Ingentis/TST coming together. Takes up about the same amount of desk space as my i3…but with a bigger build area and a better gantry design. The wall with the gears on it is work where I test/assemble/diagnose/upgrade DeltaMakers. Printed gears 2 layers high are a test we run on the machines now to ensure everything reaches the edges of the bed. Another shot included of my back room with the i3, DeltaMaker and new printer all in the same shot.
Awesome. Have you decided on xy ends yet?
Printing yours for now - already ordered the guitar tuners, so I’m going to try those as well.
I still can’t for the life of me quite understand how the spectra is supposed to work, but I’m sure I’ll figure it out when I get to it.
Also @Tim_Rastall , what hardware is used on your XY ends, just some 3mm socket heads?
NICE…Just the motivation I needed to get back to work on mine. I’ll be stopping by ACE tonight to pick up a 5mm tap.
So, is cartesian still better than delta? 
@denix yes. Flat out, always will be.
What are the major benefits of delta then?
Nothing. Literally nothing. “Looks cool” while introducing mathematical errors.
@ThantiK you’re using the new ‘no bobbin’ ones? Each one needs a m5 x 20 bolt, nut and washer to catch the spectra, and an m3 X 15 bolt and nut to secure the 8mm shafts.
@Tim_Rastall I’ll use whatever ones you point me to! 
– haven’t got to printing those YET. On the top corners right now so I can get the 10mm rod in place. Printing order ATM is Corners -> XY ends -> Carriage -> Feet -> Figure out what I want to do with Z axis
And so the anti-anti-cartesian league was born :).
@Tim_Rastall , done. Hover over my name.
@ThantiK
Hah! I particularly like that it says you’re working for Deltamaker underneath, obviously bringing down the system from within. ALso, I think you can be the founder, not just a member, or maybe that honour should go to @Whosa_whatsis
I don’t hate deltas, I just want to know the pros and cons (especially the cons) of every design, and make them very clear to everyone else. Cartesian bots (generally speaking, there are exceptions) have fewer inherent flaws than deltas, but there are definitely certain deltabot printers that are better than certain cartesian printers.
One advantage of a delta is that there’s probably no way to do have a cartesian machine’s X/Y stage as low-mass and tolerant of high acceleration as certain delta designs, and high acceleration rates are important, but I still think that the theoretical best design for an extrusion-based printer is a cartesian one.
I guess it would be accurate to describe me as anti-anti-cartesian, but I would argue if you tried to describe me as anti-non-cartesian. Non-anti-cartesian is also fine 
Some of my best friends are anti-cartesian!
I picked a Delta because I’m bad at math and wanted to build something that was better at it than I. I’m a little dejected at it’s build envelope, but it’s the journey, not the destination, that counts.
My understanding is that a delta has an advantage of a smaller bom, large build area, smaller desktop foot print, as well as the acceleration/mass. Dis advantages include difficulty to calibrate, inherent errors, also the print volume is typically much larger in the z direction then the x-y so large prints will take a long time.
Some cool things, the z height of the printer must be much greater then the x-y for it to work well, but the height of the z can be extended easily (relatively) to make your prints bigger.
I personally think they look cool, but the calibration fiddlyness is going to keep me from getting one.
@Camerin_hahn , they certainly don’t inherently have a smaller BOM, nor a smaller mass print head, though their end effector can travel outside of their frame, generally it’s not worth doing. The Z has to be so large so that you have enough room to reach the X/Y ends. As far as total build area to machine size, the overhead X/Y is the most space efficient.
@ThantiK inherently they do not. but for a comparable machine foot print/build area your bom will be smaller for the delta. The deta design is meant to have a small foot print with a reasonable build volume, with a small bom. If you pick 1 printer design and compare it 1 to 1 with the delta, the deta will be better in one of these 3 categories. however if you take all possible x-y designs you are ignoring the flaws of each. There is no perfect printer is my point. there is a problem with all of them.
I’m with @Whosa_whatsis . There must be a platonic form for FDM printers (a theoretical ideal), putting aside cost and part count, that form is Cartesian imo. I’d also go as far as saying that the practical and pragmatic realisation of that form, that balances cost, BOM, reliability, accessibility, and durability is still Cartesian. So there :p.