So far what is your favorite resin for detail?

[Chris333]

Also it is hard to really see what is going on in raw resin. You may notice most of my pics are in primer. This is just so I can see what is going on. Even black resin is slightly translucent and it can be hard to see "clear" details. This is why I go through some much primer, because I prime stuff that I will later just toss out once I see what I want to change.

This is all even after my newly acquired reading glasses. 

[narrowminded]

Go down to 2 seconds on the normal exposure time.  You can probably go lower, between 2 seconds and 1.5 seconds.  If the supports need to be fixed, then fix them as their own issue.  And for the resolution you're striving for the Siryatech Fast resin will probably not get it.  It will be close but not quite. 

Also, in light of the repeated difficulties that you've been having why not just try some of the suggestions that these guys have been offering.  Try positioning vertical with just the ends removed and printed separately as @bbussey has described, utilizing the membrane idea that he showed being used so successfully with sides, roof, and floor in place.  If I was in the spot you've been in that would be exactly what my next effort would be.  And at two seconds normal time and .051 layer height.  Also, just in case, make sure you shake the daylights out of your resin before to pour it and thoroughly stir any resin that's been sitting in the vat.  Think of it as a reset and then work from there.

[Lemosteam]

Go down to 2 seconds on the normal exposure time.  You can probably go lower, between 2 seconds and 1.5 seconds.  If the supports need to be fixed, then fix them as their own issue.  And for the resolution you're striving for the Siryatech Fast resin will probably not get it.  It will be close but not quite. 

Also, in light of the repeated difficulties that you've been having why not just try some of the suggestions that these guys have been offering.  Try positioning vertical with just the ends removed and printed separately as @bbussey has described, utilizing the membrane idea that he showed being used so successfully with sides, roof, and floor in place.  If I was in the spot you've been in that would be exactly what my next effort would be.  And at two seconds normal time and .051 layer height.  Also, just in case, make sure you shake the daylights out of your resin before to pour it and thoroughly stir any resin that's been sitting in the vat.  Think of it as a reset and then work from there.

Um, I have, and because I am ALMOST EXACTLY where I want the kit to be without effing with orientations that force more parts or a compete redesign of supports.  I am at the point of adjusting values in a slicer software.

For all of the praise of resin printers here on this forum, I have spent 10x the amount of design time designing supports, failed prints, and cleaning off sprues and supports than I would have sent simply sanding the fuzz off of FUD, and having PERFECT fits the first time, in addition to never having to handle nasty chemicals. 

Yes I can print whatever I want, whenever I want for me, but handing off an imperfect solution to customers whether I print on demand, or send them a file to print themselves, can have a negative effect on my brand, which I am trying to avoid.

Agree on the resin, two jars of Anycubic grey will be on the way soon.

[John]

Yes I can print whatever I want, whenever I want for me, but handing off an imperfect solution to customers whether I print on demand, or send them a file to print themselves, can have a negative effect on my brand, which I am trying to avoid.

[bbussey]

I’m going to print the NYC Canstock boxcar body vertically and the ends at 45 degrees this week. Just have to add the supports to the digital model. Going to try AnyCubic aqua blue for this, just for grins and giggles. The MTL stirrups are from the ACF 50’ boxcar.

I agree with Chris, the finer details are tough to see until the parts are primed.

[bbussey]

Also, Shapeways FXD was not perfect fit-wise. You’re at the mercy of how well the printer calibration is maintained, both with the “fuzzies” on faces against the wax supports and in dimensions. They can change over a matter of days, let alone between two different ProJet printers. I’d rather deal with redesigning the support structure of an SLA model and having all visible surface detail crisp than splitting FXD models into multiple components in order to have all the visible model surfaces face-up. There’s also the issue of seeing visible of the printer head path on the “smooth” surfaces of FXD parts regardless of orientation, that doesn’t occur with SLA, and sometimes the printing path artifacts are more prominent. Again, when the printer requires calibration. FXD was good for parts with a lot or detail and relief, such as the truck sideframes on the EP3. But not so good on flat non-relief detail such as the sides of the modern White Tower building (which I’m also itching to print in SLA).

[Lemosteam]

Also, Shapeways FXD was not perfect fit-wise. You’re at the mercy of how well the printer calibration is maintained, both with the “fuzzies” on faces against the wax supports and in dimensions. They can change over a matter of days, let alone between two different ProJet printers. I’d rather deal with redesigning the support structure of an SLA model and having all visible surface detail crisp than splitting FXD models into multiple components in order to have all the visible model surfaces face-up. There’s also the issue of seeing visible of the printer head path on the “smooth” surfaces of FXD parts regardless of orientation, that doesn’t occur with SLA, and sometimes the printing path artifacts are more prominent. Again, when the printer requires calibration. FXD was good for parts with a lot or detail and relief, such as the truck sideframes on the EP3. But not so good on flat non-relief detail such as the sides of the modern White Tower building (which I’m also itching to print in SLA).

This has not been the case for me, once some minor cleaning/deburring is complete my designs assemble flawlessly.  My 3768 kit is a very complex example of this.

[timwatson]

I am asking this question because I cannot get the Siraya Fast to print good detail no matter my efforts (exposure time, etc.)

Something I noticed on a recent boxcar print was that I had antialiasing ON and I started seeing “squishy details”. Squishy details look over exposed and kind of rounded like you show here. Try turning both image blur and antialiasing off. If you have tried that, I am sorry I didn’t read the full thread before posting. Also try printing at like .03mm layer height. That is the only layer height I print at.

Don’t give up, some models are more difficult to print. In fact before Chris got his sonic mini he sent me a stock car to print and it is literally now my test print because it’s so hard to get it dialed in properly. So you’re trying to print probably the toughest thing we have.

[timwatson]

Something else to consider is from machine to machine there is absolutely a difference in brightness (lumens) from the UV leds. One machine of the same brand will have different cure times because of this. They will be in the same (+-) but they will be different. The way that gets translated is into longer or shorter cure times for your SPECIFIC machine. That usually translates into (+-) .1-.5 seconds.

This gets way more hard to troubleshoot when you skip from different machine brands and models.

From different machines the lumens for the UV led will be radically different. This is compounded with the different resin mixes. Some resins cure quickly and some don’t. So even though 2 of us have sonic minis we may see up to .5 seconds difference in curing time for the same exact resins just because my lumens aren’t the same as someone else’s.

So every time I grab a new bottle of resin I have to print the xp2 calibration (I usually start at a higher exposure 3.0s for my machine and then work down). I usually print about 3 xp2’s subtracting .2 or .3 seconds per print.

It has to be done every time when I switch resin. Because it’s the only way to see how that specific bottle of resin will react to YOUR machine. I then sharpie the exposure time on that specific bottle of resin for the machine. SM4k -2.8s. I have 3 machines so I have to include the machine name as well. Even if you are using the same brand of resin I would still suggest doing the xp2 just to make sure they didn’t tweak it to get a better formula. Which I know they do.

You’re an amazing modeler, you’ve got this new medium in your tool belt (it just needs a few more tweaks). I personally think you’re still over exposed. The supports and other parts can be fixed. It does still look like you have rounded off details. Those cross members should be more square.

Before printing another stock car print an xp2 with what you know to be current settings. I can help from there.
The beauty is it’s digital and reproducible and this upfront r&d will result in smooth sailing later for all duplicates.

[bbussey]

This has not been the case for me, once some minor cleaning/deburring is complete my designs assemble flawlessly.  My 3768 kit is a very complex example of this.

You used to complain all the time about the scale of Shapeways FXD parts not being consistent, and how they would not match against etched parts from print to print.  The Stillwell coaches come to immediate mind.  Yes, if you're printing all the components at once and you have them similarly orientated in the STL, they will fit.  But they won't be consistent across multiple prints.  The SLA parts are consistent.  A component from the first print will match up with a component from the tenth print.

This is night and day as far as I'm concerned.  In just the last two months of experimenting, I've been able to print models cleanly that I never could get to render well enough via Shapeways.  I was working with ProJet contractors before printing at Shapeways, and at least they cared about keeping the machines in register.  But we had to print 10mm cubes every so often to get the XYZ measurements so the tolerance could be compensated for in the STLs.

It would be impossible to render the reduction gear payload cleanly on a properly-calibrated and maintained ProJet, let alone though Shapeways.  It was a huge endeavor just to get the Low Side Gondola parts to render properly, and that was with them taking extra care to render the parts because it was a large order.

[Lemosteam]

You used to complain all the time about the scale of Shapeways FXD parts not being consistent, and how they would not match against etched parts from print to print.  The Stillwell coaches come to immediate mind.  Yes, if you're printing all the components at once and you have them similarly orientated in the STL, they will fit.  But they won't be consistent across multiple prints.  The SLA parts are consistent.  A component from the first print will match up with a component from the tenth print.

This is night and day as far as I'm concerned.  In just the last two months of experimenting, I've been able to print models cleanly that I never could get to render well enough via Shapeways.  I was working with ProJet contractors before printing at Shapeways, and at least they cared about keeping the machines in register.  But we had to print 10mm cubes every so often to get the XYZ measurements so the tolerance could be compensated for in the STLs.

It would be impossible to render the reduction gear payload cleanly on a properly-calibrated and maintained ProJet, let alone though Shapeways.  It was a huge endeavor just to get the Low Side Gondola parts to render properly, and that was with them taking extra care to render the parts because it was a large order.

No, I didn't.  Not with things like this that were all printed in FUD.

I only had issues when parts that mated to OEM parts or very accurate etchings that did not fit (specifically roof lengths and the Stillwell shell) because they could not hold tolerance on anything over 100mm.  Small parts and parts within the 100mm envelope were always fine for me.

I have been consistent on that, and even praise worthy.  My standard fit gaps are 0.05mm with my kit designs.  Here I am up to 0.1mm

I have not seen data that proves your point- everything has variation.  NOTHING is perfectly consistent, part to part to part.  If you are willing take measurements of the same feature on 10 prints of the same part and share that it would be helpful.  I may do that myself when I get to the point of quality satisfaction.

[peteski]

For all of the praise of resin printers here on this forum, I have spent 10x the amount of design time designing supports, failed prints, and cleaning off sprues and supports than I would have sent simply sanding the fuzz off of FUD, and having PERFECT fits the first time, in addition to never having to handle nasty chemicals. 

Yes I can print whatever I want, whenever I want for me, but handing off an imperfect solution to customers whether I print on demand, or send them a file to print themselves, can have a negative effect on my brand, which I am trying to avoid.

Yet, I see lots of success stories on the forum with very fine details being printed  (Chris is one such example and Gary is also up there). Bryan is also producing some really good 3D pieces, and he is a beginner (but with plenty of CAD experience).

Maybe you are just concentrating on the wrong part of the process?  Yes, I give an opinion without owing any 3D printing equipment, but I do follow most of the threads relating to 3D printing (since I'm fascinated by the subject, and maybe someday I'll too jump on the bandwagon). 

[Lemosteam]

No doubt there are, but the majority are for personal use and not intended to be commercialized.  And that's fine.  My comments are that it takes just as long to design and iterate and remove sprues, etc. as it does to manage a FUD model.

It take a great deal of work to establish proper fits, and most don't state how many tires it took to make them happy.  Some are at the point of repeatability, I am just not there yet.

I am simply comparing the TIME FUD vs Resin, for the overall end quality and the WORK it takes to get where you want to be bot a commercialized design.  And I have not criticized anyone else's work either, but I think the euphoria ignores some of the imperfect.  With FUD i can design something and feel extremely confident (with the exception of the designs mentioned earlier, which is why the Stillwater car was discontinued.  I had to have SW reprint so many orders of that car it was ridiculous to the point of them forcing me to cease and desist complaining about their calibration process.

I am simply being my meticulous self.  I am also not sure if I am going to go the printed master to cast resin product route either at this point.

I can complain all I want- it's my thread and all I really wanted was folks' favorite resin 9which was answered long ago.  I am just stating the obvious.  Maybe iterating designs and removing supports is fun to some, but it will become tedious over time.  It is what it is.

[Chris333]

Yeah I wouldn't want to print stuff here at home to sell.

[peteski]

No doubt there are, but the majority are for personal use and not intended to be commercialized.  And that's fine.  My comments are that it takes just as long to design and iterate and remove sprues, etc. as it does to manage a FUD model.

Well, to my non-commercial self I still think the SLA printed objects have better surface finish.  As a customer I would prefer not to have to go through the FUD cleaning hoops.
 

I can complain all I want- it's my thread and all I really wanted was folks' favorite resin 9which was answered long ago.  I am just stating the obvious.  Maybe iterating designs and removing supports is fun to some, but it will become tedious over time.  It is what it is.

Nowhere in my post I mentioned or even implied that you are complaining too much about anything, regardless whether this is your thread or not.