|
OriginalGriff wrote: does that make me an endangered species, or a limited edition?
Does that imply your value increases after you're dead?
|
|
|
|
|
Read the 'Summary' section in his Profile ()[^]
|
|
|
|
|
With your sense of humor - a Special Edition. 
|
|
|
|
|
Putting your well-established multiple personality disorder aside, I think you'd be better served with a more scientific sounding description. Perhaps you should consider "anomaly", or in old-school genetic description (plant husbandry), a "sport".
I promised myself not to bring up any possibility of a hybridization with Ovis aries, no matter how high the probability in your particular environment.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Cloning is not out of the question.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Last year I had started to print a Space 1999 Eagle[^] and had found a nice 3D model.
The model was nice until I started printing. The model was obviously made for rendering and not for 3D printing. Here are just some of the problems:
- The bigger parts were just grouped together. There were no provisions made to actually assemble the model (unless I drilled holes in them and held everything together with metal or carbon fiber rods).
- Some of the shapes had not been properly joined. Most of the scaffolding is just a collection of cylinders which overlap at the connections. A raytracer is fine with that because it only cares about the surface. The slicer (that's the program that 'slices' up the 3D model into layers and commands for the 3D printer) works in a similar way, but must also look what's going on inside. It must interpret the overlapping areas as hollow and lets the printer print it that way, making the printed part so weak that it already falls apart before printing is finished.
- Many details were just done with textures and rounded shapes were often done with too few polygons. No problem for some rendering magic, but the 3D printer can't texture anything or interpolate any curves.
- Bigger parts like the command module or the pods with the landing gear are quite large and were designed as one solid object. They print as one big, heavy and almost indestructible block. A real waste of filamen, so I had to hollow them out and cut them apart.
- Some parts were just designed lazyly. For two similar, but not identical parts often just one version was included. A little more attention to details, please!
Bottom line: There is not a single part which I did not have to modify, join together, cut apart, hollow out or even redesign from scratch. Now it's slowly taking shape and it already can stand on its own feet without a drop of glue. There is only one thing: The printed model so far does not look like it will add up to the 44 inches length of the original studio model. My best guess right now ends up with about 33 inches. Still big enough, but why did someone have to post an absolutely unprintable model and then scale it down by some random factor? To make it harder to make it printable?
And yes, there are obviously SOAS hiding in the hangar of the moonbase. All parts, especially the scaffolding again, are covered in 'cobwebs'. I'm already printing 20 degrees below the minimum temperature for this PLA filament, but the nozzle of the printer still leaves behind a wisp of filament when it moves over to another point. Maybe I should try another brand of filament when this roll is used up.
(*) SOAS: Spider Of Apalling Size
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
modified 24-Jul-20 4:01am.
|
|
|
|
|
It could be worth adding a little retraction, or even Z lift - that reduced it considerably for me when printing PETG.
I never had that problem printing PLA - I used the roll that came with the machine, so AnyCubic brand (no idea who actually makes it for them).
What brand did you use? How old is it? How is it stored? PLA for example is prone to absorbing moisture, and that causes stringing as it turns to steam in the hot end and both increases the "stringiness" of the filament, and "forces" the strand out of the head.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: It could be worth adding a little retraction, or even Z lift - that reduced it considerably for me when printing PETG.
These were the first things I tried. Even a Z hop of 2 mm (!) does not change anything. It's not just a little string here and there. It looks more like those fake cobwebs in a horror movie which cover entire doorways. The printer is about to finish a part of the scaffolding, so I can post a picture later.
I also tried temperatures from 230 degrees down to now 180 degrees. That also does not change anything. I hope it's not the nozzle and maybe I should take another look at the settings of the cooling fans.
OriginalGriff wrote: What brand did you use? How old is it? How is it stored? PLA for example is prone to absorbing moisture, and that causes stringing as it turns to steam in the hot end and both increases the "stringiness" of the filament, and "forces" the strand out of the head.
It's Verbatim plain vanilla gray PLA filament. I ordered two rolls of it together with the printer. The roll I'm using now was unsealed just two days ago, after the first one was done. Well, at least we have a very consistent quality.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Disguise noun to be deceptive (12)
|
|
|
|
|
Disguise noun DISGUISENOUN
to be (anag)
deceptive
DISINGENUOUS
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
ya - have fun Monday 
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I expected that clue to be more candid.
|
|
|
|
|
The solution has multiple projects(Call it modules) each running on it's own dev-cycle/version sequence.
Module-A Build 1.0.2
Module-B Build 2.0.4
Module-C Build 1.5.3
------------------------
Solution Build __?
Like this, each managed by separate teams.
But as a solution when it goes to the customer,
Can I maintain it like 1.0.0 , 1.0.1 irrespective of what the modules versions are inside?
|
|
|
|
|
It's a situation I faced at a work-place with a Ruby MicroService-based API. The individual microservices and dependent library gems could have independent versions, then the whole delivery to a customer needed a version.
Ultimately, we semantically versioned the 'package'/'deliverable' or in your case 'solution' much the same way an individual component was versioned ie - if ANY subcomponent was breaking, the MAJOR version was changed and so forth
The only issue with all of this we found was we needed to keep a 'store'/database of package/deliverable/solution version vs sub-components delivered, to make diagnostics etc easier
|
|
|
|
|
The VERSION resource has room for both file version and product version.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly the approach we use in our products. File version is used by each developer however they like. Product version is handled by our automated build, and is identical across all build outputs (EXE's, DLL's, etc).
The semi-neat trick behind all of this is the fact that our product is a mix of C#/.NET and C++/MFC. The build process edits a *.h file for the C++ code and a *.cs file for the C# to have the same build information (product version, build date, optional comment).
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
- it goes on for an hour, or more
- there is nothing remotely relevant or interesting for me in it
- it's everyday
I guess on the upside I can think of my Master of Orion adventures.... I have been told it looks like I am not paying attention! (wow, who would have thought?) and, apparently, sometimes there are things that are relevant to me... But I didn't listen! 
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: it goes on for an hour, or more
And I guess you actually spend the first 30 minutes talking about what was on TV the previous evening.
|
|
|
|
|
nah.. I speak for at most 30 seconds each meetings.. and spend the first 30 minutes (and the last 30 too) day dreaming!
|
|
|
|
|
We had regular afternoon meetings which annoyed me, but now that we don't I sometimes miss them as I feel that I'm getting out of touch with the rest of the people at work.
|
|
|
|
|
It would certainly be an improvement if they felt more like a social moment...  
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: it goes on for an hour, or more
Super Lloyd wrote: it's everyday
Why would anyone have that and why would anyone think that's a good idea?
Your manager must be the anti-productivity.
A daily stand-up shouldn't take more than 15 minutes and I already think that's too long.
Have you tried just flat-out say it?
"Guys, I don't know what I'm doing here so I'm getting back to actually getting things done."
I've done it in the past with mixed results (although the meetings always got shorter)
|
|
|
|
|
I exaggerated, they are more like 45 minutes nowadays... 
And they have about 12 people... some of these can easily speak for 5~10 minute everyday with fresh new or repeating questions...
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't exaggerate.
Chances are, more people are annoyed by this, but no one wants to speak up.
Monday, before the meeting, say something like "can we keep this REALLY short because I think our regular 45 minutes are WAY too long."
Also, 12 people sounds like a lot, are you sure they all need to be there?
If not, you can say so, "I think it doesn't make sense I'm here with x and y because I don't even work with them" or something like that.
45 minutes is still too long, and with everyone getting coffee before and after, the productivity loss is still an hour.
|
|
|
|
|
2 or 3 meetings a day for me, Corona has been a godsend, I can sit at home mic and camera off and do some real work while everyone else rattles on.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
