Quote History Quoted:
You missed the part of my post that said "or CNC'ing".....
Not all designs in the pack are meant for 3D printing, many are specifically designed for manufacture using metal.
Just because you don't care for a particular design doesn't make it trash. Personal preferences and all that jazz....
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Quote History Quoted:
Quoted:
Fosscad packs need to be streamlined. About 90% of the models are trash. Just because you have a CAD model of a gun part, does not mean it is even remotely appropriate for additive manufacturing.
Now, some of the pics in OP are examples of parts actually tailored for the realities of the very different material properties of a layered part vs a milled/machined part. They are also adjusted to account for the non-metallic sheer/strain/stretch material differences used in standard FDM printers. The rest of the pack... yeah, not so much.
Foss needs to focus releases on actually optimized parts instead of cramming as much garbage as possible into a release.
You missed the part of my post that said "or CNC'ing".....
Not all designs in the pack are meant for 3D printing, many are specifically designed for manufacture using metal.
Just because you don't care for a particular design doesn't make it trash. Personal preferences and all that jazz....
The primary focus of the Fosscad community has been around additive, as the CNC files for many of these guns have been around and available for decades. It always has been that way.
When you have a community built around one thing, then randomly throw in abunch of unrelated file. That aren't even labeled or version controlled as for being for a completely different manufacturing process. It's piss poor configuration and file management. If this was a manufacturing environment, whatever company tried to pull that shit would instantly lose their contract after even a cursory quality and compliance review.
Having cnc and metallic parts is fine. However, they need to be in a separate release or segregated in a different structure within the pack. Or at the very least labeled; or the additive needs labeled. Having damn near zero indication of what has been optimized for what process or material just wastes people's time and most likely their materials if they don't know any better. The current state of that community is "submit a file, we'll throw it in the pack."
I very much love the intent of the group. But jesus... no engineer should find dumping abunch of randomly named folders, with zero CM, to ever be acceptable.
Nobody ever claimed this was a 3d printable guns pack. It just happens to contain many printable parts.
The community itself is based around additive
The message groups have what, maybe 5 machinists in them? See above, it's china level quality and versioning control. Hell, probably 90% of the active people in the foss group probably don't know what has been optimized (or even basic dimensionally verified) or what hasn't in the pack.
Again. Don't get me wrong. I absolutely love the intent of the group. Execution leaves much to be desired.