To be honest, I have been a little disappointed by the finish of the Print-a-Part samples. Dont get me wrong, people are making them into great models, but I would love to avoid the need for priming and sanding.
So I took a look around for alternatives (with a little help of Google), and I found this servic provider:
http://www.rjmrp.com/main/ (http://www.rjmrp.com/main/)
From the sample images, their products look really promising. Their SLA parts look smoother than those from PAP. And in addtion they offer other services as well, take a look at their wax-masters made by CNC-milling. If you are going to have parts cast in brass, CNC-milling looks like a good alternative to printed parts.
I havent gotten around to getting any quotes from them, but It would be interesting if anyone that have already had parts made by PAP requested some quotes for the same parts from RJMRP.
The samples look as though they require almost no cleanup. Even a price twice as high as Print-A-Part would seem reasonable given the savings in time and effort. Thanks, Havard. -- Russ
I spent the better part of half an hour on the telephone this afternoon with Travis @ RJM Rapid Prototyping (RJM).
Here's the bottom line: RJM may be a better way to go IF you're planning on making multiple castings. The way they work is you upload a 3-D file using their software and you get a quote. You do this a PART AT A TIME. They don't want files like those that Marc and Chuck have sent PAP (multiple parts on "sprues.") AND, your parts must fit inside a 2" x 2" x 2" cube. What you get in exchange is "double or triple the resolution," which could eliminate a lot of cleanup/sanding.
There are other considerations as well and I'm not sure I understood them clearly. However, this DOES seem to be another option for us to consider. I gave Travis a heads-up about our on-going discussions here and he may chime in.
Fred,
thanks for looking ito this. Interesting, since they are doing a part at a tim, does that mena they are CNC-ing it rather than printing it.....or is it just that the single part helps keep a higher resolution file size more managable and printing/machining time down.
Did Travis give you any idea on the costs associated with the service...or how they calc the costs?
Marc
Quote from: marc_reusser on May 18, 2010, 01:20:54 PM
Fred,
thanks for looking ito this. Interesting, since they are doing a part at a tim, does that mena they are CNC-ing it rather than printing it.....or is it just that the single part helps keep a higher resolution file size more managable and printing/machining time down.
As I understand it, they have three different processes for making parts.
1. Stereolithography. For this they use a Viper Si2 machine. Stereolithography is an additative process where you build up the parts layer by layer. I belive this is the same process PAP uses. 5X5X10 inches maximum build in hi-resolution mode. In standard mode, 10X10X10 inches maximum build.
2.Photo Polymerization. For parts of this type they use an EnvisionTec Perfactory machine. This is their cheapest option, in their own words it is far less precise than their SLA systems. This is an additative process very similiar to SLA. To be honest, I havent really understood what is the main diffrence between the two.
3. CNC-machining. This is an subtractive process where they machine parts in wax on a 5 axis machine, and something entireoy diffrent from the two other processes.
Wax parts can only be used as casting masters, they can not be used as final parts. From the wax part a brass master is cast. The wax master is destroyed during this process. This is classic lost-wax-casting, and it is nothing special for RJM.
It seems that RJM offer only CNC-machining in wax, but there is really no reason that parts could be machined in materials like wood, aluminium, brass etc.
CNC machining gives the smoothest surfaces.
I am pretty sure that the 2X2X2 inches cube limit is for parts made by CNC milling.
Judging from the images on their homepage, all processes give excellent results. But it would be very nice to see a side by side "Real life" comparasion of parts made by diffrent techniques and by different providers.
I'm surprised by the CNC 2" cube limit.
You can get a Sherline mill with CNC capable of much larger.
And it is not that expensive....relatively speaking...(about $6000 US)
-Mj
still making parts one at a time with handwheels and a micrometer......
RJM seems to have the three big choices. The photo polymerization does not have as many users based on search hits, but is capable of very fine work. It must be expensive though- it seems to be used in many tiny medical type devices. Also, check out where they are buying their CNC mini-machines:http://www.minitech.com/ (http://www.minitech.com/). Any of them would be a nice addition to the workbench.
Meanwhile, I had a difficult time seeing the pendant on Jessica Alba. Need more resolution.
John
I forgot to mention something important! Travis at RJM told me about this OTHER company...
http://www.materialise.com/ (http://www.materialise.com/)
They apparently have a VERY useful STL analysis tool. Catches lots of problems. Will try to look for it tomorrow. A cursory analysis didn't uncover what I was looking for!
Fred H.
Fred,
Interesting there are a lot of different options/ways they do the printing....though after only lightly browsing the site it kind of feels like it's overscale/overkill for what we are after :).....
Apparently they are headquartered in Belgium.
I registered and tried to get a quote, but was not able to....the whole process was a real PIA and did not seem to work smoothly, if at all...so after 3 tries I gave up.
Marc
I got it to work and below you can see the quote. :o....for the exact same part that I sent to PAP.
It also was telling me that I have a "Merged Parts" issue....could be because I have a lot of seperate components in the drawing that are in contact witheachother or as part of a group...not exactly clear on the concept. But maybe that affects the price....but you will note that the quote also states that this is the "Min. Price for a Quote"....does that mean that you can't get any less cost-wise?...can't say. I have left it at this.
Here is the link to the STL analyzer info: https://nextdayoqaos.materialise.com/help/onsite_demo/help/OnSite_Help.htm#Welcome.htm (https://nextdayoqaos.materialise.com/help/onsite_demo/help/OnSite_Help.htm#Welcome.htm)
Marc
Here is another company that does printing:
https://www.redeyeondemand.com/Default.aspx (https://www.redeyeondemand.com/Default.aspx)
Will see what they come up with for a price. They also have an STL analyzer program (you need to download it and check your model with it before they can give you a qoute.)
Will let you know how it goes....so far though PAP has by far been the easiest and most intuitive one to deal with.
Marc
Quote from: lab-dad on May 18, 2010, 03:20:59 PM
I'm surprised by the CNC 2" cube limit.
You can get a Sherline mill with CNC capable of much larger.
And it is not that expensive....relatively speaking...(about $6000 US)
-Mj
still making parts one at a time with handwheels and a micrometer......
Remember that this is milling with extremely small endmills on 5-axis systems. That fifth axis is turning the workpiece while being machined, and this also limits the area of milling.
Myself, I have done CNC-milling with as small as 0,3mm diameter endmills, and with mills this small you have to make extremly light cuts. With the resolution and surface finishes RJM offers, I would guess that their endmills are even smaller, and the amount of material you can remove in one pass must be paper-thin.
The milling option is clearly aimed at the Jewellers marked where masters are small and demands for resolution and surface smothness are high.
Quote from: marc_reusser on May 18, 2010, 10:26:12 PM
I got it to work and below you can see the quote. :o....for the exact same part that I sent to PAP.
Wow, that was not cheap... even with the weak euro that is serious money!
I think you already has told us this, but how much did PAP charge for the same part?
-Håvard
Havard,
The PAP charge was $37...plus shipping.
Below is a screenshot the quote/invoice.
OK...I did the process with "Redeye"
Downloaded and installed their ST. slicer and analyzer and ran it through [See first image below]...apparently my model was clean and fine, however the thinness of my walls brought up a pop-up that it would need final evaluation at Redeye before going to print.
Then I requested the quote. :o [see second image below].....about the same as RJMRP....and as you can see, using the same material as PAP, the part would cost me $76....BUT....I get hit with an additional $74 charge.....because they have a min. order of $150.
This vendor, like RJMRP also seems like it is overkill and not really meant for our basic needs.
Despite the higher prices from RJMRP and Redeye, they do have a much greater selection of materials, printing and finishing options, so though they may not really be applicable to our small part needs that we are discussing, they could well come in handy for larger items, or work related items........especially since it has now been shown that converting a Google SU file through CAdSpan to an .STL, will print with no problems from these companies.
MR
Quote from: marc_reusser on May 18, 2010, 11:46:01 PM
Despite the higher prices from RJMRP and Redeye, they do have a much greater selection of materials, printing and finishing options, so though they may not really be applicable to our small part needs that we are discussing, they could well come in handy for larger items, or work related items........especially since it has now been shown that converting a Google SU file through CAdSpan to an .STL, will print with no problems from these companies.
I think companies like RJMRP and Redeye also offer a sneak peak into what we can expect from companies like Print-A-Part in the future.
The future of scale modelling have never been brighter!
-Havard
For now, I will I will do a little sanding. Of course it would be nicer to not have to, but it looks like the pricing gets higher.
PAP was the simplest one I came across, and so far the cheapest for this kind of material/printer.
THanks for the efforts and info! Hopefully it can only get better!
One point we seem to have neglected is the suitability of various resolutions for various scales. For example, Chuck is working in 1:24 and is able to clean up the "jaggies" on his parts enough that they disappear. But what if the same parts were 1:48? In that case I would think you would need a cleaner, hi-res part if for no other reason than to avoid problems with the part's basic shape. Maybe that is the value of the "high price-hi res" alternative sources.
The downside, of course, is that you may pay $100 for a few rather tiny items and, financially, the tail starts wagging the dog. But it is something worth considering.
Russ
That is a good point. I was also wondering how well this would work in the smaller scales. I was thinking about doing some larger scale stuff again.
Quote from: Chuck Doan on May 19, 2010, 01:38:19 PM
That is a good point. I was also wondering how well this would work in the smaller scales. I was thinking about doing some larger scale stuff again.
I have some friends that runs a small Model railroading business here in Norway. They are making a lot of H0 casting masters on Solidscape wax printers. They are quite pleased with the results.
By the way, I asked them about what metal they had their masters cast in, and they told me that the jeweller that makes the metal masters f prefer to cast them in silver! How classy is that!
-Havard.
PS: Metal Masters from Wax Masters? For those not familiar with the lost-wax casting process a brief description of the process might be in order.
1. Print or mill a wax master. This master can give you only one metal casting. Fine if you need only one part, but for larger runs it is uneconomical to print a wax master for every part.
2. Cover the waxmaster with plaster.
3. When the plaster has set, you burn out the wax with a torch or in a special oven. Adios expencive waxpart.
4. Fill the cavity in the plaster with molten brass (or silver as my snobbish friends does!)
5. Smash the plaster mould after the metal has cooled. Hello metal master.
6. Make a mould from the Metal master in RTV rubber or something similiar.
7. With the rubber mould you can make as many new wax masters as you need. For producing larger number of parts, the casters often assemble several wax masters into casting "threes". Then it is back to step 2. again, plaster moulds.
8. Repeat cycle as many times as neccesary. If the rubber mould wears out, make another one from the metal master.
There are a bit more to it than this, of course. The process involves dealing with multiple steps of shrinkage, for instance. Please feel free to correct me if I have got things wrong, I have only had a few brass castings made this way, and the actual work took place in Korea.
Russ,
Without having my actual parts to see, I think when using PAP in smaller scales (1/48 and down) your best uses would be for the base shapes/solids/parts of something. EI. tank car bodies, loco side or saddle tanks, tender shapes, diesel critter hood shapes, diesel truck cabs, maybe even things like sand/steam domes in 1/48. etc,......basically things that you would then finish detailing with styrene or PE parts. (FWIW) this is pretty much the approach I plan to use for the 1/35 stuff)
This is actually not so different from the way things already are whendealing with resin castings in the smaller scales, so many are poorly cast or poorly/incorrctly/out-of-scale detailed, that you have to shave off all of the details and strart over......so doing the base form in PAP is not very different, except that instead of removing and sanding, you are just sanding ;).
Marc
Well, we'll see! I'm going to make a few small C&S steel underframe parts using the CNC milled alternative thru RJMRP. I'll keep ya'll posted.
Examples:
- Centerbeam to crossbeam (two I-Beams) casting.
- Draft gear pocket.
- Coupler lift brackets.
- Brake wheel top/bottom brackets.
- Sidesill cast supports.
- Bolsters!
Don't cuss me out if I've got the names wrong! (But feel free to correct me!) See original C&S blueprints.
Fred H.
Fred,
where did you get the C&S drawings?
Paul
Hello everyone!
My name is Travis Serio and I am one of the lead project managers for RJM Rapid Prototyping. Fred contacted me and told me I should get involved in this wonderful community. Hopefully I can answer some of the questions many of you have regarding various forms and styles of high resolution rapid prototyping.
I see that many of you are utilizing print based technology from an Invision HR and of course for some scales this resolution is more than adequate and for other scales it is not adequate enough. This is where we come in. We push to go to that next level of resolution and detail in the RP world. As many of you know we are focused heavily on Jewelry manufacturing and prototyping. The jewelry industry is perhaps one of the most demanding industries in terms of resolution and accuracy on a small scale. The surfaces have to be mirror finished and intricate stone settings require features that can be plus or minus .001".
I have attached an image of three spheres which should help illustrate the resolution differences between what most of you are probably familiar with and what we produce. All three spheres are 15mm in diameter. The Purple sphere was produced by us at RJM on a modified Viper SLA system. The Blue sphere was produced on an Invision HR at its highest resolution and the Clear/White sphere was produced by an Eden 333 on its highest resolution (Red Eye).
Welcome Travis!
Will be excellent to have "an inside source" in our ranks.
I am sure we will all benefit from your presence.
Just for giggles how about a price comparison of the three spheres/materials?
-Marty
Welcome, thanks for stopping by! My only experience has been with the Invision machine. I would also be interested in the general cost differences in the process for similar parts. So far I have been using the parts directly as opposed to using them as masters for castings, so I would have to weigh the cost differences. I think for master use, a higher price can be tolerated.
Travis,
Welcome, and thank you for your time, information and examples. Very much appreciated.
The differneces are quite clear. I too would be interested in the same questions posed by Chuck.
When I went to your site it was quite obvious that your services and results were geared to a higher quality market than the hobbyist that needs a few parts here and there ;) ;D. ...as well as somone that is more well versed than many a hobbyist will be when dealing with .STL files. (neither item being a negative).....what confused me, was that your .STL verifier seemed to pick out some errors (lapped components) and noted the pricing would likely be higher.....while the PAP and Red-Eye verifier did not seem to flag this. Would you mind if I asked some questions re. this in regards to the project I tested, so I can better understand how to adapt my files for use with your services?
Re. pricing; though your base price was higher, which is well justified by the obvious quality difference, I would have been OK paying it, but as Chuck mentioned, for parts that were to be directly used,...and though I understand the reasong and need for this......I felt deterred by the additional min. charge cost.
Thanks again. Look forward to any additional light you can shed on the printing subject/process.
Marc
Thanks for the warm welcome. I've tried to drum up some more photos of things we have done that might be along the lines of what you guys are doing here, or just simply show the scales we are typically working with.
I can sort of answer Chucks question on pricing (I hope).
I guess I should start by addressing the fundamental differences between our SLA and Printer based Jet technologies.
SLA uses a laser to build parts from a photo resin. The printer based technologies you guys seem familiar with also use a photo resin but layers printed instead of cured in a vat. Traditionally printed parts have a lower XY resolution due to the fact that the material is being deposited by a Jet or print head and the resolution becomes fixed based on the size of that droplet (how small of a square can you print before its just a circle).
SLA is traditionally higher resolution because it uses the diameter of the laser beam to harden the part as the beam passes over the surface level of the resin tracing the outside features of the part. In our case, we have taken the existing SLA technology and modified it slightly to use smaller layers and have a slightly smaller spot diameter. The result is much higher resolution with the trade off of part size. It takes us about 3 times longer to build parts than a standard SLA machine and thus is more costly to keep the machines running.
As for the pricing per part it definitely varies from geometry type to geometry type. Parts with more area and volume and more complex surface areas tend to have the highest prices as they require the longest draw times and consume lots of laser time. You can expect most of our parts to range between $30 - $300 depending on their size and features. I would imagine that by the time you got to a $300 part you'd most likely be large enough to utilize the printer based technologies that can provide a suitable resolution for the job.
Some of our other machines also utilize photo resin technologies but instead of lasers they use DLP chips much like those in DLP televisions to project a mask onto the surface of the photo resin. These machines can achieve some very stunning XY resolutions that are unmatched by any other technology in the RP world today, but have a harder time building bigger parts that have big planar surface areas where peeling of layers becomes problematic (we can delve into that later).
For now I have dug around on my PC and attached a few more photos I've dug up to illustrate some more of our work. We've been doing a lot miniature soldiers for a company that makes miniature battlefield replicas for museum's and collectors (1st Virtual Productions). Lately we've been doing a lot at 1:300 scale but have built them as small as 1:500 scale. The average height of a 1:300 character is 7mm from base of the feet to the tip of their bayonets on their rifles. Many are done in separate pieces, cast in silver or brass and then hand painted and assembled.
more photos
Hi Travis,
The examples look good for a master for multiple castings where the cost is spread out per piece. Very nice detail on the garden building.
Would it be more efficient to divide a larger part into smaller sections and later bond them? Would that avoid the higher costs of a more voluminous part?
I admit to ordering a couple parts from PAP. I'll have to get an estimate from your company next time too.
Thanks for stopping in,
John
PS Marc, perhaps you had small overlaps that the other systems could not duplicate so their programs didn't care?
John
Because I drew and used multiple components IE welding tank top and seperate sprue connector, which intersect due to the arced shape of the top, I figure these are what were read as the intersections........same with the spre supports and the pressed ties.....It was just interesting that RJMs checker had issues with it, while PAP and Red Eye did not.
The intersection issue can easily be resolved by simply exploding all the separate components, then selecting everything and then selecting "intersect"........I just don't care for this, because I can't move and change things around as easily of I decide to make changes or additions after exploding.
MR
Quote from: marc_reusser on May 25, 2010, 12:52:10 PM
Travis,
Welcome, and thank you for your time, information and examples. Very much appreciated.
The differneces are quite clear. I too would be interested in the same questions posed by Chuck.
When I went to your site it was quite obvious that your services and results were geared to a higher quality market than the hobbyist that needs a few parts here and there ;) ;D. ...as well as somone that is more well versed than many a hobbyist will be when dealing with .STL files. (neither item being a negative).....what confused me, was that your .STL verifier seemed to pick out some errors (lapped components) and noted the pricing would likely be higher.....while the PAP and Red-Eye verifier did not seem to flag this. Would you mind if I asked some questions re. this in regards to the project I tested, so I can better understand how to adapt my files for use with your services?
Re. pricing; though your base price was higher, which is well justified by the obvious quality difference, I would have been OK paying it, but as Chuck mentioned, for parts that were to be directly used,...and though I understand the reasong and need for this......I felt deterred by the additional min. charge cost.
Thanks again. Look forward to any additional light you can shed on the printing subject/process.
Marc
A part of quoting things blindly depends on good starting numbers to go by. When an STL isn't a water tight single shell the values for things like volume can return incorrect or wrong numbers. Being that most of our clients are designers and/or artists and not really computer engineers that focus on the constructs of an STL file we try to build our quoter to allow you the designer some fudge room when attaching parts. This means that we do not mandate that your STL's be a single shell that has been boolean unioned and water tight. We realize that many software applications on the market today have a hard time with boolean union operations that cause model problems like naked edges, overlapping or coplanar triangles and holes in the model. The software will still let you upload it and try to take a wild guess at the quote. Many times its very close to being correct but other times the quote generated is a total mess.
On the flip side of that this also allows for a bit of exploiting of the system. Since we do not require boolean operations of the files this allows you to put multiple assemblies in 1 stl and try to quote it. The software will generate the quote but once it's uploaded to the server we will simply force you to requote the different assemblies individually.
To see whether or not your STL you have generated is a good valid solid you can use the free Materialise software called Mini Magics. Mini Magics will allow you to see the various problems and issues that your STL file has. The deal with the free version is that it won't allow you to fix them in the software. None the less, it's a fantastic application to have if you are doing a lot of RP work and need to make sure that the files you are sending out are in good condition and ready to be prototyped without issue.
http://www.materialise.com/MiniMagics
Quote from: marc_reusser on May 25, 2010, 08:22:36 PM
John
Because I drew and used multiple components IE welding tank top and seperate sprue connector, which intersect due to the arced shape of the top, I figure these are what were read as the intersections........same with the spre supports and the pressed ties.....It was just interesting that RJMs checker had issues with it, while PAP and Red Eye did not.
The intersection issue can easily be resolved by simply exploding all the separate components, then selecting everything and then selecting "intersect"........I just don't care for this, because I can't move and change things around as easily of I decide to make changes or additions after exploding.
MR
Our quote engine itself has no issue with quoting sprued parts. The problem lies with how the parts are built if they are pre-sprued. I'm not referring to multiple shells in a part but multiple parts in 1 stl joined by sprues. For example 4 sets of rims for a car all joined by cylinder style connectors not 4 lug nuts attached to a rim that aren't unified into 1 solid.
The printer based technologies use a dissoluble support cocoon that encompasses the part as its being built. This support structure is typically made from a secondary low melting point wax based solution that dissolves in warm water or a kerosene derivative style cleaning agent. The pro's of this style support is that the part can be oriented in any direction on the build platform and the supports required to hold the part into place as it builds will later be cleanly removed.
SLA style system supports are built like toothpicks and are made of the same material as the rest of the part. When building parts in this fashion part orientation becomes the key to successfully building high quality models. If the designer has assembled multiple parts together using a sprue tree this often time removes our ability to properly orient each and every part on the tree for optimum build quality which can lead to unusable very poor quality parts.
Speaking as the Imperial Imperator and El Jefe Grandissimo of this website, I am simply delighted by your posts. At the moment, I think we should consider two things: First, the best that can be done regardless of price. Second, what can be done at various price points.
As modelers, many of us tend to be myopic. For example, "I'm not interested in anything I can't afford or in anything other than what suits my favorite scale." But there is a much more important and bigger picture: Where is technology going, how can I use it, and when will it become cost effective to get what I really want (with as little compromise as possible)? Don't forget: Time sometimes really is money and it might be worth an extra hundred bucks to save two or three hours' work.
Were I thinking of offering white metal or resin castings, for example, I might find it more cost efficient to spend more for the masters. As a hobbyist looking for a reasonably inexpensive shortcut for creating a few one off parts, it might be better to spend less and spend more time with sandpaper.
Let's neither dismiss nor lose interest in the cutting edge. Tomorrow it may be commonplace (with commonplace pricing).
Russ
Agree with Russ, this is a very interesting topic, and I'm real glad to see one of the service providers taking the time to discuss it informally and take some of the mystery out. Rapid prototyping has obvious potential in scale model work.
I'll be watching this with interest.
I've always been an advocate of high tech in model work. For me, lack of info has been a big hang up with RP. The other problem is lack of 3d drafting ability. Maybe somebody will offer a service turning 2d drawings into 3d files for use with RP.
Dave
Thanks for the great info Travis!
How does your material compare to the resin used in the Invision systems?
The purple material (amethyst) is much like plexiglass. It's very durable, you can bench it and paint it, but drilling it can be problematic if you're too aggressive with it. We also have a green Pic100 which is more like a nylon/wax mix. We have a new material coming soon that is called photosilver that is very very hard, durable and plateable. We should begin offering that material next month. I would guess that photosilver would be the choice resin for most of the folks here.
Thanks! I had a couple of parts done about a year ago that came in as a yellow waxy tacky material. They were too soft and couldn't be sanded without gumming up the file. The Invision resin is a bit brittle, but it works fine for what I am doing. That new material sounds interesting! Seems like things are improving nicely.
DOH!...I owe you an apology Travis...apparently senility is creeping in...or I am just an idiot......either way, I noticed that the quote and issues I was talking about that I thought was from RJM, was not...it was from 'Materialise'. Sorry about that and and any confusion it caused.
Marc
Quote from: Travis on May 26, 2010, 08:05:11 AM
The purple material (amethyst) is much like plexiglass. It's very durable, you can bench it and paint it, but drilling it can be problematic if you're too aggressive with it. We also have a green Pic100 which is more like a nylon/wax mix. We have a new material coming soon that is called photosilver that is very very hard, durable and plateable. We should begin offering that material next month. I would guess that photosilver would be the choice resin for most of the folks here.
Is that grey ring in the picture printed in Photosilver?
Is photosilver so hard it is impossible to sand or machine?
I am also interested in knowing what material you would reccomend for masters intended for making RTV rubber moulds.
-Håvard
Today's Los Angeles Times ran a short article rapid prototyping. Jay Leno apparently has a $27,000 machine in his garage for creating unavailable parts for his classic cars. No, he doesn't know how to use it; he hires people to create the plans and the parts. But the real future of such devices, according to the article, will be consumer printers for the home.
"My hope is that people, instead of going to the store, will just go online and download what they need and print it out," said Bre Pettis, co-founder of Brooklyn, N.Y.-based MakerBot Industries, which makes the CupCake CNC. "That's where this is going, whether it's a new doorstop or the little wheels in your dishwasher."
Pettis' company offers a $750 unit in a wood box. Its output is much too crude for our purposes. Philips "has established a website, at http://www.shapeways.com (http://www.shapeways.com), where budding inventors can sell 3-D-printer-made products from their own designs." I think that may be the one RMC wrote up a couple of months ago. Or maybe not. Either way, the quality of what I saw seemed unsuitable for our needs.
The point, though, is that 3D printers may very well be household appliances in the future. And hobbyists will download or create software, print out the parts at home, and assemble models from them.
It would appear that some of us already are there.
Some on this website have complained about technology destroying craftsmanship. I suppose, if designing your own kit in 3D CAD does away with machinists and pattern makers, there may be some truth to that. But computers already have replaced clarinetists and even radio announcers. (Yes, some commercials you hear are computers talking, not people!) Besides, the idea of "craftsmanship" may someday take on an additional meaning -- that of CONCEIVING of a project and executing it with software. So, yes, computers may take over the mundane aspects of arts and crafts but they certainly won't replace the creative ones. That's what WE are here for!
Russ
(Yes, I have seriously begun wondering whether it makes sense anymore to play an instrument as obsolete as a clarinet when I might be able to make it sound better with a computer!)
Yup, its only a matter of time before 3d printers become affordable for general home and hobby use. I hope I live to see the day.
As for craftsmanship, no gizmo can replace that. I think every generation of artisan has had to reckon with the encroachment of technology, and so I agree with Russ's comment about the conceptual element of craftsmanship. Hardware, no matter how high tech, is ultimately an inanimate tool that relies on a human mind. High tech is no guarantee of high quality or good design, in fact, the opposite is often true. As high tech becomes more widespread, it becomes more accessable to hacks and its all downhill from there. Craftsmanship will always be distinguished by how tools are used, not the tools.
Dave
I ran across a thread on another forum (http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/topic/8147-3d-printing-class-25-parts/) discussing this subject and thought it worth linking to. If for nothing else, the close-up photos of the Shapeways parts.
The Shapeways parts really don't impress me at all. But the U.S. rendered Finelines (or whatever company) part was excellent despite its high price. Thanks for the link. It's educational. -- Russ
shapeways looks like a dryvit finish. It might look ok on a building.... the other company is much smoother...still great technology tho.
Found another 3D printer this morning - Scuplteo (http://www.sculpteo.com/en/). Haven't made a in-depth look .. but noticed right off that in the file formats list (http://www.sculpteo.com/en/help/#CAT1_Q1) that you can upload Sketchup .skp files.