email. Whatever :-).
Couple of things I think of is 1) a view of objects that can be made
only by the tools that specific user has (can it be done in one
query?) and 2) filter by multiple tools/tags etc
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Zach 'Hoeken' Smith <hoe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No feathers ruffled here, so don't worry. In fact, you've hit on an
> issue that I think is very important. From the beginning, Thingiverse
> was designed as a place for people to share their designs for
> digitally fabricated objects... regardless of the method used to
> create them. If it's digital information that can be used to
> automatically produce an item, then we want it!
> However, the technologies to produce such items are wide and diverse.
> Even within each technology group (3d printing, lasercutting, etc)
> there is an amazing amount of variation. I completely agree that we
> need better filtering and such. I think that part of it can be
> software based... we could run an object through some software and
> determine what the minimum requirements to fabricate it would be. The
> other half is probably social, provided that the appropriate tools for
> categorizing and reporting the 'buildability' of an object.
> If you have any concrete ideas on how this might look, I'm interested
> in hearing about them.
> Cheers,
> Zach
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Jeff Keegan <jeff.kee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello! My first post here - hope it doesn't offend anyone.
>> I've fallen into a daily habit of checking Thingiverse -> Newest
>> Things on my iPhone. It's unbelievably cool seeing things that people
>> have designed and printed, and then being able to make mental note of
>> that piece to try printing later. (If the iPhone web view let you
>> "Like" an object I'd be even happier - instead I later rate items I
>> like while at my desktop. But I digress).
>> The one thing that I'm starting to want though is something that lets
>> me limit the things I see to ones that I have a chance of actually
>> making. It's cool seeing laser-cut parts, but not having easy access
>> to a laser cutter, seeing those assemblies is always a bit of a
>> letdown. I'd still want to see them, but maybe when I'm bored and I
>> browse past "newest things you can print" to a more broad view.
>> It was one thing to mentally filter out the laser-cut pieces - it's
>> pretty easy to visually recognize something made with laser-cut parts.
>> Harder than that was seeing a model uploaded (whose picture was just a
>> rendering, not a printed object) and mentally trying to determine
>> whether that could actually be printed without any support material,
>> or if someone had just decided to post a model before ever printing
>> it. But now even harder than that, we have several uploaded things
>> complete with pictures of their 3D printing, but it's only printable
>> with either support material or worse yet a liquid bath style
>> expensive 3D printer with insane resolution.
>> Again - I think those files *should* be on Thingiverse, and hell
>> someday even a RepRap will hopefully be able to print all of those
>> (with mounted laser cutters, geared down stepper motors with insane
>> precision and some far advanced extruder head, rotatable and
>> switchable heads, temporary support materials, or even laser-
>> solidified chemical baths - who knows). ..but until I have access to
>> something that prints that well, it morphs from a fun-thing-to-see-
>> each-day to an almost-depressing-reminder-about-the-limitations-of-the-
>> current-hobby-solution.
>> Sorry if that's a delicate subject, especially with the most recent
>> blog post. I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, I'm just trying to enjoy
>> the current hobbyist state of the art.
While we are on the topic of improving thingiverse. I have contacted a few
other members about "trade work". Meaning that I have a laser cutter but
CNC/makerbot. Sometimes there are things that I would love to have but do
not have the ability to fabricate. So offline we talk and workout some
trade this for that. Well it would be cool to add an option about if you
were willing to trade items or perhaps a want board etc? I think its a
great way to compliment all of us hackers shops. One thing that came to
mind was I know there are a few guys with pick and place systems. If I
laser etched some boards (a few extras for the guys with the pick and places
etc) then they could use their machines to build them. Obviously this is
just an example but I think its a good idea.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Zach 'Hoeken' Smith <hoe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > That looks really cool. I remember emailing back and forth a bit a
> > while ago but sometimes I get buried in email. I also dont have as
> > much time as I'd like to work on Thingiverse as I'd like either. Lets
> > pick up the discusison again and find out how we can make your stuff
> > work with my stuff.
> I am always online, on the phone, and available for chat. If you do
> the IRC thing, I have a legion of developers in #hplusroadmap on
> irc.freenode.net (as well as some thingiverse committers apparently).
> If not, I'm on any of your favorite chat networks, and my phone number
> is 512 203 0507. We can also do it by email. Whatever :-).
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Riley Porter <rileypor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> While we are on the topic of improving thingiverse. I have contacted a few
> other members about "trade work". Meaning that I have a laser cutter but
> CNC/makerbot. Sometimes there are things that I would love to have but do
> not have the ability to fabricate. So offline we talk and workout some
> trade this for that. Well it would be cool to add an option about if you
> were willing to trade items or perhaps a want board etc? I think its a
> great way to compliment all of us hackers shops. One thing that came to
> mind was I know there are a few guys with pick and place systems. If I
> laser etched some boards (a few extras for the guys with the pick and places
> etc) then they could use their machines to build them. Obviously this is
> just an example but I think its a good idea.
> Riley
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Zach 'Hoeken' Smith <hoe...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > That looks really cool. I remember emailing back and forth a bit a
>> > while ago but sometimes I get buried in email. I also dont have as
>> > much time as I'd like to work on Thingiverse as I'd like either. Lets
>> > pick up the discusison again and find out how we can make your stuff
>> > work with my stuff.
>> I am always online, on the phone, and available for chat. If you do
>> the IRC thing, I have a legion of developers in #hplusroadmap on
>> irc.freenode.net (as well as some thingiverse committers apparently).
>> If not, I'm on any of your favorite chat networks, and my phone number
>> is 512 203 0507. We can also do it by email. Whatever :-).
we have the problem again, because technically a 3D printer made that,
but
it was a $$ commercial machine instead of a cheap $500 reprap.
Plus, when RepRap model 17 comes along and can nano-assemble some
ElasticBioFilm Bouncy Ball thing, it'd be nice to not be taunted by it
when
all I have is the lousy model 16 which can't even do protein folding.
Custom RepStraps are another issue, but I'd say that at least
"official"
models or models with a large userbase ("Darwin", "Mendel", "Makerbot
Cupcake", etc) should be recorded somewhere, with specified
capabilities.
All three of those might for now map to the same capabilities (except
perhaps for build size), but they'd certainly lack the "reference
model 3
laser cutter" capability.. A standard Mendel would only have the
single-head-extruder capability, and would lack the dual-extruder
capability
necessary for printing something with support material, etc.
Long term there should be some well thought out plan (without reading
too
much of it yet, the idea of an "apt-get for real stuff" sounds like a
great
start).. but before that long term plan takes place, it'd be nice if
we had
a short-term solution that lets people at least filter to a "RepRap"
level.
..Jeff
On Nov 13, 2:17 pm, Vitaly Mankevich <albanetc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Couple of things I think of is 1) a view of objects that can be made
> only by the tools that specific user has (can it be done in one
> query?) and 2) filter by multiple tools/tags etc
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Zach 'Hoeken' Smith <hoe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey Jeff,
> > No feathers ruffled here, so don't worry. In fact, you've hit on an
> > issue that I think is very important. From the beginning, Thingiverse
> > was designed as a place for people to share their designs for
> > digitally fabricated objects... regardless of the method used to
> > create them. If it's digital information that can be used to
> > automatically produce an item, then we want it!
> > However, the technologies to produce such items are wide and diverse.
> > Even within each technology group (3d printing, lasercutting, etc)
> > there is an amazing amount of variation. I completely agree that we
> > need better filtering and such. I think that part of it can be
> > software based... we could run an object through some software and
> > determine what the minimum requirements to fabricate it would be. The
> > other half is probably social, provided that the appropriate tools for
> > categorizing and reporting the 'buildability' of an object.
> > If you have any concrete ideas on how this might look, I'm interested
> > in hearing about them.
> > Cheers,
> > Zach
> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Jeff Keegan <jeff.kee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hello! My first post here - hope it doesn't offend anyone.
> >> I've fallen into a daily habit of checking Thingiverse -> Newest
> >> Things on my iPhone. It's unbelievably cool seeing things that people
> >> have designed and printed, and then being able to make mental note of
> >> that piece to try printing later. (If the iPhone web view let you
> >> "Like" an object I'd be even happier - instead I later rate items I
> >> like while at my desktop. But I digress).
> >> The one thing that I'm starting to want though is something that lets
> >> me limit the things I see to ones that I have a chance of actually
> >> making. It's cool seeing laser-cut parts, but not having easy access
> >> to a laser cutter, seeing those assemblies is always a bit of a
> >> letdown. I'd still want to see them, but maybe when I'm bored and I
> >> browse past "newest things you can print" to a more broad view.
> >> It was one thing to mentally filter out the laser-cut pieces - it's
> >> pretty easy to visually recognize something made with laser-cut parts.
> >> Harder than that was seeing a model uploaded (whose picture was just a
> >> rendering, not a printed object) and mentally trying to determine
> >> whether that could actually be printed without any support material,
> >> or if someone had just decided to post a model before ever printing
> >> it. But now even harder than that, we have several uploaded things
> >> complete with pictures of their 3D printing, but it's only printable
> >> with either support material or worse yet a liquid bath style
> >> expensive 3D printer with insane resolution.
> >> Again - I think those files *should* be on Thingiverse, and hell
> >> someday even a RepRap will hopefully be able to print all of those
> >> (with mounted laser cutters, geared down stepper motors with insane
> >> precision and some far advanced extruder head, rotatable and
> >> switchable heads, temporary support materials, or even laser-
> >> solidified chemical baths - who knows). ..but until I have access to
> >> something that prints that well, it morphs from a fun-thing-to-see-
> >> each-day to an almost-depressing-reminder-about-the-limitations-of-the-
> >> current-hobby-solution.
> >> Sorry if that's a delicate subject, especially with the most recent
> >> blog post. I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, I'm just trying to enjoy
> >> the current hobbyist state of the art.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Jeff Keegan wrote: > we have the problem again, because technically a 3D printer made that, > but > it was a $$ commercial machine instead of a cheap $500 reprap.
Yep, skdb resolves this problem by thinking of hardware like software: there are different versions of designs. For this reason, then, you specify a reprap-1.0 as the dependency, or stratasys-unobtainium as one of the dependencies, etc. There's just no web interface yet.. well, sort of.
Well, for that kind of detail you'd need something like SKDB (or what
it will become) - with dependencies etc. Their stuff is pretty
interesting, I've looked at Lego coded in python, hope to eventually
figure out how to SKDB-ify some of my projects.. @Bryan I think a
tutorial on SKDBfying stuff would really help more people understand
what it's all about.
> we have the problem again, because technically a 3D printer made that,
> but
> it was a $$ commercial machine instead of a cheap $500 reprap.
> Plus, when RepRap model 17 comes along and can nano-assemble some
> ElasticBioFilm Bouncy Ball thing, it'd be nice to not be taunted by it
> when
> all I have is the lousy model 16 which can't even do protein folding.
> Custom RepStraps are another issue, but I'd say that at least
> "official"
> models or models with a large userbase ("Darwin", "Mendel", "Makerbot
> Cupcake", etc) should be recorded somewhere, with specified
> capabilities.
> All three of those might for now map to the same capabilities (except
> perhaps for build size), but they'd certainly lack the "reference
> model 3
> laser cutter" capability.. A standard Mendel would only have the
> single-head-extruder capability, and would lack the dual-extruder
> capability
> necessary for printing something with support material, etc.
> Long term there should be some well thought out plan (without reading
> too
> much of it yet, the idea of an "apt-get for real stuff" sounds like a
> great
> start).. but before that long term plan takes place, it'd be nice if
> we had
> a short-term solution that lets people at least filter to a "RepRap"
> level.
> ..Jeff
> On Nov 13, 2:17 pm, Vitaly Mankevich <albanetc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey guys,
>> Couple of things I think of is 1) a view of objects that can be made
>> only by the tools that specific user has (can it be done in one
>> query?) and 2) filter by multiple tools/tags etc
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Zach 'Hoeken' Smith <hoe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hey Jeff,
>> > No feathers ruffled here, so don't worry. In fact, you've hit on an
>> > issue that I think is very important. From the beginning, Thingiverse
>> > was designed as a place for people to share their designs for
>> > digitally fabricated objects... regardless of the method used to
>> > create them. If it's digital information that can be used to
>> > automatically produce an item, then we want it!
>> > However, the technologies to produce such items are wide and diverse.
>> > Even within each technology group (3d printing, lasercutting, etc)
>> > there is an amazing amount of variation. I completely agree that we
>> > need better filtering and such. I think that part of it can be
>> > software based... we could run an object through some software and
>> > determine what the minimum requirements to fabricate it would be. The
>> > other half is probably social, provided that the appropriate tools for
>> > categorizing and reporting the 'buildability' of an object.
>> > If you have any concrete ideas on how this might look, I'm interested
>> > in hearing about them.
>> > Cheers,
>> > Zach
>> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Jeff Keegan <jeff.kee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Hello! My first post here - hope it doesn't offend anyone.
>> >> I've fallen into a daily habit of checking Thingiverse -> Newest
>> >> Things on my iPhone. It's unbelievably cool seeing things that people
>> >> have designed and printed, and then being able to make mental note of
>> >> that piece to try printing later. (If the iPhone web view let you
>> >> "Like" an object I'd be even happier - instead I later rate items I
>> >> like while at my desktop. But I digress).
>> >> The one thing that I'm starting to want though is something that lets
>> >> me limit the things I see to ones that I have a chance of actually
>> >> making. It's cool seeing laser-cut parts, but not having easy access
>> >> to a laser cutter, seeing those assemblies is always a bit of a
>> >> letdown. I'd still want to see them, but maybe when I'm bored and I
>> >> browse past "newest things you can print" to a more broad view.
>> >> It was one thing to mentally filter out the laser-cut pieces - it's
>> >> pretty easy to visually recognize something made with laser-cut parts.
>> >> Harder than that was seeing a model uploaded (whose picture was just a
>> >> rendering, not a printed object) and mentally trying to determine
>> >> whether that could actually be printed without any support material,
>> >> or if someone had just decided to post a model before ever printing
>> >> it. But now even harder than that, we have several uploaded things
>> >> complete with pictures of their 3D printing, but it's only printable
>> >> with either support material or worse yet a liquid bath style
>> >> expensive 3D printer with insane resolution.
>> >> Again - I think those files *should* be on Thingiverse, and hell
>> >> someday even a RepRap will hopefully be able to print all of those
>> >> (with mounted laser cutters, geared down stepper motors with insane
>> >> precision and some far advanced extruder head, rotatable and
>> >> switchable heads, temporary support materials, or even laser-
>> >> solidified chemical baths - who knows). ..but until I have access to
>> >> something that prints that well, it morphs from a fun-thing-to-see-
>> >> each-day to an almost-depressing-reminder-about-the-limitations-of-the-
>> >> current-hobby-solution.
>> >> Sorry if that's a delicate subject, especially with the most recent
>> >> blog post. I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, I'm just trying to enjoy
>> >> the current hobbyist state of the art.
> Well, for that kind of detail you'd need something like SKDB (or what > it will become) - with dependencies etc. Their stuff is pretty > interesting, I've looked at Lego coded in python, hope to eventually > figure out how to SKDB-ify some of my projects.. @Bryan I think a > tutorial on SKDBfying stuff would really help more people understand > what it's all about.
That would be something I could definitely use as well.
As it is, we're slowly but surely stacking up designs for release around the new year. To really get the most out of what we're developing, we'll want to specify a ton of stuff: preferred machinery, dimensions with tolerances, materials choices, ways to indicate that a part is and isn't "the same" part in various dimensions, recommendations for scaling substitutions, and ultimately the ability to do static and dynamic calculations on 3-d models built up from these specified components.
In other words, I need SKDB bad but I'm no Pythonista. If it were integrated with Thingiverse in some way I would turn cartwheels. Even some idea of what's goes into turning a chunk of extruded aluminum into an SKDB package would be super.
When compiling the last version of project XYZ, you can say it depends
on gcc-422 and just declare that the project depends on gcc.. That
won't work here - you can't just say "the required printer is foo4"..
If someone designed a round button with a flower on it and submitted
it saying it requires makerbot-cupcake-1.0, that'd look like an unmet
dependency for someone with a Darwin or Mendel (or Hydroraptor, etc).
What you *could* do is instruct people to always have it depend on the
lowest common denominator - everything would be Darwin until you get a
design that requires two different plastics (2 tool heads).. but even
if you did it that way, do you say that new design depends on this
repstrap over here with two heads, or that repstrap over THERE with
two heads, both of which were developed independently and neither of
which was derived from the other.
It's better if it depends on *capabilities*, and those capabilities
are well named, versioned things. The dependency graph doesn't depend
on Hydroraptor - it depends on both "cartesian-3d-printer" and
"multiple-head/material" capabilities that Hydroraptor possesses.
The same approach could apply to parts and known supplies of those
parts.. Knowing several URLs for equivalent products from different
countries is extremely valuable.
(Having today just finished ordering practically every part of my
Mendel except for any RP parts or the unavailable stepper driver v2.3
boards, I know. :) )
By the way, anyone want to trade anything for a printed set of Mendel
RP parts? :)
..Jeff
On Nov 13, 2:40 pm, Bryan Bishop <kanz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Jeff Keegan wrote:
> > we have the problem again, because technically a 3D printer made that,
> > but
> > it was a $$ commercial machine instead of a cheap $500 reprap.
> Yep, skdb resolves this problem by thinking of hardware like software:
> there are different versions of designs. For this reason, then, you
> specify a reprap-1.0 as the dependency, or stratasys-unobtainium as
> one of the dependencies, etc. There's just no web interface yet..
> well, sort of.
Bryan, your my hero!
I was thinking along the same lines, but hadn't run across skdb
before.
Also, I'm chuckling when I read about "openfarmtech torch table"
because I just finished building and documenting it
http://openfarmtech.org/weblog/?p=1187.
I'm interested in doing the next design in something like this, and
building an exporter for the gcode for various parts.
I also have some ideas and features that would be useful, and I'll see
about building on what you already have.
Its extra nice to not be faced with the daunting project of building
an physical manifestation of apt-get by my self.
Lawrence
On Nov 13, 1:05 pm, Bryan Bishop <kanz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Zach 'Hoeken' Smith wrote:
> > software based... we could run an object through some software and
> > determine what the minimum requirements to fabricate it would be. The
> > other half is probably social, provided that the appropriate tools for
> > categorizing and reporting the 'buildability' of an object.
> > If you have any concrete ideas on how this might look, I'm interested
> > in hearing about them.
> Are you? I've been trying to get your attention for the past year
> because of some software that I've been working on that does that. :-(
Hi Jeff et All,
No feathers ruffled here as I'm afraid I'm one of the
transgressors...
I did not realize what the goals of the site were until after I had
posted, I thought oh neat here's a place where I can put up some of my
more esoteric interests and maybe someone will find some of it
interesting.
I agree that there should be some sort of filtered views or view
by selection to the site (like most popular, laser, FDM, etc...), but
I am more interested in pushing the DIY's capabilities into the realm
of the industrial arena and getting the industrial and R&D to push out
past the current limitations of existing tech or releasing said tech
to the DIYers to run with on their own. I am trying (working with a
few) to take what I have learned and know and impart that tech into
the DIY. I don't like the limitations I'm locked into on my machines
and hack them continuously trying to get better resolutions (I know
hardware/software) but I don't have all the man power behind me like
big companies do, so it takes me a while to shake something loose, but
when I do I try and share it.
If you notice i.materialise has joined the thingiverse. This is
good and not so good ... good that the worlds largest 3D Printer shop/
fabber has entered into the DIY's realm and makes all that tech
available to everyone now (for a price) - they wrote the book on 3D
printing. But it also means that what we do will/is being noticed and
scrutinized, and if someone sees some I.P. they just might make it
their own and keep it from us ... double edged sword here - maybe - I
don't know, but what I've seen of the corporate world in my past 35
years tends to not lend at great deal of trust in their direction.
-jay-
On Nov 13, 10:24 am, Jeff Keegan <jeff.kee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello! My first post here - hope it doesn't offend anyone.
> I've fallen into a daily habit of checking Thingiverse -> Newest
> Things on my iPhone. It's unbelievably cool seeing things that people
> have designed and printed, and then being able to make mental note of
> that piece to try printing later. (If the iPhone web view let you
> "Like" an object I'd be even happier - instead I later rate items I
> like while at my desktop. But I digress).
> The one thing that I'm starting to want though is something that lets
> me limit the things I see to ones that I have a chance of actually
> making. It's cool seeing laser-cut parts, but not having easy access
> to a laser cutter, seeing those assemblies is always a bit of a
> letdown. I'd still want to see them, but maybe when I'm bored and I
> browse past "newest things you can print" to a more broad view.
> It was one thing to mentally filter out the laser-cut pieces - it's
> pretty easy to visually recognize something made with laser-cut parts.
> Harder than that was seeing a model uploaded (whose picture was just a
> rendering, not a printed object) and mentally trying to determine
> whether that could actually be printed without any support material,
> or if someone had just decided to post a model before ever printing
> it. But now even harder than that, we have several uploaded things
> complete with pictures of their 3D printing, but it's only printable
> with either support material or worse yet a liquid bath style
> expensive 3D printer with insane resolution.
> Again - I think those files *should* be on Thingiverse, and hell
> someday even a RepRap will hopefully be able to print all of those
> (with mounted laser cutters, geared down stepper motors with insane
> precision and some far advanced extruder head, rotatable and
> switchable heads, temporary support materials, or even laser-
> solidified chemical baths - who knows). ..but until I have access to
> something that prints that well, it morphs from a fun-thing-to-see-
> each-day to an almost-depressing-reminder-about-the-limitations-of-the-
> current-hobby-solution.
> Sorry if that's a delicate subject, especially with the most recent
> blog post. I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, I'm just trying to enjoy
> the current hobbyist state of the art.
|
