I’m with you, and we can make quite cool things in TinkerCad. To translate my question to your shape: if you decide to have larger rotors, or longer arms, you would have to fiddle with groups for a very long time, right? In comparison, with e.g. FreeCad and a shitload of parameters, that would be quick (but you’d need to spend a lot of time defining all those parameters… but only once, though).

Lofts and sweeps and pockets FTW! That does look like the right solution for single objects.

What about objects that sit at an angle relative to each other? Can you define workplanes (sketches) at arbitrary angles? Can you later slide those planes up/down, e.g. to add more distance from the face it would sit on? For instance, in the above object, the holders on the blue face are tilted 14 degrees from the blue base, and the little red holder in front is tilted an additional 5 degrees and lifted 6mm from the front of the larger red holder.

Yes, tapered in all directions at once. For instance one of the walkies has a rectangular base and an almost straight-up backside, but the front tapers outward. At the same time, the sides taper too, but different angle and height than the front. There are almost no right angles on these shapes anywhere, which is tedious to model.

I’ve looked at OpenSCAD but it’s honestly too much coding for me. TinkerCad is so rewarding because it’s fast and easy to get nearly to the finish line – but I know that any kind of parametric is a win in the long run, because changing one constraint makes everything else auto-adjust rather than having to take apart and build again.

I don’t follow you. Look at the photo, the thing is made of triangles. It’s the best shape. So I wonder, why use more than just one? Why make the shape require more than one triangle?

I take it there’s another holder on the other side.

May I ask why the complex shape, rather than just having a triangle with two points on the 4040 rail and the third point being the axle position?

Why not at work?

Let’s stay realistic here, mmkay?

I didn’t check your other responses about the actual shapes you want to work on, but IMHO trimming away some edges or pieces is really simple, just by putting a “hole block” on the material you don’t want. Group the parts together and see the result.

There are many YT channels about 3d printing that also cover TinkerCad. One of them is HL Modtech, this one for instance = https://youtu.be/gPeWdLQYfuA

F you’re a beginner then I think my first advice to you is to not use Blender. Start with something like TinkerCad, much easier to work with, and more than adequate for what stated.

TinkerCad lets you add shapes together, and the neat thing is that there are also hole shapes, negative volumes that you can use to cut away material.

Also, that text is barely English. Who wrote that?

AFAIK the Prusa Mini does not have a tension spring, but maybe the extruder wheel is dirty?

Google for TinkerCad to see an amazingly easy modeling tool. Put shapes together, and set some of the shapes to be a hole (negative shape).

It’s incredibly easy to make useful things.

What bridges? Where? For what? I am really confused and curious!

Yes, check out Prusa’s website to see the size difference. Generally, 3d printers look like a" car wash" with a column on each side and a carriage that moves between them. The Prusa Mini only has one column, so it takes up a lot less space on the desk / in the cabinet.

The mini still has a respectable print volume of 18cm (cubed), most printers have 20cm. That can be a drawback because some ready-made models expect the print volume to be 20cm, so such models can’t be printed on the Mini, or would have to be scaled down to fit. I have never had that situation though, so no, I do not regret this size.

More importantly, the Mini is like 500 EUR which is a lot for a small printer, but a regular Prusa is at least 900 EUR so there’s a significant savings involved. Speaking of prices, of course you can get a 100 dollar printer, but that’s not going to be the “Mercedes Benz experience” which the Prusa certainly is.

The initial cost of the printer is not going to be your biggest cost. You will also spend $$ on various small tools or even furniture, and more spools of filament than you expect!!

I picked a Prusa Mini because I do not want to tinker with the machine, I want to use it. Solid choice, it just works. Alternatives are definitely cheaper, but quality is often a coin flip.

Then I started using TinkerCad as editor, dead simple and fun to use, and I made many small things that way. It was only when I felt it was limiting me, that I started moving to other tools like Fusion360 and OnShape = much more powerful but also much, much harder to learn.

Hmm, interesting, thanks. The Prusa Mini has auto bed leveling so it’s not that, but maybe I need to adjust the Z offset generally.

It’s very hard for me to tell, even when wearing my good glasses…! So tiny… I did a Z test just the other day that looked and felt smooth, not too deep and not too high, gotta try again.

Thank you! <3 The print finished and now I am running a temp tower to check what works better than what I had. I would then work on adjusting the retraction, too. Also, this filament is straight out of the factory wrap so it should be dry enough.

I guess you refer to the right part of the base, right? What you’re seeing is actually a sort of staircase with shadows, because that right-hand part of the print is angled a few degrees up. So it only looks bad in this lighting, but it’s fine.

See the left side of the base, that’s really flat and is fine.

Great, just as I started into this yesterday!