First off, props for sharing the STEP and not the STL, doing God's work. This allowed me to modify the design:
- Increased the hole tolerance to 0.5 to make sure they wouldn't get stuck;
- Reduced the overall height to 6mm (thread length), otherwise the larger bits would block the box from shutting properly.
Either way, the bits fit a little loose but will not come out of their slots when the box is closed. Will post the remix with the modifications I mentioned.
@goTVm You have a significant ego problem, perpetually wounded by your feelings of inferiority. Insulting others has never elevated anyone. When I publish a prototype, it has been simultaneously tested on the six machines in our studio. If you find that pretentious, so be it; it's simply our protocol. Before we go into production on our 126 printers (Prusa, Voron, Bambulab, and Stratasys), we ensure our standards. Yes, we adhere to industrial standards here, and we're not going to change that because an Ender3 user with misplaced pride feels slighted on a platform. This conversation is over.
@JMAW Brother I live rent free in your head don't I? You've been coming back to this conversation for days, go back to your 126 printers and shut your damn mouth lmao, this conversation has been over since you went off on me for hurting your little feewings for making a remix
I feel like ChatGPT was here
@BlueGooGluey Nope, no team of genius engineers behind this masterpiece – just me and my wild imagination crafted this part.
Been looking for something like this for a while. Deus ex video game-esk!
I took the advice to scale to 80% to accommodate 4mm rope for a friend's camper van. I also cut the closed ring open with a negative body in the slicer so that he can attach and detach the rope quickly. He likes it a lot and requested a second one. Thanks for this cool model.
First test print, looks great, I Will reslice it better, because of you print it upside Down, it doesnt look to good
@koutnas Thanks for your feedback. To get the best result, print Accent colour first then print main colour. It's meant to be a two colour print. I'll review the description to see if it's clear for everybody. Good Luck ;)
@JMAW yeah, I figured it out. I reprinted it and it looks way better, but I will make some adjustments, because I print it for diferrent type of 3D printer, which has diferrent mount for knob. I will send pictures later :D (edited)
I really like this design, but it doesn't seem to be suitable for MK4. (edited)
@RayCN_1010896 Nope, the depth is different in the long shaft version to gain extra millimeters without changing the overall shape. It should be faster to print by the way. Enjoy! (edited)
Thanks for your feedback. If you turn on the Arachne feature in your slicer, you should be able to get the 0.2 0.3 and 0.4 thin walls, at least with a 0.4 nozzle. Enjoy!
Great build, they print super quick and work just fine.
Like others, I am going to take umbrage that he posted this under a no-derivative license, given it is itself a derivative of what may be the most remixed 3d print system every. But I see he has argued with others here about it, so I'm just gonna leave the comment here and stay out of it.
@BuildByAnyMe_2657289 I must admit, I’m stunned! You, the self-appointed arbiter of license integrity, are now suggesting to bypass it entirely? That’s quite the flexible moral framework you’ve constructed. Tell me, does it twist to suit every occasion, or just the ones that suit you? ;)
@JMAW oh my morals are as flexible as TPU my friend
Question about the license and the disabling of remixes.
Your work is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ which does not allow derivatives "NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material".
But the original gridfinity is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ which requires derivatives to use the same license "ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original". According to Creative Commons the licenses are not compatible https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/compatible-licenses/ .
Am I misinterpreting the licenses or do you not see your model as a derivative of gridfinity?
I also never claimed to be untouchable, it‘s just not what this discussion is (or at least was) about, until you switched subjects (again), in order to avoid the actual topic of questionable licensing around your "work" 🥰
@mxlje_765103 I've explained the reasoning and context in detail earlier. If you're struggling to grasp it, feel free to read through it again. No further clarification is needed on my part.