|
I have a Makerbot and have actually printed things useful to my job. Still, my experience is pretty limited. My take on it is that if you want something now or now-ish then buy a Makerbot if the DIY angle appeals to you or you  over open hardware, and buy an UP! if it doesn't.Or just use shapeways (or similar) if you're experienced in 3D modeling and CAD. If you're a novice and have a "design by iteration" approach to things, the cost and time between hitting ORDER and receiving it will not match well to that.
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 04:53 |
|
|
Zhentar posted:At the moment, you can't buy a machine that can print that hellcat for less than $15,000. All of the hobbyist devices you see in this thread use plastic extrusion without any support material, which can't print serious overhangs like that model has. overhangs? I don't know the term for it, but what is it called when you can very clearly see the layers of material? Some machines print very very thick layers so it's very apparent.. Others don't. Some of the really expensive machines layers are very very very tiny as to almost be undetectable. What is that called? I'm looking for something that can print small layers so I don't have to sand the poo poo out of everything I try to make. Detail doesn't have to be exactly hellcat quality, but are any of the cheap end models even remotely close to that quality? Thin layers etc?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 04:13
|
|
|
flick3r posted:overhangs? It's called resolution, and i'm not sure how small it can get on the cheaper ones but can't some plastic extruder printers do 0.5mm?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 04:31
|
|
|
I attended, a reprap prusa build this weekend. I also picked up parts for my own prusa. I watched some 19 prusas near completion when I stopped by to get my bits and peices. :-)
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 07:31
|
|
|
If you just want a smooth surface, that can be achieved easily enough with the cheap printers using acetone rather than sanding everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2011 15:23
|
|
|
Amazing solar powered 3d printer that uses a huge lens to melt sand into glass. http://vimeo.com/25401444
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 01:46
|
|
|
echomadman posted:Amazing solar powered 3d printer that uses a huge lens to melt sand into glass. AHAHAHAHA HOLY poo poo HE'S A RAVING MANIAC! You'd have to pay me very, very large sums of money to pivot that collector array around without a goddamned cover on it like that(Or a mylar moonsuit, and even then!). Just like working on an optical table, don't put your appendages anywhere with the beam on, and it only takes one or two mistakes to cure you of the habit. I cringed at about 1:15 or so as his torso catches some rays... Anyway, seems like a brilliant idea, and it could just as easily work with polymers too. Edit: Jesus put some louvers on it or something. I'm cackling maniacally watching him dig out his bowl while the beam makes a lump in the corner... Edit2: Oh god they transport it uncovered too. Also there's no pressure involved, so is it truly sintering? Sponge! fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Jun 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 02:08
|
|
|
Sponge! posted:AHAHAHAHA HOLY poo poo HE'S A RAVING MANIAC! This is so cool! I didn't even consider this possible, but making that bowl was pretty amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 05:04
|
|
|
Hoping you 3d printer folks can help me out here. This video is a hoax, right? It must be a hoax. Anyone with more knowledge of the subject than I care to weigh in? VVVVV Just seems too good to be true, but I have very little knowledge of the current state of 3d printing tech. VVVVV Sanford fucked around with this message at 11:37 on Jul 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 11:17
|
|
|
Sanford posted:Hoping you 3d printer folks can help me out here. This video is a hoax, right? It must be a hoax. Anyone with more knowledge of the subject than I care to weigh in? Why do you think it's a hoax? Looks real to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 11:24
|
|
|
Hungry Gerbil posted:Why do you think it's a hoax? Looks real to me. "Going into space you just take a printer and print what you need." Yeah, right after we figure out how to do it in zero gravity, sure...
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 11:37
|
|
|
The clip suffers from hyperbolic narration but what's fake about it? Zcorp has been making high end 3d printers for ages now. The homebrew stuff that you see more of in this thread doesnt really compare in resolution to what commercial machines do.
Synthbuttrange fucked around with this message at 13:03 on Jul 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 13:01
|
|
|
In that case, wow, I can't believe how good the tech has got. Thanks for your input, gents.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 13:21
|
|
|
That looks like they are using HP printer ink cartridges to colour the powder. Neat idea but im surprised they didnt chose a company that makes cheaper ink.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 14:23
|
|
|
Yeah, tell me about it. I should get rid of my HP printer, their ink cartridges are poo poo. I dont use it for a few days and the print heads dry out and clog into uselessness.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2011 07:49
|
|
|
Sanford posted:Anyone with more knowledge of the subject than I care to weigh in? How did the scanner see and render parts that were hidden, like the little axle thing that screws the jaws open and closed? That was the part I was wondering about. Seems to me a modeller would have to come in and tweak that part before printing. Is that what they did, but left out of the video?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
Sun Dog posted:How did the scanner see and render parts that were hidden, like the little axle thing that screws the jaws open and closed? That was the part I was wondering about. Seems to me a modeller would have to come in and tweak that part before printing. Is that what they did, but left out of the video? edit: Bringing that poo poo into space is kind of a dumb idea. At least from the Earth. You have to bring the hardware and more material than the tool itself. I am not trying to say the technology is dumb or anything but it is the wrong application for this. Coming up with something that can turn moon dust or Martian rock into the material to produce tools would be a big thing though. Obsurveyor fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jul 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2011 20:09
|
|
|
Obsurveyor posted:edit: Bringing that poo poo into space is kind of a dumb idea. At least from the Earth. You have to bring the hardware and more material than the tool itself. I am not trying to say the technology is dumb or anything but it is the wrong application for this. Coming up with something that can turn moon dust or Martian rock into the material to produce tools would be a big thing though. I'm assuming the idea for space would be for making whatever parts you needed a la Apollo 13 without having to be restricted to a toilet paper roll, paperclip, and whatever other random MacGuyver crap they scrounged up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2011 03:26
|
|
|
It would make sense for long-term things like the space station, because you can get 10 pounds of generic material and make any replacement parts or tools (or specialized things for an unexpected problem) rather than all the separate replacement parts you might need and will otherwise sit there wasting space. I agree it's a much better solution for some other planetary surface with lots of raw material. I love the lunar sintering robot idea for building roads, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2011 03:47
|
|
|
It's a fun though experiment, but I want to know how they plan on making it work in microgravity. all the deposition techniques I've seen thus far don't seem like they would work properly. Using it on a terrestrial base would make sense; bring a binder and glue moon dust together to make a shelter. I've seen similar techniques to 3d printing used to make concrete structures on earth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2011 05:56
|
|
|
ickna posted:It's a fun though experiment, but I want to know how they plan on making it work in microgravity. all the deposition techniques I've seen thus far don't seem like they would work properly. Throw it in a big centrifuge. Obviously less efficient, but that's the simplest solution to anything that normally needs gravity. Or just pressurize the liquid I guess, but that would depend more on the specific materials.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2011 06:40
|
|
|
Locus posted:Throw it in a big centrifuge. Obviously less efficient, but that's the simplest solution to anything that normally needs gravity. Electrostatically charge the particles so they stick to what's been printed maybe... Like powdercoating...
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2011 08:12
|
|
|
couldn't you just use surface tension/adhesion and a pressurized fluid source? Same idea as the pressurized ink pens. I wonder how they'd solve offgassing issues?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2011 15:55
|
|
|
Just wanted to share a really long print (about 35 hours!) that I finished yesterday: It's the Bathtub U-Boat from here: http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6432 The red bits are a stand that I made in Blender: http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:10346
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 07:11
|
|
|
techknight posted:Just wanted to share a really long print (about 35 hours!) that I finished yesterday: I've been eying that model since it was posted. I'm glad to see someone built it. How firmly do the sections hold together? They don't look exactly flush to one another.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 16:44
|
|
|
Videodrome posted:I've been eying that model since it was posted. I'm glad to see someone built it. How firmly do the sections hold together? They don't look exactly flush to one another. Yeah, they hold together well but I'm going to need a dremel to shave down the connectors enough to get the pieces flush. Some of the other finished examples look completely flush, but I'm not sure whether that's due to post-processing or whether they had a stepper-based extruder or what.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2011 20:25
|
|
|
Just finished off the life-size Sword of Omens:  I don't know that Thundercats was anyone's favourite cartoon as a kid, but it is a nice project for the MakerBot.  Also, Junior Veloso's resin-based 3D printer will apparently be released this year.. Really, really gotta get me one of these: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 14:34
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, professional quality 3d printing for a hobbyist?  
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 00:11
|
|
|
Fap indeed. The resolution on that thing is incredible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 02:56
|
|
|
techknight posted:Also, Junior Veloso's resin-based 3D printer will apparently be released this year.. Really, really gotta get me one of these: Oh man, I check his blog pretty much everyday. CANT WAIT.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 03:03
|
|
|
A printer that can print better than I can clumsily 3D design frightens and intimidates me. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 05:42
|
|
|
Oh god what. Am I reading his posts correctly? What he's done is to marry a platform rig, a basin of uv-setting resin and a digital projector and written up software to get the whole thing playing together? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 05:48
|
|
|
I'm down for one of those. Right now the resolution of repraps and such is what is holding me back from pulling the trigger on one. I have some cool concepts to print once this thing goes live!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 06:43
|
|
|
The sample video on the blog is impressive and the glow it makes while printing is nice but I want to know is the real print time. the video is speeded up and some of the more traditional printers like the ultimaker are really starting to be fast. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2cgGTLMeCQ&feature=player_embedded Speed is one of the selling points for me personaly
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 02:19
|
|
|
On his FAQ he states that it's about 1cm per 3.5 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 02:21
|
|
|
Afterdark posted:The sample video on the blog is impressive and the glow it makes while printing is nice but I want to know is the real print time. the video is speeded up and some of the more traditional printers like the ultimaker are really starting to be fast. The way i see it, it's very very hard to get precision AND speed at the same time. he said each layer has to harden for about 4 seconds...and each layer can be 0.05mm thin so it'll still be quite a while :P
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 02:22
|
|
|
Claes Oldenburger posted:The way i see it, it's very very hard to get precision AND speed at the same time. he said each layer has to harden for about 4 seconds...and each layer can be 0.05mm thin so it'll still be quite a while :P That's about 13min/cm. For several thousand DPI, that's not bad?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 07:58
|
|
|
For higher resolution than real life I'll let it print overnight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 08:38
|
|
|
kafkasgoldfish posted:That's about 13min/cm. For several thousand DPI, that's not bad? Yea, i'm curious though if he can set the different dpi for the model he prints because some of those models have stepping that is much larger than what i would think 0.05mm would look like.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 04:53 |
|
|
You have to keep in mind a lot of the models he is printing are really really tiny, so the 'stepping' you see on the surface is only evident due to good macro photography
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 09:04
|
|