The future of model building
lotus123
08-05-2009, 02:15 AM
Let me start by saying that I have not been building models for as long as some folks (in fact my wife would say that I don't build at all- I just like collecting kits, parts and tools!).
However, having followed this hobby for a number of years through my local club, Internet forums (like this great one!), and magazines, I see one thread recurring from time to time - where are the new kits coming from. We read about licensing complexities, tooling costs and consumer preferences before we start another rant about being under-served by the model industry.
Here's my take on where modelling might go.
The internet has accelerated the evolution of modelling beyond all expectations. You can use it to buy models and accessories, you can learn online how to do a better job of modelling, and you can bask in the adulation of your fellow modellers when you do a good job! I think that this is Model Web 1.0.
The next step comes when we use the web in similar fashion to music downloading. Yes, that's still illegal in some forms, but the music business is getting around to understanding the benefits of the model (no pun intended), and it has changed the way we buy music - think of the simplicity and convenience of iTunes. Imagine if we could buy models that way. No, I'm not talking about buying kits online as we currently do - that's just an incremental supply improvement. I'm thinking of something more radical.
Imagine buying a digital kit - a 3D CAD design which is rendered to solid form when you decide "that's the one I want". You could buy the 3D file from any designer (maybe MFH, Fujimi, your pal at the club who designed a transkit for the 550 Maranello street version you want to change to LM spec). You submit the file through an ordering portal that processes your order/ charge your card, etc. They would have the file converted to a solid model through a service that does that sort of thing (see http://www.shapeways.com/themes/stainless_steel_3dprinting_gallery), add the photoetch and other bits from a supply list of suitable parts and also have decals printed if necessary. They would then pack it all up and ship to you.
Now, why would this be radical?
Well, firstly, because the kits are produced on demand from digital files there will no longer be out of production kits. Stocking and packaging costs are driven down, and shipping costs are also reduced (you don't need to ship from Japan when 3D printers exist in every country). Economy of scale also comes into it. You don't have massive tooling costs for a limited run of a particular model, and because more people are building exactly the kits they like, more people will be building.
Secondly, it introduces more participants into the modelling business - the garage companies. We've had them until now on the fringes, producing transkits, decals, photoetch, special paint formulations. Now there's a new category - 3G designers. These folks take an idea and turn it into something substantial and digital. Somebody like stratos75 perhaps (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=933184&page=2) or (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=923564&highlight=mclaren&page=5). If you don't think folks are excited about his work and turning it into production then just read the posts!
Admittedly there are some kinks to be worked out before all of this comes about. 3D printing has a way to go yet (and thinking about it - maybe the 3D part only becomes a master for moulding). However, 3D printing has already evolved from being plastic/resin to metallic (see above link) so the parts are thinner/lighter/durable. Decal printing relies on big runs to be cost-effective, but there may be room for innovation there.
I'm sure the manufacturers like Revell will still have a market for their large run, general mass appeal kits to be stocked at your LHS/Toys R Us. For those of us who want more from modelling maybe this is the future.
I'd like to hear how you see the future playing out, and how the Internet can feature in this. Yes there are many reasons why it can't work, don't want to hear them. This is a moonshot vision exercise!
BTW- While looking at the Shapeways website look into the forum and see what people are saying, and how they're developing this idea as users of the service.
However, having followed this hobby for a number of years through my local club, Internet forums (like this great one!), and magazines, I see one thread recurring from time to time - where are the new kits coming from. We read about licensing complexities, tooling costs and consumer preferences before we start another rant about being under-served by the model industry.
Here's my take on where modelling might go.
The internet has accelerated the evolution of modelling beyond all expectations. You can use it to buy models and accessories, you can learn online how to do a better job of modelling, and you can bask in the adulation of your fellow modellers when you do a good job! I think that this is Model Web 1.0.
The next step comes when we use the web in similar fashion to music downloading. Yes, that's still illegal in some forms, but the music business is getting around to understanding the benefits of the model (no pun intended), and it has changed the way we buy music - think of the simplicity and convenience of iTunes. Imagine if we could buy models that way. No, I'm not talking about buying kits online as we currently do - that's just an incremental supply improvement. I'm thinking of something more radical.
Imagine buying a digital kit - a 3D CAD design which is rendered to solid form when you decide "that's the one I want". You could buy the 3D file from any designer (maybe MFH, Fujimi, your pal at the club who designed a transkit for the 550 Maranello street version you want to change to LM spec). You submit the file through an ordering portal that processes your order/ charge your card, etc. They would have the file converted to a solid model through a service that does that sort of thing (see http://www.shapeways.com/themes/stainless_steel_3dprinting_gallery), add the photoetch and other bits from a supply list of suitable parts and also have decals printed if necessary. They would then pack it all up and ship to you.
Now, why would this be radical?
Well, firstly, because the kits are produced on demand from digital files there will no longer be out of production kits. Stocking and packaging costs are driven down, and shipping costs are also reduced (you don't need to ship from Japan when 3D printers exist in every country). Economy of scale also comes into it. You don't have massive tooling costs for a limited run of a particular model, and because more people are building exactly the kits they like, more people will be building.
Secondly, it introduces more participants into the modelling business - the garage companies. We've had them until now on the fringes, producing transkits, decals, photoetch, special paint formulations. Now there's a new category - 3G designers. These folks take an idea and turn it into something substantial and digital. Somebody like stratos75 perhaps (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=933184&page=2) or (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=923564&highlight=mclaren&page=5). If you don't think folks are excited about his work and turning it into production then just read the posts!
Admittedly there are some kinks to be worked out before all of this comes about. 3D printing has a way to go yet (and thinking about it - maybe the 3D part only becomes a master for moulding). However, 3D printing has already evolved from being plastic/resin to metallic (see above link) so the parts are thinner/lighter/durable. Decal printing relies on big runs to be cost-effective, but there may be room for innovation there.
I'm sure the manufacturers like Revell will still have a market for their large run, general mass appeal kits to be stocked at your LHS/Toys R Us. For those of us who want more from modelling maybe this is the future.
I'd like to hear how you see the future playing out, and how the Internet can feature in this. Yes there are many reasons why it can't work, don't want to hear them. This is a moonshot vision exercise!
BTW- While looking at the Shapeways website look into the forum and see what people are saying, and how they're developing this idea as users of the service.
jano11
08-05-2009, 04:01 AM
The future looks bright, isn't it?
However at the end it all depends on the costs.
No matter how you look at it, it takes many work hours to make a realistic and printable 3D model.
Than you print it or have it machined, than you clean it up, because let's be honest the 3D printed or machined parts are far from being good enough to be directly used for molding.
Than you have to take into account the molding and casting process, this takes more time than using an injection machine.
In the end, after investing hundreds of hours of work and a lot of money for the materials, one will probably go as far as making a few hundred copies, that would have a high price. Just take a look at what a simple resin kit costs compared to a plastic injection kit, it's anywhere from 100 to over 200 Euro compared to 30 Euro.
For now the future of model kits production stays with the bigger companies, we others can use the new technologies to improve kits or make rare kits, unless we are planing to invest huge amounts of money which in turn would turn us into a model making company.
BTW, big model companies also use rapid prototyping to design their products.
Did you see what is the cost of a good ready 3D model? It ranges from a few hundred USD to over a thousand depending on the level of detail and accuracy.
Having it printed even with the cheapest and lowest quality service will be, for a detailed 1/24 scale model, around 200 USD. The quality will be nowhere near that of a plastic kit, you'll need to work hundreds of hours to get a good kit, and than you can start to build it.
Trust me I know what I'm talking about.
For now the technology exists, it get's cheaper every day, but it's still to expensive for the usual modeler who wants to take pleasure from building a model.
However at the end it all depends on the costs.
No matter how you look at it, it takes many work hours to make a realistic and printable 3D model.
Than you print it or have it machined, than you clean it up, because let's be honest the 3D printed or machined parts are far from being good enough to be directly used for molding.
Than you have to take into account the molding and casting process, this takes more time than using an injection machine.
In the end, after investing hundreds of hours of work and a lot of money for the materials, one will probably go as far as making a few hundred copies, that would have a high price. Just take a look at what a simple resin kit costs compared to a plastic injection kit, it's anywhere from 100 to over 200 Euro compared to 30 Euro.
For now the future of model kits production stays with the bigger companies, we others can use the new technologies to improve kits or make rare kits, unless we are planing to invest huge amounts of money which in turn would turn us into a model making company.
BTW, big model companies also use rapid prototyping to design their products.
Did you see what is the cost of a good ready 3D model? It ranges from a few hundred USD to over a thousand depending on the level of detail and accuracy.
Having it printed even with the cheapest and lowest quality service will be, for a detailed 1/24 scale model, around 200 USD. The quality will be nowhere near that of a plastic kit, you'll need to work hundreds of hours to get a good kit, and than you can start to build it.
Trust me I know what I'm talking about.
For now the technology exists, it get's cheaper every day, but it's still to expensive for the usual modeler who wants to take pleasure from building a model.
lotus123
08-05-2009, 04:58 AM
Thanks for your input, and I agree with your observations. The costs and time are major factors inhibiting growth.
However, consider this.
Costs
The current costs for producing parts are high, as you point out. That's because the machines are few and far between. The owners of the machines at present have a small window of opportunity to maximise returns on their investment. The colour printing business was like this, before prices came down and colour laser printers became available to everyone. However, like all commercial ventures, availability and demand will adjust until the price is right. I would bet that in the future your local Kinkos will have a 3D printer. Heck, I'll go one further - your local model club will buy one to generate funds!
Effort
Admittedly producing digital models is time-consuming and hard. However, computer processing power increases all the time, and the CAD software is continually improving to make it easier for even hobbyists to learn the basics. I would suggest that the open-source software development industry is an example of how this could play out. Sure, the professional developers work for the big companies, but there are tens of thousands of developers out there who happily write code that someone might need, for a small donation (shareware). I think there are enthusiasts who would develop digitals cars, and others who would build those cars.
I visualise picking a model to build like you search for a software utility - you go to the sites you know and trust, and choose what you want from a list. Who knows, maybe you even get the source code and do some modifications yourself before sending it off to production!
As for the complexities and costs of moulding and casting, who knows whether it will be necessary, if 3D printers develop in terms of capabilities? In the beginning of their development inkjet printers were laughably bad - now everyone has one and they've become very good (and cheap!).
As I said in the first post - there are millions of reasons why this can't work. The main reason, however, is because we apply the limitations of what we currently know. The thing is, it's what we don't know yet that will make this possible. I didn't know that there is a service to make 3D parts, until now. The fact that there is tells me that the business model for rapid prototyping is beginning to evolve. Now it becomes interesting!
However, consider this.
Costs
The current costs for producing parts are high, as you point out. That's because the machines are few and far between. The owners of the machines at present have a small window of opportunity to maximise returns on their investment. The colour printing business was like this, before prices came down and colour laser printers became available to everyone. However, like all commercial ventures, availability and demand will adjust until the price is right. I would bet that in the future your local Kinkos will have a 3D printer. Heck, I'll go one further - your local model club will buy one to generate funds!
Effort
Admittedly producing digital models is time-consuming and hard. However, computer processing power increases all the time, and the CAD software is continually improving to make it easier for even hobbyists to learn the basics. I would suggest that the open-source software development industry is an example of how this could play out. Sure, the professional developers work for the big companies, but there are tens of thousands of developers out there who happily write code that someone might need, for a small donation (shareware). I think there are enthusiasts who would develop digitals cars, and others who would build those cars.
I visualise picking a model to build like you search for a software utility - you go to the sites you know and trust, and choose what you want from a list. Who knows, maybe you even get the source code and do some modifications yourself before sending it off to production!
As for the complexities and costs of moulding and casting, who knows whether it will be necessary, if 3D printers develop in terms of capabilities? In the beginning of their development inkjet printers were laughably bad - now everyone has one and they've become very good (and cheap!).
As I said in the first post - there are millions of reasons why this can't work. The main reason, however, is because we apply the limitations of what we currently know. The thing is, it's what we don't know yet that will make this possible. I didn't know that there is a service to make 3D parts, until now. The fact that there is tells me that the business model for rapid prototyping is beginning to evolve. Now it becomes interesting!
jano11
08-05-2009, 05:10 AM
Thanks for your input, and I agree with your observations. The costs and time are major factors inhibiting growth.
However, consider this.
Costs
The current costs for producing parts are high, as you point out. That's because the machines are few and far between. The owners of the machines at present have a small window of opportunity to maximise returns on their investment. The colour printing business was like this, before prices came down and colour laser printers became available to everyone. However, like all commercial ventures, availability and demand will adjust until the price is right. I would bet that in the future your local Kinkos will have a 3D printer. Heck, I'll go one further - your local model club will buy one to generate funds!
Effort
Admittedly producing digital models is time-consuming and hard. However, computer processing power increases all the time, and the CAD software is continually improving to make it easier for even hobbyists to learn the basics. I would suggest that the open-source software development industry is an example of how this could play out. Sure, the professional developers work for the big companies, but there are tens of thousands of developers out there who happily write code that someone might need, for a small donation (shareware). I think there are enthusiasts who would develop digitals cars, and others who would build those cars.
I visualise picking a model to build like you search for a software utility - you go to the sites you know and trust, and choose what you want from a list. Who knows, maybe you even get the source code and do some modifications yourself before sending it off to production!
As for the complexities and costs of moulding and casting, who knows whether it will be necessary, if 3D printers develop in terms of capabilities? In the beginning of their development inkjet printers were laughably bad - now everyone has one and they've become very good (and cheap!).
As I said in the first post - there are millions of reasons why this can't work. The main reason, however, is because we apply the limitations of what we currently know. The thing is, it's what we don't know yet that will make this possible. I didn't know that there is a service to make 3D parts, until now. The fact that there is tells me that the business model for rapid prototyping is beginning to evolve. Now it becomes interesting!
Maybe in 10 years time it will be doable.
As far as having 3D modeling or engineering software that everyone could use, I'm not sure about that, in fact I highly doubt it.
However, consider this.
Costs
The current costs for producing parts are high, as you point out. That's because the machines are few and far between. The owners of the machines at present have a small window of opportunity to maximise returns on their investment. The colour printing business was like this, before prices came down and colour laser printers became available to everyone. However, like all commercial ventures, availability and demand will adjust until the price is right. I would bet that in the future your local Kinkos will have a 3D printer. Heck, I'll go one further - your local model club will buy one to generate funds!
Effort
Admittedly producing digital models is time-consuming and hard. However, computer processing power increases all the time, and the CAD software is continually improving to make it easier for even hobbyists to learn the basics. I would suggest that the open-source software development industry is an example of how this could play out. Sure, the professional developers work for the big companies, but there are tens of thousands of developers out there who happily write code that someone might need, for a small donation (shareware). I think there are enthusiasts who would develop digitals cars, and others who would build those cars.
I visualise picking a model to build like you search for a software utility - you go to the sites you know and trust, and choose what you want from a list. Who knows, maybe you even get the source code and do some modifications yourself before sending it off to production!
As for the complexities and costs of moulding and casting, who knows whether it will be necessary, if 3D printers develop in terms of capabilities? In the beginning of their development inkjet printers were laughably bad - now everyone has one and they've become very good (and cheap!).
As I said in the first post - there are millions of reasons why this can't work. The main reason, however, is because we apply the limitations of what we currently know. The thing is, it's what we don't know yet that will make this possible. I didn't know that there is a service to make 3D parts, until now. The fact that there is tells me that the business model for rapid prototyping is beginning to evolve. Now it becomes interesting!
Maybe in 10 years time it will be doable.
As far as having 3D modeling or engineering software that everyone could use, I'm not sure about that, in fact I highly doubt it.
Cheesey153
08-05-2009, 06:13 AM
Hi Lotus,
I know nothing of the technologies, and so I'll not comment on that side of the discussion, but I can think of one flaw in this business model: you said in your first sentence that you are more of a collector than a builder, and I think it's fair to conclude that most people in this hobby are collectors too. I suspect the kit manufacturers know that most modellers buy (and then stash) more of their kits than are ever actually built. It may not be in the manufacturers' interests to create a market where we (the modellers) buy only "the kit we want"; would there be sufficient profit margin per unit across the product range across the global markets to sustan their interest?
By many people's standard I have a tiny kit stash but if I had more disposable income I would have a huge kit stash - yet I would still only build a small proportion of that stash. Could the costs of this 3-D wizardry be driven low enough to enable modellers to continue to amass their considerable stashes, and thereby keep the unit profit margins 'ticking over' for the manufacturers?
"...because more people are building exactly the kits they like, more people will be building." - but they will each be buying fewer kits, I suspect.
I am not privvy to Tamiya's/Fujimi's et al business plan but I suspect it the mass affordable market that keeps them in profit.
I may be entirely wrong, but the sceptic in me says it'll never happen.
Jon.
I know nothing of the technologies, and so I'll not comment on that side of the discussion, but I can think of one flaw in this business model: you said in your first sentence that you are more of a collector than a builder, and I think it's fair to conclude that most people in this hobby are collectors too. I suspect the kit manufacturers know that most modellers buy (and then stash) more of their kits than are ever actually built. It may not be in the manufacturers' interests to create a market where we (the modellers) buy only "the kit we want"; would there be sufficient profit margin per unit across the product range across the global markets to sustan their interest?
By many people's standard I have a tiny kit stash but if I had more disposable income I would have a huge kit stash - yet I would still only build a small proportion of that stash. Could the costs of this 3-D wizardry be driven low enough to enable modellers to continue to amass their considerable stashes, and thereby keep the unit profit margins 'ticking over' for the manufacturers?
"...because more people are building exactly the kits they like, more people will be building." - but they will each be buying fewer kits, I suspect.
I am not privvy to Tamiya's/Fujimi's et al business plan but I suspect it the mass affordable market that keeps them in profit.
I may be entirely wrong, but the sceptic in me says it'll never happen.
Jon.
CrateCruncher
08-05-2009, 10:45 AM
Fun and Interesting thread Lotus123,
The pessimists will want to kill it. Until then we can have some fun. I've also spent some time on this and feel it is doable - at some point. Cost of technology curves always bend downward in the long run with scale effect so that doesn't worry me. But your example is abstract.
To bridge the gulf between theory and reality I'll share more practical examples of model genres that already make MONEY by exploiting the low cost of digital distribution:
Paper models https://www.fiddlersgreen.net/
I've built a few architectural models (cathedrals) from printed paper. It turns out paper is an excellent material for constructing buildings and modern warships because the real ones are hand fabricated from sheet goods also. The benefit of using paper is that it can be printed on a common inkjet from a digital file downloaded from the internet.
Bonus: With access to the digital file, builders can improve it by enhancing accuracy, improving colors, adding detail. It potentially harvests great untapped masses of individuals to add collective value to the product. All these small incremental changes - properly edited by a gatekeeper - can result in a much more valuable intellectual property (free to the owner of the property). Valve has exploited this user feedback in the gaming world. Anybody heard of Half-Life?
R/C airplane plans are also available digitally. Public domain plans are available here http://myunclewilliestoo.com/
For those who are unfamiliar, balsa wood is cut from sticks and sheets and pinned to the outline of the plan. These plans are now digitized and distributed by file on the internet too. With access to the file, the builder can shrink or enlarge the plan to meet his budget and other considerations (like the size of his car). Larger plans are emailed to Kinko's for printing on a 36" plotter. Unfortunately this business has developed a low reputation due to copyright infringement. There is a lesson to learn here.
The next stage of this R/C plan business, I feel, would be to include a laser cutter ready file of all the unique balsa parts that could be emailed to your local cutter/engraving shop. Conceivably, one could gather all the ingredients for the R/C airplane kit but the intellectual design local: printer, engraver, local hobby shop.
Bonus: Distributing the plan in common cad file format would also allow amateur designers to tinker with changes without starting with a blank sheet. User generated corrections and mod's could add value to the property as in the paper model case above. (Jano: TurboCAD v14 is $23 at Amazon. It includes 3D surface rendering ability and comes with an 850 page manual as a "starting guide". I highly recommend it.)
Edit: If someone could come up with a paper model style of construction for R/C planes that eliminates balsa wood that would really be huge! The whole plane could be printed on your inkjet and sprayed with fuelproof sealer.
Digital distribution also solves a huge manufacturers dilemma in the internet age. Manufacturers have historically made their profit from efficiency. (They make many, many copies of the exact same thing.) In the internet era, making a large production run of something causes the street price to plunge because suddenly there are dozens of distributors hawking the exact same thing right next door to one another and can only compete with price. I call it the "Tijuanna effect". Large firms with deep pockets can warehouse their run allowing it to trickle out but.... Digital eliminates the distribution flood by only producing on demand.
In summary, this is definately doable. From my experience with other forms currently in their infancy, intellectual property rights is a problem. The operating costs are lower and act as the primary motivation for the entrepreneur. I've bored people enough. I'll let someone else talk now.:lol:
The pessimists will want to kill it. Until then we can have some fun. I've also spent some time on this and feel it is doable - at some point. Cost of technology curves always bend downward in the long run with scale effect so that doesn't worry me. But your example is abstract.
To bridge the gulf between theory and reality I'll share more practical examples of model genres that already make MONEY by exploiting the low cost of digital distribution:
Paper models https://www.fiddlersgreen.net/
I've built a few architectural models (cathedrals) from printed paper. It turns out paper is an excellent material for constructing buildings and modern warships because the real ones are hand fabricated from sheet goods also. The benefit of using paper is that it can be printed on a common inkjet from a digital file downloaded from the internet.
Bonus: With access to the digital file, builders can improve it by enhancing accuracy, improving colors, adding detail. It potentially harvests great untapped masses of individuals to add collective value to the product. All these small incremental changes - properly edited by a gatekeeper - can result in a much more valuable intellectual property (free to the owner of the property). Valve has exploited this user feedback in the gaming world. Anybody heard of Half-Life?
R/C airplane plans are also available digitally. Public domain plans are available here http://myunclewilliestoo.com/
For those who are unfamiliar, balsa wood is cut from sticks and sheets and pinned to the outline of the plan. These plans are now digitized and distributed by file on the internet too. With access to the file, the builder can shrink or enlarge the plan to meet his budget and other considerations (like the size of his car). Larger plans are emailed to Kinko's for printing on a 36" plotter. Unfortunately this business has developed a low reputation due to copyright infringement. There is a lesson to learn here.
The next stage of this R/C plan business, I feel, would be to include a laser cutter ready file of all the unique balsa parts that could be emailed to your local cutter/engraving shop. Conceivably, one could gather all the ingredients for the R/C airplane kit but the intellectual design local: printer, engraver, local hobby shop.
Bonus: Distributing the plan in common cad file format would also allow amateur designers to tinker with changes without starting with a blank sheet. User generated corrections and mod's could add value to the property as in the paper model case above. (Jano: TurboCAD v14 is $23 at Amazon. It includes 3D surface rendering ability and comes with an 850 page manual as a "starting guide". I highly recommend it.)
Edit: If someone could come up with a paper model style of construction for R/C planes that eliminates balsa wood that would really be huge! The whole plane could be printed on your inkjet and sprayed with fuelproof sealer.
Digital distribution also solves a huge manufacturers dilemma in the internet age. Manufacturers have historically made their profit from efficiency. (They make many, many copies of the exact same thing.) In the internet era, making a large production run of something causes the street price to plunge because suddenly there are dozens of distributors hawking the exact same thing right next door to one another and can only compete with price. I call it the "Tijuanna effect". Large firms with deep pockets can warehouse their run allowing it to trickle out but.... Digital eliminates the distribution flood by only producing on demand.
In summary, this is definately doable. From my experience with other forms currently in their infancy, intellectual property rights is a problem. The operating costs are lower and act as the primary motivation for the entrepreneur. I've bored people enough. I'll let someone else talk now.:lol:
jmesawitz
08-05-2009, 11:20 AM
I love the idea of 3D modeling and rapid prototyping for product generation. I spent an afternoon checking out machines & prices to see if one of these things could be gotten hold of by the common man. There is a desk top machine in development out there. Part quality (smooth surfaces) is a bit of a concern but if modelings first chore became a technique to account for this it would not be too bad.
The thing I do not like in your outline is the comparison to music. Sharing specifically. If a 3D modeler were to spend 100 hours (probably a lot more) on a design that is sold electronically, the potential to share that file is not only possible but likely. There is no benefit to the design originator to enter into such an agreement. Music is different (only slightly) in that the group is looking to build fan base as well as unit sales. By giving into the sharing mentality(loss of unit sales) they are taking a leap of faith that overall it will result in a stronger fan base that will in-turn support them in a monetary fashion. Just not by todays youth that think music should be free, fame is the bands reward and money is something they just have.
Maybe I have taken this wrong, perhaps the intent is to have the electronic file shared among specific 3D printers to control the 3D modelers intellectual property.
Rapid prototyping is very cool though and I do believe it will find a place in the hobby room in not too many years. I struggle to see it as a full on replacement for volume production though.
The thing I do not like in your outline is the comparison to music. Sharing specifically. If a 3D modeler were to spend 100 hours (probably a lot more) on a design that is sold electronically, the potential to share that file is not only possible but likely. There is no benefit to the design originator to enter into such an agreement. Music is different (only slightly) in that the group is looking to build fan base as well as unit sales. By giving into the sharing mentality(loss of unit sales) they are taking a leap of faith that overall it will result in a stronger fan base that will in-turn support them in a monetary fashion. Just not by todays youth that think music should be free, fame is the bands reward and money is something they just have.
Maybe I have taken this wrong, perhaps the intent is to have the electronic file shared among specific 3D printers to control the 3D modelers intellectual property.
Rapid prototyping is very cool though and I do believe it will find a place in the hobby room in not too many years. I struggle to see it as a full on replacement for volume production though.
jano11
08-05-2009, 11:27 AM
Fun and Interesting thread Lotus123,
The pesimists will want to kill it.
Kill it? Not at all, just being realistic given the conditions at this very moment.
I already use 3D printing for making model parts:
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=952893
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=960766
A few more models I did, just click on the link:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3463/3748365517_ca548ac353.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2528/3748365571_1f82613c68.jpg
And there is more that I do not wish to expose yet, as they are unfinished.
I just don't believe that the use of the technology is as simple as the thread starter implies.
First of all there is the need to understand the limitations of the technology.
Than you need to be able to design your model in such way that it can be produced with the technology at hand.
Than you will see that the result isn't exactly what you were expecting from what the 3D printing service told you, especially when it come to finesse of the detail.
Take teh Dino Daytona GT Campagnolo model from the link I posted above.
You saw the 3D model with all the detail. Well no way that will show on the printed part, at least not like that.
The Dino and Campagnolo graphics can not be printed in 1/24 scale, maybe in 1/12th but I wouldn't be sure about that.
The spokes were twice as thick as promised and the holes were almost impossible to see.
It took one day of work to clean it up and make it look like what you can see in the thread above.
And that is for getting one wheel done, doing 5 means you need to replicate them and so on, which isn't to be discussed in this thread, but it's expensive unless you do it on a regular basis and you've got silicon rubber and resin on the shelf.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that the technology exists and is getting cheaper by the day, and I will probably even buy a 3D printer for myself once they cost less than 1000 Euro and have good capabilities. But I doubt that more than a few percent of the modelers will make use of it in the next 5 to 10 years.
As for the manufacturers giving us more models based on this technology, well yes, MFH is already using it and they are coming up with new models every 2nd week, but the prices are prohibitive for most modelers even though they make 100-200 pieces runs.
PS: I agree it's a great thread to have and discuss.
The pesimists will want to kill it.
Kill it? Not at all, just being realistic given the conditions at this very moment.
I already use 3D printing for making model parts:
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=952893
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=960766
A few more models I did, just click on the link:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3463/3748365517_ca548ac353.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2528/3748365571_1f82613c68.jpg
And there is more that I do not wish to expose yet, as they are unfinished.
I just don't believe that the use of the technology is as simple as the thread starter implies.
First of all there is the need to understand the limitations of the technology.
Than you need to be able to design your model in such way that it can be produced with the technology at hand.
Than you will see that the result isn't exactly what you were expecting from what the 3D printing service told you, especially when it come to finesse of the detail.
Take teh Dino Daytona GT Campagnolo model from the link I posted above.
You saw the 3D model with all the detail. Well no way that will show on the printed part, at least not like that.
The Dino and Campagnolo graphics can not be printed in 1/24 scale, maybe in 1/12th but I wouldn't be sure about that.
The spokes were twice as thick as promised and the holes were almost impossible to see.
It took one day of work to clean it up and make it look like what you can see in the thread above.
And that is for getting one wheel done, doing 5 means you need to replicate them and so on, which isn't to be discussed in this thread, but it's expensive unless you do it on a regular basis and you've got silicon rubber and resin on the shelf.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that the technology exists and is getting cheaper by the day, and I will probably even buy a 3D printer for myself once they cost less than 1000 Euro and have good capabilities. But I doubt that more than a few percent of the modelers will make use of it in the next 5 to 10 years.
As for the manufacturers giving us more models based on this technology, well yes, MFH is already using it and they are coming up with new models every 2nd week, but the prices are prohibitive for most modelers even though they make 100-200 pieces runs.
PS: I agree it's a great thread to have and discuss.
jano11
08-05-2009, 11:56 AM
The thing I do not like in your outline is the comparison to music. Sharing specifically. If a 3D modeler were to spend 100 hours (probably a lot more) on a design that is sold electronically, the potential to share that file is not only possible but likely. There is no benefit to the design originator to enter into such an agreement. Music is different (only slightly) in that the group is looking to build fan base as well as unit sales. By giving into the sharing mentality(loss of unit sales) they are taking a leap of faith that overall it will result in a stronger fan base that will in-turn support them in a monetary fashion. Just not by todays youth that think music should be free, fame is the bands reward and money is something they just have.
I agree with you.
Making a 3D model of a part can take from a few minutes up to a few hours depending on the complexity of the part and the detail you want to achieve.
Making the 3D model a full kit will easily take hundreds of hours and often even thousands.
Once the modeler sold a copy of the 3Dmodel he can count on at least 50% potential client loss, thus a 3Dmodel costs quite a lot of money nowadays. Which makes it rather impractical to buy an already made 3D model and print it to have the model as you'll pay hundreds for the 3D model and hundreds for the printed parts.
In the end it all comes down to how much someone wants a certain model that isn't already produced.
Back to the analogy with music, the musicians (single person or band) will get to make money from concerts and other shows, but a 3D modeler has none of these possibilities to make up for the lost opportunities.
I agree with you.
Making a 3D model of a part can take from a few minutes up to a few hours depending on the complexity of the part and the detail you want to achieve.
Making the 3D model a full kit will easily take hundreds of hours and often even thousands.
Once the modeler sold a copy of the 3Dmodel he can count on at least 50% potential client loss, thus a 3Dmodel costs quite a lot of money nowadays. Which makes it rather impractical to buy an already made 3D model and print it to have the model as you'll pay hundreds for the 3D model and hundreds for the printed parts.
In the end it all comes down to how much someone wants a certain model that isn't already produced.
Back to the analogy with music, the musicians (single person or band) will get to make money from concerts and other shows, but a 3D modeler has none of these possibilities to make up for the lost opportunities.
MidMazar
08-05-2009, 12:41 PM
jano, one quick question? WHat is the full name of the program you use?
jano11
08-05-2009, 04:02 PM
I never understood this question people keep asking about the name of the software used.
The software is just a tool, like your hobby knife, or like your airbrush, and what's important is to know how to use it not who made it.
Any 3D modeling software will allow you to model a part, all you need is to learn how to do it because none of them does it all alone, in fact none of them can do anything without you telling them what to do
Feel free to pick any of these software and start using it to make simple shapes for a start and than just go on and make complex object using the simple shapes you previously learned. You'll see, it's very easy.
The software is just a tool, like your hobby knife, or like your airbrush, and what's important is to know how to use it not who made it.
Any 3D modeling software will allow you to model a part, all you need is to learn how to do it because none of them does it all alone, in fact none of them can do anything without you telling them what to do
Feel free to pick any of these software and start using it to make simple shapes for a start and than just go on and make complex object using the simple shapes you previously learned. You'll see, it's very easy.
hirofkd
08-05-2009, 06:44 PM
Once data is digitized, it practically holds no commercial value just like mp3 and avi, so selling digital parts doesn't seem to be a sustainable business model, I'd think.
Besides, Honda has been distributing dxf on its web-plamo website for free for years:
http://www.honda.co.jp/WebPlamo/
In the far far future, people might be making solid parts with an affordable Hi-Def 3D printer. But It's probably not going to happen in our lifetime.
(Yeah, Fujimi releasing service pack 20 to fix their inaccurate F1 kit!)
I never understood this question people keep asking about the name of the software used.
That's when you tell people, "Go buy a CATIA!":grinyes:
Seriously, it's because knowing what to use will eliminate one uncertainty. For example, if you know someone who can archive an awesome result with a certain tool and if you use the same one, you know the ONLY thing that matters is your skills. But if you just happens to own a sucky tool, you never know whether it's a technical limitation of the tool itself, or your skills.
Like you said, skills are what matters MOST (I bet you can design the same wheels in CATIA or Turbo CAD), but that's from an experienced user's point of view. For the beginners, they need assurance.
Besides, Honda has been distributing dxf on its web-plamo website for free for years:
http://www.honda.co.jp/WebPlamo/
In the far far future, people might be making solid parts with an affordable Hi-Def 3D printer. But It's probably not going to happen in our lifetime.
(Yeah, Fujimi releasing service pack 20 to fix their inaccurate F1 kit!)
I never understood this question people keep asking about the name of the software used.
That's when you tell people, "Go buy a CATIA!":grinyes:
Seriously, it's because knowing what to use will eliminate one uncertainty. For example, if you know someone who can archive an awesome result with a certain tool and if you use the same one, you know the ONLY thing that matters is your skills. But if you just happens to own a sucky tool, you never know whether it's a technical limitation of the tool itself, or your skills.
Like you said, skills are what matters MOST (I bet you can design the same wheels in CATIA or Turbo CAD), but that's from an experienced user's point of view. For the beginners, they need assurance.
drunken monkey
08-05-2009, 07:48 PM
There's another road this can go down.
The larger scale die-cast cars are pretty good when it comes to body shape and proportions.
If you have the money to buy a desk top 3D scanner, you will undoubtly have the money to buy a good die-cast to scan, scale to your desired model scale then send file of to 3D Printer.
Who needs to do the actual modelling?
The real debate is this, what do you get out of this hobby.
For many, it is the making part that is the buzz.
For some, it is simply having the thing.
For some, it is about hand crafting little teensy bits of styrene and metal.
For some it is about doing what-ever it takes to get something.
Just as you have Modelled Wheels and other parts in software for 3D printing, MPWR has milled parts out of metal, Wingrove beats body panels and fashions parts out of sheet metal and I have re-shaped die-cast bodies and made crude wheel spoke patterns out of styrene for casting.
We do what pleases us and for me, the digital route for model car building aint quite it.
The larger scale die-cast cars are pretty good when it comes to body shape and proportions.
If you have the money to buy a desk top 3D scanner, you will undoubtly have the money to buy a good die-cast to scan, scale to your desired model scale then send file of to 3D Printer.
Who needs to do the actual modelling?
The real debate is this, what do you get out of this hobby.
For many, it is the making part that is the buzz.
For some, it is simply having the thing.
For some, it is about hand crafting little teensy bits of styrene and metal.
For some it is about doing what-ever it takes to get something.
Just as you have Modelled Wheels and other parts in software for 3D printing, MPWR has milled parts out of metal, Wingrove beats body panels and fashions parts out of sheet metal and I have re-shaped die-cast bodies and made crude wheel spoke patterns out of styrene for casting.
We do what pleases us and for me, the digital route for model car building aint quite it.
CrateCruncher
08-05-2009, 09:25 PM
Well I think the ultimate benefit of 3D printing technology is that it eliminates the tooling. Even resin has some outlay for tooling. There are a lot of builders out there with a passion for one particular car that doesn't have a snowballs chance of being offered commercially. (Mine is the Alfa Disco Volante). But if a passionate designer builds one digitally, it can be distributed to 10 people or 1,000 at basically no cost. Theres no tooling to amortize, no equipment to justify and all that. He doesn't have to have his garage re-zoned commercial or risk his health working with scary chemicals. He would have made one for himself anyway. Now it gets appreciated by many instead of stuck away on the back of a shelf.
What would really be cool is if 3 or 4 people with different skills could all agree on a single project. One guy designs the body, another does the drivetrain, another designs the photo-etch. Maybe another test builds, revises and writes the instructions. By sharing files they make sure the independently designed parts all fit together even though they may be half-way around the world from one another. Then they take their digital work and license the right to manufacture it to a small studio - oh wait, we could do that today!:icon16:
I once volunteered as a beta tester on a totally amateur-developed historical simulation (a video game) that never would have been made commercially. We got it working and the designers even made a little money on digital downloads.
What would really be cool is if 3 or 4 people with different skills could all agree on a single project. One guy designs the body, another does the drivetrain, another designs the photo-etch. Maybe another test builds, revises and writes the instructions. By sharing files they make sure the independently designed parts all fit together even though they may be half-way around the world from one another. Then they take their digital work and license the right to manufacture it to a small studio - oh wait, we could do that today!:icon16:
I once volunteered as a beta tester on a totally amateur-developed historical simulation (a video game) that never would have been made commercially. We got it working and the designers even made a little money on digital downloads.
jano11
08-06-2009, 05:11 AM
That's when you tell people, "Go buy a CATIA!":grinyes:
CATIA? What use?! It's a very very complex software and very very pricy on top of that, plus there is really no need for it in order to make simple parts.
There are plenty of free software that one can use, like:
TrueSpace7.6
http://www.caligari.com/
Google SketchUp
http://sketchup.google.com/
And many others:
http://www.3dlinks.com/links.cfm?categoryid=1&subcategoryid=2&CFID=28608129&CFTOKEN=64698641
Sure you can also decide to pay a premium few thousands for a well known 3d modeling software like 3DSMax or Maya or even more for a CAD software (surface design will be trickier with these ones), but is it worth it?
Some of them even offer a limited time full version demo package or a version with limited tools but with unlimited usage.
If someone asked me this question a few years ago the only answer would have been a professionally developed software. Luckily nowadays we get free products in almost any possible domain.
One should pick what suits him/her best from a financial and ease of use POV.
PS: If interested there are comparisons of different software available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_3D_computer_graphics_software
http://wiki.cgsociety.org/index.php/Comparison_of_3d_tools
http://www.tdt3d.be/articles_viewer.php?art_id=99
These will help get a good understanding of what these software allow you to do and possibly help you to chose the right one for your needs.
CATIA? What use?! It's a very very complex software and very very pricy on top of that, plus there is really no need for it in order to make simple parts.
There are plenty of free software that one can use, like:
TrueSpace7.6
http://www.caligari.com/
Google SketchUp
http://sketchup.google.com/
And many others:
http://www.3dlinks.com/links.cfm?categoryid=1&subcategoryid=2&CFID=28608129&CFTOKEN=64698641
Sure you can also decide to pay a premium few thousands for a well known 3d modeling software like 3DSMax or Maya or even more for a CAD software (surface design will be trickier with these ones), but is it worth it?
Some of them even offer a limited time full version demo package or a version with limited tools but with unlimited usage.
If someone asked me this question a few years ago the only answer would have been a professionally developed software. Luckily nowadays we get free products in almost any possible domain.
One should pick what suits him/her best from a financial and ease of use POV.
PS: If interested there are comparisons of different software available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_3D_computer_graphics_software
http://wiki.cgsociety.org/index.php/Comparison_of_3d_tools
http://www.tdt3d.be/articles_viewer.php?art_id=99
These will help get a good understanding of what these software allow you to do and possibly help you to chose the right one for your needs.
lotus123
08-06-2009, 09:43 AM
Great input guys! Exactly the kind of responses I was hoping for. And while some of you had a more conservative outlook, your comments lead me to believe this could happen someday. Sorry for this long post, but the urge to answer all your posts is irresistible!
It may not be in the manufacturers' interests to create a market where we (the modellers) buy only "the kit we want"; would there be sufficient profit margin per unit across the product range across the global markets to sustan their interest?
Jon.
This is the whole point of a new business model - wresting control away from traditional suppliers to create a new, sustainable and valuable product or service. It's not about what's in the manufacturers interest, it's about what we as buyers want.
By many people's standard I have a tiny kit stash but if I had more disposable income I would have a huge kit stash - yet I would still only build a small proportion of that stash. Could the costs of this 3-D wizardry be driven low enough to enable modellers to continue to amass their considerable stashes, and thereby keep the unit profit margins 'ticking over' for the manufacturers?
Jon.
Me too. But would I feel the need to amass a large stash if I knew I could get any kits I want, at the click of a mouse? No more OOP kits, no more stupid eBay prices. Let's face it, a large stash ties up money, space and forces you to endure endless flak from your significant other. And the damn thing isn't even a decent investment (despite what we told her). I'd still want to keep some kits though - I do get a kick out of looking at the stuff from time to time.
Fun and Interesting thread Lotus123,
The pesimists will want to kill it. Until then we can have some fun.
You really gave great input - please feel free to carry on having fun with this one!
Edit: If someone could come up with a paper model style of construction for R/C planes that eliminates balsa wood that would really be huge! The whole plane could be printed on your inkjet and sprayed with fuelproof sealer.
I remember reading a while back about RC modellers using that corrugated board (it's made from a white plastic) that realtors/estate agents print their signs on. Apparently it's really light and strong - have you seen that?
What would really be cool is if 3 or 4 people with different skills could all agree on a single project. One guy designs the body, another does the drivetrain, another designs the photo-etch. Maybe another test builds, revises and writes the instructions. By sharing files they make sure the independently designed parts all fit together even though they may be half-way around the world from one another.
Now this is the kind of thinking that gets me going! It fits exactly into the Web 2.0 collaboration concept. I've been building a F430 Challenge, and Robi J was kind enough to send me a drawing of some engine bulkhead panels that he'd made up. Sharing resources like that will define this hobby in the future.
The thing I do not like in your outline is the comparison to music. Sharing specifically. If a 3D modeler were to spend 100 hours (probably a lot more) on a design that is sold electronically, the potential to share that file is not only possible but likely. There is no benefit to the design originator to enter into such an agreement.
Fair point. Maybe we should consider why the design originator is doing it in the first place. Some would do it because they want a particular model or component for their own project, and would pass it on. Let's say I make a CAD drawing to create some photoetch parts I need. Giving away the digital design after completion is fine by me - I have no commercial aims, and sharing makes me feel good. I'm giving something back to the community that's developed my interest in the hobby.
On the other hand, maybe I'm not that easygoing. Maybe I see that there is a niche to be filled with a particular kit/transkit/decal. I need to decide if there is a market big enough to make it worthwhile, make sure I have first-mover advantage and figure out how to protect my intellectual property. Maybe I decide, after all is considered, that I must make it, package it and ship it in the traditional style. Even though my costs are high, my IP will be safe.
Or do I decide that supplying digitally is the way to go? Sure, my IP is fairly unsafe, but for the few copies that will be bootlegged there will be many more that are legitimately bought (and I don't have to concern myself with manufacturing and distribution). One thing about digital products - it's the first copy that contains all the costs. After that, everything goes to the bottom line!
The reason I mention music is because it's the most contested area of copyright and sharing on the Web today. And it's also a model that's being massively changed, from high street retail to digital distribution - exactly the way this hobby could go.
For many, it is the making part that is the buzz.
For some, it is simply having the thing.
For some, it is about hand crafting little teensy bits of styrene and metal.
For some it is about doing what-ever it takes to get something.
So true.
Jano - your feedback is golden, and your words of caution are accepted with thanks. No better source of wisdom than the man who has done it himself.
I am intrigued by your comments regarding the ability of the technology to render parts at 1/24th scale. One must hope that as the technology evolves the resolution will improve too (bit like those early inkjet printers, don't you think?).
How would you rate 3D printing as a means of making components versus CNC milling? Are the processes comparable?
I personally have great hope for the future of 3D printing. Beyond modelling, I was intrigued to see that 3D printers are now making replacement bones for orthopaedic procedures. Think about that - you can't whip out the bones from a crushed hand and make a resin cast. Instead you scan/xray the good hand and use that as a digital reference point for a replacement. Wow!
It may not be in the manufacturers' interests to create a market where we (the modellers) buy only "the kit we want"; would there be sufficient profit margin per unit across the product range across the global markets to sustan their interest?
Jon.
This is the whole point of a new business model - wresting control away from traditional suppliers to create a new, sustainable and valuable product or service. It's not about what's in the manufacturers interest, it's about what we as buyers want.
By many people's standard I have a tiny kit stash but if I had more disposable income I would have a huge kit stash - yet I would still only build a small proportion of that stash. Could the costs of this 3-D wizardry be driven low enough to enable modellers to continue to amass their considerable stashes, and thereby keep the unit profit margins 'ticking over' for the manufacturers?
Jon.
Me too. But would I feel the need to amass a large stash if I knew I could get any kits I want, at the click of a mouse? No more OOP kits, no more stupid eBay prices. Let's face it, a large stash ties up money, space and forces you to endure endless flak from your significant other. And the damn thing isn't even a decent investment (despite what we told her). I'd still want to keep some kits though - I do get a kick out of looking at the stuff from time to time.
Fun and Interesting thread Lotus123,
The pesimists will want to kill it. Until then we can have some fun.
You really gave great input - please feel free to carry on having fun with this one!
Edit: If someone could come up with a paper model style of construction for R/C planes that eliminates balsa wood that would really be huge! The whole plane could be printed on your inkjet and sprayed with fuelproof sealer.
I remember reading a while back about RC modellers using that corrugated board (it's made from a white plastic) that realtors/estate agents print their signs on. Apparently it's really light and strong - have you seen that?
What would really be cool is if 3 or 4 people with different skills could all agree on a single project. One guy designs the body, another does the drivetrain, another designs the photo-etch. Maybe another test builds, revises and writes the instructions. By sharing files they make sure the independently designed parts all fit together even though they may be half-way around the world from one another.
Now this is the kind of thinking that gets me going! It fits exactly into the Web 2.0 collaboration concept. I've been building a F430 Challenge, and Robi J was kind enough to send me a drawing of some engine bulkhead panels that he'd made up. Sharing resources like that will define this hobby in the future.
The thing I do not like in your outline is the comparison to music. Sharing specifically. If a 3D modeler were to spend 100 hours (probably a lot more) on a design that is sold electronically, the potential to share that file is not only possible but likely. There is no benefit to the design originator to enter into such an agreement.
Fair point. Maybe we should consider why the design originator is doing it in the first place. Some would do it because they want a particular model or component for their own project, and would pass it on. Let's say I make a CAD drawing to create some photoetch parts I need. Giving away the digital design after completion is fine by me - I have no commercial aims, and sharing makes me feel good. I'm giving something back to the community that's developed my interest in the hobby.
On the other hand, maybe I'm not that easygoing. Maybe I see that there is a niche to be filled with a particular kit/transkit/decal. I need to decide if there is a market big enough to make it worthwhile, make sure I have first-mover advantage and figure out how to protect my intellectual property. Maybe I decide, after all is considered, that I must make it, package it and ship it in the traditional style. Even though my costs are high, my IP will be safe.
Or do I decide that supplying digitally is the way to go? Sure, my IP is fairly unsafe, but for the few copies that will be bootlegged there will be many more that are legitimately bought (and I don't have to concern myself with manufacturing and distribution). One thing about digital products - it's the first copy that contains all the costs. After that, everything goes to the bottom line!
The reason I mention music is because it's the most contested area of copyright and sharing on the Web today. And it's also a model that's being massively changed, from high street retail to digital distribution - exactly the way this hobby could go.
For many, it is the making part that is the buzz.
For some, it is simply having the thing.
For some, it is about hand crafting little teensy bits of styrene and metal.
For some it is about doing what-ever it takes to get something.
So true.
Jano - your feedback is golden, and your words of caution are accepted with thanks. No better source of wisdom than the man who has done it himself.
I am intrigued by your comments regarding the ability of the technology to render parts at 1/24th scale. One must hope that as the technology evolves the resolution will improve too (bit like those early inkjet printers, don't you think?).
How would you rate 3D printing as a means of making components versus CNC milling? Are the processes comparable?
I personally have great hope for the future of 3D printing. Beyond modelling, I was intrigued to see that 3D printers are now making replacement bones for orthopaedic procedures. Think about that - you can't whip out the bones from a crushed hand and make a resin cast. Instead you scan/xray the good hand and use that as a digital reference point for a replacement. Wow!
jano11
08-06-2009, 10:21 AM
Jano - your feedback is golden, and your words of caution are accepted with thanks. No better source of wisdom than the man who has done it himself.
Thanks.
I am intrigued by your comments regarding the ability of the technology to render parts at 1/24th scale. One must hope that as the technology evolves the resolution will improve too (bit like those early inkjet printers, don't you think?).
Obviously the technology will improve.
However for now it's not yet 100% adapted to 1/24 scale model details.
I took a look to the shapeways site you provided in your first post. I searched the materials they use and their properties. Some of them (usualy the stronger ones only allow for little detail). Than you have the ones that apparently allow for more detail, but that is just the detail on the surface, because it is clearly mentioned that you need a minimum wall strength that is usually around 1 mm.
Imagine if I have to make all the rims I modeled with spokes 1mm thick! What would that look like?
So as you say the technology will improve, how far? Depends on the ROI the manufacturers will think they can make.
Let's not discount the fact that more accuracy means better materials used and thus it costs more.
How much did a good photo quality printer cost when they first came around? A couple hundreds? How much does it cost now? Still close to one hundred.
What manufacturers usually do is to produce a product that gives them the best profit possible. Which means that instead of making an older product cheaper and cheaper they will rather add to it and sell it for more money in order to make more money out of it.
I'm not expecting 3D printers to become dirt cheap, that will not happen as long as the current business model doesn't suffer a huge change, and it doesn't look like this will happen any time soon.
Back to materials. IMO the improvements that will be done in producing higher detail 3D printed parts is not only in liaison with the machine but also very much based on the material used for the printing. There will certainly be materials with improved qualities for this application, but rest assured that the prices will be higher too.
How would you rate 3D printing as a means of making components versus CNC milling? Are the processes comparable?
For now CNC milling is the one that will give the better quality, with possibility to produce impressive detail levels, but it takes much longer and the price is also much higher than that of 3D printing for a similar part produced.
I'm looking into getting in the near future one small CNC machine along with a reasonably priced 3D printer, but these are only plans for now given the prices.
Sure I could build them too, there are enough plans and info on the net for this to be possible, but the time that would take is better used to make or build some models. ;)
Thanks.
I am intrigued by your comments regarding the ability of the technology to render parts at 1/24th scale. One must hope that as the technology evolves the resolution will improve too (bit like those early inkjet printers, don't you think?).
Obviously the technology will improve.
However for now it's not yet 100% adapted to 1/24 scale model details.
I took a look to the shapeways site you provided in your first post. I searched the materials they use and their properties. Some of them (usualy the stronger ones only allow for little detail). Than you have the ones that apparently allow for more detail, but that is just the detail on the surface, because it is clearly mentioned that you need a minimum wall strength that is usually around 1 mm.
Imagine if I have to make all the rims I modeled with spokes 1mm thick! What would that look like?
So as you say the technology will improve, how far? Depends on the ROI the manufacturers will think they can make.
Let's not discount the fact that more accuracy means better materials used and thus it costs more.
How much did a good photo quality printer cost when they first came around? A couple hundreds? How much does it cost now? Still close to one hundred.
What manufacturers usually do is to produce a product that gives them the best profit possible. Which means that instead of making an older product cheaper and cheaper they will rather add to it and sell it for more money in order to make more money out of it.
I'm not expecting 3D printers to become dirt cheap, that will not happen as long as the current business model doesn't suffer a huge change, and it doesn't look like this will happen any time soon.
Back to materials. IMO the improvements that will be done in producing higher detail 3D printed parts is not only in liaison with the machine but also very much based on the material used for the printing. There will certainly be materials with improved qualities for this application, but rest assured that the prices will be higher too.
How would you rate 3D printing as a means of making components versus CNC milling? Are the processes comparable?
For now CNC milling is the one that will give the better quality, with possibility to produce impressive detail levels, but it takes much longer and the price is also much higher than that of 3D printing for a similar part produced.
I'm looking into getting in the near future one small CNC machine along with a reasonably priced 3D printer, but these are only plans for now given the prices.
Sure I could build them too, there are enough plans and info on the net for this to be possible, but the time that would take is better used to make or build some models. ;)
lotus123
08-06-2009, 11:07 AM
How much did a good photo quality printer cost when they first came around? A couple hundreds? How much does it cost now? Still close to one hundred.
What manufacturers usually do is to produce a product that gives them the best profit possible. Which means that instead of making an older product cheaper and cheaper they will rather add to it and sell it for more money in order to make more money out of it.
The big difference between the old and new printers is the functionality that is now built into the printer, aside from the fact that prices are similar or even lower in most cases. Not only resolution is better - you also have features that were unheard of in the original models, such as memory card readers, Infrared/Bluetooth, USB, etc. HOWEVER (excuse the caps, must make strong point) - these devices have been developed for the consumer mass market, so it is fair to guess that 3D printers won't enjoy the same stimulus UNLESS the market develops.
The reason consumer printers are so cheap and functional is because the manufacturers make the real money on consumables. If they print better photos you'll print more photos.
What manufacturers usually do is to produce a product that gives them the best profit possible. Which means that instead of making an older product cheaper and cheaper they will rather add to it and sell it for more money in order to make more money out of it.
The big difference between the old and new printers is the functionality that is now built into the printer, aside from the fact that prices are similar or even lower in most cases. Not only resolution is better - you also have features that were unheard of in the original models, such as memory card readers, Infrared/Bluetooth, USB, etc. HOWEVER (excuse the caps, must make strong point) - these devices have been developed for the consumer mass market, so it is fair to guess that 3D printers won't enjoy the same stimulus UNLESS the market develops.
The reason consumer printers are so cheap and functional is because the manufacturers make the real money on consumables. If they print better photos you'll print more photos.
jano11
08-06-2009, 01:15 PM
Whichis exactly what I said, they will add features to the printer in order to keep a high price that allows them to have a higher profit margin on the product.
The problem is that most features are usually useless or one can live without feeling there's something missing, like having usb stick and card readers on a printer, or even the possibility to edit photos directly on the printer. :)
The problem is that most features are usually useless or one can live without feeling there's something missing, like having usb stick and card readers on a printer, or even the possibility to edit photos directly on the printer. :)
André_Ferreira
08-06-2009, 01:29 PM
I've been visiting this forum for a few years now, although I never really post any comments nor models due to lack of time to build basically ( and lack of skills too;) ) , but this thread caught my attention.
With regards to 3d models availability, created using a proper cad tool or just any other 3D software...there is an imense world within computer games...and a lot of free tools to export models from games to a few 3d softwars, which are a really good base to start working on. It would still require a significant amount of time to make them "printable"...but there is plenty stuff out there in terms of cars that we never had as scale models that just "need work" instead of "need to be created from scratch".
Just thought I should put this idea across - although I reckon that a lot of people might have seen this already; and that it would still require a lot of work to produce a good replica.
Brilliant thread, brilliant forum.
Best Regards
André
With regards to 3d models availability, created using a proper cad tool or just any other 3D software...there is an imense world within computer games...and a lot of free tools to export models from games to a few 3d softwars, which are a really good base to start working on. It would still require a significant amount of time to make them "printable"...but there is plenty stuff out there in terms of cars that we never had as scale models that just "need work" instead of "need to be created from scratch".
Just thought I should put this idea across - although I reckon that a lot of people might have seen this already; and that it would still require a lot of work to produce a good replica.
Brilliant thread, brilliant forum.
Best Regards
André
jano11
08-06-2009, 01:33 PM
Hi André, welcome to the forum and thank you for sharing your knowledge with us! :)
I'm interested to know more about how do you think that a 3D rendering from a game can be extracted and imported in a 3D modeling or CAD software in order to modify it.
I'm interested to know more about how do you think that a 3D rendering from a game can be extracted and imported in a 3D modeling or CAD software in order to modify it.
André_Ferreira
08-06-2009, 03:01 PM
Hi André, welcome to the forum and thank you for sharing your knowledge with us! :)
I'm interested to know more about how do you think that a 3D rendering from a game can be extracted and imported in a 3D modeling or CAD software in order to modify it.
It doesn't sound like a straight forward thing in terms of conversion but let me tell you that you'll be surprised.
A render is something completely different from what you have in a game - a render is basically a picture - sorry for this crude explanation.
Any car in a game is nothing but loads of poligons "welded" together or loads of surfaces "welded" together, so from this point of view a 3d model from a game or any part you design using catia, ideas, solidworks, whatever are not that different I would say.
There are a few softwares ( that you can BUY ) that allow you to extract car models from the majority of the main stream computer games ( that you should BUY ) and export them to a format that you can open with 3D studio max (which is a nice piece of software that you can also...BUY eheheh), let's say as an example ( could have picked catia or any other but this would be a more complicated process). At this point you will have a group of poligons/surfaces that define your car.
So once it is imported you can pretty much do anything with it really, edit surfaces, add parts, details, the list of stuff you can do is quite big but let me say that it would still require a lot of work to make it good for printing...I didn't went through all the details, not sure how "correrect/legal" this is, and sorry for the extensive use of the word BUY, but don't mean to be pointing anyone to do anything ilegal ( which let's face it, everyone in the world that uses a computer downloads stuff, but this is a forum and I'm aware of the restrictions ).
Not sure if I really provided all the info you wanted, but let me know what you think.
Best Regards
André
I'm interested to know more about how do you think that a 3D rendering from a game can be extracted and imported in a 3D modeling or CAD software in order to modify it.
It doesn't sound like a straight forward thing in terms of conversion but let me tell you that you'll be surprised.
A render is something completely different from what you have in a game - a render is basically a picture - sorry for this crude explanation.
Any car in a game is nothing but loads of poligons "welded" together or loads of surfaces "welded" together, so from this point of view a 3d model from a game or any part you design using catia, ideas, solidworks, whatever are not that different I would say.
There are a few softwares ( that you can BUY ) that allow you to extract car models from the majority of the main stream computer games ( that you should BUY ) and export them to a format that you can open with 3D studio max (which is a nice piece of software that you can also...BUY eheheh), let's say as an example ( could have picked catia or any other but this would be a more complicated process). At this point you will have a group of poligons/surfaces that define your car.
So once it is imported you can pretty much do anything with it really, edit surfaces, add parts, details, the list of stuff you can do is quite big but let me say that it would still require a lot of work to make it good for printing...I didn't went through all the details, not sure how "correrect/legal" this is, and sorry for the extensive use of the word BUY, but don't mean to be pointing anyone to do anything ilegal ( which let's face it, everyone in the world that uses a computer downloads stuff, but this is a forum and I'm aware of the restrictions ).
Not sure if I really provided all the info you wanted, but let me know what you think.
Best Regards
André
jano11
08-06-2009, 03:41 PM
André, this is a very interesting approach I never seriously thought about before.
What concerns me most is the accuracy of the renderings they use in games and the time it takes to extract them, convert them and than make them usable for rapid prototyping.
If it's shorter to take a set of blueprints and make a good 3D model than it isn't worth the hassle, if not than it's a viable option.
Can you give us any more info about these aspects?
What concerns me most is the accuracy of the renderings they use in games and the time it takes to extract them, convert them and than make them usable for rapid prototyping.
If it's shorter to take a set of blueprints and make a good 3D model than it isn't worth the hassle, if not than it's a viable option.
Can you give us any more info about these aspects?
André_Ferreira
08-06-2009, 04:27 PM
André, this is a very interesting approach I never seriously thought about before.
What concerns me most is the accuracy of the renderings they use in games and the time it takes to extract them, convert them and than make them usable for rapid prototyping.
If it's shorter to take a set of blueprints and make a good 3D model than it isn't worth the hassle, if not than it's a viable option.
Can you give us any more info about these aspects?
Jano,
The time it takes to convert the model ( as I said before games use 3D models not renders ) from a game to 3D max ( as an example ) is around 30seconds...now the time it takes to make it good enough to print...that's going back a couple of posts where that was discussed - it will require some significant amount of work.
I think you are missing an important point - any model from a game is made using blueprints ;) , so it has a certain degree of accuracy already ( and in recent mods for several games, the detail in some of the cars is really insane). It will save you the time of having to model everything from scratch, therefore you really only need to concentrate on the details that are important for you.
It would probably still take 100 hrs or so (don't know really), depending on the skills with the software and the level of detail you are trying to achieve, but I would say that half of the work would be done from the word go.
Just something I've picked up in terms of cost. It's true that it would cost around $300 to print a model but the more stuff you print, the cheap it is in the end...I've received a quote for a 1/24 body shell (like any tamiya body) of around £360 with 30micron layers (it can go up to 16 micron layers), but if I wanted to print 2 shells in the same tray, the cost would be £235...now if it was the complete model with chassis, suspension, etc it would be even cheaper. So let's say that you and your mates want to print 3 copies ( depends on the capacity of the printer of course), it would probabaly cost around or less than £100, which is what you pay for some curbside MFH kits - I know that MFH has really good detail, comes with decals, ready to assemble...but in the end of the day we do love a bit, the torture of making a model better ;)
I'm not saying that it is easy because it isn't, there is still a lot of work involved...but there is certainly a way ;) to have more models available. I'm sure that someone will try to make a profit out of it, fair enough, that's the way it always goes, but as long as there is more for us to choose from, and if in the long term it brings the costs down by having more kits on the market...I guess I could easily live with that problem ;)
Best Regards
André
What concerns me most is the accuracy of the renderings they use in games and the time it takes to extract them, convert them and than make them usable for rapid prototyping.
If it's shorter to take a set of blueprints and make a good 3D model than it isn't worth the hassle, if not than it's a viable option.
Can you give us any more info about these aspects?
Jano,
The time it takes to convert the model ( as I said before games use 3D models not renders ) from a game to 3D max ( as an example ) is around 30seconds...now the time it takes to make it good enough to print...that's going back a couple of posts where that was discussed - it will require some significant amount of work.
I think you are missing an important point - any model from a game is made using blueprints ;) , so it has a certain degree of accuracy already ( and in recent mods for several games, the detail in some of the cars is really insane). It will save you the time of having to model everything from scratch, therefore you really only need to concentrate on the details that are important for you.
It would probably still take 100 hrs or so (don't know really), depending on the skills with the software and the level of detail you are trying to achieve, but I would say that half of the work would be done from the word go.
Just something I've picked up in terms of cost. It's true that it would cost around $300 to print a model but the more stuff you print, the cheap it is in the end...I've received a quote for a 1/24 body shell (like any tamiya body) of around £360 with 30micron layers (it can go up to 16 micron layers), but if I wanted to print 2 shells in the same tray, the cost would be £235...now if it was the complete model with chassis, suspension, etc it would be even cheaper. So let's say that you and your mates want to print 3 copies ( depends on the capacity of the printer of course), it would probabaly cost around or less than £100, which is what you pay for some curbside MFH kits - I know that MFH has really good detail, comes with decals, ready to assemble...but in the end of the day we do love a bit, the torture of making a model better ;)
I'm not saying that it is easy because it isn't, there is still a lot of work involved...but there is certainly a way ;) to have more models available. I'm sure that someone will try to make a profit out of it, fair enough, that's the way it always goes, but as long as there is more for us to choose from, and if in the long term it brings the costs down by having more kits on the market...I guess I could easily live with that problem ;)
Best Regards
André
jano11
08-06-2009, 04:57 PM
Jano,
The time it takes to convert the model ( as I said before games use 3D models not renders ) from a game to 3D max ( as an example ) is around 30seconds...now the time it takes to make it good enough to print...that's going back a couple of posts where that was discussed - it will require some significant amount of work.
I think you are missing an important point - any model from a game is made using blueprints ;) , so it has a certain degree of accuracy already ( and in recent mods for several games, the detail in some of the cars is really insane). It will save you the time of having to model everything from scratch, therefore you really only need to concentrate on the details that are important for you.
It would probably still take 100 hrs or so (don't know really), depending on the skills with the software and the level of detail you are trying to achieve, but I would say that half of the work would be done from the word go.
Just something I've picked up in terms of cost. It's true that it would cost around $300 to print a model but the more stuff you print, the cheap it is in the end...I've received a quote for a 1/24 body shell (like any tamiya body) of around £360 with 30micron layers (it can go up to 16 micron layers), but if I wanted to print 2 shells in the same tray, the cost would be £235...now if it was the complete model with chassis, suspension, etc it would be even cheaper. So let's say that you and your mates want to print 3 copies ( depends on the capacity of the printer of course), it would probabaly cost around or less than £100, which is what you pay for some curbside MFH kits - I know that MFH has really good detail, comes with decals, ready to assemble...but in the end of the day we do love a bit, the torture of making a model better ;)
I'm not saying that it is easy because it isn't, there is still a lot of work involved...but there is certainly a way ;) to have more models available. I'm sure that someone will try to make a profit out of it, fair enough, that's the way it always goes, but as long as there is more for us to choose from, and if in the long term it brings the costs down by having more kits on the market...I guess I could easily live with that problem ;)
Best Regards
André
Thanks for the info. Your idea about taking the model from a game and improve it to the level of being good enough for 3D printing is great.
Did you already try it?
I would like to see what such a model extracted from a game looks like before improvements are made. If you could show us one I believe we would all be thankful for it.
Also getting a full model printed for as ow as 100£ with 30micron layers would be good business.
Now, if only I had enough time for everything I would like to do! :D
The time it takes to convert the model ( as I said before games use 3D models not renders ) from a game to 3D max ( as an example ) is around 30seconds...now the time it takes to make it good enough to print...that's going back a couple of posts where that was discussed - it will require some significant amount of work.
I think you are missing an important point - any model from a game is made using blueprints ;) , so it has a certain degree of accuracy already ( and in recent mods for several games, the detail in some of the cars is really insane). It will save you the time of having to model everything from scratch, therefore you really only need to concentrate on the details that are important for you.
It would probably still take 100 hrs or so (don't know really), depending on the skills with the software and the level of detail you are trying to achieve, but I would say that half of the work would be done from the word go.
Just something I've picked up in terms of cost. It's true that it would cost around $300 to print a model but the more stuff you print, the cheap it is in the end...I've received a quote for a 1/24 body shell (like any tamiya body) of around £360 with 30micron layers (it can go up to 16 micron layers), but if I wanted to print 2 shells in the same tray, the cost would be £235...now if it was the complete model with chassis, suspension, etc it would be even cheaper. So let's say that you and your mates want to print 3 copies ( depends on the capacity of the printer of course), it would probabaly cost around or less than £100, which is what you pay for some curbside MFH kits - I know that MFH has really good detail, comes with decals, ready to assemble...but in the end of the day we do love a bit, the torture of making a model better ;)
I'm not saying that it is easy because it isn't, there is still a lot of work involved...but there is certainly a way ;) to have more models available. I'm sure that someone will try to make a profit out of it, fair enough, that's the way it always goes, but as long as there is more for us to choose from, and if in the long term it brings the costs down by having more kits on the market...I guess I could easily live with that problem ;)
Best Regards
André
Thanks for the info. Your idea about taking the model from a game and improve it to the level of being good enough for 3D printing is great.
Did you already try it?
I would like to see what such a model extracted from a game looks like before improvements are made. If you could show us one I believe we would all be thankful for it.
Also getting a full model printed for as ow as 100£ with 30micron layers would be good business.
Now, if only I had enough time for everything I would like to do! :D
André_Ferreira
08-06-2009, 05:14 PM
Like you, spare time is scarce :( but I did import a few models already and played a bit with the details but nothing serious.
See the link bellow:
http://rapidshare.com/files/264532700/output4.stl
this is the .stl file I used to get the quote for the rapid prototyping. It's a straight forward translation - none of the work attached is mine. I haven't done any changes to the model, but as you will see, there is scope to obtain a good model...with some work of course.
Best Regards
André
See the link bellow:
http://rapidshare.com/files/264532700/output4.stl
this is the .stl file I used to get the quote for the rapid prototyping. It's a straight forward translation - none of the work attached is mine. I haven't done any changes to the model, but as you will see, there is scope to obtain a good model...with some work of course.
Best Regards
André
jano11
08-06-2009, 05:50 PM
Like you, spare time is scarce :( but I did import a few models already and played a bit with the details but nothing serious.
See the link bellow:
http://rapidshare.com/files/264532700/output4.stl
this is the .stl file I used to get the quote for the rapid prototyping. It's a straight forward translation - none of the work attached is mine. I haven't done any changes to the model, but as you will see, there is scope to obtain a good model...with some work of course.
Best Regards
André
André that is not as bad as I was expecting for a simply extracted model. The polygon count is certainly low for it's size (I have in excess of 20000 for some of my wheel models) but it's a good base.
I'll have to take a look to this extracting process you use, it certainly looks promising. However there is still a copyright problem attached to it, and I certainly wouldn't want to have PC game producer's lawyers chasing me.
This idea of yours is really a great time saver. :)
See the link bellow:
http://rapidshare.com/files/264532700/output4.stl
this is the .stl file I used to get the quote for the rapid prototyping. It's a straight forward translation - none of the work attached is mine. I haven't done any changes to the model, but as you will see, there is scope to obtain a good model...with some work of course.
Best Regards
André
André that is not as bad as I was expecting for a simply extracted model. The polygon count is certainly low for it's size (I have in excess of 20000 for some of my wheel models) but it's a good base.
I'll have to take a look to this extracting process you use, it certainly looks promising. However there is still a copyright problem attached to it, and I certainly wouldn't want to have PC game producer's lawyers chasing me.
This idea of yours is really a great time saver. :)
André_Ferreira
08-06-2009, 06:21 PM
That model contains a simple "smooth" feature to make everything more or less even but it's really basic. A proper "mesh smoothing" would have more iterations and therefore a higher polygon count hence better quality.
Yeah, the copyright is always the catch isn't it? But the model can be extensively modified and the end result will surelly be very different from the original making it really hard to trace back - it's just a matter of tweaking the position of the vertices and you'll have a completely different model from the base one ;)
Yeah, the copyright is always the catch isn't it? But the model can be extensively modified and the end result will surelly be very different from the original making it really hard to trace back - it's just a matter of tweaking the position of the vertices and you'll have a completely different model from the base one ;)
gionc
08-07-2009, 07:41 AM
Hi guys. I have not much more to add if not that I trust more in CNC cheap applications in our domestic area (commercial speculation with those old tech are end by time, and you'll convert on CNC a good mill for cheap) , that said by one that use rapid proto techs any day for job or "hobby".
But I write now for another question, and it's a bit OT.
As a product designer I'm used to style things like H or N devices, compressors or coolers, this is mainly my working area. I designed also other esotic stuff like an electric motorbike.
Now I have a request to design an electric bycicle, hi-end kind, equipped with top gears, something like a Shimano XT-R group. Anyone know where I'll find/download/purchase 3D models of such great components?
Zory for OT, I would say it's only 50% OT :D
But I write now for another question, and it's a bit OT.
As a product designer I'm used to style things like H or N devices, compressors or coolers, this is mainly my working area. I designed also other esotic stuff like an electric motorbike.
Now I have a request to design an electric bycicle, hi-end kind, equipped with top gears, something like a Shimano XT-R group. Anyone know where I'll find/download/purchase 3D models of such great components?
Zory for OT, I would say it's only 50% OT :D
André_Ferreira
08-07-2009, 09:12 AM
Not sure if this is what you are looking for ;) it's the complete thing
http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-bicycle-mountain/245500
But there are several of these websites around with expensive but high quality models
Best Regards
André
http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-bicycle-mountain/245500
But there are several of these websites around with expensive but high quality models
Best Regards
André
gionc
08-07-2009, 09:39 AM
Not sure if this is what you are looking for ;) it's the complete thing
http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-bicycle-mountain/245500
But there are several of these websites around with expensive but high quality models
Best Regards
André
Sure! Didn't thought about (and think we see often this site as advertising here) since I wondered to take a 3D solid file, but sure for these components I'll use surfaces ;). Some looks good. Thanks
http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-bicycle-mountain/245500
But there are several of these websites around with expensive but high quality models
Best Regards
André
Sure! Didn't thought about (and think we see often this site as advertising here) since I wondered to take a 3D solid file, but sure for these components I'll use surfaces ;). Some looks good. Thanks
lotus123
08-12-2009, 08:08 AM
I found this on Wired today. It seems there is now a DIY kit for building your own 3G printer!
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/makerbot/
From what I can see the resolution is still too rough for 1/24 (you were right about that, Jano!) and the cost is still high at $950 (although, if you're an Alps printer owner you might not think so). It's interesting to note though that this thing is now reaching the hobbyist. I believe that once this group gets hold of it, development and improvements follow quickly. There is often a healthy aftermarket created around these things (like the "go better" bits for RC helicopters - you wouldn't believe the high performance/precision components you can get for your kit chopper).
I suggest that you look at the Makerbot wiki for more information on the technology and software of 3G printing. It's quite informative.
http://wiki.makerbot.com/start
BTW - at the risk of harping on with the software metaphor in previous posts, this thing is Open Source!
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/makerbot/
From what I can see the resolution is still too rough for 1/24 (you were right about that, Jano!) and the cost is still high at $950 (although, if you're an Alps printer owner you might not think so). It's interesting to note though that this thing is now reaching the hobbyist. I believe that once this group gets hold of it, development and improvements follow quickly. There is often a healthy aftermarket created around these things (like the "go better" bits for RC helicopters - you wouldn't believe the high performance/precision components you can get for your kit chopper).
I suggest that you look at the Makerbot wiki for more information on the technology and software of 3G printing. It's quite informative.
http://wiki.makerbot.com/start
BTW - at the risk of harping on with the software metaphor in previous posts, this thing is Open Source!
CrateCruncher
08-12-2009, 09:36 AM
I found a Google Tech Talks video on YouTube about the Makerbot. In the video the founder of the company talks about how they came up with it, the software that can support it, and then they actually print an object at about 29:00 on the video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zirHL_rRBu0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zirHL_rRBu0)
The creators admitted in the video that they have no idea what people will use this thing for. They simply wanted to get it out there in an affordable form so people could start playing with it. They haven't done much experimenting to get better extruder resolution. It may be as simple as tweaking the extruder temperature and head speed to get much finer layers.
One thing mentioned was that the Makerbot currently has trouble printing "overhangs", or shapes that aren't directly supported underneath by the base.
http://www.makerbot.com/ (http://www.makerbot.com/)
http://www.thingiverse.com/ (http://www.thingiverse.com/)
Did I mention this is the coolest thng I've seen in a long time!
The creators admitted in the video that they have no idea what people will use this thing for. They simply wanted to get it out there in an affordable form so people could start playing with it. They haven't done much experimenting to get better extruder resolution. It may be as simple as tweaking the extruder temperature and head speed to get much finer layers.
One thing mentioned was that the Makerbot currently has trouble printing "overhangs", or shapes that aren't directly supported underneath by the base.
http://www.makerbot.com/ (http://www.makerbot.com/)
http://www.thingiverse.com/ (http://www.thingiverse.com/)
Did I mention this is the coolest thng I've seen in a long time!
lotus123
08-12-2009, 11:23 AM
I found a Google Tech Talks video on YouTube about the Makerbot.
One thing mentioned was that the Makerbot currently has trouble printing "overhangs", or shapes that aren't directly supported underneath by the base.
Thanks - that's a really interesting video.
Yes, overhangs (or undercuts) could be a problem, but it's still early days. I bet one of those "early adopters" will solve that.
A couple of things in the video are very interesting. I get the impression that second prototype was finished around March/April, and they're here already?! Cool!
He mentions a number of parts (pulleys, stepper chips) as being obsolete/improved. I like the sound of that - progress!
Seems you can build this from parts that you can source yourself, using their designs. Neat! The power supply is ATX - I think that's your standard PC power supply.
Apart from stepper motor performance, I guess the next big step (pun definitely not intended!) will come from the chemistry of the plastics they use. Right now it seems you use what's available, but I suppose that one day there will be design specific plastics (in much the same way inkjet inks and photo papers have evolved- just hope the pricing doesn't go the same way!).
Did I mention this is the coolest thng I've seen in a long time!
With you there Crate!
One thing mentioned was that the Makerbot currently has trouble printing "overhangs", or shapes that aren't directly supported underneath by the base.
Thanks - that's a really interesting video.
Yes, overhangs (or undercuts) could be a problem, but it's still early days. I bet one of those "early adopters" will solve that.
A couple of things in the video are very interesting. I get the impression that second prototype was finished around March/April, and they're here already?! Cool!
He mentions a number of parts (pulleys, stepper chips) as being obsolete/improved. I like the sound of that - progress!
Seems you can build this from parts that you can source yourself, using their designs. Neat! The power supply is ATX - I think that's your standard PC power supply.
Apart from stepper motor performance, I guess the next big step (pun definitely not intended!) will come from the chemistry of the plastics they use. Right now it seems you use what's available, but I suppose that one day there will be design specific plastics (in much the same way inkjet inks and photo papers have evolved- just hope the pricing doesn't go the same way!).
Did I mention this is the coolest thng I've seen in a long time!
With you there Crate!
jano11
08-12-2009, 12:58 PM
I guess you guys will be happy to read this one too:
http://fabathome.org/wiki/index.php?title=Fab%40Home:Overview
Cheers :)
http://fabathome.org/wiki/index.php?title=Fab%40Home:Overview
Cheers :)
lotus123
08-12-2009, 03:00 PM
Thanks Jano - that's a really interesting site. Suddenly there seems to be a lot going on with these printers.
jano11
08-12-2009, 03:23 PM
Thanks Jano - that's a really interesting site. Suddenly there seems to be a lot going on with these printers.
It has been like this for quite some time, that's why I'm skeptical about things changing very fast from now on, but I h really hope it finally happens.
It has been like this for quite some time, that's why I'm skeptical about things changing very fast from now on, but I h really hope it finally happens.
drunken monkey
08-20-2009, 06:29 AM
of relevent interest
link (http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/08/3-d-metal-printers-launch-diy-action-figure-service/)
link (http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/08/3-d-metal-printers-launch-diy-action-figure-service/)
gionc
08-21-2009, 04:16 AM
of relevent interest
link (http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/08/3-d-metal-printers-launch-diy-action-figure-service/)
Very relevant indeed. They says figures are made by metal powders, by steel. Would be cool understand if the material may to tolerate heat: the main problem casting white metal from a resin (rapid resin) proto is that it melt a bit.... In fact best protos are the cast in brass.
link (http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/08/3-d-metal-printers-launch-diy-action-figure-service/)
Very relevant indeed. They says figures are made by metal powders, by steel. Would be cool understand if the material may to tolerate heat: the main problem casting white metal from a resin (rapid resin) proto is that it melt a bit.... In fact best protos are the cast in brass.
jano11
09-02-2009, 02:53 PM
lotus123
09-03-2009, 03:29 AM
Nice!
What printer did you use to "print" those?
What size are they? There seems to be very little printing texture on that wheel rim.
What printer did you use to "print" those?
What size are they? There seems to be very little printing texture on that wheel rim.
jano11
09-03-2009, 03:43 AM
They are 1/24 scale. The rim is 22.7 mm in diameter and the tires are the right size to fit on it.
Printed on a machine in a university lab where I worked before. They acquired the machine earlier this year after I had left, otherwise they would have had to hide it from me! :D
Printed on a machine in a university lab where I worked before. They acquired the machine earlier this year after I had left, otherwise they would have had to hide it from me! :D
lotus123
09-03-2009, 04:59 AM
The part of the wheel that I find impressive is where the spoke crosses into the wheel boss, where it is raised and curved.
What happens after this? Do you cast copies in resin, or do you have to do any more work on these masters?
Printed on a machine in a university lab where I worked before
So you went back to the university to do your "Masters"?
What happens after this? Do you cast copies in resin, or do you have to do any more work on these masters?
Printed on a machine in a university lab where I worked before
So you went back to the university to do your "Masters"?
jano11
09-03-2009, 05:11 AM
The part of the wheel that I find impressive is where the spoke crosses into the wheel boss, where it is raised and curved.
What happens after this? Do you cast copies in resin, or do you have to do any more work on these masters?
First I cover the masters with a coat of primer in order to see the surface quality better, than I clean up the surface for a first resin cast. After that I'll only work on the resin cast to produce the real 'master'.
Right now I'm making the mold for the first resin cast. I shall be casting the first semi-master tomorrow when I receive a new batch of resin.
The wheel rim in the picture has already been sprayed with primer and prepared for casting, that's why you have the impression that is good quality, also it's a bit out of focus as I focused on the tire thread when I took the picture.
So you went back to the university to do your "Masters"?
No I sent them the files by email. They charge me for them but not as much as some of the 3D printing services out there + shipping costs. I prefer them because they will not send me faulty printed parts. Also I usually have to wait less than with a printing service, however it's getting longer and longer every time so one day I think I'll tun to another service or I'll buy myself one of these cheaper printing kits (750-950 USD is a good price already).
What happens after this? Do you cast copies in resin, or do you have to do any more work on these masters?
First I cover the masters with a coat of primer in order to see the surface quality better, than I clean up the surface for a first resin cast. After that I'll only work on the resin cast to produce the real 'master'.
Right now I'm making the mold for the first resin cast. I shall be casting the first semi-master tomorrow when I receive a new batch of resin.
The wheel rim in the picture has already been sprayed with primer and prepared for casting, that's why you have the impression that is good quality, also it's a bit out of focus as I focused on the tire thread when I took the picture.
So you went back to the university to do your "Masters"?
No I sent them the files by email. They charge me for them but not as much as some of the 3D printing services out there + shipping costs. I prefer them because they will not send me faulty printed parts. Also I usually have to wait less than with a printing service, however it's getting longer and longer every time so one day I think I'll tun to another service or I'll buy myself one of these cheaper printing kits (750-950 USD is a good price already).
lotus123
11-25-2009, 05:24 AM
As I mentioned at the outset of this thread, the developments towards home prototyping and creation will come in small increments, each building on the other until there is a viable "garage manufacturer" sub-industry. I'm reiterating this for those who would say that the developments as they stand today are too crude, expensive, etc. The point of this thread is the "future" of modeling, for the amusement of those who dream how it could be.
Having said all that (phew!), have a look at this (http://mi.eng.cam.ac.uk/~qp202/my_papers/BMVC09/). These guys have developed software that turns a regular, cheap webcam into a 3D scanner. You don't need me to tell you how useful that could be. Here's a "for instance" - I've been unable to track down a 1/24 Ford Escort Mk1 in any media. Now, when this software becomes available, I could either scan a 1:1 car, or the Auto Art 1/18 version to create a digital image which could be imported into 3D CAD, and from there to a 3D printer. Like I said - one day (maybe!).
Having said all that (phew!), have a look at this (http://mi.eng.cam.ac.uk/~qp202/my_papers/BMVC09/). These guys have developed software that turns a regular, cheap webcam into a 3D scanner. You don't need me to tell you how useful that could be. Here's a "for instance" - I've been unable to track down a 1/24 Ford Escort Mk1 in any media. Now, when this software becomes available, I could either scan a 1:1 car, or the Auto Art 1/18 version to create a digital image which could be imported into 3D CAD, and from there to a 3D printer. Like I said - one day (maybe!).
jano11
11-25-2009, 12:52 PM
That's an interesting development that might be useful if it works with a good precision.
Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for sharing.
icon_modeler
11-26-2009, 01:49 PM
As I mentioned at the outset of this thread, the developments towards home prototyping and creation will come in small increments, each building on the other until there is a viable "garage manufacturer" sub-industry. I'm reiterating this for those who would say that the developments as they stand today are too crude, expensive, etc. The point of this thread is the "future" of modeling, for the amusement of those who dream how it could be.
Having said all that (phew!), have a look at this (http://mi.eng.cam.ac.uk/~qp202/my_papers/BMVC09/). These guys have developed software that turns a regular, cheap webcam into a 3D scanner. You don't need me to tell you how useful that could be. Here's a "for instance" - I've been unable to track down a 1/24 Ford Escort Mk1 in any media. Now, when this software becomes available, I could either scan a 1:1 car, or the Auto Art 1/18 version to create a digital image which could be imported into 3D CAD, and from there to a 3D printer. Like I said - one day (maybe!).
Hi, Late to the party but I'd like to make a comment.
The future may be leaning toward digital prototyping, but it is far from being as easy as you describe. I have looked into those "cheap" home made scanners and printers and the problem with all of them that I have seen is the resolution. Also the process of you scanning a part and then going directly to the printer does not work like that. For example the scan has no thickness. It is only a surface and would require someone with 3D cad skills to make it work. There also would be no internal structure to connect associated parts to unless you scanned the inside as well. I may be reading too much into your post by thinking you don't know all of this. Please excuse me if this is the case. I did not go back and read the entire thread. I have developed and had printed quite a few things so I have a little experience with the 3D printing thing. If you like I can post up some pictures of some of my works.
Icon Modeler
Having said all that (phew!), have a look at this (http://mi.eng.cam.ac.uk/~qp202/my_papers/BMVC09/). These guys have developed software that turns a regular, cheap webcam into a 3D scanner. You don't need me to tell you how useful that could be. Here's a "for instance" - I've been unable to track down a 1/24 Ford Escort Mk1 in any media. Now, when this software becomes available, I could either scan a 1:1 car, or the Auto Art 1/18 version to create a digital image which could be imported into 3D CAD, and from there to a 3D printer. Like I said - one day (maybe!).
Hi, Late to the party but I'd like to make a comment.
The future may be leaning toward digital prototyping, but it is far from being as easy as you describe. I have looked into those "cheap" home made scanners and printers and the problem with all of them that I have seen is the resolution. Also the process of you scanning a part and then going directly to the printer does not work like that. For example the scan has no thickness. It is only a surface and would require someone with 3D cad skills to make it work. There also would be no internal structure to connect associated parts to unless you scanned the inside as well. I may be reading too much into your post by thinking you don't know all of this. Please excuse me if this is the case. I did not go back and read the entire thread. I have developed and had printed quite a few things so I have a little experience with the 3D printing thing. If you like I can post up some pictures of some of my works.
Icon Modeler
lotus123
11-26-2009, 10:57 PM
Hi Icon
Welcome to the party!
Yes, we (and Jano in particular) have mentioned these shortcomings, and we agree that the technology is far from ready for the average person. The exciting thing, however, is that these technologies (3D printing, scanning) are emerging, and 3D CAD software is becoming more ubiquitous, user friendly and feature rich, and is no longer a highly specialised bit of kit limited to design offices.
It's a long way to go before we as modelers can start knocking out parts at will, but something is stirring out there.
As for posting pictures of your work, please do! As you may have noticed on this forum, threads featuring prototyping tend to be very popular, so there's real interest in the topic.
Regards
Graham
Welcome to the party!
Yes, we (and Jano in particular) have mentioned these shortcomings, and we agree that the technology is far from ready for the average person. The exciting thing, however, is that these technologies (3D printing, scanning) are emerging, and 3D CAD software is becoming more ubiquitous, user friendly and feature rich, and is no longer a highly specialised bit of kit limited to design offices.
It's a long way to go before we as modelers can start knocking out parts at will, but something is stirring out there.
As for posting pictures of your work, please do! As you may have noticed on this forum, threads featuring prototyping tend to be very popular, so there's real interest in the topic.
Regards
Graham
icon_modeler
11-27-2009, 01:25 AM
Hi Icon
Welcome to the party!
Yes, we (and Jano in particular) have mentioned these shortcomings, and we agree that the technology is far from ready for the average person. The exciting thing, however, is that these technologies (3D printing, scanning) are emerging, and 3D CAD software is becoming more ubiquitous, user friendly and feature rich, and is no longer a highly specialised bit of kit limited to design offices.
It's a long way to go before we as modelers can start knocking out parts at will, but something is stirring out there.
As for posting pictures of your work, please do! As you may have noticed on this forum, threads featuring prototyping tend to be very popular, so there's real interest in the topic.
Regards
Graham
Yes, I did get a chance today to go back and read the thread from the start and I realized that you are most like aware of what I was trying to say. Sorry for the re-hash.
Couple things I find amusing.
1) CrateCruncher mentioned something about there being no tooling and that a passionate designer could get his money back on the first article he sold because there is no amortization.
I'm assuming he's implying that because an outside source would do the actual "growing", if you will, of the parts. If that is in fact what he means, then yes, there would be no physical tooling involved. Unless you count the computer the designer used, which by the way is not a cheap investment to run such a 3D software program to do the job correctly and in a timely fashion.
While there may not be any tooling per say there would still be huge costs involved. The notion that the designer could recoup his design fees on the first copy is a little far fetched unless of course "Passionate" means free, for nothing, nada. Passionate designers still need to make money, no??
2) And then you, Lotus123, said something about if you had modeled something you would freely pass it on to whoever wanted it and you would be happy with that because you like to be able to help.
This is all well and good but I don't think you fully understand what it takes in terms of time to be able to model something like a full curbside kit in the computer. You would have to either be one kind son of a gun or a rich son of a gun to just give something like that away without collecting some type fee.
I have, as I said in my previous post, produced computer models that have been developed, "grown" via SLA. The first is here;
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=556460 (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=556460)
As I explained in the thread the purpose was two fold. A conservative estimate of the time involved to develop the complete curbside kit as in the thread would be just under 1100 hours of time spent in front of the computer. Now you can see why the statement about the designer getting his investment back after he sells his first copy is kind of funny.
Currently I have a 1/12th computer model developed for a flat 12 Alfa Romeo F1 engine.
Another project I've been working on is a set of 1/20th Rain Tires for the Tamiya P34 Japanese GP version just released a few months ago. For the tire project I actually had to have a number of masters made to get the level of detail I was after as well as changing some things around that did not work out as planned from the first master to the second. Here are some pictures of the tire masters.
http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt97/dtcollins/IMG_1912.jpg
This was the first master. It came out a little soft on the detail of the tread on the smaller front tires even though it was produced on a High Resolution machine. Also the grouping of the tires was too close together and the parting line was in the wrong place. The second two mistakes are because I'm new to resin casting. The main reason for the redo of the master was because of the detail loss. In the pictures of the second master you can see the detail of the front tread is much cleaner and the spacing and parting line issues where addressed at the same time.
http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt97/dtcollins/IMG_1930.jpg
http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt97/dtcollins/IMG_1932.jpg
It is important to note that what you are looking at in the second master is a part that is completely untouched, unaltered. It is how the part came out of the SLA machine. The only surface flaws are in the sidewalls of the tires and the steps you see are only .002 of an inch. They were easily corrected with some light sanding and a couple light coats of primer.
Well that's it for now, sorry to ramble on. Love to here more thoughts.
Icon Modeler
Welcome to the party!
Yes, we (and Jano in particular) have mentioned these shortcomings, and we agree that the technology is far from ready for the average person. The exciting thing, however, is that these technologies (3D printing, scanning) are emerging, and 3D CAD software is becoming more ubiquitous, user friendly and feature rich, and is no longer a highly specialised bit of kit limited to design offices.
It's a long way to go before we as modelers can start knocking out parts at will, but something is stirring out there.
As for posting pictures of your work, please do! As you may have noticed on this forum, threads featuring prototyping tend to be very popular, so there's real interest in the topic.
Regards
Graham
Yes, I did get a chance today to go back and read the thread from the start and I realized that you are most like aware of what I was trying to say. Sorry for the re-hash.
Couple things I find amusing.
1) CrateCruncher mentioned something about there being no tooling and that a passionate designer could get his money back on the first article he sold because there is no amortization.
I'm assuming he's implying that because an outside source would do the actual "growing", if you will, of the parts. If that is in fact what he means, then yes, there would be no physical tooling involved. Unless you count the computer the designer used, which by the way is not a cheap investment to run such a 3D software program to do the job correctly and in a timely fashion.
While there may not be any tooling per say there would still be huge costs involved. The notion that the designer could recoup his design fees on the first copy is a little far fetched unless of course "Passionate" means free, for nothing, nada. Passionate designers still need to make money, no??
2) And then you, Lotus123, said something about if you had modeled something you would freely pass it on to whoever wanted it and you would be happy with that because you like to be able to help.
This is all well and good but I don't think you fully understand what it takes in terms of time to be able to model something like a full curbside kit in the computer. You would have to either be one kind son of a gun or a rich son of a gun to just give something like that away without collecting some type fee.
I have, as I said in my previous post, produced computer models that have been developed, "grown" via SLA. The first is here;
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=556460 (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=556460)
As I explained in the thread the purpose was two fold. A conservative estimate of the time involved to develop the complete curbside kit as in the thread would be just under 1100 hours of time spent in front of the computer. Now you can see why the statement about the designer getting his investment back after he sells his first copy is kind of funny.
Currently I have a 1/12th computer model developed for a flat 12 Alfa Romeo F1 engine.
Another project I've been working on is a set of 1/20th Rain Tires for the Tamiya P34 Japanese GP version just released a few months ago. For the tire project I actually had to have a number of masters made to get the level of detail I was after as well as changing some things around that did not work out as planned from the first master to the second. Here are some pictures of the tire masters.
http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt97/dtcollins/IMG_1912.jpg
This was the first master. It came out a little soft on the detail of the tread on the smaller front tires even though it was produced on a High Resolution machine. Also the grouping of the tires was too close together and the parting line was in the wrong place. The second two mistakes are because I'm new to resin casting. The main reason for the redo of the master was because of the detail loss. In the pictures of the second master you can see the detail of the front tread is much cleaner and the spacing and parting line issues where addressed at the same time.
http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt97/dtcollins/IMG_1930.jpg
http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt97/dtcollins/IMG_1932.jpg
It is important to note that what you are looking at in the second master is a part that is completely untouched, unaltered. It is how the part came out of the SLA machine. The only surface flaws are in the sidewalls of the tires and the steps you see are only .002 of an inch. They were easily corrected with some light sanding and a couple light coats of primer.
Well that's it for now, sorry to ramble on. Love to here more thoughts.
Icon Modeler
lotus123
11-27-2009, 03:04 AM
No need to apologize - someone with your practical experience can ramble all he likes and still have a rapt audience!
Yes, taking your point I think there are many unknowns about designing and developing parts that will swamp the unsuspecting aspiring "garagiste".
My point about freely sharing is based on the Open Source concept, where developers with diverse areas of expertise combine to create something complex, without individually having to learn every skill set involved in, say developing a web browser like Firefox. Would anyone have thought in the early Internet years that giving highly sophisticated web browsers away made financial sense?
There's one thing that puzzles me about your pictures and comments (and this goes for Jano as well). Having outlined the downsides of SLA and decried the quality, why do the parts you guys make look so good?
And now for the tough question - when are we going to see the Jaguar again?
Yes, taking your point I think there are many unknowns about designing and developing parts that will swamp the unsuspecting aspiring "garagiste".
My point about freely sharing is based on the Open Source concept, where developers with diverse areas of expertise combine to create something complex, without individually having to learn every skill set involved in, say developing a web browser like Firefox. Would anyone have thought in the early Internet years that giving highly sophisticated web browsers away made financial sense?
There's one thing that puzzles me about your pictures and comments (and this goes for Jano as well). Having outlined the downsides of SLA and decried the quality, why do the parts you guys make look so good?
And now for the tough question - when are we going to see the Jaguar again?
jano11
11-27-2009, 10:55 AM
There's one thing that puzzles me about your pictures and comments (and this goes for Jano as well). Having outlined the downsides of SLA and decried the quality, why do the parts you guys make look so good?
I clean them up, and that's a tough job that takes some time and concentration, especially for a tire thread in 1/24th scale. ;)
BTW Open Source is fine as long as you have another job and thus you earn money, but if you don't than we first need to change how our society works and than we can all be Open Source.
I clean them up, and that's a tough job that takes some time and concentration, especially for a tire thread in 1/24th scale. ;)
BTW Open Source is fine as long as you have another job and thus you earn money, but if you don't than we first need to change how our society works and than we can all be Open Source.
icon_modeler
11-27-2009, 11:53 AM
Having outlined the downsides of SLA and decried the quality, why do the parts you guys make look so good?
Don't be mistaken, the advantages far exceed the disadvantages.
As Jano pointed out the parts end up looking good because of hours spent detailing the surfaces with sanding and priming. My 1/20 tires were very tuff for me to finesse even though the tires came out as good as they did. My hand/eye coordination is not like it used to be neither is my eye sight. I am very pleased with the out come on the tires though it did end up costing me a lot more then I had anticipated. I'll be eating those extra costs in order to keep the end cost of the tires reasonable. Just in the two masters for the tires I have invested a touch over $350.00 US. And that is only the SLA cost, it does not count the hours of time spent in the computer (approx. 60 hours)
The Jag on the other hand was not nearly as nice when it was produced. The photos below are of the raw SLA and you can clearly see the topographical surface finish left by the SLA machine. These parts were "grown" on a non "Hi-Res" machine.
http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt97/dtcollins/XJR14top1.jpg
http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt97/dtcollins/XJR14siderear1.jpg
http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt97/dtcollins/XJR14interior1.jpg
http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt97/dtcollins/XJR14parts1.jpg
These are the first parts I ever had made and I did not know about the "Hi-Res" capability. It wouldn't have made much difference at the time. The "Hi-Res" machine does not have a bed big enough to "grown" the part as they are. I would have had to re-engineer the parts to fit the machine.
And now for the tough question - when are we going to see the Jaguar again?
Soon I hope. It has been creeping back into the front of my mind.
Icon Modeler
Don't be mistaken, the advantages far exceed the disadvantages.
As Jano pointed out the parts end up looking good because of hours spent detailing the surfaces with sanding and priming. My 1/20 tires were very tuff for me to finesse even though the tires came out as good as they did. My hand/eye coordination is not like it used to be neither is my eye sight. I am very pleased with the out come on the tires though it did end up costing me a lot more then I had anticipated. I'll be eating those extra costs in order to keep the end cost of the tires reasonable. Just in the two masters for the tires I have invested a touch over $350.00 US. And that is only the SLA cost, it does not count the hours of time spent in the computer (approx. 60 hours)
The Jag on the other hand was not nearly as nice when it was produced. The photos below are of the raw SLA and you can clearly see the topographical surface finish left by the SLA machine. These parts were "grown" on a non "Hi-Res" machine.
http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt97/dtcollins/XJR14top1.jpg
http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt97/dtcollins/XJR14siderear1.jpg
http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt97/dtcollins/XJR14interior1.jpg
http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt97/dtcollins/XJR14parts1.jpg
These are the first parts I ever had made and I did not know about the "Hi-Res" capability. It wouldn't have made much difference at the time. The "Hi-Res" machine does not have a bed big enough to "grown" the part as they are. I would have had to re-engineer the parts to fit the machine.
And now for the tough question - when are we going to see the Jaguar again?
Soon I hope. It has been creeping back into the front of my mind.
Icon Modeler
Slash.Snakepit
01-11-2010, 08:01 AM
I've been watching this since the beginning, and this weekend I saw this open source 3D printer that was shown at CES 2010:
http://www.wired.com/video/open-source-3d-printer-turns-designs-into-objects/61029613001
So, for around USD 1,000.00 one can have a 3D printer, not sure about the quality though.
Anyway, 3D printing may be coming to your model desk in the near future.
http://www.wired.com/video/open-source-3d-printer-turns-designs-into-objects/61029613001
So, for around USD 1,000.00 one can have a 3D printer, not sure about the quality though.
Anyway, 3D printing may be coming to your model desk in the near future.
lotus123
01-20-2010, 02:57 AM
Well well - now it gets interesting.
HP Plans Line of (Relatively) Affordable 3-D Printers
Read More http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/hp-3d-printers/#ixzz0d8nRlta0
One comment that caught my attention:
"HP’s line of 3-D printers could straddle the world between hobbyists and small design businesses such as Summit’s that are looking to create individualized objects for consumers."
The indications are that the printers will still be pricey, but the prices are moving downwards. To me that means that I may not be able to buy one just yet, but the chances of finding one nearby (to use for a reasonable fee) will get better.
HP Plans Line of (Relatively) Affordable 3-D Printers
Read More http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/hp-3d-printers/#ixzz0d8nRlta0
One comment that caught my attention:
"HP’s line of 3-D printers could straddle the world between hobbyists and small design businesses such as Summit’s that are looking to create individualized objects for consumers."
The indications are that the printers will still be pricey, but the prices are moving downwards. To me that means that I may not be able to buy one just yet, but the chances of finding one nearby (to use for a reasonable fee) will get better.
CrateCruncher
01-20-2010, 11:43 AM
I found a cheesy promo video for the Stratasys UPrint:
http://www.dimensionprinting.com/3d-printers/3d-printing-uprint-video.aspx
It uses a a patent-protected extruder head and a cartridge loaded with ABS powder which is heated to a semi-molten state. They claim tolerances of +/-.007" and from the examples shown I believe it. I'm not sure what HP brings to their relationship other than teaching Stratasys how to sell ABS for $1,000 per pound. (Pardon the cynical digression.)
http://www.dimensionprinting.com/3d-printers/3d-printing-uprint-video.aspx
It uses a a patent-protected extruder head and a cartridge loaded with ABS powder which is heated to a semi-molten state. They claim tolerances of +/-.007" and from the examples shown I believe it. I'm not sure what HP brings to their relationship other than teaching Stratasys how to sell ABS for $1,000 per pound. (Pardon the cynical digression.)
lotus123
01-20-2010, 01:26 PM
I found a cheesy promo video for the Stratasys UPrint:
http://www.dimensionprinting.com/3d-printers/3d-printing-uprint-video.aspx
It uses a a patent-protected extruder head and a cartridge loaded with ABS powder which is heated to a semi-molten state. They claim tolerances of +/-.007" and from the examples shown I believe it. I'm not sure what HP brings to their relationship other than teaching Stratasys how to sell ABS for $1,000 per pound. (Pardon the cynical digression.)
That looks really neat (although a little large for the average model work room!).
Your cynicism is well placed though. After all, we're talking about a company that sells ink-jet ink for more money (by volume) than blood plasma.
Interesting to note, however, that more and more of these devices are coming to the market.
http://www.dimensionprinting.com/3d-printers/3d-printing-uprint-video.aspx
It uses a a patent-protected extruder head and a cartridge loaded with ABS powder which is heated to a semi-molten state. They claim tolerances of +/-.007" and from the examples shown I believe it. I'm not sure what HP brings to their relationship other than teaching Stratasys how to sell ABS for $1,000 per pound. (Pardon the cynical digression.)
That looks really neat (although a little large for the average model work room!).
Your cynicism is well placed though. After all, we're talking about a company that sells ink-jet ink for more money (by volume) than blood plasma.
Interesting to note, however, that more and more of these devices are coming to the market.
jano11
01-21-2010, 01:39 PM
If they produce a unit that can print 0.1mm detail and costs maximum 1000 Euro I will consider buying one.
Not sure about the precision of the Makerbot printer, it looks good on paper but I didn't see any picture of detailed models printed with it.
Not sure about the precision of the Makerbot printer, it looks good on paper but I didn't see any picture of detailed models printed with it.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025