the future?

[kalbert]

You guys have gone and got yourselves in a Ford vs Chevy debate again.

Some of you have ordered from Shapeways and been disappointed. Some have been pleased. You all went into it with different expectations, and ordered different projects, and interpreted your received results differently. Some are satisfied with Shapeways, some are satisfied with using some other service, some are not satisfied ever. The same guys seem to be unsatisfied with a lot of stuff, which is curious.

I don't know how they print it, I don't really care. I assume they know what they are doing, they are the ones who have chosen to make a business out of it. If they can make money charging by volume rather than time, that's their choice, I assume they weighed all the options and picked the one that fit.

My personal experience with Shapeways has been good. The parts I get are satisfactory to me. They are parts that are otherwise not available and probably never will be. They are parts I probably could scratch build myself from styrene strips in about the same amount of time and effort. I've ordered a hand full of items, they all required a bit of elbow grease when they arrived, which is to be expected from anything. You don't put resin or metal cast or injection molded parts together without some amount of cleanup either. I wouldn't expect to get parts from any printer that didn't need to be touched up a bit. The lawn mower doesn't run right until it's been fiddled with first. To me, that's part of the fun and an expected reality of having it. You're certainly welcome to have other expectations, and be satisfied or not with them.

You're welcome to think you're a superior specimen for not using Shapeways, or not doing the 3d thing at all, but that's just, like, your opinion, man. There's room in this hobby for lots of different ideas on how to build models. In my opinion, I'm getting acceptable results at an acceptable cost. In your opinion, you might prefer another way.

[peteski]

..however  i am certainly not qualified to render any judgment either way. so through my local hobby shop i was able to locate the gentleman who had the 3d model shell made. he confirmed that he had done the programing and submitted to shapeways . my hobby shop guy, said it was excellent, and i concur. gpr 45.   

But everybody has their own standards (and expectations) as to what a quality 3D printout is.  The same exact printout which is considered as "excelent" by one modeler might be only "acceptable" in an opinion of another modeler. Yet another modeler might consider it "crap".  It is all very subjective.

[Dave Schneider]

You guys have gone and got yourselves in a Ford vs Chevy debate again.

With all due respect, I disagree. This has been a very informative thread for some of us who are trying to produce unique models using 3D printing. Shapeways was unable to produce the results that I (emphasis on I) desire, and I have been clear to not blame them. I asked for alternative vendors that will accommodate MY needs, and several people gave helpful information offline. This does not make anyone a so-called superior specimen. I am glad that you are getting the results that YOU desire, and those of us who are not will go our own way. Okay?

Best wishes, Dave

[bbussey]

Exactly right.  Just because one prefers options other than what Shapeways offers doesn't warrant being called "superior."  The fact is that, on the ProJet line specifically, there are higher resolutions available that Shapeways doesn't offer.  I still use them for RP structural items rendered out of the basic non-ProJet White-Strong-Flexible material, as they are very well suited for that.  But many of the RP model items I render require a finer resolution than they offer.  It has nothing to do with the clean-up or de-waxing effort required (which is insignificant when using heptane).  It's all a matter of the fineness of detail on the finished parts.

[mmyers05]

This is right off their site.



Jason

This came up in the "FUD wars" thread from a while back:

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=28137.msg293477#msg293477

According to their rep, "We never stack things in the FUD/FD  trays because of the effect the support material has on the crystal."

Subjectively, I've certainly never received a FUD model that was 'stacked' like that.. 

[peteski]

This came up in the "FUD wars" thread from a while back:

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=28137.msg293477#msg293477

According to their rep, "We never stack things in the FUD/FD  trays because of the effect the support material has on the crystal."

Subjectively, I've certainly never received a FUD model that was 'stacked' like that..

While it is good to hear that thry don't stack objects like this, how would you know that yours weren't stacked?  After all, when you receive them the supporting wax is washed away and parts are separated.  The only clue would be shadows of the wax supports in areas where wax should not be for that particular part..

[nscaleSPF2]

Shapeways was unable to produce the results that I (emphasis on I) desire, and I have been clear to not blame them. I asked for alternative vendors that will accommodate MY needs, and several people gave helpful information offline.

Uh, Dave, can you share any of the alternate vendors' information with the rest of us forumers who are locked into the Shapeways time-space continuum?  The Pennsy signal heads that Shapeways printed for me were ok, and no commercially available alternatives exist currently.  They were, in the end, quite cheap ($6. For 8 heads), but I would be willing to pay several times that for a better part.

Thanks,
Jim

[lashedup]

Exactly right.  Just because one prefers options other than what Shapeways offers doesn't warrant being called "superior."  The fact is that, on the ProJet line specifically, there are higher resolutions available that Shapeways doesn't offer.  I still use them for RP structural items rendered out of the basic non-ProJet White-Strong-Flexible material, as they are very well suited for that.  But many of the RP model items I render require a finer resolution than they offer.  It has nothing to do with the clean-up or de-waxing effort required (which is insignificant when using heptane).  It's all a matter of the fineness of detail on the finished parts.

And to add to this, there are not only different resolutions of these printers, there are different types of technology involved in producing the print itself. PerFactory for example seems to have a better overall method that produces far smoother results versus what we get from Shapeways current machines.

My guess is that this business will evolve similar to how the printing (paper) business did in the late 80's and 90's. The better 3D printers will still be expensive (with costs coming down constantly) and there will be print services that lease them and offer to print your objects when you need them (similar to digital proof service bureaus back in the day). As the cost of printers comes down and the resolution goes up to the point that we're getting basically smooth objects with very fine detail we will eventually move to desktop units that are personally owned and there won't be a need for the larger service companies. That also probably means the cost of the printer will be offset by the high cost of materials (just like ink jet printers) but oh well. 

If you think of the crowd source potential for people to CAD anything and the resulting huge database of model railroad models that could be available there probably isn't anything that couldn't be made if someone has the time and inclination.

It will be fun to watch...

-jamie

[gpr45]

jamie, very well articulated,when i spoke with Herr Weise,he made a couple of interesting observations.(1) the parts are relatively  inexpensive, however had he not done the programming, it would be cost prohibitive, and like all computer driven machines, garbage in! well you know the rest.(2) once done,with one click of a button,he can produce files of different sizes! hello, z.n.tt.&o. gauge, the limit wii be the print capacity chamber. as you said it will be fun to watch. thanks geoff.

'

[DKS]

(2) once done,with one click of a button,he can produce files of different sizes! hello, z.n.tt.&o. gauge...

Highly doubt this. Anyone who has done 3D printing knows this does not work.

[gpr45]

Well, perhaps he may have found the holy grail of modeling! I can only quote as stated in my previous blog, my hobby shop owner (whom I respect) and the gentleman who produced it say it can be done. Perhaps we should ask how? I will try and find out for you and report accordingly. Please let's not discount anything about the incredible technology that is available world wide  today!  thanks geoff.

[DKS]

Please let's not discount anything about the incredible technology that is available world wide  today!

I'm not. But I do know how the technology works.

[mmyers05]

The only clue would be shadows of the wax supports in areas where wax should not be for that particular part..

Precisely, I have never found any 'unexpected' fuzz on a part.

I suppose technically one could make the argument that they could be stacking parts in such a way that you can't detect the fuzz somehow (but then again it wouldn't really be a problem in that case)...   

[gpr45]

David, you are correct in your assessment that 3d printing is difficult. However it all depends on the platform being used to create the drawing. On small parts it is more difficult and requires more work. My engineer friend said "It's not that complicated". But I apologize if I seemed cavalier about it. Perhaps just my wishful thinking. I was looking optimistically to the future! Kind Regards, Geoff 

[peteski]

David, you are correct in your assessment that 3d printing is difficult. However it all depends on the platform being used to create the drawing. On small parts it is more difficult and requires more work. My engineer friend said "It's not that complicated". But I apologize if I seemed cavalier about it. Perhaps just my wishful thinking. I was looking optimistically to the future! Kind Regards, Geoff

Geoff, just a basic example why simply rescaling the drawing won't work:  If you designed a locomotive shell in N scale and simply enlarge it to H0 or O scale, the walls will be overly thick. Same goes in reverse: if you designed the shell in HO scale and shrink it to N scale then the walls will be too thin. Other things also do not simply scale up or down either.  Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is where the technology is today.