One thing dawned on me. I’d suggest rewording this pinned post at the top of the Hardware Development category.
Perhaps something long the lines of:
Home of optional, community developed and supported customizations, modifications, and add-ons. This is a good place to discuss, add details and links. New machines should be fully functional as designed before diving in here.
Just a suggestion.
Put this at the top!
Okay heading out for the night, I added this section. It is one-sided because it is my perspective, any thoughts?
Jackpot CNC Controller - V1 Engineering Documentation, I will link this all over the place once it gets a few eyes on it.
I just added bullet points so it is rebuilding right now if it looks funny, should be good in 5 minutes or so.
This statement feels a little off to me.
The Jackpot was developed for us by Bart Dring (FluidNC)
In high school I used to sell speakers. They taught us there is a difference between a feature and a benefit.
Feature:
Benefit:
The benefits are “what’s in it for me?”. I would just go through the bullet list and add a second sentence to bullets that don’t have a clear benefit. For example, “The screen can be used to run gcode files without using a computer or tablet in the shop”. Stuff like “half the cost” is obvious enough.
I read over it, and spotted no typo’s. Seems sound as far as I can tell.
Of course, my LR4 is built on a sheet of plywood sitting on top of a bunch of junk on top of my LR3, so as far as table building, I’ve been staying quiet… but maybe I don’t need to. 
Honestly, showing off machines that aren’t polished and on custom designed tables with everything working perfectly is very helpful.
Ryan used to say on new builds, “now get it dirty!”
I have this odd fondness of non-fancy tables. The ones on pong pong tables, random desks, etc. There’s something amazing about having the accuracy of a CNC on something janky.
Maybe it should be: the jackpot was developed on the basis of fluid nix by the v1 community.
I remember a thread there Jono and some others had lot of maths for it. 
Two thoughts:
Regarding “The Yellow Brick Road (TYBR)”, perhaps some sort of “stamp” that Ryan (or whoever) could edit into specific posts that contribute to TYBR for us newbies to recognize as such. Include a standard, searchable phrase so we can easily search them out.
Regarding a table: a simple drawing showing the separation distances (strut length as “n”) between key element center lines (rail, roller bearings, etc.), coupled with length needed to add to “y” rails, would easily solve most folks table building needs. I think most folks are capable of designing a table to fit their needs. (ie KISS)
(Note: I understand there are variables, base these off the standard TYBR table with notation noting where variances could occur and why.
This idea seems worthy of consideration. The Yellow Brick Road was very easy to see, and it was very easy to know clearly whether you on, or off. Yellow is the easiest color for the human eye to see.
This makes me have a thought that may or may not be valid or doable, and the thought is this: We don’t necessarily need to “demark” the whole world of mods, just clearly “mark” the Yellow Brick Road with its own “trademark” symbol. Doing so would help create a mindset for all, especially new makers.
https://docs.v1e.com/lowrider/calculator/
Is the calculator not sufficient? Do we need a drawing on there?
Am I crazy, or did a drawing exist for the LR3 (either at the top of the docs or at the top of the calculator?)
I’ve been watching for one. It would be helpful to calculate exactly where the rollers would hit for anyone sizing to an existing surface with existing features.
But, maybe I’m crazy and such a thing doesn’t/never did exist. Which is fine. I don’t know that it’s worth a bunch of extra effort.
This one from the LR3 docs:
In my opinion, yes. I used this calculator to obtain over all dimensions, but what would be better is to easily calculate at what point along the “x axis” is rail (and it’s brackets), other end bearing, etc.
Actually, Mike M just posted the v3 version drawing of what I mean.
PS If a drawing did exist, a great candidate for TYBR “stamp” and search phrase.
Thanks - nice to know not crazy.
I did go hunting and found the small version. However, as a note, I clicked to the calculator from the LR3 instructions and was put on the LR4 calculator. As long as the cut lengths are the same, this is probably fine. But I do worry that someone with an LR3 kit on the shelf may be frustrated if those cut lengths are different. (Or, maybe a note on how to adjust the measurements from the LR4 calculator back to the LR3 to memorialize it?)
Fix pending: PR #572
I think the opposite would be better. The standard should be the majority, if I were to label anything it would be mods.
I can add some equations if you think it would help. For separation for the Y clips I added, place the first and last and evenly divide the remaining space evenly. Equations are nice but that seems pretty down to earth??
If people use Jamie’s calc and change the default spacing, the calcs will not match. As simple as it is, it gets complicated the more we automate things.
Working on the jackpot vs sKR. Any points you guys think I missed or just reword what I have. Is the only real advantage that it comes with a wired LCD?
@vicious1 it is real easy to make a drawing in onshape with measurements and all. Just throwing that out there as an option.
