SolidWorks i3

Would anybody mind directing me to where I could find an assembly for the Reprap i3 for SolidWorks? Or possibly a parts repository?

Thanks

You know that there are many variations of the i3 out there? The original from Josef Prusa can be built in two models, with a frame made of wood or with aluminum plate. The source files are in OpenSCAD format, which is incompatible with commercial CAD software.

If you're not a student a SolidWorks license is more than $4,000 so not many people work with it.

These link have i3 assembly files in STEP and/or CATIA format:
[grabcad.com]
[grabcad.com]
[www.thingiverse.com]

That last link has the printer assembly rotated on its back (with Y axis as "up") which most probably means it was modeled in SolidWorks, because it's the only CAD system I know of that stupidly puts XZ plane as ground instead of the universally acknowledged XY plane as ground. So maybe you can ask Thingiverse user twelvepro if he's willing to share his original files.

I started to model the Prusa i3 vanilla in FreeCAD and could provide a STEP but it is not as complete as the others.

Not too sure about Solidworks, but I have seen a few OpenSCAD versions out there. Somewhere that it can be converted to Solidoworks format by opening and exporting with some program, can be quite a hassle if there are too many parts. Anyway, there are quite a few variants of i3 out there so make sure you find the correct one.

OpenSCAD is a very obscure program only used in the RepRap community. The software libraires it's based on make it impossible to share 3D data with "real" CAD software. The only software that can import OpenSCAD .scad or .csg files is the open source FreeCAD, but OpenSCAD still needs to be installed. That's what I used to convert the printed parts for my i3 assembly, but the OpenSCAD import utility is not able to treat complex files (or assemblies) yet.

I outlined the process in this topic on the Lulzbot forum : Converting OpenSCAD files easily to STEP with FreeCAD

Quote
NormandC
That last link has the printer assembly rotated on its back (with Y axis as "up") which most probably means it was modeled in SolidWorks, because it's the only CAD system I know of that stupidly puts XZ plane as ground instead of the universally acknowledged XY plane as ground. So maybe you can ask Thingiverse user twelvepro if he's willing to share his original files.

Ob-pedantry: I understand the default view orientations are common in the car designing biz. Notice I said "default". The standard views could rearranged to anything you like, inclusing some loony diagonal arrangement.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2014 04:36PM by Dale Dunn.

Quote
Dale Dunn
Ob-pedantry: I understand the default view orientations are common in the car designing biz. Notice I said "default". The standard views could rearranged to anything you like, inclusing some loony diagonal arrangement.

I have no idea of the meaning of that neologism (it's not an existing word) or if it was directed toward me, nor do I care. In my own experience a great majority of designers will just use the default planes when modeling (i.e., just accept that "ground" or "top view" is what the software tells them). To my knowledge XY as ground plane or top view has been the default in ALL manufacturing fields and SolidWorks going against that unwritten "standard" had no valid purpose. The end result is that when importing a STEP generated by SW in any other CAD program, the model is almost always on its back instead of standing up. Granted in the grand scheme of things it's at best a minor nuisance, but one I would rather not have to deal with.

Depending on what plane you being with in SW the orientation for an STL is set to it.

To determine what plane will be the base for a STL file:
Design a cube with a feature on one surface to judge it's orientation.
Create the first cube on the front plane, the second cube on the top plane, and the third cube on the right plane.
Save each as an STL, import it into your favorite program, and you'll discover what plane is the base.

I am not alone in thinking XZ as "top" is wrong.

[duckduckgo.com]

Anyway, we've strayed from the object of this topic...

yes Im a student, Solidworks is the CAD package I've been taught for the last 3 years. I've built the box frame i3 but would have been happy with any of them for the big leg up over starting from scratch. I'm a bit surprised really, the painful experience I've had with OpenSCAD had me thinking others would definitely have jumped to other software for their own iterating

Quote
ml190
yes Im a student, Solidworks is the CAD package I've been taught for the last 3 years. I've built the box frame i3 but would have been happy with any of them for the big leg up over starting from scratch. I'm a bit surprised really, the painful experience I've had with OpenSCAD had me thinking others would definitely have jumped to other software for their own iterating

I'm with you!

I guess it means many RepRap contributors are more programmer-minded than designer/engineer-minded.

Sad isn't it? If you are an American student paying 10s of thousands to go to school you can't use the student version to earn any money to pay your way. That's because the student version watermarks all your models and giving them to someone for commercial use will cause them no end of grief. Just went through this because the company I work for had a student design a product and I couldn't use any of his files in a legit seat of Solidworks. Fortunately I knew about this, and made purchasing a seat of Solidworks contingent upon SW converting all the files for me, which they ultimately did.

Now I can hire an Indian freelance engineer using a cracked copy for $3 an hour and cut out the student altogether. What a great country!

Quote
NormandC

Quote
Dale Dunn
Ob-pedantry: I understand the default view orientations are common in the car designing biz. Notice I said "default". The standard views could rearranged to anything you like, inclusing some loony diagonal arrangement.

I have no idea of the meaning of that neologism (it's not an existing word) or if it was directed toward me, nor do I care. In my own experience a great majority of designers will just use the default planes when modeling (i.e., just accept that "ground" or "top view" is what the software tells them). To my knowledge XY as ground plane or top view has been the default in ALL manufacturing fields and SolidWorks going against that unwritten "standard" had no valid purpose. The end result is that when importing a STEP generated by SW in any other CAD program, the model is almost always on its back instead of standing up. Granted in the grand scheme of things it's at best a minor nuisance, but one I would rather not have to deal with.

"obligatory pedantry". Aimed at me. Because I was nit-picking an issue of little significance.

Guys, it's really ready to implement a reference coordinate system in sw to export your stl's in any orientation you desire.

You are missing the point.

The point is about SW programmers disregarding long established standard practice.

The point is that most users simply take the SW default planes for granted and model their stuff accordingly.

The point is users of other CAD programs then get exported parts and assemblies that are flipped on their back and that is an annoyance they shouldn't have to deal with in the first place.