________________________________ From: Jetty <clelland...@gmail.com> To: Ultimaker <ultimaker@googlegroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 2:52 PM Subject: Re: Compare the facts (Ultimaker and Replicator 2)
>oh my, the jetty firmware. Not sure what came from it, but it caused a lot >of headaches because they did not publish the source but only the hex >files, violating gpl. but thats not makerbots fault..
Bernhard,
I suggest you check your facts first before making claims like that. GPL was never violated and the source is available here.
And also, although we weren't required to, as a courtesy, we also fed formulas and technical documentation to you personally to help you produce a better Advance in addition to a detailed reports on all the bugs we found in Marlin.
You thanked us for the input, thanked us for uploading the code to github, and told us we did a great job.
So, I'm not sure why the hostility now. Having a bad day or something?
And Jetty Firmware is alive a strong. We can achieve 120mm/s reliably with as good results as non-accelerated. 150mm/s is also possible with a well tuned extruder. We expect to exceed 150mm/s with the new Kickstarter extruders. Also we've been printing at 10Microns too.
You may want to look at incorporating the detailed changes we provided you back into Marlin.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ultimaker" group.
There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for Ultimaker operators: http://forum.ultimaker.com/
If you still want to post to this group, send email to ultimaker@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
> And Jetty Firmware is alive a strong. We can achieve 120mm/s reliably
> with as good
> results as non-accelerated. 150mm/s is also possible with a well
> tuned extruder.
> We expect to exceed 150mm/s with the new Kickstarter extruders. Also
> we've been
> printing at 10Microns too.
P.S. That's with the Jetty stepper interrupt single stepping the extruders
which yields demonstrably better print quality than Marlin. Marlin
cannot achieve that: its stepper interrupt has to cut over to double
stepping the steppers when the step rate hits 10 KHz (~120 mm/s on an Ultimaker).
Maybe there's even more to learn from Jetty since the last time you looked at it?
To the best of our knowledge it is only running Makerbot printers. Why? Because
that's what Jetty and I have. Other people are welcome to port it to other electronics and
printers.
> Ha!! No.. Not tired of it at all and still think they deserve every single
> word of it.
And as there have been some Ultimaker folks trashing MBI's open source
policy on the Makerbot Operators forum, I think it's only fair to
point out that
there are some on this forum who have posted that Ultimaker is not
fully open source
either (and hasn't been for a while).
Not saying I agree or disagree with what either vendor is doing (I'm
sure they have their
reasons). Just saying it's somewhat hypocritical to target MBI when
Ultimaker is
doing something similar and was doing it prior.
Everybody is entitled to state their opinion, but as far as bashing
people or companies, try being nice, you might achieve more.
When people are being threatened with violence over this, I think it's
gone too far.
Yeah, the Ultimaker has never been as open source as any of the previous
MakerBots. MBI shared far more than just the electronics and the wood
files, and at least with the Replicator they didn't restrict commercial
re-use (not familiar with the licenses on the others).
I'm not happy with what MBI did but I'm not happy with how UM is treating
open source either.
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Jetty <clelland...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So are you folks now tired of bashing MBI ...
> > Ha!! No.. Not tired of it at all and still think they deserve every
> single
> > word of it.
> And as there have been some Ultimaker folks trashing MBI's open source
> policy on the Makerbot Operators forum, I think it's only fair to
> point out that
> there are some on this forum who have posted that Ultimaker is not
> fully open source
> either (and hasn't been for a while).
> Not saying I agree or disagree with what either vendor is doing (I'm
> sure they have their
> reasons). Just saying it's somewhat hypocritical to target MBI when
> Ultimaker is
> doing something similar and was doing it prior.
> Everybody is entitled to state their opinion, but as far as bashing
> people or companies, try being nice, you might achieve more.
> When people are being threatened with violence over this, I think it's
> gone too far.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Ultimaker" group.
> There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for
> Ultimaker operators:
> http://forum.ultimaker.com/
> If you still want to post to this group, send email to
> ultimaker@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
I wish you all some some face to face contact, possibly with beer involved.
That would be very constructive I think and take away some
suspicions/assumptions. All of you make great stuff, investing your time in
great stuff will benefit all of us.
I hereby pledge 10 euro into the jetty-marlin beer fund, who will do the
same?
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Taylor Alexander <tlalexan...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Yeah, the Ultimaker has never been as open source as any of the previous
> MakerBots. MBI shared far more than just the electronics and the wood
> files, and at least with the Replicator they didn't restrict commercial
> re-use (not familiar with the licenses on the others).
> I'm not happy with what MBI did but I'm not happy with how UM is treating
> open source either.
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Jetty <clelland...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > So are you folks now tired of bashing MBI ...
>> > Ha!! No.. Not tired of it at all and still think they deserve every
>> single
>> > word of it.
>> And as there have been some Ultimaker folks trashing MBI's open source
>> policy on the Makerbot Operators forum, I think it's only fair to
>> point out that
>> there are some on this forum who have posted that Ultimaker is not
>> fully open source
>> either (and hasn't been for a while).
>> Not saying I agree or disagree with what either vendor is doing (I'm
>> sure they have their
>> reasons). Just saying it's somewhat hypocritical to target MBI when
>> Ultimaker is
>> doing something similar and was doing it prior.
>> Everybody is entitled to state their opinion, but as far as bashing
>> people or companies, try being nice, you might achieve more.
>> When people are being threatened with violence over this, I think it's
>> gone too far.
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Ultimaker" group.
>> There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for
>> Ultimaker operators:
>> http://forum.ultimaker.com/
>> If you still want to post to this group, send email to
>> ultimaker@googlegroups.com
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Ultimaker" group.
> There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for
> Ultimaker operators:
> http://forum.ultimaker.com/
> If you still want to post to this group, send email to
> ultimaker@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
Not sure why this thread strayed onto the Jetty firmware in the first place. While I love fiddling with my UM (and I also did the same with the MB TOM that I used before that) I'm very much in the same camp as Marcelino here. I totally see the temptation of buying something that just works.
Replicator 1 wasn't hassle free. You can read the bewilderment from newbies when confronting numerous Replicator 1 hiccups. As an owner of two Cupcakes, I could sense the obsession these newbies had over warping and leveling of the platform. If an endstop was loose, look out! Then there's the entanglement of filament on those small spools. So there's Bre and his colorful flawless printing videos and then there's the reality of operating it yourself.
________________________________ From: Jensa <jens...@gmail.com> To: ultimaker@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 2:16 PM Subject: Re: Compare the facts (Ultimaker and Replicator 2)
+1 Jelle!
Not sure why this thread strayed onto the Jetty firmware in the first place. While I love fiddling with my UM (and I also did the same with the MB TOM that I used before that) I'm very much in the same camp as Marcelino here. I totally see the temptation of buying something that just works.
J -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ultimaker" group.
There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for Ultimaker operators: http://forum.ultimaker.com/
If you still want to post to this group, send email to ultimaker@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
Another example is the UP printer. The videos were flawless. Then I started reading one guy post a problem on the Makerbot board about a leaking and failing extruder on his UP printer.
________________________________ From: Zip Zap <zzap...@yahoo.com> To: "ultimaker@googlegroups.com" <ultimaker@googlegroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 11:20 PM Subject: Re: Compare the facts (Ultimaker and Replicator 2)
Replicator 1 wasn't hassle free. You can read the bewilderment from newbies when confronting numerous Replicator 1 hiccups. As an owner of two Cupcakes, I could sense the obsession these newbies had over warping and leveling of the platform. If an endstop was loose, look out! Then there's the entanglement of filament on those small spools. So there's Bre and his colorful flawless printing videos and then there's the reality of operating it yourself.
________________________________ From: Jensa <jens...@gmail.com> To: ultimaker@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 2:16 PM Subject: Re: Compare the facts (Ultimaker and Replicator 2)
+1 Jelle!
Not sure why this thread strayed onto the Jetty firmware in the first place. While I love fiddling with my UM (and I also did the same with the MB TOM that I used before that) I'm very much in the same camp as Marcelino here. I totally see the temptation of buying something that just works.
J -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ultimaker" group.
There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for Ultimaker operators: http://forum.ultimaker.com/
If you still want to post to this group, send email to ultimaker@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ultimaker" group.
There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for Ultimaker operators: http://forum.ultimaker.com/
If you still want to post to this group, send email to ultimaker@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
On Sep 26, 2012 11:23 PM, "Zip Zap" <zzap...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Another example is the UP printer. The videos were flawless. Then I
started reading one guy post a problem on the Makerbot board about a
leaking and failing extruder on his UP printer.
Failing extruders!? That's unheard of!
I read amazing things about the Ultimaker too, but we've all had our share
of problems. I like my UM, but we all know marketing and reality will vary.
Sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. But I can't help but notice that
Jetty's comments on the hypocrisy are real. We really can't fault MB for
being closed source and problematic when the UM is barely open source and
equally problematic.
The only thing to do now is be better than MB. I'm happy that UM is working
on the reliability but the open source issue hasn't been resolved at all.
The UM post about being Open Source Hardware (with capital letters) is
still up, but the UM itself still doesn't comply with the ideals of the
OSHW movement and I've seen no commitment from the company on fixing that.
Let's fix that and be better than MB.
> ________________________________
> From: Zip Zap <zzap...@yahoo.com>
> To: "ultimaker@googlegroups.com" <ultimaker@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 11:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Compare the facts (Ultimaker and Replicator 2)
> Replicator 1 wasn't hassle free. You can read the bewilderment from
newbies when confronting numerous Replicator 1 hiccups. As an owner of
two Cupcakes, I could sense the obsession these newbies had over warping
and leveling of the platform. If an endstop was loose, look out! Then
there's the entanglement of filament on those small spools. So there's Bre
and his colorful flawless printing videos and then there's the reality of
operating it yourself.
> ________________________________
> From: Jensa <jens...@gmail.com>
> To: ultimaker@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 2:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Compare the facts (Ultimaker and Replicator 2)
> +1 Jelle!
> Not sure why this thread strayed onto the Jetty firmware in the first
place. While I love fiddling with my UM (and I also did the same with the
MB TOM that I used before that) I'm very much in the same camp as Marcelino
here. I totally see the temptation of buying something that just works.
> J
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ultimaker" group.
> There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for
About the state of UM-open-source "policy". It's a difficult subject.
Just some information I have. First the UM blog post about Open-Source-Hardware. The blog post is clear that they opened up the lasercut files, the electronics, firmware and PC software. Those files are open, and out there, so that's good. The only problem here is the "none-commercial" clause. Which conflicts with the OSHW definition. This clause in the OSHW definition is "4. Free redistribution", and it was added in the 0.3 draft. (And clause like that is absent from the 0.2 draft) This draft was added to the history on 22 september 2011. The blogpost from Ultimaker is from May 2012. Ultimaker might have have realized back then that this clause was in the OSHW definition (which was only a draft) Blog post as reference: http://blog.ultimaker.com/open-source-hardware/
This blog post is also quite old, still from the time when Ultimaker was 3 people in a garage building kits. With a vision for the future. As Ultimaker grew, this vision also changed a bit. Now they are running this company, and making a living of it. And they have 15 employes that they need to pay. This puts more priority on making a bit of money, and less on the ideal of everything Open Source.
The UltiController is a prime example of this going a bit wrong. Bernard developed this controller and firmware. As far as I understood, Ultimaker payed him for this development. The firmware is open-source and everyone is enjoying the fruits of his labor. The PCB design for the UltiController was on thingiverse, before Ultimaker had their first production run. Now, Ultimaker had some (for me unknown) problems with production of the UltiController. But because the plans where already opened on thingiverse. There where other shops already selling this new controller. Which means Ultimaker had made an investment, but they didn't get the initial revenue. Which is a bit bad if you depend on this revenue to keep Ultimaker alive, and food on the table.
Then there is this 3 boss company, where there are 3 different opinions about how open they should be. I know for example that Sierd is very pro-open-source. With 3 different opinions about what should be done, and lots of other work to do. The easiest thing to do is... nothing. (I don't say that that is the best thing, but I feel like that is what happened).
> > Another example is the UP printer. The videos were flawless. Then I > started reading one guy post a problem on the Makerbot board about a > leaking and failing extruder on his UP printer.
> Failing extruders!? That's unheard of!
> I read amazing things about the Ultimaker too, but we've all had our share > of problems. I like my UM, but we all know marketing and reality will vary. > Sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. But I can't help but notice that > Jetty's comments on the hypocrisy are real. We really can't fault MB for > being closed source and problematic when the UM is barely open source and > equally problematic.
> The only thing to do now is be better than MB. I'm happy that UM is > working on the reliability but the open source issue hasn't been resolved > at all. The UM post about being Open Source Hardware (with capital letters) > is still up, but the UM itself still doesn't comply with the ideals of the > OSHW movement and I've seen no commitment from the company on fixing that.
> Let's fix that and be better than MB.
> > ________________________________ > > From: Zip Zap <zza...@yahoo.com <javascript:>> > > To: "ulti...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>" <ulti...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 11:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: Compare the facts (Ultimaker and Replicator 2)
> > Replicator 1 wasn't hassle free. You can read the bewilderment from > newbies when confronting numerous Replicator 1 hiccups. As an owner of > two Cupcakes, I could sense the obsession these newbies had over warping > and leveling of the platform. If an endstop was loose, look out! Then > there's the entanglement of filament on those small spools. So there's Bre > and his colorful flawless printing videos and then there's the reality of > operating it yourself.
> > ________________________________ > > From: Jensa <jen...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > > To: ulti...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 2:16 PM > > Subject: Re: Compare the facts (Ultimaker and Replicator 2)
> > +1 Jelle!
> > Not sure why this thread strayed onto the Jetty firmware in the first > place. While I love fiddling with my UM (and I also did the same with the > MB TOM that I used before that) I'm very much in the same camp as Marcelino > here. I totally see the temptation of buying something that just works.
> > J > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Ultimaker" group.
> > There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for > Ultimaker operators: > > http://forum.ultimaker.com/
> > If you still want to post to this group, send email to > ulti...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > ultimaker+...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
> > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Ultimaker" group.
> > There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for > Ultimaker operators: > > http://forum.ultimaker.com/
> > If you still want to post to this group, send email to > ulti...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > ultimaker+...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
> > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Ultimaker" group.
> > There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for > Ultimaker operators: > > http://forum.ultimaker.com/
> > If you still want to post to this group, send email to > ulti...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > ultimaker+...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
Well, they've definitely gone the route of doing nothing. But that's not
sustainable.
As far as the OSHW license - yes, it has been through some betas and the
non-commercial stuff may not always have been there, but my beef with the
Ultimaker Open Sourcing is not purely that it is non-commercial. In fact
I'm less concerned if they keep it non-commercial than I am with the fact
that the information is just really incomplete. The OSHW license makes it
clear that there should be sufficient information made available for an
reasonable technical person to recreate the work (this helps the community
by encouraging development). The manufacturer needs to provide enough
information that their work is easy to reproduce, and the license clearly
suggests a real Bill Of Materials is critical. With the Ultimaker, this is
far from the case. I have plenty of friends that wanted to build their own
Ultimaker, but the lack of information is staggering, and so far none of
them have succeeded, even the ones that seemed to really be trying (I know
one cut out his own wood and attempted to create a BOM).
When the Makerbot when closed source, a lot of people talked about a post
from the MakerBot blog about development stubs. If you close off
development, your branch will die. The Ultimaker is an incredible machine,
but it has some clear flaws and Ultimaking is slow to fix them. If they
really let people build their own and even sell them, we'd have a whole
community of people working on upgrades, not just the 3 founders and a few
dedicated Ultimaker owners.
That's what i want to see for UM. I want to see it be the next reprap.
Currently I'm enamored by the possibilities of the Rostock, but a solid
XY+Z machine like the Ultimaker certainly has its place in the Reprap
family tree. The question is, will it be a simple stub that dies, or a real
contribution to the community?
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 4:29 AM, Daid <daid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> About the state of UM-open-source "policy". It's a difficult subject.
> Just some information I have.
> First the UM blog post about Open-Source-Hardware. The blog post is clear
> that they opened up the lasercut files, the electronics, firmware and PC
> software. Those files are open, and out there, so that's good. The only
> problem here is the "none-commercial" clause. Which conflicts with the OSHW
> definition.
> This clause in the OSHW definition is "4. Free redistribution", and it was
> added in the 0.3 draft. (And clause like that is absent from the 0.2 draft)
> This draft was added to the history on 22 september 2011. The blogpost from
> Ultimaker is from May 2012. Ultimaker might have have realized back then
> that this clause was in the OSHW definition (which was only a draft)
> Blog post as reference: http://blog.ultimaker.com/open-source-hardware/
> This blog post is also quite old, still from the time when Ultimaker was 3
> people in a garage building kits. With a vision for the future. As
> Ultimaker grew, this vision also changed a bit. Now they are running this
> company, and making a living of it. And they have 15 employes that they
> need to pay.
> This puts more priority on making a bit of money, and less on the ideal of
> everything Open Source.
> The UltiController is a prime example of this going a bit wrong. Bernard
> developed this controller and firmware. As far as I understood, Ultimaker
> payed him for this development. The firmware is open-source and everyone is
> enjoying the fruits of his labor. The PCB design for the UltiController was
> on thingiverse, before Ultimaker had their first production run.
> Now, Ultimaker had some (for me unknown) problems with production of the
> UltiController. But because the plans where already opened on thingiverse.
> There where other shops already selling this new controller. Which means
> Ultimaker had made an investment, but they didn't get the initial revenue.
> Which is a bit bad if you depend on this revenue to keep Ultimaker alive,
> and food on the table.
> Then there is this 3 boss company, where there are 3 different opinions
> about how open they should be. I know for example that Sierd is very
> pro-open-source. With 3 different opinions about what should be done, and
> lots of other work to do. The easiest thing to do is... nothing. (I don't
> say that that is the best thing, but I feel like that is what happened).
> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:30:52 AM UTC+2, Taylor wrote:
>> > Another example is the UP printer. The videos were flawless. Then I
>> started reading one guy post a problem on the Makerbot board about a
>> leaking and failing extruder on his UP printer.
>> Failing extruders!? That's unheard of!
>> I read amazing things about the Ultimaker too, but we've all had our
>> share of problems. I like my UM, but we all know marketing and reality will
>> vary. Sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. But I can't help but notice that
>> Jetty's comments on the hypocrisy are real. We really can't fault MB for
>> being closed source and problematic when the UM is barely open source and
>> equally problematic.
>> The only thing to do now is be better than MB. I'm happy that UM is
>> working on the reliability but the open source issue hasn't been resolved
>> at all. The UM post about being Open Source Hardware (with capital letters)
>> is still up, but the UM itself still doesn't comply with the ideals of the
>> OSHW movement and I've seen no commitment from the company on fixing that.
>> Let's fix that and be better than MB.
>> > ______________________________**__
>> > From: Zip Zap <zza...@yahoo.com>
>> > To: "ulti...@googlegroups.com" <ulti...@googlegroups.com>
>> > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 11:20 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Compare the facts (Ultimaker and Replicator 2)
>> > Replicator 1 wasn't hassle free. You can read the bewilderment from
>> newbies when confronting numerous Replicator 1 hiccups. As an owner of
>> two Cupcakes, I could sense the obsession these newbies had over warping
>> and leveling of the platform. If an endstop was loose, look out! Then
>> there's the entanglement of filament on those small spools. So there's Bre
>> and his colorful flawless printing videos and then there's the reality of
>> operating it yourself.
>> > ______________________________**__
>> > From: Jensa <jen...@gmail.com>
>> > To: ulti...@googlegroups.com
>> > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 2:16 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Compare the facts (Ultimaker and Replicator 2)
>> > +1 Jelle!
>> > Not sure why this thread strayed onto the Jetty firmware in the first
>> place. While I love fiddling with my UM (and I also did the same with the
>> MB TOM that I used before that) I'm very much in the same camp as Marcelino
>> here. I totally see the temptation of buying something that just works.
>> > J
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Ultimaker" group.
>> > There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for
>> Ultimaker operators:
>> > http://forum.ultimaker.com/
>> > If you still want to post to this group, send email to
>> ulti...@googlegroups.com
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> > ultimaker+...@**googlegroups.com
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Ultimaker" group.
> There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for
> Ultimaker operators:
> http://forum.ultimaker.com/
> If you still want to post to this group, send email to
> ultimaker@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
From: Daid Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 07:29
About the state of UM-open-source "policy". It's a difficult subject.
Just some information I have.
---<snip
The biggest step I see now is the fact that MB has opened a store where the
average consumer is able to see and buy a working 3D printer. I'm not
saying this is the first time that a 3D printer is available in a consumer
store (I believe the first was a BfB at Bijenkorf in the Netherlands sold
by Freedom Of Creation) but this is a clear sign that UM should take a
closer look at.
Because isn't this what the original Reprap project is about? to put
personal creation in the hands of people. MB seems to be confident enough
about their product to take that step.
UM is certainly not ready for that and I wonder if they will ever be.
Because if more accurate systems are going to become mainstream, then FDM
machines will become the matrix printer of 3D. Right now people are still
amazed by 3D printing, even if the resulting prints are rough and
inaccurate. But that will change quickly.
> ...Because if more accurate systems are going to become mainstream, then FDM > machines will become the matrix printer of 3D. Right now people are still amazed by > 3D printing, even if the resulting prints are rough and inaccurate. But that will > change quickly.
It seems like SLA will always be relatively small machines. Or the tub-type will be anyway - if somebody came up with a way to do SLA without having to have a pool of goo, it would be easier to go bigger. Powder printers, also known for high-detail, are a bit of a turn off for me because they have a much bigger footprint and seem like they'd be prone to making a mess of the place - more of a shop machine than a home machine.
So... I'm not worried about FDM going away any time soon. SLA will probably grow in popularity but I think it will be limited to smaller machines.
What I'd like to see from UM is some different sized machines. I thought the UM+ was awesome - saw one last year at MF:NYC - and if they offered an upgrade kit, I'd be the first in line. I'd also like to see a machine capable of doing ~500mm cubes, preferrably fed by pellets instead of filament. Even though UM is one of the bigger printers out there, I still sometimes wish it was bigger - having a .5m build area would open it up to a lot more applications.
I also think they should offer a metal version. This is one of the few things MBI did right - we've known for years that the general public looks down on the wooden frames. Have a note on the store that says "wood is plenty strong and cheaper but if you want metal, here's the option." I know it's not necessarily an easy thing to actually do this but it would look a lot better, which is sometimes important..
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 9:37:22 AM UTC-4, Gijs wrote: > The biggest step I see now is the fact that MB has opened a store where > the average consumer is able to see and buy a working 3D printer. I'm not > saying this is the first time that a 3D printer is available in a consumer > store (I believe the first was a BfB at Bijenkorf in the Netherlands sold > by Freedom Of Creation) but this is a clear sign that UM should take a > closer look at.
> Because isn't this what the original Reprap project is about? to put > personal creation in the hands of people. MB seems to be confident enough > about their product to take that step.
> UM is certainly not ready for that and I wonder if they will ever be. > Because if more accurate systems are going to become mainstream, then FDM > machines will become the matrix printer of 3D. Right now people are still > amazed by 3D printing, even if the resulting prints are rough and > inaccurate. But that will change quickly.
The UM+ has some problems, that's why they never released an upgrade kit. There are 2 UM+ versions, the one from Ultimaker and the one from Protospace. Both show Z-wobble in the final print. The lower the platform the more wobble you see in the final model. With tall objects it also became more and more difficult to get the object to stick to the bed during the whole print.
I think an UM+ upgrade kit could be assembled by the community. What you need is: -Longer Z screw -Longer Z guides, but maybe these need to be thicker to remove the Z wobble. -New side panels (should be possible to design from the thingiverse lasercut stuff) -Extension cables for the steppers and other electronics.
It's quite easy to extend the Z size, unlike the X/Y size which would require stronger guides or they would flex.
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 4:48:11 PM UTC+2, ddurant wrote:
> > ...Because if more accurate systems are going to become mainstream, then > FDM > > machines will become the matrix printer of 3D. Right now people are > still amazed by > > 3D printing, even if the resulting prints are rough and inaccurate. But > that will > > change quickly.
> It seems like SLA will always be relatively small machines. Or the > tub-type will be anyway - if somebody came up with a way to do SLA without > having to have a pool of goo, it would be easier to go bigger. Powder > printers, also known for high-detail, are a bit of a turn off for me > because they have a much bigger footprint and seem like they'd be prone to > making a mess of the place - more of a shop machine than a home machine.
> So... I'm not worried about FDM going away any time soon. SLA will > probably grow in popularity but I think it will be limited to smaller > machines.
> What I'd like to see from UM is some different sized machines. I thought > the UM+ was awesome - saw one last year at MF:NYC - and if they offered an > upgrade kit, I'd be the first in line. I'd also like to see a machine > capable of doing ~500mm cubes, preferrably fed by pellets instead of > filament. Even though UM is one of the bigger printers out there, I still > sometimes wish it was bigger - having a .5m build area would open it up to > a lot more applications.
> I also think they should offer a metal version. This is one of the > few things MBI did right - we've known for years that the general public > looks down on the wooden frames. Have a note on the store that says "wood > is plenty strong and cheaper but if you want metal, here's the option." I > know it's not necessarily an easy thing to actually do this but it would > look a lot better, which is sometimes important..
> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 9:37:22 AM UTC-4, Gijs wrote:
>> The biggest step I see now is the fact that MB has opened a store where >> the average consumer is able to see and buy a working 3D printer. I'm not >> saying this is the first time that a 3D printer is available in a consumer >> store (I believe the first was a BfB at Bijenkorf in the Netherlands sold >> by Freedom Of Creation) but this is a clear sign that UM should take a >> closer look at.
>> Because isn't this what the original Reprap project is about? to put >> personal creation in the hands of people. MB seems to be confident enough >> about their product to take that step.
>> UM is certainly not ready for that and I wonder if they will ever be. >> Because if more accurate systems are going to become mainstream, then FDM >> machines will become the matrix printer of 3D. Right now people are still >> amazed by 3D printing, even if the resulting prints are rough and >> inaccurate. But that will change quickly.
> The lower the platform the more wobble you see in the final model.
Though I don't double people have observed this, I've never really understood it. The platform's attached in the same way throughout the Z range and unless something is pushing on it, I don't see why it would wobble more at one spot than another. If anything, it seems like it might wobble less as it goes lower since it's farther away from the unconstrained-top of the screw.. It would take more money and a bit more redesign but I wonder if adding a guide rods or 2 in the front would help.
Maybe that's a discussion for a different thread, though. Don't mean to go too far off-topic here...
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:09:32 AM UTC-4, Daid wrote: > The UM+ has some problems, that's why they never released an upgrade kit. > There are 2 UM+ versions, the one from Ultimaker and the one from > Protospace. Both show Z-wobble in the final print. The lower the platform > the more wobble you see in the final model. > With tall objects it also became more and more difficult to get the object > to stick to the bed during the whole print.
> I think an UM+ upgrade kit could be assembled by the community. What you > need is: > -Longer Z screw > -Longer Z guides, but maybe these need to be thicker to remove the Z > wobble. > -New side panels (should be possible to design from the thingiverse > lasercut stuff) > -Extension cables for the steppers and other electronics.
> It's quite easy to extend the Z size, unlike the X/Y size which would > require stronger guides or they would flex.
> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 4:48:11 PM UTC+2, ddurant wrote:
>> > ...Because if more accurate systems are going to become mainstream, >> then FDM >> > machines will become the matrix printer of 3D. Right now people are >> still amazed by >> > 3D printing, even if the resulting prints are rough and inaccurate. But >> that will >> > change quickly.
>> It seems like SLA will always be relatively small machines. Or the >> tub-type will be anyway - if somebody came up with a way to do SLA without >> having to have a pool of goo, it would be easier to go bigger. Powder >> printers, also known for high-detail, are a bit of a turn off for me >> because they have a much bigger footprint and seem like they'd be prone to >> making a mess of the place - more of a shop machine than a home machine.
>> So... I'm not worried about FDM going away any time soon. SLA will >> probably grow in popularity but I think it will be limited to smaller >> machines.
>> What I'd like to see from UM is some different sized machines. I thought >> the UM+ was awesome - saw one last year at MF:NYC - and if they offered an >> upgrade kit, I'd be the first in line. I'd also like to see a machine >> capable of doing ~500mm cubes, preferrably fed by pellets instead of >> filament. Even though UM is one of the bigger printers out there, I still >> sometimes wish it was bigger - having a .5m build area would open it up to >> a lot more applications.
>> I also think they should offer a metal version. This is one of the >> few things MBI did right - we've known for years that the general public >> looks down on the wooden frames. Have a note on the store that says "wood >> is plenty strong and cheaper but if you want metal, here's the option." I >> know it's not necessarily an easy thing to actually do this but it would >> look a lot better, which is sometimes important..
>> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 9:37:22 AM UTC-4, Gijs wrote:
>>> The biggest step I see now is the fact that MB has opened a store where >>> the average consumer is able to see and buy a working 3D printer. I'm not >>> saying this is the first time that a 3D printer is available in a consumer >>> store (I believe the first was a BfB at Bijenkorf in the Netherlands sold >>> by Freedom Of Creation) but this is a clear sign that UM should take a >>> closer look at.
>>> Because isn't this what the original Reprap project is about? to put >>> personal creation in the hands of people. MB seems to be confident enough >>> about their product to take that step.
>>> UM is certainly not ready for that and I wonder if they will ever be. >>> Because if more accurate systems are going to become mainstream, then FDM >>> machines will become the matrix printer of 3D. Right now people are still >>> amazed by 3D printing, even if the resulting prints are rough and >>> inaccurate. But that will change quickly.
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 12:27:07 PM UTC-4, ddurant wrote: > > The lower the platform the more wobble you see in the final model.
> Though I don't double people have observed this, I've never really > understood it. The platform's attached in the same way throughout the Z > range and unless something is pushing on it, I don't see why it would > wobble more at one spot than another. If anything, it seems like it might > wobble less as it goes lower since it's farther away from the > unconstrained-top of the screw.. It would take more money and a bit more > redesign but I wonder if adding a guide rods or 2 in the front would help.
> Maybe that's a discussion for a different thread, though. Don't mean to go > too far off-topic here...
> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:09:32 AM UTC-4, Daid wrote:
>> The UM+ has some problems, that's why they never released an upgrade kit. >> There are 2 UM+ versions, the one from Ultimaker and the one from >> Protospace. Both show Z-wobble in the final print. The lower the platform >> the more wobble you see in the final model. >> With tall objects it also became more and more difficult to get the >> object to stick to the bed during the whole print.
>> I think an UM+ upgrade kit could be assembled by the community. What you >> need is: >> -Longer Z screw >> -Longer Z guides, but maybe these need to be thicker to remove the Z >> wobble. >> -New side panels (should be possible to design from the thingiverse >> lasercut stuff) >> -Extension cables for the steppers and other electronics.
>> It's quite easy to extend the Z size, unlike the X/Y size which would >> require stronger guides or they would flex.
>> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 4:48:11 PM UTC+2, ddurant wrote:
>>> > ...Because if more accurate systems are going to become mainstream, >>> then FDM >>> > machines will become the matrix printer of 3D. Right now people are >>> still amazed by >>> > 3D printing, even if the resulting prints are rough and inaccurate. >>> But that will >>> > change quickly.
>>> It seems like SLA will always be relatively small machines. Or the >>> tub-type will be anyway - if somebody came up with a way to do SLA without >>> having to have a pool of goo, it would be easier to go bigger. Powder >>> printers, also known for high-detail, are a bit of a turn off for me >>> because they have a much bigger footprint and seem like they'd be prone to >>> making a mess of the place - more of a shop machine than a home machine.
>>> So... I'm not worried about FDM going away any time soon. SLA will >>> probably grow in popularity but I think it will be limited to smaller >>> machines.
>>> What I'd like to see from UM is some different sized machines. I thought >>> the UM+ was awesome - saw one last year at MF:NYC - and if they offered an >>> upgrade kit, I'd be the first in line. I'd also like to see a machine >>> capable of doing ~500mm cubes, preferrably fed by pellets instead of >>> filament. Even though UM is one of the bigger printers out there, I still >>> sometimes wish it was bigger - having a .5m build area would open it up to >>> a lot more applications.
>>> I also think they should offer a metal version. This is one of the >>> few things MBI did right - we've known for years that the general public >>> looks down on the wooden frames. Have a note on the store that says "wood >>> is plenty strong and cheaper but if you want metal, here's the option." I >>> know it's not necessarily an easy thing to actually do this but it would >>> look a lot better, which is sometimes important..
>>> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 9:37:22 AM UTC-4, Gijs wrote:
>>>> The biggest step I see now is the fact that MB has opened a store where >>>> the average consumer is able to see and buy a working 3D printer. I'm not >>>> saying this is the first time that a 3D printer is available in a consumer >>>> store (I believe the first was a BfB at Bijenkorf in the Netherlands sold >>>> by Freedom Of Creation) but this is a clear sign that UM should take a >>>> closer look at.
>>>> Because isn't this what the original Reprap project is about? to put >>>> personal creation in the hands of people. MB seems to be confident enough >>>> about their product to take that step.
>>>> UM is certainly not ready for that and I wonder if they will ever be. >>>> Because if more accurate systems are going to become mainstream, then FDM >>>> machines will become the matrix printer of 3D. Right now people are still >>>> amazed by 3D printing, even if the resulting prints are rough and >>>> inaccurate. But that will change quickly.
> The biggest step I see now is the fact that MB has opened a store where the
> average consumer is able to see and buy a working 3D printer. I'm not
> saying this is the first time that a 3D printer is available in a consumer
> store (I believe the first was a BfB at Bijenkorf in the Netherlands sold
> by Freedom Of Creation) but this is a clear sign that UM should take a
> closer look at.
And last weekend was the public grand opening of a 3D printing store in Pasadena, California,
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Dan Newman <dan.new...@mtbaldy.us> wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2012 , at 6:37 AM, Gijs de Zwart wrote:
> > The biggest step I see now is the fact that MB has opened a store where
> the
> > average consumer is able to see and buy a working 3D printer. I'm not
> > saying this is the first time that a 3D printer is available in a
> consumer
> > store (I believe the first was a BfB at Bijenkorf in the Netherlands sold
> > by Freedom Of Creation) but this is a clear sign that UM should take a
> > closer look at.
> And last weekend was the public grand opening of a 3D printing store in
> Pasadena, California,
> (Pasadena is the home of JPL -- the mars rover folks, CalTech, the Rose
> Parade & Bowl,
> etc.) It's also the folks who brought us the Bukobot.
> So, that's at least three 3D printing stores open to the public and doing
> retail
> sales.
> Dan
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Ultimaker" group.
> There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for
> Ultimaker operators:
> http://forum.ultimaker.com/
> If you still want to post to this group, send email to
> ultimaker@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
ddurant, You know how the nozzle can occasionally drag a print?
Now imagine that tall print acts like a lever. When the nozzle imparts some
X/Y force on the print, the part itself will flex a little (taller and
thinner the feature, the more it flexes), and the springs on the bed may
give a little (but I think it's more of the former).
Cheers,
-Joel
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Taylor Alexander <tlalexan...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Another 3D printing store is Makers Factory in Santa Cruz. Not sure if
> that was included in the count.
> MakersFactory.com
> I like the owners - cool people.
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Dan Newman <dan.new...@mtbaldy.us>wrote:
>> On 27 Sep 2012 , at 6:37 AM, Gijs de Zwart wrote:
>> > The biggest step I see now is the fact that MB has opened a store where
>> the
>> > average consumer is able to see and buy a working 3D printer. I'm not
>> > saying this is the first time that a 3D printer is available in a
>> consumer
>> > store (I believe the first was a BfB at Bijenkorf in the Netherlands
>> sold
>> > by Freedom Of Creation) but this is a clear sign that UM should take a
>> > closer look at.
>> And last weekend was the public grand opening of a 3D printing store in
>> Pasadena, California,
>> (Pasadena is the home of JPL -- the mars rover folks, CalTech, the Rose
>> Parade & Bowl,
>> etc.) It's also the folks who brought us the Bukobot.
>> So, that's at least three 3D printing stores open to the public and doing
>> retail
>> sales.
>> Dan
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Ultimaker" group.
>> There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for
>> Ultimaker operators:
>> http://forum.ultimaker.com/
>> If you still want to post to this group, send email to
>> ultimaker@googlegroups.com
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Ultimaker" group.
> There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for
> Ultimaker operators:
> http://forum.ultimaker.com/
> If you still want to post to this group, send email to
> ultimaker@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
Something like THAT I understand.. As a print gets taller, it's like a longer moment arm so poking at the top sorta torques the bottom more than on shorter prints. Harder to keep attached to the platform, shows up similar to artifacts you get with z-wobble.
That's not the same as "more z wobble," though, which is what I think I've heard people say a number of times - there have been discussions in the past about the UM+.
Actual z-wobble artifacts are usually nicely periodic. Artifacts from bumping the print are much less so..
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:05:24 PM UTC-4, Joel Chia wrote: > ddurant, You know how the nozzle can occasionally drag a print?
> Now imagine that tall print acts like a lever. When the nozzle imparts > some X/Y force on the print, the part itself will flex a little (taller and > thinner the feature, the more it flexes), and the springs on the bed may > give a little (but I think it's more of the former).
> Cheers, > -Joel
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Taylor Alexander <tlale...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > wrote:
>> Another 3D printing store is Makers Factory in Santa Cruz. Not sure if >> that was included in the count.
>> MakersFactory.com
>> I like the owners - cool people.
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Dan Newman <dan.n...@mtbaldy.us<javascript:> >> > wrote:
>>> On 27 Sep 2012 , at 6:37 AM, Gijs de Zwart wrote:
>>> > The biggest step I see now is the fact that MB has opened a store >>> where the >>> > average consumer is able to see and buy a working 3D printer. I'm not >>> > saying this is the first time that a 3D printer is available in a >>> consumer >>> > store (I believe the first was a BfB at Bijenkorf in the Netherlands >>> sold >>> > by Freedom Of Creation) but this is a clear sign that UM should take a >>> > closer look at.
>>> And last weekend was the public grand opening of a 3D printing store in >>> Pasadena, California,
>>> (Pasadena is the home of JPL -- the mars rover folks, CalTech, the Rose >>> Parade & Bowl, >>> etc.) It's also the folks who brought us the Bukobot.
>>> So, that's at least three 3D printing stores open to the public and >>> doing retail >>> sales.
>>> Dan
>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Ultimaker" group.
>>> There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for >>> Ultimaker operators: >>> http://forum.ultimaker.com/
>>> If you still want to post to this group, send email to >>> ulti...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> ultimaker+...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Ultimaker" group.
>> There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for >> Ultimaker operators: >> http://forum.ultimaker.com/
>> If you still want to post to this group, send email to >> ulti...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> ultimaker+...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
Am Freitag, 28. September 2012 02:20:13 UTC+2 schrieb ddurant:
> Something like THAT I understand.. As a print gets taller, it's like a > longer moment arm so poking at the top sorta torques the bottom more than > on shorter prints. Harder to keep attached to the platform, shows up > similar to artifacts you get with z-wobble.
> That's not the same as "more z wobble," though, which is what I think I've > heard people say a number of times - there have been discussions in the > past about the UM+.
My hyptothesis:
As you wrote, it's unlikely that the Wobble itself would get stronger (meaning more force, more movement of the Z-Axis / buildplatform) - but a the large print acting as lever makes _amplifies_ the visibility of existing wobble by means of resonance.
In the moment the Z-Axis moves, the whole (tall, lever-like) structure will get a small push in one direction ("the wobble") - and swing a bit. As the structure is more flexible as it is taller, it swings a bit more or longer. As the printhead doesn't stop printing at that moment, you get a small distortion, an artefact. It's a bit like hitting a pothole in the road.
@Gijs according to Adrian Bowyer (the originator of the Reprap project) the only purpose of Reprap is the replication and working together to improve an open idea. 3D printing with plastic is just a suitable and feasible vehicle currently. This post by Adrian is really clarifying and a good read: http://forums.reprap.org/read.php?1,155473,155751#msg-155751 Recommended!
