Model variations on Makerworld

MakerWorld
1

In response to a recent suggestion made in the comments of one of my models, I am publishing my reply here. I greatly value the opinions of the users who comment on my models. Therefore, I have written a longer text to highlight the challenges and to encourage discussion. The specific model I am referring to can also be seen as representative of other models.

An model for A1-Mini would be nice

I also found the size of this particular model with a height of 39cm to be very comfortable. Nevertheless, I also thought about a smaller version.

The rules, especially in the exclusive programme, currently make it difficult for me to publish model variations, which are basically new models.
We are not talking about one or two details that need to be changed or replaced, which would certainly fit into a second print profile.

It is at the discretion of Makerworld staff to remove models, especially from the exclusive programme, which is increasingly accompanied by penalties. And it is at the discretion of users to report models that they believe could be in breach of the rules.

The dimensions of the model must to be changed and many small parts must to be remodelled (also to ensure that the tenons and gaps guarantee perfect assembly). This creates a new model, which takes a few days; it is not a trivial change to the model. And of course test prints are necessary, which requires a lot of filament for large models.

This new model then looks exactly like the large one. It is equal, although not the same. So the question is how Makerworld will handle model variations. This is not clear to me at the moment. This second model could also be considered a remix and could therefore contradict rules on Makerworld (depending on the interpretation).

There are currently two tickets open at Makerworld to clarify the status of my models labelled as exclusive. I have temporarily switched one of these models to “private”. I have set the other affected model back to public because users reported that they could no longer find the model but would have liked to download it. I removed at least one of my models from Makerworld because I feared a collision with the rules of the Exclusive programme.

I already recognised the problems mentioned above a few days ago and I am working on finding a way that can be taken with the least risk for me. Of course I would like to offer the users on Makerworld model variations, but this must be feasible within a reasonable framework.

Thank you for reading!

1 Like
Models generated by KanneKaffee
2

It sounds to me like you want this to be a new, standalone model because of the amount of work involved in modifying it. I completely understand that, but I would just include it as part of the original model. Let users know in the description that there are 2 versions and make a new print profile for the smaller version. I would also recommend organizing the STL files in two separate folders for a better user experience.

3 Likes
3

I had to do something similar for my models. I added the new model as a print profile and labelled it for the A1 mini. Yes, it is different and you call out those differences in the profile.

1 Like
4

I get the frustration.

Despite the significant amount of work involved p, I can’t imagine them thinking this is anything but a version of the original no matter how much work you put in.

Slap a big label (ironically) captioned “mini” on it and bam you have a new and different version.

You market it as a smaller version from the start, not because it can be printed on the mini, but, because it was designed to be a mini companion.

Do NOT make the end result identical, lean in to the mini part, desk clock vs wall clock, but maintain the style. It doesn’t need to be a different shape, just change dimensions and aspect ratios as you go.

In this way, you have the opportunity to create a family of bone themed clocks. All legitimate separate models.

3 Likes
5

I added a small change today and just updated the model, it took a few hours and there was no noticeable material usage. That’s within the realms of possibility for me.

There is another version from which the Helloween model is derived in a somewhat simplified form. I wanted to publish this as well. As it would be more suitable for the general public. But since this model would also look similar, I probably won’t do it under the current guidelines on Makerworld. But let’s see how this develops, it’s a bit difficult at the moment.

6

Hi.
The one who said that a Mini version would be nice was me. Unfortunately, as a pensioner, I didn’t have the money for a normal A1 or outher printer.
But I also noticed that the A1 Mini has good sales figures. So of course it doesn’t make sense to include a Mini version.
It’s easier with some models, but not always with complex ones. So thank you for your thoughts and for taking on the work. I say that on behalf of all Mini owners.

Of course, it would be a shame if Bambu guidelines were to put a spanner in the works. Unfortunately, I myself am only a user and have 3 left hands. I have to rely on creators.

I hope there will soon be positive answers from Bambu and thank you again for your work and the extra thought you put into my post.

3 Likes
7

Welcome to the forum.

I started with the mini, I had 3D printers before, but, due to reasons, I stopped, I got back in due to the a1 mini.

It is a great printer. You bagged a good one.

I then grabbed an A1, 3 P1S combos, extra AMS, and so on and so on. The sale in a couple of days has me looking for more. It can be more like a cult, be warned.

:rofl:

You also sound like a decent person.

3 Likes
8

There was a small error in the translator and I didn’t see it. Of course I mean it makes sense to offer a mini version as well.

1 Like
9

I assumed that is what you meant, don’t worry. I imagine others did as well.

2 Likes
11

I really miss an edit function here :frowning:

@MalcTheOracle thx.
I bought the Mini because I also want to print 28 mm figures with it and the Mini seems to do a better job than the A1 … there is someone on Youtube who compared it 1:1. He even used the same nozzle between prints and always changed it.

I could bite myself in the butt because I can’t afford the A1 on Black Friday… Since my money is going away for a dental crown :frowning:

12

I would recommend biting yourself on the butt, your tooth is already an issue and you could really hurt your back.

Have you considered designing a new dental crown of your own, you have a 3D printer!

You will gain the editing ability after you have interacted with the forum a few more times, you will gain a new trust level.

I added a crown to my model here, basically the same thing.

:rofl:

1 Like
13

Fundamental question: do we create models that are 3D printable or do we create models for specific 3D printers? This is often a difficult decision as to which compromise we make.

In the specific case of the watch, I have thought about the following. I will see if the original size of the clock (dial, hands and the ring) still looks good on a 20% smaller clock case. If this is the case, I could imagine simply making all the parts smaller and only redesigning the clock case slightly, because the clock will then be larger in proportion.

I had to make the same decision for the hands because they had to be shortened considerably. If the hands are too small, they no longer look good. With the current hand size, this is just about possible.

Theoretically, you could split all the parts in the slicer. This would result in visible seams where we don’t want them.

So I’m thinking about it.

14

My money is still on a mini member of the family.

1 Like
15

Ceramic will probably be difficult to print and the dentist has a better 3D scanner that can scan the old tooth better than I ever could :wink:
@KanneKaffe
Well, as a user I see it differently than a creator.
If I thought I was a creator, then I would want everyone to have fun with my design and as a creator I think I can share or downsize better than the user who would then have to do it if it doesn’t suit him.
But these are just the thoughts of a Mini owner with 3 left hands

1 Like
16

I agree completely. Because I am a user and creator. And I fully understand that you are not yet so experienced in this area. Don’t worry, that’s completely normal. So it’s not about this question per se. But then what is it about?

When you create a model, further questions arise:

To what extent can the model be sensibly subdivided? It should be easy to print and assemble.

  1. If the minimum size of a model part is reached, can further measures be taken to reduce its size? Without compromising the design?
  2. Can you reduce the overall size of the model (e.g. by a further 20%) without jeopardising the visual appearance?
  3. Are certain model parts still useful to scale down due to the reduction in size in relation to the size of the things they cannot change (e.g. mechanical clockwork with fixed dimensions). Unfavourable proportions are reached?
  4. Have the limits of a harmonious appearance already been reached? Is there still enough room for manoeuvre?
  5. Can functionality still be guaranteed?

If you have worked through all the points and cannot give a clear “yes” answer, then you need to consider whether it makes sense to give up one of the points mentioned above. You must decide in favour of one of the points.

If the model is to be suitable for a doll’s house, then it is certainly okay to leave aside the mechanical function of the model and just make it smaller. In this case, the clock would no longer have any function.
However, if it can be assumed that the model is to retain its function as a matter of course, then another point is sought that has to do with a loss or restriction of the things mentioned above. The consideration here is whether you can leave the model in its original size but make other compromises.

It becomes difficult when you get involved with things that you would exclude due to reduced quality or impaired visual appearance or user-friendliness. Then comes the decision as to whether consequences are acceptable.

I’m still working on it. The results of the possible modifications are still pending.

Best regards!

17

Hello!

There is some good news. The results for a print in even smaller parts are now available. It has been clarified whether the assembly still works and can be satisfactory.

I have already requested support to clarify whether and that the rules are not inadvertently violated by an upload to @Makerworld. I hope, of course, that this can be clarified quickly.

Thank you for your great support and best regards!

1 Like
18

I think that’s it.

Unbenannt
Unbenannt1147Ă—535 169 KB

1 Like
19

Technically the pictured clock is not a skeleton clock. A skeleton clock is a clock where the inner mechanical workings are visible, often in a highly ornate manner.

1 Like
20

I understand that you were guided by the term “skeleton.”

A skeleton clock reveals the inner workings of the timepiece, while my Bones Clock is an artistic variation of a clock that utilizes bones as stylistic elements. This is quite obvious.

But where does the term “skeleton” for my clock come from? - It’s a translation error that doesn’t take into account the nuance between bones and a skeleton.

I appreciate your attentiveness and thank you very much for helping to uncover this error!

I have accordingly changed the model title from 骨架钟 to 骨头钟.

The correct title of my model is now: Bones Clock - 骨头钟

However, I have no influence over Makerworld’s automatic translation.

Best regards!

1 Like