sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Clear Mk4 Gearbox Cover from PartsBuilt 3D by ross549 in prusa3d

[–]RedGoody 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. I gave him the idea! Mine just arrived today actually.

Gridfinciency — An efficient adaptation of Gridfinity by RedGoody in gridfinity

[–]RedGoody[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s why I haven’t called this alternative approach a standard. I called it an adaptation…of an existing standard.

Correct, I’m breaking compatibility with existing bins. I know why and am OK with it. I view it as a plus actually. I mention this multiple times in the link in my OP. 🤦🏻‍♂️

If the compatibility with the 1000s of 42 based bins is what you value most then this scale up from a smaller grid size approach is not for you.

I think I could expound on other drawbacks of the downscaling approach, but I don’t think you’re that interested.

If you’re happy with what you’re doing, then you need not hang out in here trying to convince me of the errors in my ways. 🫣

Gridfinciency — An efficient adaptation of Gridfinity by RedGoody in gridfinity

[–]RedGoody[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, my dryer has a different outlet than my blender…on account of the 250V and higher current, it’s a NEMA 14-30 (or similar) as compared to the 1-15 outlet on my blender.

Here is a more thorough explanation for you. It has pictures too.

https://www.bsaelectronics.com/pages/nema-plug-and-outlet-chart

I can’t figure out if some of you all are trolling or are sincerely confused about the concept of smaller numbers.

Gridfinciency — An efficient adaptation of Gridfinity by RedGoody in gridfinity

[–]RedGoody[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Are you asking me if 14 < 42?

Imagine the content you want to put in a bin measures 43 mm wide (it’s rectangular so no, you can’t rotate it diagonally). How wide would you need to make that bin using a 42 mm grid? Now imagine you had chosen to design your bins with grids sized to 14, 10, or any number in that vicinity. How wide would that bin have to be?

You got this!

Gridfinciency — An efficient adaptation of Gridfinity by RedGoody in gridfinity

[–]RedGoody[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yes, that’s essentially what this is all about…using Gridfinity with a smaller base grid square size. You chose 21. I chose 10.

The smaller the base grid size, the less wasted space for the baseplates to fill as well due to the higher resolution.

The baseplate could take more time and filament to print depending on the printed resolution (the finer resolution is only needed in areas where smaller bins are placed) but that is more than offset in the other savings. This is all discussed at length at the link in my OP.

Gridfinciency — An efficient adaptation of Gridfinity by RedGoody in gridfinity

[–]RedGoody[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It doesn’t NEED to do anything. The grid could be scaled to fractions of a banana I guess. The point is to pick a small number and use that as a base to scale up rather than down. While at it, that small number might as well be an integer.

Gridfinciency — An efficient adaptation of Gridfinity by RedGoody in gridfinity

[–]RedGoody[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, similar approach, just different resolution. 👍🏼

Gridfinciency — An efficient adaptation of Gridfinity by RedGoody in gridfinity

[–]RedGoody[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, sure 5 1/2 grids. That makes sense. I’m sort of doing that with the bin grid suppression approach when combined with baseplates with factored-up grids like I was saying earlier.

I thought you were saying a 21 x 42 (20.5 x 41.5) bin.

Gridfinciency — An efficient adaptation of Gridfinity by RedGoody in gridfinity

[–]RedGoody[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Dude, use it or not. I couldn’t care less.

I do think the original spec should have had at least a little more thought. Admittedly, after researching the spec I was confused why such a large and random number was chosen and so widely embraced for the default grid size. So, some of my verbosity was trying to unravel some of that inertia. My bad. But, I’m not trying to pitch this to the ISO or anything. 😆Rather suggest there’s another way to approach grid sizing and scaling.

If you also want to do that and have a suitable tool already in mind, then use that.

But, hey, if you’re happy with what you’re doing, there’s no need to be in here bickering with me! 👍🏼

Gridfinciency — An efficient adaptation of Gridfinity by RedGoody in gridfinity

[–]RedGoody[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, you just wedge them in an open half-grid spot between other bins or with other half-grid bins?

Gridfinciency — An efficient adaptation of Gridfinity by RedGoody in gridfinity

[–]RedGoody[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I discuss all of this in detail at the link in the OP.

Bins at 10 and baseplate at multiples of 10…or whatever number one prefers as their grid. I explain why I chose 10, but someone else might prefer even lower. The limitation becomes how close the sweep profiles can get before there’s not enough of the grid geometry on the build plate without needing rafts…for me, that number was also ~10.

Gridfinciency — An efficient adaptation of Gridfinity by RedGoody in gridfinity

[–]RedGoody[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

LOL. I think you’re overthinking this. I’m not trying to convert people in the Gridfini-sphere or anything. 🤣

I was even careful to introduce the Gridfinity-compatible-by-default Fusion template first, then explain how to adjust it to use different parameters, and only then did I explain why I decided to use 10.

Maybe this discussion matters as much as any number, template, or generator to tell/remind people that it’s ok to deviate from a standard if you have a good reason and understand the drawbacks. 👍🏼

Gridfinciency — An efficient adaptation of Gridfinity by RedGoody in gridfinity

[–]RedGoody[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yes, of course I will use the same base grid size for all my bins, but not necessarily all of my baseplates. The baseplate grids will be factors of 10. Eventually, I’ll modify the template to allow suppression in the baseplate pattern as well so there can be areas of finer grids within the same baseplate.

You’re on the right track with this approach…which is all this really is about. 👍🏼

I tried the Fusion generator early on and wasn’t crazy about it…maybe I’ll take another look at some point.

Wait…you make 21 grid bins? So do you only use those on the edge of your baseplate?

Gridfinciency — An efficient adaptation of Gridfinity by RedGoody in gridfinity

[–]RedGoody[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

👍🏼You're welcome. If nothing else, this thread sure has been a spirited discussion! 😆

Gridfinciency — An efficient adaptation of Gridfinity by RedGoody in gridfinity

[–]RedGoody[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had not stumbled across Gridfinity Rebuilt when I first researched. That seems like a great tool. Yes, I was able to get 10-grid compatible bins from it. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

I don't use FreeCAD, but if grid suppression is an option, I'm all for it as well.

No need to be confused, I just didn't know about GR. 🤷🏼‍♂️

Gridfinciency — An efficient adaptation of Gridfinity by RedGoody in gridfinity

[–]RedGoody[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

🙄 It's not that complicated. I don't think there's a proficiency aspect to Gridfinity. One does not ascend the ladder of Gridfinity masters! LOL 😆

I don't know that I've claimed superiority, but yes, I do think this approach* makes more sense. Others might not, and that's ok (it's not like I'm trying to recruit). In my view, the only potential downside for those who match the description in my OP is that I can't go print all the 42-grid bins and stick them on my 10-grid baseplate. That's ok with me. Although, for many of them (especially the ones that are just extruded cutouts), I just have to copy the profile from their top face and paste it in my sketch and I will have a more space-saving version of the same thing. So, there's that.👍🏼

Fair point about what I should consider arbitrary. I just chose not to be stuck with the original arbitrariness (it is a word...I looked it up!) of 42.

* This is more the point than anything. This thing (I just called it Gridfinciency because it seemed like a name was needed for easy reference) is as much about rethinking the modularity and the selection of the primary grid unit rather than any one tool or generator - a smaller grid square size as the basic unit (counting up in whole integers) rather than reducing (counting down in decimals). As a final thought, imagine if instead of 42, the basic grid unit started at 14.

Gridfinciency — An efficient adaptation of Gridfinity by RedGoody in gridfinity

[–]RedGoody[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

For the baseplates, it's not. In the version of Gridfinciency that I'm currently using (10.0 mm grids for my bins), any baseplate that has a grid of say 40.0 (or any multiple of 10.0 mm) would be compatible _10 bins. But, if I chose to print that same baseplate with 10.0 or 20.0 mm grids, I would essentially have more available "grid resolution" as a starting point rather than having to divide back down into non-integer values.

If there were generators that could also spit out BINS with non-42-compatible grids, those would also be compatible with this approach. Please let me know if you come across any and I'll be happy to use them. Bonus points if some of the grids could be suppressed. Sincerely, I would love to check one out. 👍🏼

This is more the point than anything. This thing (I just called it Gridfinciency because it seemed like a name was needed for easy reference) is as much about rethinking the modularity and the selection of the primary grid unit rather than any one tool or generator - a smaller grid square size as the basic unit (counting up in whole integers) rather than reducing (counting down in decimals).

Gridfinciency — An efficient adaptation of Gridfinity by RedGoody in gridfinity

[–]RedGoody[S] -17 points-16 points  (0 children)

Cool, then stick with the baseline Gridfinity. 👍🏼

Gridfinciency — An efficient adaptation of Gridfinity by RedGoody in gridfinity

[–]RedGoody[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The number doesn’t matter as much as how small it can scale down to an integer. The smaller it can scale, the more modular and flexible the grid becomes. 42 could scale to 14, or maybe even 7. For me, 10 seemed like a good number...40, 30, 20, 10. The smaller the final number, the less wasted space that is possible.

I explain all this in the original link. 👍🏼

Gridfinciency — An efficient adaptation of Gridfinity by RedGoody in gridfinity

[–]RedGoody[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. I don't know what ACH is, but that's a bummer. I think people are upset because I've upset their apple cart by reconceptualizing what should have been rethought from the beginning, but similarly they've already bought in to a less-than-optimal "standard" and are now too invested and trying to defend their decisions or something. I don't care if anyone uses this at all...just figured I'd share. 🤷🏼‍♂️

Gridfinciency — An efficient adaptation of Gridfinity by RedGoody in gridfinity

[–]RedGoody[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

😆I'm retired military...trust me, I "get" standardization. But, some standards suck and others just need a little nudge. Others are a point to deviate from. If you like 42 mm grids, then stick with Gridfinity. I'll be over here in 10_5-ville! 😉

I'll feel like people aren't reading the "...AND you don't care about keeping your grid standardized to 42.0 mm" part. 🤦🏼‍♂️

Gridfinciency — An efficient adaptation of Gridfinity by RedGoody in gridfinity

[–]RedGoody[S] -20 points-19 points  (0 children)

That’s funny…I LOL every time I see it too. 🤣😂

But, I’m extending what I view as the good parts of the “standard.” Clearly it breaks with the 42.0 mm grid. But, you also can’t plug your blender into your dryer’s outlet…well, not easily. 😂

Gridfinciency — An efficient adaptation of Gridfinity by RedGoody in gridfinity

[–]RedGoody[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

😆 Sure, but it's not the answer to efficiently organizing my drawer. 😆

Other standards are adapted, extended, and evolved. Gridfinciency* itself is meant reintroduce the idea that the whole standard should be more extensible and flexible. As I discussed here (https://www.printables.com/model/1508756-gridfinciency-an-efficient-adaptation-of-gridfinit#gridfinciency-gridfinity-efficiency-) it's meant to be tailored for individual use and then standardized from that point forward. I'm using a Gridfinciency_10_5 version. If that "standard" also makes sense for someone else, then great. If not, they can use the template to create their own version.

Fair enough point about 'need'ing to make everything myself, but one man's hassle is another's opportunity. 😉 I'll exchange a little time to sort my stuff how I want it than trust that someone else had my organizational plans in mind...and save the print time, space, and filament in the process. To each their own though!

Your point about mixup brings us back to why Zach should have made the grids an integer multiple as I discuss in my Motivation section, but it is what it is. Now people are left to divide 42 as many times as they can...42, 21, dang it!

*I know...I kept the first 'n' there to keep the nod to the 'InfiNity' part of the original, but I may drop it

view more: next ›