DIY 3D Printing

[BCR751]

Is it possible to get the same (or acceptable) quality from home-based 3D printers as one gets with stuff from the "big guys" like Shapeways?  There seem to be more of these printers being made available to the public at reasonable prices these days.  The last few items I've ordered from Shapeways have left much to be desired in the way of good quality printing.  If the quality is there with the home-based units, it may be worth the investment.  Just curious.

Doug

[Scottl]

I've recently used a local provider I found through 3dhubs.com  He produced excellent results in a day or so, and there was no tax or shipping.  Any thought I had of buying a home printer evaporated with this positive experience.

[Lemosteam]

Is it possible to get the same (or acceptable) quality from home-based 3D printers as one gets with stuff from the "big guys" like Shapeways?  There seem to be more of these printers being made available to the public at reasonable prices these days.  The last few items I've ordered from Shapeways have left much to be desired in the way of good quality printing.  If the quality is there with the home-based units, it may be worth the investment.  Just curious.

Doug

Many times its not the printing but the design.  If you see a design that has all of the detail built into one part, it will never print to the quality you expect, anywhere.

I have started to make my designs in kit form so that I can reduce the number of details that you have to sand around.

For instance, why not make a hood door of one piece flat and smooth, and have a hole in the shell for the door to insert from the inside, or outside?  Why not have a front radiator insert with a hole in the main shell to glue the radiator grill into.  Make the overhung roof a drop on piece, i.e. elimination of shelves that require wax support.  All of this leaves the main shell smoother with no obstructions to sanding the biggest portion of the model. to the surface quality you need.

[Dave Schneider]

Many times its not the printing but the design.  If you see a design that has all of the detail built into one part, it will never print to the quality you expect, anywhere.

I have started to make my designs in kit form so that I can reduce the number of details that you have to sand around.

For instance, why not make a hood door of one piece flat and smooth, and have a hole in the shell for the door to insert from the inside, or outside?  Why not have a front radiator insert with a hole in the main shell to glue the radiator grill into.  Make the overhung roof a drop on piece, i.e. elimination of shelves that require wax support.  All of this leaves the main shell smoother with no obstructions to sanding the biggest portion of the model. to the surface quality you need.

I totally agree. I have asked designers on Shapeways to consider producing models like this and there was no interest. That is their right, but I would rather have a the basic form done correctly that allows for efficient sanding of the printing artifacts and then layer on the other details like door and louvers. My inability to produce an acceptable key locomotive type after hundreds of dollars in Shapeways purchases is what greatly influenced my decision to move to HO.

Best wishes, Dave

[Lemosteam]

Yeah, well you never asked me.   !  If you had we would not have lost a fellow N Scaler?

BTW- I do HO the same way.... (end shameless plug).

[Philip H]

That 3D hub looks interesting. Any idea how their materials map to shapeways?

[peteski]

Is it possible to get the same (or acceptable) quality from home-based 3D printers as one gets with stuff from the "big guys" like Shapeways?  There seem to be more of these printers being made available to the public at reasonable prices these days.  The last few items I've ordered from Shapeways have left much to be desired in the way of good quality printing.  If the quality is there with the home-based units, it may be worth the investment.  Just curious.

Doug

Which type of home-based printers?  There are many different types.  Most popular and most inexpensive are the filament printers. They extrude a thin filament of soft hot plastic and they lay it down one layer at a time "printing" the parts.  The resolution is fairly low and the printed parts cannot have deep undercuts.  The layering is very visible and those would not be good for any detailed N scale items.

Other printers (which laser-harden the printed objects in a vat of liquid resin) are also available but have fairly high price.  Thise have much finer resolution, but also have limitation. This is my extent of knowledge about home printers.

[Dave Schneider]

Yeah, well you never asked me.   !  If you had we would not have lost a fellow N Scaler?

BTW- I do HO the same way.... (end shameless plug).

Good point. 
The object of my desire is a high quality H10-44 or H12-44. I have one in HO now, and it looks awesome. Soon it will have sound.
Other projects in N were also starting to frustrate me so I went in a new direction.

Best wishes, Dave

[BCR751]

The object of my current anguish is a Budd RDC-3 printed by Shapeways.  I will try and get a photo of it and post it later today so you can see the result.  This is the third RDC I have had printed by them.  Their first attempt was terrible and was replaced with one that looked perfect.  The second one had the "fuzz" look and required a lot of sanding but I was able to make it look somewhat presentable.  The third one, the one I'm dealing with now, looked ok when it arrived but it too had a lot of the "fuzz".  I sanded the begeezus out of it trying not to remove the detail.  It was then painted and the result is just horrible. (photo to follow).  So, it's not the design, its the printing process.  If it was the design then all of the renditions would be of the same quality.

Enough for now until I can get the photo posted.

Doug

[Mark5]

Ugh. Thanks for all the input folks. I was thinking about designing a particular hopper that I need/want, but what I am hearing is that the Shapeways "print" process varies significantly from one "print" to another.

I am hearing this correctly?

Mark

[peteski]

The object of my current anguish is a Budd RDC-3 printed by Shapeways.  I will try and get a photo of it and post it later today so you can see the result.  This is the third RDC I have had printed by them.  Their first attempt was terrible and was replaced with one that looked perfect.  The second one had the "fuzz" look and required a lot of sanding but I was able to make it look somewhat presentable.  The third one, the one I'm dealing with now, looked ok when it arrived but it too had a lot of the "fuzz".  I sanded the begeezus out of it trying not to remove the detail.  It was then painted and the result is just horrible. (photo to follow).  So, it's not the design, its the printing process.  If it was the design then all of the renditions would be of the same quality.

Enough for now until I can get the photo posted.

Doug

IMO, none of the filament-based (hobbyist-grade) printers would be able to render the type of detail you have on RDC-3 well enough for it to make a good quality model.

The  problem is most likely related to the print orientation (and lack of the ability of the customer to specify it).  As for the fuzzy areas, unless the item being printed has no overhangs of any type, it will end up with the fuzzy areas (which are created when the supporting wax is printed to support the resin being printed for overhanging areas)

[Mark W]

We can now specify an orientation preference, though I think Shapeways will override that if the desired orientation is not feasible, as would be the case printing an RDC on its end to avoid support material between the corrugation. 

I would still fault this with the design.  Just because it can be 3D printed, doesn't mean it should be 3D printed.  The better designers out there know material and process limitations, and will only design a model that fits well within those constraints.  Unfortunately there is little reference available to alert customers about those limitations, so we frequently end up with customers in Doug's situation.     

[BCR751]

OK, here are two photos of the Shapeways RDC-3 shells:

This one shows the replacement one I received after the first one arrived all screwed up.



This photo shows the one I just received and painted using the same processes as the one above.  I thought I had done a decent sanding job but when it got painted, it obviously wasn't enough.



I don't know what orientation Shapeways used for these two shells but it has obviously made a huge difference in the print quality.  If it is due to mis-orientation, what recourse do we have to have it re-done correctly?  At 60 bucks a pop for this shell, having it redone gets expensive unless Shapeways would agree to reprint it until it is acceptable.

Would I be expecting too much to think one of the home-based 3D printers could do as good a job as the first photo?

Doug

[Mark W]

Well that is certainly quite a difference!!  You definitely have a beautiful result there! ...on this side at least. 

But that makes me wonder, what does the reverse side of your completed shell look like?  The side above is almost flawless, and makes me assume it had to be printed sideways with this face up, such that nothing was overhanging and therefore no support wax ever came in contact with the material.  It also means the reverse side would be slightly more rough/frosted, but again, the layering would be minimal, since the face was probably on the same plane as the layer itself. 

The 3rd shell was definitely printed top up.  You can see the affect layering support material has. 

[BCR751]

Well that is certainly quite a difference!!  You definitely have a beautiful result there! ...on this side at least. 

But that makes me wonder, what does the reverse side of your completed shell look like?  The side above is almost flawless, and makes me assume it had to be printed sideways with this face up, such that nothing was overhanging and therefore no support wax ever came in contact with the material.  It also means the reverse side would be slightly more rough/frosted, but again, the layering would be minimal, since the face was probably on the same plane as the layer itself. 

The 3rd shell was definitely printed top up.  You can see the affect layering support material has.

The other side of the finished model looks just like the side shown.  Just goes to show these things CAN be printed well, all things being equal    The flip side of the crappy one looks just like the side shown.

Doug