New Users, please beware that "Orca" is:
- 1 Re: it's "Experimental status:
- 2 I like it
- 3 I also like it
- 4 Re: whether it';s a "true reprap" or not:
- 5 Re: whether the design is in need of change
- 6 Re: whether this is a problem or not
- 7 Building ORCA Need Some Help
- 8 Considering its Commercial
Re: it's "Experimental status:
- experimental - it's only been produced at Mendel-Parts ( a commercial outfit), and has not been indepenantly verified as to its capabilities, quality, repeatability, etc.
--Buzz ( Core Reprap team member, and Wiki Admin ).
- not experimental anymore - its been produced on alot of locations already *also outside Mendel-Parts*.
10+ users (most indepently from Mendel-Parts.com ) have verified its capabilities, quality, repeatibility. And they were very happy and very impressed, they like Orca much, much more then Mendels, building/working/printing with it etc. For that reason we yesterday decided to remove the experimental note, however some reprap users dont agree and put the above message on this page today, simply put: I hate politics, but if you change this page, make sure you know what you are talking about! --Camiel
- Buzz, Camiel, I've changed the scare text at the top of Orca a bit. I've left the issue that
- we as a wider community (7B minus 10 people) don't know much about it, yet, and that it needs
- further evaluation and isn't considered 'perfect' yet.
- I've changed the pejorative "it's an ideologically impure RepStrap" to
- a more neutral "it has laser cut parts along with 3d printed ones". Interested
- folk can read the follow up on this page to decide for themselves if this is good or bad.
- I deleted the "only one entrepreneur currently selling them"; since we're not using that
- text to warn new folk about the other RepStraps and electronics which are single-supplier.
- Interested folk can quickly get a sense of Camiel's positive reputation using forum/irc.
- The new text is wordier than the old; it is tricky to convey nuance and context regarding
- "this machine is somewhat untested but appears to be Harder Better Faster Stronger."
- --Sebastien Bailard 08:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I like it
- I justly choose the Orca to test it during the "Bootcamp FabLab/Reprap Build Party" that happened in Barcelona recently (where Camiel brought the machines himself)
- We had two weeks to build 3 Orca (while I teach them how to use a reprap) and print as much things as we can.
- If pictures are worth many words look at what we've done : Bootcamp FabLab Barcelona (the 6 students never heard of the reprap before this workshop ^^)
- I plan to write a detailed reviewed of this machine (and the questions raised here) and post a link, but in short: it have many interesting points and some that we can improve, but I think it's good (and I say that with the experience of building a Sells Mendel and a Prusa).
- Also, thanks Sebastien, I feel more comfortable with this more neutral edition
- --Emmanuel 17:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
And here is my review : http://forums.reprap.org/read.php?152,94557
I also like it
I like the design and the precision cut pieces certainly must help to build this fast and quick. Since you need test pilots, I'd be willing to test: fully route, print and build one (no warranty of the time frame, most probably a year or so) replacing whenever possible aluminium with epoxy-treated plywood or MDF. Are there any dxf files available? individual STLs? Openscad? Lanthan 15 August 2011
Re: whether it';s a "true reprap" or not:
- not entirely a Reprap ( ie it is not self-replicating ) as it currently requires approximately 20+ laser-cut parts in order to be assembled, and we can not yet print laser-cutters. Mendel and Darwin did not "require" a laser-cutter. I've personally made two Mendels, and never was a laser-cutter used at all. :-(
--Buzz ( Core Reprap team member, and Wiki Admin ).
(Standard) Mendels also needs lasercut parts, (if you need 5, you also need a lasercuter.. and we cannot print those).
But I dont have time to play this game, some people work for a better world, some people just like to complain..
- Alt. to using a lasercutter as main manufacturing method of mentioned parts.
Could be to use electroetching (wiki/forum-thread/.pdf/video) ? I guess a sufficiently advanced reprap-entity and/or relation between biological/technological entities could utilize some fluids, sweat and tears from the first and "a bit" of electricity from the latter to make some offspring. Hm.. I guess that could be interpreted wrongly.
- Buzz, do you really want to claim that any machine that uses a laser cutter to make some of its parts is not a RepRap? By that standard a Mendel is not a RepRap (most instances use several laser cut boards). The about page contains the following definition: RepRap - n. any free rapid prototyping machine that can manufacture a significant fraction of its own parts... It says nothing about not requiring a laser cutter. The Orca is certainly capable of manufacturing a significant fraction of its own parts and thus qualifies as a RepRap (assuming it is freely producible by others).
- to madscifi, I'm just trying to make people aware of the fact that if they choose this machine, then they are choosing a machine that is *less self-replicating* than the current state-of-the-art Prussa/Sells style machines. For some people this is not important at all, for some others, it's incredibly important. We have no way to know in-advance who falls into which category, so the best approach is to make sure that everyone is properly informed before they made their decision, and then they have no one to blame but themselves.
I personally like to think that you should need nothing more than common hand-tools to make a reprap, so it becomes much more accessable to a much larger audience of users. Although I don't claim that any machine that uses a laser cutter to make some of its parts is not a RepRap it is true that making it compulsory makes these machine/s les-replicable, less repeatable, less accessable, etc. The standard Mendel is totally a RepRap, because it does not need laser cut parts ( they are 100 optional, being easily cut-out with a hand saw instead). Other derivatives, like a LaserCut_Mendel are not strictly "reprap", they are "repstrap", because they are made mostly of laser-cut parts, and can not themselves cut wih a laser ( that would be cool if they could though).
Re: whether the design is in need of change
The Core reprap team hope that both the above issues will be resolved soon, and are pleased to see another RepRap variation taking shape, but it's early-days for this new design, and if you want a tried-and-tested model, we currently recommend either a "Prusa Mendel" or a "Classic/Sells Mendel", not this one. Please also note that there is currently only one supplier of parts for this model, and they are a commercial outfit. ( That may suit you, as support should be better, or it may concern you, as it potentially means increased vendor lock-in).
--Buzz ( Core Reprap team member, and Wiki Admin ).
We @ mendel-parts.com recommend Orca over the standard Mendel, because its so much easier to build, to work on / better manual etc.. in short: people are much more happy with an Orca, it prints better and is faster to setup (user comments, not my comment).
- I'm not sure how vendor lock-in is a concern. The machine is open source.
- Regarding the lasercut aspect. Many folk in developed countries have a local
- lasercutting job shop. And they've got access to ebay and reprap's marketplace.
- If Orca takes off, it's a moment's work to add a lasercut parts marketplace subforum to our forum,
- and a orca lasercut parts suppliers wiki page.
- Orca may indeed work well for hackerspaces that have a lasercutter handy or who put in a bulk order with
- a local job shop / the internet.
- --Sebastien Bailard 08:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Re: whether this is a problem or not
In General most (normal) users dont care about building a 3D printer, that is not their goal, they want to print 3D.
Camiel, you statement depends entirely on who *you* consider "normal". I personally think there is no "normal", and would not like to impose restrictions on people without at least making them aware of the choices they are making. Eg: If a user wants a non-replicating printer, then that's OK, but it's not a 'RepRap', it's a 'RepStrap'. In this particular case, your 'Orca' 3D printer is clearly moving toward the latter category( ie RepStrap), by your own admission... and that *will* be a concern for some people, so it's best that they be informed about it up-front.
--Buzz. ( Core Reprap team member, and Wiki Admin ).
I think Camiel is right, even if this might be a somewhat disappointing aspect of a developer community. Regarding the design, I consider the Orca to be a step back in terms of replicatability compared to a Prusa, but a step forward compared to an industry-only design like Gen6 electronics. At least we have a _chance_ to improve the Orca to be as printable as current state-of-the-art designs.
--Traumflug 07:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I find it difficult to agree with Buzz on this.
- Camiel is using a laser cutter to get a larger number of machines out the door faster and at lower cost than he could do printing and selling vanilla Prusa Mendels. (Otherwise he wouldn't be doing it.) As added benefit, this may help him get more electronics out the door at a lower cost.
- So ... if Camiel were to switch to Prusa Mendels, selling fewer machines at a higher cost, would this be a desirable outcome for the community? It would simplify things, but I don't think it would help folk out.
- And there's knock-on effects: The lower traffic to his webstore might mean he'd have to up his price on gen n+1 electronics, which wouldn't make reprap better.
- New folk coming to this page need to know one thing: whether or not this is a good machine; that is to say, a machine that will work and work well.
- We can explain how nice pure-form machines are vis a vis ideologically impure machines elsewhere. Unless we want to do it at the top of Orca wiki page, and have a lovely chat about philosophy/economics there which just might distract people from buying a nice new machine.
- --Sebastien Bailard 09:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- So ... if Camiel were to switch to Prusa Mendels, selling fewer machines at a higher cost, would this be a desirable outcome for the community?
- No and yes. No, because at the first iteration we would get fewer users. Yes, because people would see "ah, a RepRap is a machine which has to be bought". The later is what we don't want, because RepRap is about spreading machines by replication. People shall ask their friends to print them a machine instead of asking where to buy one. I think it's safe to assume this replication thing works well, because there are many more Mendels than any commercial design (MakerBot, PP3D, ShaperCube, ...).
- --Traumflug 13:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Something else I want to explain for once: running a production line of 6 or more printers is something else then having 1 or 2 printers.
We run in completely different problems, we find alot more issues etc. Printing 18h each day on 10 printers, or printing 18h a week on one printer is totally not comparable.
Dependence on the lasercut parts, different materials, milling?
How is the design of orca made in respect to dependence on the big lasercut parts?
The smaller alu pieces should be doable with a cnc router, which are quite common, (well at least I have a small one) but the larger pieces would have to be made on something bigger.
But getting access to a high end laser cutter which can do aluminum isn't that easy either, so what about plywood or other materials? --ElectricMucus 20:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Assuming New => Improved
- "Since it is brand new, it is almost certainly an improvement on most previous machines."
- This claim is sufficiently outrageous to distract me from figuring out whether the design is, in fact, an
- I think you'd be better off pointing to a list of advantages and disadvantages.
- This brand new = certainly improved seems like just another way of expressing that they think, they are doing something better than everyone else.
- Isn't this an open-sourced project where ideas & design progress? If yes then: newer ideas tend to have improvement, are often unique,
- offer viewpoints that are different, add to the knowledge base, benifit the whole community, and yes even provide opprotunities for profit.
- However, as I have followed Ocra it has seemingly more and more statements like this one which, seem like a superiority marketing ploy instead of
- In a few months there will be other ideas and project that are Brand new and almost certainly better than ocra or any other reprap but we dont need
- that bragging here in the reprap community.
- From what I have observed the reprap project continues to move forward not just because it is a marketable (it wouldn't be opensource if Adrian wanted just money)
- But that it has a community, members that are imperfect but with great ideas, projects that everyone learns from (hence the whole wiki), different development
- directions / lines, people that love it, and a huge potential.
- While at the same time I digress, there have been those that wanted to do things differently and focus on business, and get irritated at the community for not
- thinking the same.(sound like makerbot anyone?) But hey having a business outlook is a great thing but thats where you get a machine that doesnt change every
- month and you charge $20,000+
- As a post note though I love what you've done to make Ocra, but that doesn't instantly make you perfect... yet. (you can still work on that, we all can)
- ----Dfk20012002 08:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm the fellow I wrote wrote: "Since it is brand new, it is almost certainly an improvement on most previous machines." So ... be annoyed at me! :D
- It was something of a nebulous statement, but Camiel probably regards it as an improvement over "Don't buy this, buy a Prusa; RepRaps are better than RepStraps". Can you imagine trying to deal with that as an entrepreneur with large sunk costs, and wanting to help the community and pay a mortgage? Especially if you believe in the machine you did up?
- I'd have written up a more precise statement if I'd held an Orca in my hands, but that would cost either Camiel or me money, so ick.
- --Sebastien Bailard 09:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, Indeed in that case I was some what in error, but your right that it does sound better than the "Don't buy this" statement.
- As I look back on my discussion post it does seems a little strong (I typed it at 4am where I live), and assuming in that everything on that page comes from the makers of ocra.
- whereas, a person can track every single change on the history page to see who said what so I should have looked a little more into it.
- SO in that case, I'll say that I am sorry if it seems accusatory.
- however, I think the point is still a vaild one, that reprap has only gotten this far because people do put alot of work into it, when they could focus just on their own ones trying to make money.
- And by far none of the designs are perfect... yet!
- --Dfk20012002 18:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Building ORCA Need Some Help
I am trying to build the Orca, v.20 and the 3D model for the x belt tensioner, Orca 4001, cant be found. I have a friend that is printing the parts for me and he could not open printbed #1. I have all of the individual 3D models except this one. Where can it be obtained? Thanks for your help.
I am new to wikis in general, and apologize for my ignorance if I did this wrong. If there is a different place for this type of request, please let me know. Thanks, Dewayne.
Considering its Commercial
If you consider the fact that this is being referred to as a commercial outfit they are lacking the ability to offer proper order support and meet the deadlines they claim. If you browse through the forum you will see several complaints filed and comments about how they do not respond to emails. I can understand selling a DIY kit and not offering build support but to "sell" kits and not offer "order" support is a flag to be wary of. They also seem to like jumping the gun, the Orca V0.40 does not even have complete documentation and they are selling it already. I might add if they sell these as kits it would be wise if they noted a bill of materials on the product page.