Another 3D Printing Service - Pinshape

[C855B]

http://www.pinshape.com

Seriously "sales-y", but cutting through the bullcrap they seem to offer a higher resolution than Shapeways, claiming "28 microns" resolution (.001")  for their detail output, though not specified for which axis. The site and service is strictly a brokerage, handling links between "creators" and 3D printer operators.

Under "miniatures", currently two N scale designers have models listed, one from Japan with a few modest buildings in 1:148, and a covered bridge from a German modeler. Prices appear to be in the same ballpark as Shapeways. However, in some of the "artists" categories some folks are really, really proud of their creations - $700 for a 3D-printed fantasy monster? Really? $350 for a desk clock that looks like something you can get at Target? ...Ooooooookaaaaaaay...

Anyway, maybe worth a try for the hardy 3D output experimenters here.

[wcfn100]

"Minimum thinkness is 2mm"

I've come across this at a couple different places.  And while I'm not totally clear exactly when this becomes an issue when talking about details, it's kept some of my designs from even being excepted (that I've already printed on Shapeways).

And I think you can be sure that 28 microns is the Z.


Jason

[C855B]

I pretty much assume that "minimum thickness" applies to a structural wall, not details. Rejection could easily be that a machine operator doesn't understand, or is over-enforcing their preflight checklist. That extends to preflighting software, too - my direct experience is preflight software frequently flags issues that are no problem in execution. OTOH, if you blow-off the preflight checks, you're out the time and materials cost when something doesn't work.

I agree on the Z-axis thing. Several of the equipment manufacturers spec their X/Y in ppi and then the build table in microns. (Which triggers a pet peeve - mixing spec units to obfuscate performance. Like in the Pinshape example, taking the "best" spec as the published resolution. Not.)

[wcfn100]

I pretty much assume that "minimum thickness" applies to a structural wall, not details. Rejection could easily be that a machine operator doesn't understand, or is over-enforcing their preflight checklist.

Right, it's just there are so many grey areas that, like you say, the operator can reject based on that minimum.

Regardless 2mm is useless for freight cars and such so it moot to me.  My NE5 caboose has a wall thickness of .96mm (to match the Atlas cab that it replaces). The roof thickness is less at .83mm.  This car doesn't really have much detail on it besides window frames.  If a machine can't render this car, it's not ready for N scale (at least not for my purposes).


Jason