the future?

[nscaleSPF2]

Jim, I remember that thread. But out of that array, how many parts end up being usable? The ones on top and maybe on the bottom?  But all the other printouts will have undesirable artifacts (and are unusable)?

Peteski,  all of the "parts" in the model need to be oriented the same way.  In other words, the top view of all the parts are shown in a top view of the model.  Hmm, I'm not making myself very clear, am I?  Here, go to Shapeways to see my model of the signal head.  https://www.shapeways.com/model/1235465/signal91.html?li=my-models&materialId=61

All of the 8 parts were usable, since they were all oriented the same way.  There was no "shadowing" from part to part.

Except that it gets VERY expensive is you're rendering something like passenger car sides and have to submit a 6³" part.  I'd rather use a contractor that will output at a tighter resolution and in the orientation I desire.

Bryan,  I am not trying to address the resolution issue, but regarding the orientation:

You don't pay for the empty space between the parts in the model.  For your parts, you could probably print 4 car sides at a time if you constructed the model like this:  (please bear with me, this is a really crude sketch)


               TOP VIEW                                                                       SIDE VIEW

      ---------------------------------                                       |                                          |
^    |                                        |                             1 >     |                                 2 >    |
 |    |                                        |                                       |                                          |
 |    ---------------------------------                                       |                                          |
 |
 |                     
6"           
 |
 |
 |    ---------------------------------                                       |                                          |
 |    |                                        |                             3 >     |                               4 >      |
 |    |                                        |                                       |                                          |
 +   ---------------------------------                                       |                                          |

      <----------6"----------------->                                        <----------6"------------------>


Hope this helps.
Jim

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Except that it gets VERY expensive is you're rendering something like passenger car sides and have to submit a 6³" part.  I'd rather use a contractor that will output at a tighter resolution and in the orientation I desire.

Can you go into what setting the relationship with that contractor was like?

One of the things Shapeways does well is how low-effort it is. Upload file. Pay. Print. Done. I think that's why it appeals to so many people.

The complexity of getting involved with a company that's primarily oriented on manufacturing and manufacturer support and services as a hobbyist might seem a bit daunting.

[bbussey]

Bryan,  I am not trying to address the resolution issue, but regarding the orientation:

You don't pay for the empty space between the parts in the model.  For your parts, you could probably print 4 car sides at a time if you constructed the model like this:  (please bear with me, this is a really crude sketch)


               TOP VIEW                                                                       SIDE VIEW

      ---------------------------------                                       |                                          |
^    |                                        |                             1 >     |                                 2 >    |
 |    |                                        |                                       |                                          |
 |    ---------------------------------                                       |                                          |
 |
 |                     
6"           
 |
 |
 |    ---------------------------------                                       |                                          |
 |    |                                        |                             3 >     |                               4 >      |
 |    |                                        |                                       |                                          |
 +   ---------------------------------                                       |                                          |

      <----------6"----------------->                                        <----------6"------------------>


Hope this helps.
Jim

Shapeways doesn't charge you for the air inside your cubic arrangement because of a glitch in their algorithms that is based on the solid mass of your model as opposed to build time.  But everyone else properly bases the cost more on the time to render rather than the amount of raw materials used.  Of course, with another contractor, you can choose the orientation of the part and therefore compensate for any specific variance in the X/Y/Z plane.

[bbussey]

Can you go into what setting the relationship with that contractor was like?

One of the things Shapeways does well is how low-effort it is. Upload file. Pay. Print. Done. I think that's why it appeals to so many people.

The complexity of getting involved with a company that's primarily oriented on manufacturing and manufacturer support and services as a hobbyist might seem a bit daunting.

There was nothing "set" out of the ordinary.  Submit the part, specify what the orientation of the part is in relation to the print path.  That's it.  Not complex.  Yes, you need to have an idea of what you're doing.  But if you're at the point where you are designing complex digital models, you are capable of determining the best orientation for output as well as compensating for any variances if the machine on which the model is rendered.

[peteski]

Peteski,  all of the "parts" in the model need to be oriented the same way.  In other words, the top view of all the parts are shown in a top view of the model.  Hmm, I'm not making myself very clear, am I?  Here, go to Shapeways to see my model of the signal head.  https://www.shapeways.com/model/1235465/signal91.html?li=my-models&materialId=61

All of the 8 parts were usable, since they were all oriented the same way.  There was no "shadowing" from part to part.


Jim

Jim,  couple of things confuse me.

1. The 8 pieces are not interconnected in any way. But Shapeways still deals with them as if they were a single object?

2. No matter which orientation of the "cube of parts" will be chosen, the bottom 4 signal heads will end up covered with wax supports for the top layer of the signal heads.  Also, if Shapeways chooses to print them with the signal heads oriented they way they will be installed on the signal (the hoods are horizontal), there will be also wax supports for the hoods sitting above the lower hoods.

3. If Shapeways decides to place someone else's object over your "cube" then there will be wax supports for that object sitting on your parts.

So, I just don't see how this will work reliably. Maybe you just got lucky when you printed your batch?

[nscaleSPF2]

Jim,  couple of things confuse me.

1. The 8 pieces are not interconnected in any way. But Shapeways still deals with them as if they were a single object?

2. No matter which orientation of the "cube of parts" will be chosen, the bottom 4 signal heads will end up covered with wax supports for the top layer of the signal heads.  Also, if Shapeways chooses to print them with the signal heads oriented they way they will be installed on the signal (the hoods are horizontal), there will be also wax supports for the hoods sitting above the lower hoods.

3. If Shapeways decides to place someone else's object over your "cube" then there will be wax supports for that object sitting on your parts.

So, I just don't see how this will work reliably. Maybe you just got lucky when you printed your batch?

No worries, Peteski.  I am easily confused myself.

1.  Yes, and yes.

2.  I don't think so.  Emphasis on think.  It's like the wax supports are used on the individual part, but they don't extend from part to part.  (On a side note, this is by far the biggest problem I have with Shapeways.  They don't explain stuff like this.)  You are absolutely correct in your second statement though; some of the earlier parts were printed in the orientation you describe, and they were ugly.  Which is why I chose to have the parts printed with the hoods oriented upward.

3.  The technician at Shapeways is going to load and print as many models at a time as he possibly can.  This means that almost all the parts in the entire print job would look pretty crummy.  Not just mine.  So, again, I don't think that this happens the way you describe.

I don't blame you for being skeptical, Peteski.  Like so many things that I read here on Railwire, I have difficulty embracing things that don't look like they will work, especially if I have not tried them myself.  Maybe I was lucky, but I don't think so.  Either way, let's get more data.

There have been 6 orders for the Pennsy signal heads since I posted the model last year.  I don't get any money for them, and I don't know who ordered them.  And I didn't get any feedback, positive or negative.  So if any of you customers are out there, please chime in and let Peteski and me know what you think about the parts.  Thanks.

Jim

[peteski]

No worries, Peteski.  I am easily confused myself.

2.  I don't think so.  Emphasis on think.  It's like the wax supports are used on the individual part, but they don't extend from part to part.  (On a side note, this is by far the biggest problem I have with Shapeways.  They don't explain stuff like this.)  You are absolutely correct in your second statement though; some of the earlier parts were printed in the orientation you describe, and they were ugly.  Which is why I chose to have the parts printed with the hoods oriented upward.

3.  The technician at Shapeways is going to load and print as many models at a time as he possibly can.  This means that almost all the parts in the entire print job would look pretty crummy.  Not just mine.  So, again, I don't think that this happens the way you describe.

Jim

Jim, thanks for the explanation.

It leaves me even more confused.    I do not know how that pinter operates, but if I understand it correctly, the printer has a table (base) and the printing starts from the base up.  Sort of like making a building out of Legos. If Shapeways supposedly loads up as many jobs as they can (in vertical space), something has to support the items over your parts.  They cannot start simply hovering in the air.

But if you say it works, then I have to take your work for it - you have more experience than me. 

[bbussey]

You've deduced accurately how the ProJet3000 works.  It could be that, for Jim's build, there either were no parts arranged in the "airspace" above his, or his parts were "on top of the pile." 

The wax wouldn't extend laterally between parts, because it is used as support underneath the parts as the layers are created.

Shapeways contracts out the RP work, which is the primary reason they don't have control over the orientation of the parts on the build tray (or in the cubic volume of the build area).  Most RP contractors will only build parts that collectively fit on the footprint of the tray, and not try to load the entire volume of the build area.  Possibly, because they don't solicit that type of volume.  But most likely, because the quality of the parts is the dominant factor.

[Mark W]

... Sort of like making a building out of Legos. If Shapeways supposedly loads up as many jobs as they can (in vertical space), something has to support the items over your parts....

This is partly true, except that they do not organize items on top of other items.   They organize the tray to fit as many parts of similar height onto the print plane.  They are all printed, then the tray is swapped and the next run job is initiated.

By swapping trays, they save time and support material over stacking items vertically and waiting for the printer to lay down the 'buffer' of support material.  The exception being if the part is specifically arraigned by the designer to be stacked, and only if the natural orientation is already conveniently arraigned.  However this case would still be grouped with other orders of similar height, so no actual time is wasted.

[peteski]

This is partly true, except that they do not organize items on top of other items.   They organize the tray to fit as many parts of similar height onto the print plane.  They are all printed, then the tray is swapped and the next run job is initiated.

By swapping trays, they save time and support material over stacking items vertically and waiting for the printer to lay down the 'buffer' of support material.  The exception being if the part is specifically arraigned by the designer to be stacked, and only if the natural orientation is already conveniently arraigned.  However this case would still be grouped with other orders of similar height, so no actual time is wasted.

And here I thought that they always filled the vertical capability of the printer. Thanks for the explanation.  That makes sense. So, the situation is not as gloomy as I thought.  It is highly unlikely that other objects will end up over my objects.  The only problem remaining (as it always has) is  the orientation of the object during printing.

[wcfn100]

This is partly true, except that they do not organize items on top of other items.   

This is right off their site.

Your wineglass is however not the only thing that will be printed in that print run. Usually there will be a jumble of other items printed in the same print run. The machine is then tasked to find out the most efficient way overall to print all the items in one go. Even though it would generally be cheaper to print a wineglass vertically, all wineglasses will not always be oriented vertically.

Jason

[peteski]

This is right off their site.

Jason

Hmmmmm.... 

[wcfn100]

Hmmmmm.... 

Well FWIW, that pics been their a long time, maybe it's different now or maybe it depends on where they send it.

All I know is I've yet to get something worth a damn.



Jason

[Mark W]

That is also for the material White Strong and Flexible, which is an entirely different print process that does not need/use support material.

[gpr45]

my topic,the future! was intended to look at future innovations to help our interest in n scale modeling. ie. 3d printers, why not  3d scanners ?. as one of our learned respondents  pointed  out, 3ds will be as common as inkjets in a few years. after reviewing the replies, it seemed that shapeways was getting, well some bad press. perhaps deservedly so. 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.