Another RP service provider

[marc_reusser]

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

[Travis]

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  . ...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

[Travis]

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.

[finescalerr]

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

[DaKra]

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

[Chuck Doan]

Thanks for the great info Travis!

How does your material compare to the resin used in the Invision systems? 

[Travis]

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.

[Chuck Doan]

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.

[marc_reusser]

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

[Hauk]

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

[finescalerr]

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, 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!)

[DaKra]

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 

[eTraxx]

I ran across a thread on another forum discussing this subject and thought it worth linking to. If for nothing else, the close-up photos of the Shapeways parts.

[finescalerr]

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

[Philip Smith]

shapeways looks like a dryvit finish. It might look ok on a building.... the other company is much smoother...still great technology tho.