Hi all.
This is my first post here. I apologize if this has been answered already, but I can’t find an answer.
My kit just came and it included the ring kit. I also have a linkage kit that I previously purchased. Is one preferable over the other? If so, why? I want to do my build right the first time and keep both the quality and accuracy of the build as high as possible.
Thanks in advance for your help.
-Jim
Welcome,
There have been no comparable test. Given the fact that likely most new users have the ring, I would go for that.
time to break out the 
I am really interested in the discussion this produces. (Though my mind is pretty set on a ring system)
I vote for the ring…but that’s why we chose to ship them 
could you please test both? we have not had anyone with the ring and another
kit, so we have no comparison tests.
David Lang
Sounds like there is no consensus yet. I would like to try both, but I don’t really have time right now. It sounds to me like I just need to choose one, and then when I have more time I may build another sled with the other system for comparison. I look them over carefully and choose the one that seems best for my first build.
Is there a current consensus on which frame design is best?
I would go with the default frame…because it’s the default 
It’s what I use.
The bolt together frame is basically identical in size and shape but goes together a little differently
really, anything with a top beam is going to be very close, the rest of the
design matters far less.
David Lang
Sounds good to me. Default it is!
@Bar I finally got my kit all together, and pulled down the latest copy of GrondControl 1.10 on my Raspberry Pi. I get the following errors when starting calibration. The images are missing from the calibration pages.
[ERROR ] [Image ] Error reading file ./Documentation/Calibrate Machine Dimensions/Triangular Kinematics.JPG
[ERROR ] [Image ] Error reading file ./Documentation/Calibrate Machine Dimensions/Triangular Kinematics.JPG
[ERROR ] [Image ] Error reading file ./Documentation/Calibrate Machine Dimensions/Chain Between Sprockets.jpg
It’s not a show stopper, but the screenshots do help, thanks.
The filenames in the code have capital .JPG. In the folder they are .jpg
For linux that is not the same file.
As a quickfix you can rename the pictures in the GC folder
Edit: in the code:
/GroundControl-1.10/groundcontrol.kv:775: source: “./Documentation/Calibrate Machine Dimensions/Quadrilateral Kinematics.JPG”
/GroundControl-1.10/groundcontrol.kv:777: source: “./Documentation/Calibrate Machine Dimensions/Triangular Kinematics.JPG”
‘Chain Between Sprockets’ seems missing 
@Gero Thanks! That was an easy fix. I also was able to pull out the missing chain image from an earlier branch.
That’s a bummer that those are broken! I’m sorry. Would either of you guys feel up to a pull request to fix them?
Actually realized I’m running GC 1.11 and getting some strange results during calibration, preventing me from getting a good calibration. I will start a new thread with my issues.
Done, hope I did not mess up or lost some pictures 
Thanks @Gero
BTW, would it be worth considering removing white spaces from file names for better Linux integration?
Depending on your distro should be able to do with rename or prename command; ie.
prename 's/ /_/g' *.jpg
Thanks
I don’t see issues with white spaces on ubuntu mate in the office and manjaro (arch) in the workshop.
Can’t follow you there as a 11 years linux novice.
But if there are, YES!
Cross platform was and should be desired.
Edit: change ‘desired’ to ‘achieved’
Gero, you are right. With a modern shell in linux, white space and capitalization should not be an issue Please disregard, I was making a comment on cross platform code style/file naming conventions.