Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/04/2018 in all areas

  1. 20 points
    I'm Steve Cox, a member of the Utimaker Community. I'm an experienced engineer having spent many years in the automotive industry but I'm now focussed on the world of 3D technologies, specifically 3D product design and 3DPprinting. I'm an Autodesk Certified Instructor for Fusion 360, so many of the images in this post are taken from that design software but this post is not specific to that software but is about designing for 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing. This is a first of a series of blog posts in this area that will be focussing on how engineering is interacting with the latest 3D technologies. Additive Manufacturing (AM) and 3D Printing (3DP) - whilst the way they produce an object from nowhere can often seem like modern-day magic, the truth is that in many ways they are no different to any other way of making things. Every method that we use to manufacture things has it’s own rules that we need to consider when designing. These rules are known as DFM – Design For Manufacture. This approach takes into account the pros and cons of the chosen manufacturing method to produce a design that can be made repeatably, reliably and to meet the intended function and life expectancy of the product. This way of thinking when applied to AM (or 3DP) is now becoming known as DfAM, or Design for Additive Manufacture. In reality there are two aspects of DfAM, the first we will deal with in this post where we will concentrate on the use of DfAM applied to detail features of the design to ensure manufacturability. The second aspect is using DfAM at the conceptual design to realise some of the unique capabilities that AM has to offer, and that will be covered in a later article. The rules of DfAM tend to be slightly different for each type of AM/3DP technology. Here we will be assuming that we are using Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) 3DP but, for instance, in metal AM residual stresses build up in the part during manufacturing due to the high local energies applied by the laser or electron beam. These have to be taken into consideration if warping and possible early-life failure are to be avoided. So, in metal AM, the use of DfAM can involve designing out thick sections where heat build-up can be greatest. This is seldom a significant issue in FDM 3D printing. Two of the main DfAM considerations in FDM 3D printing are layer orientation and overhangs which we will take a closer look at here. Layer orientation When a detail design is being prepared for manufacture one of the first things to consider is the loads that will be applied to it, and 3D printing is no different. There can be potential weaknesses in 3D prints in the “welded” joints that exist between every layer which provide multiple potential crack propagation opportunities. So at the detail design stage the loading direction may need to be taken into account, which can in turn lead to a decision being made on the print direction to be used very early on and that will then set the tone for the rest of the design. In this particular case the stress analysis in Fusion 360 on a loaded side wall of a design shows that the peak stress occurs on the inside face of that wall near to it’s base which, if we were to print it in this orientation, will coincide with the end of a layer and hence one of these potential crack propagation sites : Which can lead to this : The better way of 3D printing this design to withstand this loading condition would be to orientate the printing direction by 90 degrees to ensure that the load is being applied along the layer lines rather than across them. The strength of a part with this layer orientation will be many times greater under the loading condition described previously, though the amount is difficult to objectively state since simulation software taking into account the layer construction of AM is still an emerging area of activity. So this is a DfAM consideration to think about at the very start of your design - what are the main load bearing directions and is it possible to optimise the design to ensure that the way that you will make the part which does not result in loads being applied across a layer? This is the single most effective step that you can take, but it may not always be possible to do that, in which case you need to employ mitigation factors into your design. The usual best practice in any design is, where possible, to add a fillet (or radius) at the base of the wall to counteract these high stresses. This reduces the local stress moves the higher stress point further up the side wall and is an optimal way of adding strength with the addition of minimal material. However, in AM/3DP it is often a better option to use an angled face rather than a curved face to achieve the same effect The reason for this different approach is that the "staircase" of layers in more uniform in the case of the angled face, whilst with a fillet radius the smooth blend into the base results in a longer first layer step which reduces it's effectiveness. So this is another aspect of DfAM where strategies used for other methods of manufacture may need to be subtly modified to make them most effective when using this particular method Overhangs Once the print direction has been selected then the design of overhangs, and preferably the elimination of as many of these as possible, can be addressed. Fewer overhangs means less requirement for support which leads to a more efficient print time, lower material usage and reduced post processing time for removal of supports This is the most obvious way to eliminate an overhanging feature : Things like this are simplistic and often easy to spot, but you may find that your design is more complex than this and there is a tendency to design from experience with traditional manufacturing methods and put in features that aren’t good for AM almost without thinking. For instance in this example of a flanged coupling the features with blind tapped holes for the connection have been designed with a feature that would cause no problem for a moulding process but produce an overhanging area for 3D printing (highlighted in red when viewed in Cura) With some re-examination it was possible to re-imagine these features like this which result in no overhang and hence no support. Rather than fill this post with lots of examples of individual examples of this kind of comparison my recommendation when engaging with DfAM is to regularly check your design in the slicing software as your design develops, looking for those overhanging areas using an inspection tool that highlights those areas, or looking through the layer stack for areas that look difficult to print. The layer stack should be something that’s looked at before every print as a matter of course and is also a great way of spotting issues at the design stage that you may be easily able to address. In Fusion 360 the ability to go from the design workspace to the slicer software (such as Cura) to check for printability can be done with a single click of a button, and without the need for any time-consuming exporting and subsequent importing of .stl files. This can make the iterative process of Design → Check → Modify → Recheck much quicker, and result in a faster convergence to an efficient design for additive manufacture The approaches we have looked at here are when DfAM is applied at the detail design stage and looks to address, and deal with, the drawbacks of 3DP/AM. In a future post we will look at applying DfAM at the conceptual design stage where the advantages that AM has to offer can really become very valuable. This approach can be much more powerful and result in designs that really do provide unique and extremely effective solutions that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.
  2. 15 points
    Hey guys, I would like to share a lever action dual extrusion solution I came up with for Ultimaker 2+. The approach is based on the great effort everyone put into Mark2 and Ultimaker 3. The print head holds two hot ends, which are originally to be installed on standard UM2 head for 1.75 filament. The right nozzle move up and down for nozzle swapping. This compact dual print head can achieve single extrusion print area of 220x223x205, and dual extrusion print area of 202x223x200. Video clips: Files and instructions available at: https://github.com/yyh1002/DXU Credits: Lever lifting mechanism is inspired by Ultimaker 3. The firmware is modified based on Mark2 version of Tinkergnome firmware by @tinkergnome. CURA profiles are modified based on the Mark2 profiles by @tinkergnome and @foehnsturm. Used Mark2Tweaks plugin for CURA by Krys Lawrence.
  3. 12 points

    Version 1.0.0


    Here is my full size Velociraptor skeleton. Juste made for the challenge. Lenght: ~180cm Sculpted with Zbrush. Total printing time: ~392h. Printer: Ultimaker2+ Filament: PLA Speed: 30mm/s - 50mm/s Nozzle: 0,4mm Layers: 0,15mm Painting : acrylic paint (spray and brushe)
  4. 12 points
    How can the very latest, cutting-edge design software combine with a 5,000 year old manufacturing technique to deliver outstanding weight reduction opportunities? Designing for light-weight parts is becoming more important, and I’m a firm believer in the need to produce lighter weight, less over-engineered parts for the future. This is for sustainability reasons because we need to be using less raw materials and, in things like transportation, it impacts upon the energy usage of the product during it’s service life. Lighter products mean less fuel to move them around, which can make our fossil fuel reserves go further, or make more efficient use of the renewable energies that we’re now beginning to adopt. Generative Design (GD) is the very latest design software released by Autodesk and is now included in Fusion 360, which is at the heart of their "Future of Making Things" strategy for Design and Manufacturing. It changes the way we design things and can deliver very efficient designs that deliver structural performance with optimised use of material. The aerospace industry is expected to be one of the early adopters of this technology because in that industry the cost and environmental savings from improved fuel efficiency carry the greatest rewards. Also, I see interest from the automotive industry for the same fuel efficiency reasons, but in the long term the drive for lighter weight parts could benefit many industries, even those outside of transportation. Another example of the benefits of lighter weight alongside reduced material usage is that shipping costs for parts reduce as their weight reduces, which can therefore also deliver cost efficiencies. GD is targeted initially at metal parts where the biggest opportunity for light-weighting exists. The complex forms it generates though often means that parts conceived in this way cannot be made with conventional manufacturing routes. They therefore need to use Additive Manufacturing (AM) techniques to produce them. The route of using high energy, laser-based AM to do this comes with associated high costs because of the specialised set-up knowledge required together with expensive processing, and post processing, to deliver a quality-assured part. This project explores the possibility of a more cost-effective route to a metal GD part which, even though at this stage may be just used for a small quantity of evaluation prototypes, can act as an enabler for understanding the potential that GD has to offer. This is the baseline design for this project. It is an aluminium bracket design similar to those used in aerospace applications to mount control surfaces, and in this form has not been optimised for weight. This design would weigh 383 grams in the intended material, aluminium A356. After processing this through Generative Design in Fusion 360 it’s time to review and evaluate the many alternative design options presented and decide upon the design that is considered the most appropriate taking into the other factors that have an influence on design selection such as manufacturability, aesthetics etc. This was the design option chosen for this part and Fusion 360 was used to create the final version of the model. The bio-mimicry that’s evident in most of the designs created by GD is interesting to see, in this case the design of the part can be seen as essentially a swept I-beam (which engineers, especially those in construction, are taught is a strong section), but with tendon-like attachments back to the mounting points to carry the tensile loading that’s created by the applied loading conditions What GD does is to turn the standard design workflow that we’re familiar with on it’s head. Traditionally we design a part and then stress test it virtually to determine if it fulfils the required structural performance. Any failures seen during this process require an iterative loop back to the design to correct them. With GD the stress analysis is a core part of the design synthesis, and happens as the part design iterates, which means that the output at the end should meet the requirements of the intended loading requirements. The software is searching for an optimal solution where the stress is ideally evenly distributed across the part as can be seen above. To prove that everything is good with the finalised design this part has then been virtually tested again in Fusion 360 to confirm that the original loading requirements are still met So we've created our lightweight part design, and maybe now we need to produce that in aluminium A356 to do some physical testing, but don’t want the expense of using a metal AM process. What follows is a way of achieving this where FDM 3D printing can play a role as an “enabler” to help create the final parts in conjunction with a very old (if not ancient) manufacturing technique called investment casting. This technique is 5,000 years old according to Wikipedia. The company involved with casting this project is Sylatech who have been using Ultimaker 3D printers as part of their process for investment casting of prototype parts Sylatech took the .stl file of this model and used it to create a 3D print of the part on an Ultimaker 3 in PLA. This PLA part was then used as the pattern in the investment casting process where it is submerged in plaster under vacuum conditions to ensure that all air is excluded from the mould and creates an accurate reproduction of the surfaces of the part. The picture below shows a display box which demonstrates the set up of the 3D printed parts partially encased in plaster. Once the plaster has hardened the casting box is put into a furnace at very high temperature in order to burn out the PLA, leaving behind a cavity into which molten aluminium can be cast. After solidification of the metal, and cooling of the mould, the plaster is broken away from the parts, and then they can be quickly and easily removed from the material feed gate resulting in these aluminium A356 versions of the PLA original. The final part weighs 122 grams which is a weight saving of 68% over the original baseline part, which shows the potential that GD has to make significant reductions in weight and material usage. Using this method we now we have an excellent quality physical part made very quickly in the final intended material in order to commence some physical testing.This is a different route to get to that physical test part in metal at a fraction of the cost of having it metal additively manufactured. It also shows how a brand new, cutting edge piece of software that only became available in May 2018 can combine with FDM 3D printing (which many people still see as a new technology even though it’s been around for over 20 years) and a 5,000 year old manufacturing technique to deliver potentially huge benefits in weight and material usage. Using the investment casting route in this case study is why I chose the title for this article, and shows that we can effectively go “Back To (Deliver) The Future”. Do you see the need for lighter weight parts in what you do, and can you see the potential benefits of using Generative Design and this method of producing metal parts? I'd welcome comments, suggestions, and discussion about any aspects of the above article, the next steps that I'm looking at are how this process could scale up to batch production of the parts using 3D printing techniques that could support low volume production quantities
  5. 11 points
    I'm working on a plugin that changes the new GUI in Cura to be more settings-centric by adding back the concept of a sidebar. If you can't get used to the floating panels in the new GUI, there will soon be a plugin for you. While rearranging things into the sidebar, I am also taking the chance to rearrange some other bits: move X-ray from the Preview tab to the Prepare tab in my opinion it makes more sense to detect/show errors *before* slicing reunite the Open button with the Toolbar Fitts's law suggests keeping distances between small items smaller; I just dislike having UI elements in all corners of the UI. add the same menu and sidebar between Prepare and Preview so things don't jump around The plugin is currently in the state of a proof-of-concept; there is currently no way to switch between the Recommended and Custom sidebar, and there is no way to change the materials/printcores in the sidebar. When all standard functionality is in its new place I'll post a prerelease here before publishing the plugin to the Marketplace. If you can't wait, you can check out the code here: https://github.com/fieldOfView/SidebarGUIPlugin Things I'm considering: integrate the action panel into the sidebar move job name into sidebar move standard view items into view options/legend area The plugin is a spiritual successor to the Compact Prepare Stage plugin, though it was written from scratch with a different end-goal in mind. That plugin will not be developed further. Update: a beta is available below:https://community.ultimaker.com/topic/26014-sidebar-gui-for-cura-40/?do=findComment&comment=229800
  6. 11 points
    Here’s my new printer cabinets to keep noise in my office down and to store them in a neat & tidy way. Made by my favorite furniture maker. PSU, cables, Raspberry Pi with OctoPrint are stowed in the drawers underneath the printers. The printers can slide out for filament change or other maintenance. The doors have gaskets so the noise can’t escape.
  7. 10 points
    Here's my entry in the contest, as the Netherlands are big in Logistics I decided to design a set of material handling equipment (MHE) I made 7 vehicle types, each with a variety in loads to carry, making a total of 22 unique pieces. Looking from top to bottom; NAT ; narrow aisle truck (man up) FLT-2T ; 2 ton electro forklift RT ; 1.6 ton Reachtruck OPT: orderpicktruck with 3 rolcages Tow ; Towtruck FLT-4t-; 4Ton Gas powered forklift FLT_10T ; 10Ton diesel forklift Print the files as they are, laying flat, I printed them quickly in PLA, using a 0.4 nozzle and 0.15 layer. You can find all files here on YouMagine, including a step file so you can make any changes in most CAD software, if you make any new variants please share them back.... https://www.youmagine.com/designs/material-handling-equipment-scale-1-100-architect-design-contest-vehicles and to promote the contest a bit I also uploaded here; https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2975986
  8. 9 points
    I just finished this. It was a multi-part print for ease of painting. Some of it I am not sure what happened...but hey, it is purty....And, I am unanimous in that ? Test Render Parts Finished piece
  9. 8 points
    Ultimaker has a long history of working closely with our users, and this has worked out really well for both sides. A particularly involved and knowledgeable user group can be found right here, in our community of 3D printing experts. Someone who has been in the spotlight before because of his contributions is @Anders Olsson . If you think that name sounds familiar, you are probably thinking of the ‘Olsson Block’. The Olsson Block is a response to the hot end we developed for the Ultimaker 2 and was later officially integrated in the Ultimaker 2+. Anders didn't stop there and continued to develop a Ruby nozzle which is wear-resistant. Fast forward a few years later, and we have a Print Core CC Red. It was time I sat down with Anders again and talk about these ruby inserts. - Anders Olsson during the Olsson Block campaign. Q: Anders, who are you and how may people have heard about you? A: I work as a Research Engineer at Uppsala University and I am the inventor of the Olsson Block for the Ultimaker 2+ series. Some people might also have heard of me printing boron carbide (link) composites for nuclear shielding. (Boron carbide is an extremely hard boron-carbon ceramic which falls just behind cubic boron nitride and diamond as one of the hardest known materials). Q: With the Olsson Block you could swap nozzles within a few seconds. Why did you continue your research and develop a more expensive wear-resistant nozzle, when replacing a worn down nozzle is so fast and easy? A: For some materials that may have been sufficient, but Boron Carbide is so abrasive, a brass nozzle can easily be destroyed in less than one print. Secondly, we wanted to prevent brass-contamination in the printed material in case we wanted to recycle it. Q: How did a Ruby nozzle end up in a print core? A: There is a type of enriched boron carbide which has much better performance than natural Boron carbide but it’s also much more expensive. By using the expensive material only in areas where it is really needed one can make components which has much better performance without becoming extremely and unnecessarily expensive. 3D printing - dual extrusion gives us these options. We really liked the reliability of the print cores and the quickest way to bring that reliability and the wear-resistance we needed together, was to make a prototype of a print core with a modified block to fit an Olsson Ruby nozzle. - Print core CC Red shown at TCT show. Q: Can you explain why you chose Ruby in the first place from all available options? A: Ruby (Alumina/Corundum) is a great material. It is chemically stable, not toxic or dangerous if you somehow wear it down (which for example, Cemented Tungsten Carbide would be in our case). What you also have to look for is availability and consistency. Ruby was the hardest material that could reliably be sourced with the dimensions I wanted. A scale to quantify hardness is the ‘Knoop’ scale. To put Ruby in perspective of other materials with a Knoop value, Copper is 163, Ruby is 2100 and Diamond is 7000. There are not that many materials between Ruby and Diamond. Diamond was too expensive and not feasible as a solution. Q: While using a Print Core CC Red, have you experienced any downsides with printing non-abrasive materials? A: I personally haven’t seen any disadvantages using the Print Core CC Red for any materials. I’ve also tried other abrasive materials besides Boron Carbide which worked fine. Q: Why is the Print Core CC Red 0.6mm? A: Abrasive materials often have fibers in them for reinforcement. A 0.6mm diameter gives a good balance between printing speed and detail, while being large enough so it won’t clog due to the fibers some materials contain. Q: Can you quantify how long a Print Core CC Red should last while processing abrasive materials? A: So far we have not been able to detect any wear with any commercially available materials. We recently cut open a nozzle that had printed about 25kg of carbon fiber and it showed no measurable wear inside or on the Ruby. To put things in perspective; Brass nozzles will typically last: 0,3kg, Stainless nozzles: 1kg, Hardened steel: 3kg of common carbon filled materials before print quality will suffer badly. - On these photo’s you can see that abrasive material not only wears out the nozzle diameter, but also shaves the brass from the outside shoulders. There is an important side note though, before you might consider Ruby as indestructible: although it’s wear-resistant Ruby can also be fragile. A user should avoid hitting it with hard objects and avoid using a flame cleaning the nozzle, because brass easily deforms when overheated and quick temperature changes stresses the ruby. Q: For some readers, abrasive materials may be a new subject matter. Can you explain what it is that makes a material abrasive when you are not sure which print core to use? A: Materials which are hard in a solid piece (like metals, ceramics and carbon fibers) will generally also wear down the nozzle. In general one should assume that any filament with a filler will cause more wear on the nozzle, except if the filler is obviously much softer than brass (like wood). Example: Glow in the dark filament has a ceramic powder to make it glow. Which makes it abrasive. Q: What are you using the Print core CC Red for yourself at the moment? A: Apart from printing with Boron carbide, we’re now exploring other fillers which stops different types of radiation, which are magnetic, which are electrically conductive or which can be fired into a ceramic object after being printed. Part of the goal is to combine several properties in the same object in three dimensions, which can only really be done with a dual material printer like Ultimaker 3 or Ultimaker S5. None of these materials can reliably be printed without a Print core CC Red. -- And that concludes my interview with Anders Olsson. I hope this has been an interesting read and you have discovered something new about the Print core CC Red. Since Ultimaker products were never compatible with highly abrasive materials, how to work with them may be a new subject for some of you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to post them below! More questions about abrasive materials? We'll host an AMA (Ask Me Anything) soon with 2 experts of Owens Corning (the manufacturer of XSTRAND) on 31st of October. Mark it in your agenda ? And finally, in just a few weeks the print cores will be available at your local reseller. If you want to be kept up to date and receive an email when it becomes available, please follow the link below and be the first to get one! Keep me updated about the Print Core CC Red
  10. 8 points
    OK, so there's quite a discussion going on in the Cura 3.5 thread about quality control and testing of Cura (and related firmware, etc.) and I thought I would start this new thread to make a particular point and give people a place to discuss it and related matters. Here goes... For various reasons, the products UM make evolve. The hardware is fairly static (years) but the software is a much more dynamic thing (months). The software is continually getting enhanced with new features and capabilities, old bugs getting squashed, etc. Almost always, each release brings not only goodies but new bugs and incompatibilities with existing platforms and OSes. Obviously, each new release needs a lot of testing on all 3 supported platforms (with their various versions of OS and drivers, etc.) before it can be considered trustworthy. We know that UM do a lot of testing. They could probably do more but even if they did a lot more, it wouldn't catch every bug and issue. The problem space is too big with too many variables. So this is where the community of Cura users can step up and make a real difference. Hands up those of you who use Cura with a non-UM printer and never bother to try the beta that is made available before each release. [Quite a lot of people looking a bit sheepish out there.] Why not try it? Why not give something back to UM? I'm not talking about money. All it takes is a bit of disk space and some time to install the beta and try out slicing and (ideally) printing a few of your projects. If all looks good, fine, you've done your bit. If there's a problem, create an issue on github (or post on the forum) and that's even more valuable. Yes, the software (Cura) is free for everybody to use but if you're using it on a non-UM printer then you really should be helping with the beta testing because, at the end of the day, that helps everyone, yourself included. If you don't bother to try the beta and the new release doesn't work well for you, who's problem is that? Yours! Of course, it would be nice if those people who have purchased a UM printer could try the betas also if they possibly can but I don't feel that they are in anyway as obliged as the non-UM printer owners to do so. So to sum up, the Cura user community can make a huge difference to the quality of each Cura release. Why be a freeloader when you can be a valuable member of the community?
  11. 8 points
    This is something I've been working on for a while in between other projects. Only a specific sequence of steps will allow access to its secret compartment. Check out the YouTube video linked below to see it in action. Designed in Sketchup and printed on my UM3, it's made up of 36 individual pieces which snap together. I used a variety of filaments: Ultimaker Nylon, Transparent and Black Ultimaker ABS, Orange, Green and Gray Faberdashery PLA, True Lagoon and Glacier Blue YouTube Video, Project X
  12. 8 points
    We did a 9 day print recently on the Ultimaker S5. I love how this turned out. Admittedly, that tail is so fragile, I'm a little afraid to breathe whenever I walk by it. We've got the S5 set up on a custom rolling cart we built with some built in storage areas. The STL is here: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:284409
  13. 7 points
    Hi guys, At the end of this year, I would like to share my design of a multi-nozzle tool head. A year ago I've posted some results of dual material 3d printing on my DIY Ultimaker 2 on G+ ( G+ link) I said there I used a different approach which has not been implemented (at least I didn’t find) elsewhere. Well, the nozzle changing idea I came up with was inspired by the multi-lens microscope (where three or four lenses are distributed around an axis, mounted on a plate. To change from one to another, one can simply rotate the whole plate so that the lens engaging is pointing towards the object). Took this idea, I replace the lenses with nozzles. For example, given three E3D kraken style heat breaks, heat blocks and nozzles distributes around a slightly leaned axis, at an even angle. The axis is leaned at a certain angle to ensure the nozzle engaged will be pointing perpendicularly towards the heated bed. Then the heat breaks will be inserted and mounted into a single heatsink. At the top of the heatsink a large 6807zz bearing is inserted to ensure the rotation with the given axis. Actually we use two bearings for the axis to avoid wobbling when performing the rotation. But a free rotation is not what we want, for the engaged nozzle will rotates away by fiction. To implement the intermittent rotation, I used the Geneva mechanism, as you can see the Geneva wheel is fixed in the back side of the heatsink. So that the drive gear rotates, drives the Geneva wheel rotates. And when the engaged nozzle is printing, Geneva wheel is constrained so that the rotation freedom is eliminated. To drive the gear, many approaches can be used. For simplicity, I took the mechanical way (inspired by the Ultimaker 3). I used a rack to drive the gear. So that if the rack is pushed from either sides, the drive gear rotates. To do that, two rods must be mounted on each sides of the printer, so that if the tool head moves towards the end of the rod, the rack will be pushed. Then a printed pivot part will connects these components together. The pivot part is also good for holding all the wires and Bowden tubes, which will be connected to the nozzles. Then comes with the printed enclosure and two fans. The left axial fan is for cooling the heatsink, and the right blower fan is for cooling the printed parts. Finally, at the bottom a sheet metal piece is mounted to the enclosure to prevent oozing from un-used nozzle. Also a printed shroud guides the air flow out from the blower fan to the printed parts. Currently the whole tool head design can be used as a module for UM2. The rack can be pushed by two rods which are fixed on two sides of the wall of the UM2 machine. As you may see here currently only two nozzles have been mounted. The repeat accuracy is impressive, I’ve printed a lot of dual-extrusion models, such as the Gyro, the traffic cone, the hand-drill and also a strandbeest I designed on thingiverse (https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3263196). I’m working on the hardware and software to make three nozzle printing possible. Also, I’m trying to make this design more compact. The heatsink part needs to be simplified, improved, for easy making. And I have not give a good name for this tool head. So please help me to improve it! Any ideas, comments, names are appreciated! Also I’ve some spared parts, I’ll be very happy to help you to try this out. Best, XJ
  14. 7 points
    Well, that is what I am calling them. Best name I can come up with. Feel a bit like the old Chinese guy in 'Tremors' that can only come up with 'graboids' for a name. First, appropriate thanks to @smartavionics for even putting this infill into Cura because most of the infills will block light getting into the shell and/or letting light pass through. Second, a lot of people think I am a bit of the putz becauses I am just blunt. Ain't a mean bone in my body, but, well, just blunt. Should have seen me 4 years ago before the Asperger's diagnosis and then getting help in modifying some of that. Sometimes I over compensate and then people get weird because they want to read other intentions. So, why bring this up> Instead of focusing on my communications limitations, try to see the information I want to share from nearly 30 years of CG work and 40 years as a commercial artist. I take a lot of my experiences as a traditional artist and reinterpret into CG aspects, including printing. So, this is an expansion of a reply sent in a private message. And, I want to share the information with anybody that wants to play. It does require some modeling capability and planning. To get this effect as seen in this image: I do the following: For the transparents, I am using one shell. But, because I am using a 0.8 nozzle, it is a very thick shell. I am also using big layer heights. 0.3 to 0.53 depending on materials This is solved by creating a copied mesh and cutting away the parts that I do not want. In this case, the dress and not the body. Then manually 'thickening' of that mesh in all directions. I am using 3DS MAX to do this with the 'push' modifier. This will push the vertices/faces. in the direction of the 'vertex/face normals.' this means a thicker 'shell' around the main model. In this case I am pushing the faces and vertices just a small amount of 0.5 or less to encase the model in Cura after merging into placement. When importing, I use 'per model' settings to select mesh type and then 'modify settings for infill of other model." Edit: Again, thanks, in this case, to @ahoeben and @bagel-orb for this getting put into place. I think I got that correct. This lets me change density of infill for specific areas. In this case, the dress. Then I merge and slice. Then for solid models like this image: I do this: For the solids, I am using default shells as I am not worried about transparencies. But, in this case, still using the 0.8 and still getting 'hairy' prints. I just honestly have not taken the time to work that out as I am trying to get as many prints before surgery. Still using layer heights. 0.3 to 0.53 depending on materials. Will get around to using 0.4 nozzles soon on these. But the 0.8 make the print much faster. Also, kinda like the 'beading effect.' Infill overlap is basically a horizontal expansion on the infill and will not expand vertically Again, this is solved by creating a copied mesh and cutting away the parts that I do not want. In this case, the dress and not the body. Then manually 'thickening' of that mesh in all directions. I am using 3DS MAX to do this with the 'push' modifier. This will push the vertices/faces. in the direction of the 'vertex/face normals.' this means a thicker 'shell' around the main model. In this case I am pushing the faces and vertices just a small amount of 0.5 or less to minimize the amount of 'infill poking out' from the main model. When importing, I use 'per model' settings to remove all shell structures of that pushed model. This will only print the very small mount of infill. Then I merge and slice. For this model: I am just using the 0.8 single shell. But the walls are thin because it is a 'hollowed out' model. Nothing special other than choosing the infill colours or density. So, there ya go. That is it in a nutshell.
  15. 7 points
    So's, I goes to da Doc...Says something is veddy wrong... Doc says, "Well, let us see inside." And, oh my....what we found!! This is actually my skull from a recent CT scan the VA had made. Gaze into mine hollow eyes....;... Now we's peeks inside..... Rut roh Raggy......A fetid swamp me innards be!! Bats in me belfry!!!!! the original Batty Concept Edit, I will be putting something together on how I did this....but it really is my skull.....just did not scan the front part of me face ?
  16. 7 points
    The S5 knocked this one out of the park. I made a crane (1 meter long when at full extension). Client was happy and now producing two official copies. Making a couple of changes to make the final models be spot on. Edit: Made with UM White TPLA.
  17. 7 points
    After some trial and error with sizes I think I have come up with what works best for me with building details on the UM3. Attached a couple photos of before and after to show the end result. For vertical extrusions out from the face of the building I use 0.6mm width due to my nozzle size, for internal thin cuts that indent into the model I use 0.4mm width and for horizontal indentations and extrusions I use a height of 0.2mm. Windows I usually cut in 0.5mm with a 0.6mm offset to show the window frames when possible and for the thin elements I extrude or cut in 0.2mm just to show the facade panels details, this 0.2mm just shows enough of a detail to make it readable. Sometimes in the models I can't show all the horizontal elements due to the 0.6mm size but am able to capture enough detail for a solid representation of the facade. This model was in 1:500 scale and took a solid 3 days to print. I am using Form Futura atlas support in a polybox, which has never given me any issues and standard Ultimaker PVA settings. The balconies and verandah were printed separately. Hope this all makes sense. If anyone out there has any tweaks so I can add more detail, I would love to hear it.
  18. 7 points
    We're open for entries! Presenting an idea, an architectural design or something as big as an urban project isn't easy. A scaled model can really help to get your idea across. But besides your main model, there is more needed to get your idea across vividly! An architect regularly uses various entourage sets to help bring these ideas and models to live. At Ultimaker we think that 3D printing can have a significant impact on the projects and daily routine of an architect. There is so much more you can focus and work on while the Ultimaker is doing the labor for you. We're happy to see many architects embrace this technology and elevate their business. But.. we think we could make your lives even a little bit easier! Because just like any manufacturing technique, 3D printing has design guidelines. Guidelines that can make the difference between a flawless 3D print and a troublesome 3D print. We figured we could help by providing free entourage sets for architects which are designed for 3D printing and are free to use for your projects. Think of theme-packs like vehicles for urban planning, people and trees. But I can imagine that which vehicles you need may depend on your project because European vehicles might be different from American vehicles, and within a certain city or building you may need different types of people. And this is where the contest comes in ? Separated in 3 segments we would like to ask for your help to design and provide the best entourage sets. There are some rules though: - One set should contain a minimum of 6 different models - It should be designed for 3D printing, like no overhangs and it should be printable in single extrusion (without PVA).* - It should be submitted in a 1:100 scale so it is easy to scale up or down depending on ones project - You can submit as many entries as you want - Ultimakers and the winning entries will be made available to use for free as entourage sets by Ultimaker - You can only submit your own design - It would be appreciated if your entourage set is based on real-world 'subjects' and if you add a descriptive title like 'American trucks and large vehicles'. 'People set walking' or 'Adults and kids'. - Each segment will run for a period of 3 weeks - Got a submission? You can add an STL to your reply below. (It's also possible to add it to 3D files, make sure to add a link to the replies below. We only review the replies). * -As an example, when designing our example vehicle set we initially had a little detail in each tire that represented a rim. A nice tough we thought. But upon printing, this little detail made the first layer unreliable and therefore the whole print. We removed the detail and can now run a full set without any concerns. Download: Ultimaker example Entourage - Vehicles.zip The Start. We're open for entries now and looking forward seeing what you will submit. Each theme will run for 3 weeks, which means the vehicle theme will run until July 9th. When the contests are over, we will make sure the winning entries are available in this architect sub-forum and Ultimaker will continue to add to these entourage sets if necessary. Of course, we hope that everyone who submits a set will do the same. We'll start with vehicles, then people and finally trees. The Prize. So, what can you win? In each contest, there are 2 prizes to win. First prize; a large filament pack. Containing 10 reels of filament; white PLA. Second prize, a small filament pack. Containing 5 reels of filament; white PLA. The Jury. @Stefania Dinea and I, (@SandervG) are jury. We will look for the design for 3D printing element (remember, we want to make your life easier!) and your choice of design/subject, i.e., which set we think will be used most eventually.
  19. 6 points
    Hello! You may have heard stories about glass plate having one side which brings you slightly better adhesion compared to the other side, or perhaps you have experienced this first hand yourself. Allow me to provide you with some background information and some instructions to figure out which side you should be printing on and which side you should use if you want to add an adhesion sheet. The difference is first introduced during production. When our glass plates are being made, near the end of the production line there is a hardening process. During the hardening process, the plates float on a layer of tin and are heated from above. This creates a difference between the two sides. There are two main factors that ensure good adhesion to the glass plate: wetting and flatness. Wetting is the ability of a liquid to maintain contact with a solid surface. Lower surface tension means better wetting. The non-tin side (i.e. upside during the hardening process) has a lower surface tension than the tin side. Therefore the non-tin side is recommended to print on. If the sticker that is on your glass plate fell off, you can do a simple small test to identify which side is which by placing a drop of water on both sides of the glass. (Not at the same time though). The non-tin side, the side you want to be printing on, is hydrophilic and the water disperses. On the tin side, the water will form a droplet (this side is hydrophobic). If you want to use an adhesion sheet, it is recommended to stick it to this side. Hope this helps! Let me know below if you have any further questions!
  20. 6 points
    We Printing Buildings. Usually it is only exterior. Please see the pictures
  21. 6 points
    This was a work project that I decided to print myself. It's a really great model!! The original was going to be investment cast for a Bentley owners club hood ornament in the USA. Printed at 0.1 in innofil white pla pro1 with ultimaker PVA support. Build time was just short of 2 days.
  22. 6 points
    Howdy y'all. ? I run the Texas A&M University College of Architecture MakerPlace (it's a mouthful... we just call it the MakerPlace) and we bought six Ultimaker S5s to further expand our printing capabilities here. Now we have eighteen UM3s, six S5s, two Fusion3 F400-Ss and three FormLabs Form 2s. There are also two industrial-type machines that I do not directly manage but often have to talk to students/customers about: Stratasys Eden and a 3D Systems Projet 460 Plus. We're (the MakerPlace) quite new still and the purpose of the space seems to change week by week. When first I started here, the MakerPlace had a FlashForge Dreamer, a MakerBot Replicator 5th Gen, a MakerBot Replicator 2 and a Cube Trio. Half of them were down at any given point and when it was time for finals, we had students wait up to 3 weeks to get their 3D prints because of how backed up we were. Right now, we serve the students of our college and the main way people outside the college hears about us is through word of mouth. We also have a few other services that any maker space should such as vinyl cutting, tool rental and tons of table space to work. In the future, I hope we will have more specialized tools in the space like an Inventables Carvey or similar. The college has two other spaces that encompass the rest of what students need to make projects: the Woodshop and the FabLab (AKA the Ranch). The Woodshop is a large space with hand tools and power tools galore with 7 laser cutters while the Ranch has the huge tools like a new HAAS CNC machining tool, 2 full size CNC routers, CNC plasma cutting, a CNC water jet and a small warehouse that faculty members rent for XL projects. Now back to 3D printing... In the Fall of 2017 we printed around 50kg and Spring 2018 we printed closer to 80kg. We mostly print in PLA or PLA blends with the occasional co-polyester or composite blend in there. We get a lot of our filament from a supplier down the street from us, Essentium Materials. They've been a fantastic partner to work with! We use an in-house built queue (the "Dashboard") and 3DPrinterOS internally to manage the 18 UM3s and we're waiting for the S5s to be integrated into their software. Students bring us their STL files that they modeled in Revit, Rhino (most popular), or SketchUp. Then we do a little consultation to make sure their 3D print will come out like they want it and then we queue them up. Most of the time, models fit on the UM3. But last semester (spring 2018) we found that we had a line out the (virtual) door for prints on the Fusion3 printers. Next thing I knew, the S5 was announced and I knew we'd be expanding this summer, so I pitched it. The addition of the six Ultimaker S5 3D printers not only gives us more printers to run more jobs on, but we also have an increased capacity for larger jobs that would normally have to queue for the Fusion3. We've had the S5s for around 3 weeks now and they've certainly impressed me. Here's some thoughts about a few things... "What's in the box": The packaging for the S5s was pretty nice, but I think the UM3 did it better with zip tying the linear rods together to prevent shifting that happened to two of the S5s I recieved. I had to realign linear rods on my last two machines which turns out is not that difficult but I still had to do it. The Aluminum plate is not included yet which is fine by me as we primarily print in PLA that only needs some purple glue stick on glass to print well. The Tough PLA that comes with the printer is really easy to print with and comes off the bed nicely. I printed several large things (around 18 hour prints) with no supports to begin testing how well it does for long prints and the material looks great. And it also comes with a 750g spool of PVA. I prefer the 350g spools as we live in central Texas and currently the humidity inside is 47%. (PVA (and PLA for that matter) does not like high-humidity environments.) It regularly goes above 50% and it's just lovely. ? On that note, I store filament in dry-boxes with a bunch of loose silica beads in the bottom which gets down below 15% RH. I don't know specifically how low it goes as the sensors I got on Amazon only go down to 15%! Ha. I also have a PrintDry system which I use to dry out filament that's left out for a few days. Print quality: I have seen and expect these to print very similarly to the UM3 on every front and every combination of materials (PLA/PVA/Breakaway/etc). We typically print at 0.2mm layers for speed but go down to 0.1mm layers as needed by the models. The Form2s print at 0.1mm regularly and go down to 0.025mm as needed. About 50% of the architectural models we print are massings printed at 0.2mm layers and around 80mm/s that the students print in white PLA and sometimes go sand/finish in their studios. We have had a small number of failed prints on the S5 so far, several of which were because of the bug in 5.0.13 firmware that caused some false-positives in the flow sensor. I have not had any clogged nozzles yet nor "spaghetti" parts. I do not consider these printers to be "fast" by any means. The Fusion3's default speed in Simplify3D is 100mm/s and I turned up the speed in Cura for the S5 to 70-80mm/s both at 0.2mm layers and turn up the temperature +10-15C. It makes a big difference. I haven't tested how fast they could print if I turned both speed and temp. up a lot, though. The students need consistency and I found that changing a few things in the "Fast" profile and basically renaming it "Super Fast" cuts off a lot of time and some material usage. Saves money and material! Features: Better bed leveling means the nozzles touch about 12 points on the build plate to get a better "picture" of the levelness of the beds. It does take a lot longer than the UM3. I have not had to manually level them yet, but I also didn't level the UM3s when I got them for several weeks. I anticipate the same for these guys. Filament flow detection and the new feeder mech. is super awesome so far. It's saved several prints from the end of spools. It's so easy to insert material into the new feeder compared to the UM3! No more hurt fingers due to super-strong springs! Just lift the little lever and slide the filament in. Love it. The Touchscreen and new menus are beautiful. It's like using a smartphone. The new menus have pictures of actions to take during, for example, changing filament and that's fantastic. Also I love the "Printer tasks" alert. But... we didn't necessarily buy these for any of these features. One of the main reasons we bought them is to keep our process as close to the same to save on time and effort. It is a lot more effort to switch to Simplify3D when we need to print something on the Fusion3 and change materials on it etc etc than to change machines in Cura. Sure we could easily set up Cura to run the Fusion3s but then each student worker will have to make sure we're using the same version of Cura with the same start/stop gcode, and other similar settings to ensure the jobs getting done consistently. It's much easier to not do that and have the "Simplify3D computer" to slice models for the Fusion3s. Irks... I've had a few strange things happen that were easily solved. Linear rods not aligned when 2/6 printers were delivered. This was solved by contacting support and them sending me a link to Ultimaker NA Support's articles (thanks @fbrc8-erin!). I used a set of calipers to align the rods with the frame. Firmware update bug. The 5.0.19 firmware update just happened and 3/6 of the printers hung on the update process. It had the screen that said "installing update" but stayed there for hours. I was told that this happens sometimes due to a bug and after about 10 minutes of being on that screen to turn off the printer and turn it back on then do the update again. I can confirm this worked and we're all good. Banding on the Z axis. This is probably due to the location of the printers and the materials being used, but I'm still going to mention it. We printed some really tall buildings with 0% infill and no top layers to save on material when I noticed how much the layer lines were showing. It's probably due to vibrations in the structure and I'm going to add some foam padding underneath the printers to solve this. Also, white PLA is really bad at showing these lines and that's what we mainly print in! Whew. That said, please let me know if you have questions about the MakerPlace or the Ultimaker S5 or something else in the post or anything that I missed. ?️
  23. 6 points
    My new rug. Just for fun.
  24. 6 points
  25. 6 points
    Another feedback is to have the list of Print settings (windows/drop down) flexible so you can enlarge it. A expend all settings button as well.
  26. 6 points
    Hello everyone, I have been away for a while being busy with well, work. However, I never had a chance to brag and show some of my work both from work and personal portfolio. Some from the work portfolio is done by myself, some together or exclusively by interns. In case I have not been clear before, I work as an architect for Sweco Architects at the mother ship in Stockholm Sweden. One of my daily tasks for the past two years was to handle the in-house fablab. So here are some photos of the works we have left around in the office - the really cool models always end up with the client (but what is new?) A little preview from work: Personal Portfolio - I use a lot of parametric design and 3D printing to exercise and build up my own skills in my free time - and also to be able to share with the community developments, therefore not implying a client and or her/his secrecy restrictions. Prints from the community such as ultimaker ad thinginverse:
  27. 6 points
    Hi, I have created this thread to keep an overview on which materials are available through Cura as part of our Material Alliance. We can add a short description of each material so you have at least a basic idea of its properties. Do realize this is a summary, if you want to know specific properties please visit each filament specific technical data sheet. I'll also include a link to each individual thread, in case you want to discuss a material specifically. Questions? Feel free to post them below! This thread will be updated over time. BASF - PET CF. Carbon fiber, high dimensional stability, low moisture absorption, heat-resistant of 74ºC - PP GF30 . Glass fiber (30%), extreme stiffness, chemical resistance. Clariant - Clariant PA6/66 FR. Flame retardant. - Clariant PA6/66 GF20 FR . Glass Fiber (20%), flame retardant. - Clariant Pet-G. Chemical resistance, good layer adhesion, heat-resistant ~80ºC. Colorfabb - Color On Demand, PLA in 100+ RAL colors at 2kg MOQ. - woodFill , 70% PLA and 30% wood provides a wood-like texture DSM - Arnitel ID 2045 . ShoreD 34 hardness, flexible TPC. - Arnitel ID 2060 HT . High performance TPC, high temperature, chemical resistance. - Novamid ID1030 CF10 PA6/66. Carbon fibers (10%). Dupont - Zytel 3D1000FL. Ultralow shrinkage. - Hytrel 3D41000FL, shoreD 60 hardness. Eastman - Amphora AM3300. Low-odor, styrene-free material. ElogioAM - Facilan C8 . 3D print almost without layers, good interlayer bonding. Igus GmbH - Iglidur I150 . Self-lubricating, wear resistant. - Iglidur I180. Self-lubricating, wear resistant. Lehvoss - Luvocom 3F PAHT 9825 NT. Unreinforced PAHT, low warping. Matterhackers - NylonG . Glass fiber (~20%). - NylonX. Carbon fiber (~20%). Owens Corning - XSTRAND GF30 PP . Glass fiber (30%). - XSTRAND GF30 PA6 . Glass fiber (30%).
  28. 6 points
    I am working on an exciting plugin that I am calling Mesh Tools. In the GIF, I have loaded three models. The top right mesh (normals.stl) has its normals reversed, because my modeler of choice has a different winding order. That's why it is showing overhang on top of the model (silly Cura...). The top left model (leaky.stl) has a hole in it. It won't print well. The bottom two cubes were loaded as a single STL (dual.stl). No amount of ungrouping will get them apart. The UI of this plugin will change before it gets released, but I wanted to show you some exciting preliminary results.
  29. 6 points
    Term: "Greeble". "A fine detailing added to the surface of a larger object that makes it appear more complex, and therefore more visually interesting. It usually gives the audience an impression of increased scale." Been used in model making since forever. It was requested that I show how I do the greebling and design of my spaceship models. Basically a form of 'hard ops' to added details that look modeled in, but are not directly modeled sometimes. The idea is to pick and choose what works in the moment as well as planning. The following will take you through the steps in broad terms using 3DS MAX as well as 3D Coat. I use the combination because I am very facile with 3DS MAX and can make certain geometries quickly, but modeling things on a mesh level is not always easy or the way to go. I can then then take that into 3D Coat for detailing and making use of voxels for painless and fast booleans as well as being able to stamp in details quickly as well as use their built in set of nice greebles. It is also flexible enough that I can even add additional super structures in very quickly or discard the attempts are I go along. The first thing that happened with this model is that I got an idea from a pic I saw of an unfinished airplane surfing the web one day. On the left is the quick modeling in 3DS MAX from memory. I liked the idea rather than try to make the actual object. This is the actual base model in all its simplicity in 3DS MAX. Yep, that is all the polygons I started with. Then I added a subdivion modifier called meshsmooth to take off the hard edges. Some tutorials say to use the 'Turbosmooth' for this. I differ in that for modeling purposes. Meshsmooth offers more options as well as better visual feedback when doing real details. Turbosmooth is designed to be a lightweight modifier that can be used for animation without draining the system. You can see how it rounded many edges. But, since it is a subdivion modifier, it takes on polygon and makes four for every iteration you apply. It grows exponentially as you apply iterations. One becomes four, fourn becomes 16, 16 becomes 64, etc. The idea is to be very careful in mesh based modeling as it can quickly outrun your memory and crash the program or, even your system. I try to keep it at 2 iterations, but will go to three on occasion. As I developed the idea further, I abandoned symmetry for a slight bit of asymmetry in overall design. This will become more apparent as we go along here. In the back end, I used 8 sided cylinders to start to make the engine exhaust and vent controls. I used a series of bevels of polygons going into the cylinders and individual polygons for the vent controls going out from the edges of the cylinders. Now, to make things easier, I used instances of the cylinders. They are all the same, but the center one has been turned just to remove monotony. I also started to add in details like these purple things that would just be a bit of a pain to model in. This is a good reason for planning what you will do in MAX vs. 3D Coat or any voxel based program. This is the beginning of the asymmetry I spoke of. More will come as the idea develops. I try not to get to wedded to an idea in detail at the beginning as I am designing on the fly here and no real plan. Overall form, yes, but I prefer for the details to flow organically as I go along. I approach it rather like sketching. Underneath, I made a hangar bay. The idea is that this area is for personal shuttles while the giant long part on the side above is for actual loading and unloading of freight. At this point, I was going for a Deep Space Freighter in concept. Here I am still adding pieces that are being made separately. The light blue will be added to the model while the green will become subtractions for windows. Even the windows on the bridge are asymmetrical in layout. Other side as I further developed the idea. Since I was thinking deep space runs for the ship, the big honkin' green box on the lower rear of the ship is for an arboretum while the other windows are not following the exact same path. They have a different set of geometries to work around. But, the arboreatum was a thought of giving crew a place to relax in a bit of contained nature. Then before leaving MAX, I made copies of the engine ports and inserted them further to subtract and provide surfaces for further detailing once I get to using voxels in 3D coat. Now, we are in 3D coat. The pink plane in the middle is for symmetry operations. I did want a certain amount of symmetry, with minor deviations to accommodate the overall design. On the left side is my tool set and on the right side are a group of brushes that I purchased off Gumroad. I found them looking for cool stuff for Blender; whenever I get around to learning it. And, brush packs like this can be used in 3D Coat as well as other programs. they made great 'stamping' details. In this case I am using a pack called Scifi hard ops. At this point, I have added the engine ports and the, at one time, purple boxes to the ship just below the bridge area. Voxels make this very easy and fast. I have reptile scale patterns, ornamental designs and other brush alphas to facilitate a variety of design needs. On the far right of the picture on the face of the engine area, you can see the first of the stampings I am doing to create a greebled effect of machinery and panels on the surface of the ship. In this case, I am using the extrude tool and use it to either raise details or cut in details. I am also going to use them to add more superstructure to the ship. This is just another view of the rear of the engine compartments as I am starting to add details. This is further down the road, still using my toolset on the left and the brush alphas on the right to add more detail. If you look just fore of the engine in this picture and the same area on the image above, you can see that I have actually used the stamping tools to create whole new geometry just forward the engine area. This is one of the advantages of using this method. Voxels are very 'plastic' and, you can up the amount used as you go along as it stretches them out. But it offered me a great deal of freedom in furthering the design on the fly. You do not have the limitations of mesh when operating this way. At this point, I got rid of the silly thin piece down the middle and added a thicker, more robust structure and then used some of the 3D greeble models that came with the program. One of the flexibilities is that I can also make my own 3D greebles, brush alphas and such and import them into the program and use them the same way. But you can see where I put in details that look like giant cooling tubes down the middle if the top portion aft of the bridge area. I have also pulled out and added an extra compartment attached to the bridge. Then after making a certain amount of details by stamping and such, I bring in some of the things I did make in MAX for additions to the model. That would be the dark blue things on the Starboard side of the ship 'wings'. On the port side, I used stamping again to add a different set of details on the Port side of the 'wings.' An advantage of the symmetry plane is that when I add things like the greeble models on one side, they get added perfectly on the other side. But, I can turn it off when I want to devote details to just one side. Just the other side. You can see the amount of symmetrical details, but also the asymmetry in them as well to work around the areas of different surface structures. I am also starting to really focus more on the engine area and the raised section in the middle just fore of the engines. In the 'nose' and hangar area, you can see the parts I made in MAX and brought them into 3D coat to add them soon. 3D Coat can bring them directly in place without having to worry about putting them back into their proper locations. Just bring it in and zap it into the main structure. This is where I bring in the window cutouts.. I colour code things to keep additions and subtractions to the main structure easy to recognize. Now I have added and subtracted out all the parts that were differently coloured above. Then I bring in the ships logo I made in MAX. Since I named the ship Ulysses, I added the 'Bow of Apollo' to it. This is the close up details of the engines. Using the symmetry really helped this to work much easier than it could have been. Now, do not think I just grab any old brush and go with it. If I stamp in details, and do not like it, I undo and then go back and try another until I like the way it looks. This is the direct front. I have not added the logos yet, but I do have them colour coded for port and starboard. Topside. And, here you can really see the asymmetry I employed. It is really mostly 'near symmetry.' Bottom details, but not fully finished. This is where I stop for this part. In the next part I will add more details, and prepare it for mounting (including base design) and lighting. This means hollowing the model out and then cutting the windows out properly. I want the lights to shine through the open areas. Part two coming up soon.
  30. 6 points
    As I move further into finished pieces I thought I would document some of the things I am doing for those who may like to play a bit. This does not mean I am not doing fractals anymore, just varying things a bit and having fun ? Ain't that what it is all about? And, if you do not agree, then, well, I shall cry. Honestly, there may be tears shed.... ? So, I had this concept for piece that I want to do soon in the future and it requires a bat. Now, I decided to start modeling the bat just to get a jump on things and, as usual, the mind took off and the bat got a life of his own. But, I will still use him in the project he was designed for. This was my story....the bats have been changed to protect the innocent. and this was the process: 1. Breathe deep, it ain't rocket science and just have fun! I also have been modeling a while and have figured a set of shortcuts that get me from concept to finished model as quick as possible. And, it is a pretty standard modeling process these days too. The two main programs I am using is 3DS MAX and 3D Coat. Now, this should be broken into the types of programs they are. 3DS MAX would be a mesh modeling program. So anything that can do that would be just fine. You could use Blender or any free program that will let you work on half a model and mirror the other half over so you can get easy symmetry and only worry about one side. 3D Coat is a mesh and volumetric sculpting program that is cheap and powerful. It allows for fast sculpting as well as a mirror mode for when I need symmetry. ZBrush is a very powerful alternative. Blender can do volumetric sculpting, but I am not sure how well. 2. I started with a box. You can see the middle line for the main body. It is jut a basic set of extrusions and pushing a few vertices around. The eyeball is a separate sphere and the teeth are just two bent cones in place. They are left separate for easy working in 3D Coat. 3. I applied a modifier that added more polygons by subdividing them and it also relaxes the corners for a more rounded shape. I added a nose too..... 4. This then gets exported out to a set of STL files (Body, eye, teeth, nose) and then imported into 3D Coat. Here is the model in 3D Coat and a bit of stuff done already. 5. Here, I have done about as much 'symmetry' work as I can. Time to get asymmetrical. As I sculpt out the details, I decide which wing will be on top and therefore, more detailed. But their wings are very thin and so I made sure to put some details of the the other wing into it. Since their wings are modified hands, I wanted a really knuckley look to them as well as stress the bone structures. I should note at this time, that this is why I kept the eye, nose and teeth separate. I can sculpt on the body and not disturb the eye and teeth, yet still use them as a marker for when they do get added. And, I did use a ton of Bat Pics (Holy old reference!!) to get it as right as possible for a cartoony character. 6. Now, I have released the Kraken! Ooops....sorry...wrong topic.... Ermmm, eyeball, nose and teeth. I continue to refine the model in front and back. 7. Believe it or not, the squinty eye was the most difficult part. I went back and forth and back and forth until I got it right. 8. Now, back to 3DS MAX. I had modeled the Bat "Right Side Up" because I could see the features and details better that way. But, this means that when going back into 3DS MAX, I had to model the base tree model upside down. For some reason, this was not an issue for me. I dunno....I am strange.....The tree is a set of lofts with a twisted up circle lofted across some splines to make the tree base and limbs. Since it is just a form of a sweep, I could play with the twisting and scaling. 9. And back into 3D Coat to dress it up. I prefer volumetrics for some operations because it is boolean proof. So, I joined all the tree parts together and turned the whole thing around for sculpting. This time, it was easier to sculpt the tree in proper orientation. 10. Now we is all sculpted and swampified ? 11. Back into 3DS MAX for a final check of all things to make sure I am happy and all is scaled properly. 3D Coat can go straight out, but I like to run it through a package I have the most familiarity with for that final check. 12. Now, we's beez all printed now.... Man, I loves me PVA!! 13. Now just to be an ass, the backside!! (See what I did there? Ass......backside....ermmmm, nebbermind....) 14. Otay...now we be cookin' on all 3 burners...wait....that's not right.... Well, I had to check the model in the glass casing to see how it all fit. And, yep.,...only 3 burners....hadda bend the limbs and mush up a root at the base to get it to fit.....ooopsie!!! tee hee..... So, out with the heat gun and just a bit of bending and it woiked! Keep in mind that this worked because it is a very freeform shape. If you look at the prints above and this image below, you can see where the limbs got bent and the far left/bottom root got smushed up a bit. Keep in mind I am not using a big heat gun. I am using my SMT soldering kit with a fine aim on the heat. I can dial up the heat in bunches o' degrees ? 15. Now a twirl just to see it from all sides and see if we can proceed...... 16. Annnnd, we are ready to proceed with the further organification of the model. For this, I used a 3D pen to add details that would be near impossible to really print well. It also lets me just '3d Paint" on the surface to add stuff at whim. At this point I am applying a set of black and white primers to bring out details and prep the surface for painting with a brush. My tree has vericose vines!! ? The Print has been epoxied to the base at this point and the rim of the wooden base taped off so I can paint at will and not be really clean about it. I can slap paint around like it is a 3Day old ham and not worry about things. ? 17. Now, we are getting somewhere! 18. On the tree, I chose to make a greyish wood color in the cool spectrum and then be able to make the creeper vines a warmish color to help them pop out. Ain't color theory spiffy? 19. The base is starting to get color too on purpose because under the foliage I will put in, I want a ground color in. This will let there be a good color other than white under it if it shows through. I also added the frog. Who do ya think woke up the bat? I printed the frog in a translucent white/clear so that in the throat of the frog, it would look translucent because of skin stretch. I also went with rain forest colors. Again, load of frog pics (Holy amphibians!!) 20. Now I finish out the painting, complete the ground painting and then add the mushrooms I printed up at all sorts of scales. 21. Time to add the scale foliage and seal up the Bat Jar (Holy encasings!!) and we's beez dones!! Easy Peezy, lemon squeezy..... 22. All done! The foliage was applied using a PVA slurry. The same slurry I recycle for my prints. When doing research I found that a PVA based glue is what is used. And, wow, do they sell a lot of it too.....but, I am a cheap bastich and just recyled my PVA from my prints.
  31. 6 points
    I decided to take the challenge, and to design a set of people myself. :) However, when it comes to ultrafine details and lots of variation, there is no way we can beat the Preiser models with our FDM-printers and standard 0.4mm nozzles. So I didn't try that. If you want realistic, finely detailed models, the best option is to buy unpainted Preiser sets: this gives you about 100 little people for about 30 euro. Google for: preiser ho figuren Instead, I decided to take a totally different approach and optimise my set for 3D-printing, so it can be printed easily and fast. I designed it in harmony with the cars already shown in the previous contest. Thus my people are a bit abstract and cartoonesque, but they do fit-in well with the cars. They are sort of cardboard-people, "Cardboardians", living in the country New Cardboardia, which is nearby Tsunamia, Quakeland, and Volcanostan. Scale is ca. 1:100, as requested. But by slightly varying this, you would get more variation. The biggest advantage is that these people can be printed on their back, so they print way cleaner than "upright people", and way faster. After printing, they can easily be broken off the support bar which helps making printing easier. They require very little post-processing. They can be printed without warping, and without damaging while removing them, if printed in PLA using my salt method for bonding, I tried it. Other bonding methods should work too, but you may need to be carefull not to damage them when removing them. If you don't want to glue these people to your architectural model, you could glue them on a transparent piece of plastic (mica or similar) of ca. 10mm x 10mm, like Preiser does with most of its painted models. Then you can move them around and recycle them for the next project. The transparent base does not visually hurt. I recommend printing at 0.1mm layer-height, speed 20...25mm/s, and at a low-medium temperature. All can be printed with a standard 0.4mm nozzle, since all legs and arms are wider than 0.4mm. See the photos of upright printed people compared to my cardboardians below. The upright model is not my design, but downloaded from thingiverse, named "Elf girl", designed by Robyn, daughter of "southoz"; if I have all that info correctly. Actually this Elf Girl is a very nice design, and 3D-printing it in scale 1:10 (17mm) does not do justice to it. The red elf girl is printed with 4 together, plus a dummy cooling block of 10mm x 10mm x 20mm, at very low speed (20mm/s) and low temperature (180°C) in PLA. The green one at the left is also printed with 4 together, slow, with dummy block, but at normal temp (210°C). The blobby one is printed standalone at normal temp (210°C), without dummy cooling block, and slow; but it obviously had not enough cooling and is hardly recognisable. And the last Elf Girl is printed single too, slow, but at low temp (180°C). The cardboardians are printed slow (25mm/s) at medium temp (ca. 200°C). You can see that upright printed people look like zombies, where pieces of rotten flesh are coming off (strings and blobs). Or they look like aliens in space suits (not enough cooling). Not like humans. This weirdness might hurt in an architectural model. My cardboardians however, look way more neutral and unobtrusive. Even though the designs are crude and cartoonesque, they come out cleaner when printed. And they are similar to the cars, and to typical vegetation. So there is more harmony in the scene. The set contains several men, women, and kids. Most are unique, but a few of the neutral models have duplicates. (The additional bonus set was my first try, containing 8 identical people and thus not conform the rules, outside of the competition. But since I have it anyway, I can as well share it.) The models are under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license: you can use them for free, for whatever purpose, thus also for commercial projects (for example an architectural design for a client, or for publishing on the Ultimaker website). But you can not ask money for the design files: these have to stay free. You may make modifications and derivations too, but if you share them, it also has to be for free under the same license. cardboardians_set.stl cardboardians_bonus.stl Set of cardbordian people, scale ca. 1:100. Bonus set (outside of contest). Beautiful Elf Girl, by Robyn (downloaded from thingiverse), for comparison in print tests. Cardbordians as printed. I removed a couple of thin hairs, but no other post-processing. Elf Girl (printed upright) vs. Cardboardian people (printed on their back). See body text above for more info on printing parameters. Preiser HO-scale people (=1:87, close to 1:100). But they also exist in other scales. In case you need really detailed people, and a huge amound of variation...
  32. 6 points
    And, my giant sized Mondoshawan is finally finished. And all closed up in his case. That is a 2 Euro coin for size comparison. It is a tad larger than a US Quarter. Time to take a break.....I forgot to post he proper credits. The Mondoshawan model came from Thingiverse. The base I designed. The model is a great one. Well made and very, very detailed.
  33. 6 points
    ANNOUNCEMENT! First of all, I want to thank everyone who participated in this contest. Stefania and I were positively surprised by the level of the submissions, the choice of vehicles and understanding of 3D printing. We considered these very important elements in ranking the submissions too. In the end, we hope to make life easier for our fellow architects, and that means that the models should be easy and reliable to print and should resemble a real existing (set of) vehicles. Below I'll announce the winners and I'll also share our feedback towards all participants. Hopefully, it's an opportunity where you can learn something and you'll be motivated to join again in our peoples - contest. So who is the winner? @kmanstudios . Congratulations!! You win 10 reels of filament! What we thought of your submission: With your submission you showed that you really understand design for 3D printing, you touched on all the essential points like making your submission compatible for single extrusion, it was all properly scaled, little to no overhangs and sufficient details for this scale. You also made a good choice in which vehicles to present. These type of vehicles are often used in various architecture projects so chances that they will be put to use are considerable. You also got a bonus point for your remarkable delivery! Thank you! Number two.... @SarpSusuzer Congratulations!! You win 5 reels of filament!! Our feedback: You also showed good understanding of design for 3D printing. No overhangs, simple yet recognizable. Based on real life trains and trams, and scaled equally. We also really appreciate the effort you put in making your submission modular. That way one can assemble trains/trams in the length that fits their project. Nice job and once again, congratulations! Runner-up: @ultiarjan: Your submission also really shows your understanding of design for 3D printing. They are all again simple enough, which means they can easily be printed on a small scale and still be recognizable. Eventually you lost a few points on usability because these types of vehicles are not that often used in projects, the theme (warehouses and storage houses) is rather specific. @pardis3d: You've also uploaded a good set of vehicles, unfortunately, there were a few elements of design for 3D printing that could still be improved. You were smart enough to remove the overhang on the 'inside' of the wheels, but not on all. Besides that, on the average model are quite some overhangs which does not immediately mean a print will fail but usually don't result in the best surface quality. That is something we would rather avoid. That same truck on the right doesn't really have a good printing orientation. As Arjan also suggested in an earlier comment , the tank seems to be a bit wider than the bed it lays on. Another option could be to print it standing up on its backside, but then the wheels would have a lot of overhang, and that pin on top. You submitted some good models, hopefully you'll improve the overhangs and print orientation elements, and we'll see you again in the next contest! @Raghav: We appreciated your early submission and enthusiasm. Hopefully we'll see more of it in next contests. Why did you not win? In your submission it seemed there was not a clear theme like with some of the above. We did like that you submitted a bike, no one else did! They also had various scale sizes and some had to be assembled. Assembling a model can be a great solution to avoid some challenges you face with 3D printing, but when printing small scaled-down models an architect rather has a simple model that doesn't fail than a model that has yet to be put together. I'll get in touch with @kmanstudios and @SarpSusuzer regarding their prizes. Thanks again everyone for participating, and hopefully we'll see you again in our Entourage set | People contest!
  34. 6 points
    In my previous post on DfAM (Design for Additive Manufacture) I concentrated on how to deal with some of the design principles needed to ensure the manufacturability of a part using Additive Manufacturing (AM), or 3D Printing (3DP). In this post I’m going to concentrate on the way DfAM can take advantage of some of the unique capabilities that AM and 3DP has to offer. There are a number of different advantages available and we’ll look at each one in turn………… “Complexity Comes For Free…..” This is a statement that’s often made about AM/3DP. It’s not always completely true because dealing with complexity in this method of manufacturing can incur longer manufacturing times and sometimes, as the saying goes, “time is money”. However it's true that designs for this type of manufacturing method can be considerably more complex, yet still be feasible to make, compared with those designed for the more traditional methods of subtractive manufacturing, forming, or casting. One great example of design complexity is this Digital Sundial designed by Mojoptix : In itself this is a very clever piece of design that uses mathematical formula to generate the geometry which creates a digital time image from shadows cast by the sun. However, that geometry in some areas is so complex, with many thin internal walls, that the only feasible way of making this is using AM/3DP. In other applications this design freedom helps to realise complex cooling channels inside parts where efficient heat exchange is one of the key performance requirements. Channels can be provided deep inside parts where they are most effective, as opposed to being provided only where they can be manufactured. The result is that optimal functionality can be the focus for the part design rather than how it can be manufactured using traditional methods. The ability to make thin complex structures that are often “locked” inside parts is one of the aspects that is allowing the use of complex lattice structures for light-weighting of parts made using 3DP/AM. These internal lattices are similar to the internal structures that using infill in Cura produces, however the advantage of these more advanced lattices are that they can be created from understanding the stress analysis of the part as a solid structure. The lattices created can then be very dense in high stress areas and much less dense in lower stress areas, resulting in significant weight savings. Here’s an example of such a variable structure in a cut-away section of an advanced concept that I worked on for a marine pilot ladder I personally think that the use of AM/3DP for light-weighting is one of it’s most exciting possibilities and one that could play a key part in sustainability of design and manufacturing in the future. At the moment AM/3DP is being used for reducing weight in high value/low volume applications such as aerospace, but it the future I expect it to also provide this advantage in higher volume/medium value applications such as automotive. Light-weighting using AM/3DP is a subject that I’d like to return to in more depth in a future post. Multi-Material Prints With dual extrusion 3D printers such as the Ultimaker 3 and new Ultimaker S5 it’s possible to combine two quite dissimilar materials on a single layer. That gives the opportunity to create some interesting concepts that can be produced in a single 3D print. One example is this pair of pliers that I designed specifically as a dual material print. The main structural parts are in a rigid material (in this case PLA) and the central latticed core, which behaves like a pivot, is made from a very flexible TPE (thermoplastic elastomer). In order to get a good bond between the two materials I didn’t want to rely on material adhesion alone because of the shear forces acting across the joints between the two materials as they are operated. So in this design I incorporated interlocked mechanical connections between the two materials where those features were printed through the layers. This in itself was another example of DfAM, because understanding how the layers would be printed allowed me to design a robust, yet manufacturable, connection between the two dissimilar materials. In the future we will probably see 3D print heads that go beyond two materials to multiple materials, which will open up further new opportunities Part Consolidation Another opportunity using DfAM is to design what would be a multi-piece component to be manufactured in a single pass. This is called part consolidation and it reduces assembly time, and can also provide fully assembled parts that would be impossible to achieve through normal methods. The advantage of these are reduced inventory, reduced weight, elimination of assembly time and some design freedom, but they can sometimes have the downside of reduced levels of serviceability, so that needs to be a consideration. A good example of part consolidation is the antenna bracket below that was created by Airbus for the Eurostar E3000 communications satellite. This was previously a four part assembly with many internal fixings for assembly of the fabricated parts which was replaced with an AM single piece design, which also had the benefit of being both stiffer and lighter than the multi-part assembly it replaced. See this TCT Magazine article for full details Integrated Mechanisms Another opportunity that Part Consolidation can provide is the possibility to create integrated mechanisms that are multi-part assemblies with functional mechanisms that work straight off the printer. Perhaps one of the most famous is the NASA Space Wrench that was 3D printed on the International Space Station as part of their 3D Printing in Space investigations for supporting long-term exploration missions. In a weight-less environment it’s probably not a good idea to have lots of small parts floating around, so this was designed as a working wrench where the ratchet mechanism was created directly inside the part during printing. The first time the wrench is operated any small bonds between the parts are broken and the ratchet mechanism works. Another good example of an integrated mechanism is this Platform Jack that can be downloaded from Thingiverse Part Customisation Another key advantage of AM/3DP is it’s ability to take advantage of part customisation where every part made differs slightly to suit individual customer needs. Here DfAM plays a role in the area of Mass Customisation where a mass produced part is used with a customised 3DP/AM part to produce something that has the best of both worlds. Mass Customisation earbuds are a good example of this where mass-produced earphone drivers come together with 3D printed tips that have been created from a scan of your particular ear contours. This leads into the ability to satisfy something called “The Market-of-One”. This opportunity is where either mass personalisation, or a fully customised part, is a true one-off product that will perhaps never be repeated, but for which a commercial opportunity exists. In DfAM this customisation can be achieved by using a full parametric design approach where the key adjustable features in a design are defined in a parameter table such as this example below in Fusion 360 : This table allows new dimensions to be quickly input into the parameter table and the design then updates automatically to reflect these without the need for any additional design work. The customised design can then be rapidly output to slicing software for final preparation. In this way customised designs can be produced and prepared for manufacture in a matter of minutes. Have You Taken Advantage of DfAM ? The difference between what’s covered in this post compared with DfAM in my first post on the subject is that all of the above techniques need to be considered at the concept stage of designing. In this case it needs the AM/3DP mindset to be adopted right at the very outset. There's an example of that in this video made by HP which shows some of the above DfAM principles I've described combined into a very durable 3D printed part with a high service life It can be quite a difficult transition to make to take advantage of the freedoms that AM/3DP offer, and it maybe needs a degree of innovation and creative thinking to make the most of the opportunity. One of the things that is now starting to emerge are higher education courses and apprenticeships dedicated to the use of AM/3DP, and these will undoubtedly be useful in embedding these opportunities in the design-make workflow for the workforce of the future. At the current stage of DfAM we have merely scratched the surface of what we can do and I’m really excited to see how we exploit the advantages I’ve outlined above in the future. So, I’d be really interested to see and hear from the community how you’ve taken advantage of DfAM, and what your aim was ………….
  35. 6 points
    ya des gens très motivé sur cette terre
  36. 5 points
    Humble administrator's garden was approved by UNESCO to be included in the world heritage list in 1997.
  37. 5 points
    Just found a few photos I took a while back on my sd card when I had some left over dry ice to play with. Just for lolz.
  38. 5 points
    my first latest glowfil experiments... super quick but fun. Hard to photograph.
  39. 5 points
    Here are some photos of a Chainmail sphere in progress. It's from a design I created ten years ago and thankfully the writeup is still available. The plan is to write an updated tutorial with some easier techniques that have now surfaced. Les
  40. 5 points
    In the last months I tried several storage solutions for my the print cores, but either they didn't fit or it was not practical. Most storage solutions have the problem, that they are open and dust can easily get into the core which is not good at all. Some days ago I had an idea, to put my print cores in an Ikea Skadis container mounted on my pegboard. Inside this container, I designed a print core holder which is based on @ultiarjan version and holds 3 cores per container. Here are some pictures: The cores are now stored in a safe place, protected from dust and can be easily accessed. Ikea Skadis container: https://www.ikea.com/at/de/p/skadis-behaelter-mit-deckel-weiss-80335909/ @ultiarjan print core holder: https://www.youmagine.com/designs/core-case-for-ultimaker3-core-s And finally, the redesigned version which fits into the Skadis container: Skadis Print Core.stl
  41. 5 points
    Tricky print with no supports. A little clean up to do, but much less than cleaning hard supports. sooooooo.......
  42. 5 points
    Stunning, @cloakfiend! Seriously loving all the post-processing you do on your prints. Gorgeous work. This is my latest print (STL, not mine). I may attempt to paint it, but don't have high hopes for a nice paint job (my hand-eye coordination is lacking).
  43. 5 points
    very happy with my doggy...
  44. 5 points
    I wanted to try to print from a jpg to see if that could be used as a press die. Printed in abs and pressed in thin aluminium, quick shot with a rattle can and then rubbing with a 400 grit paper. Not meant to be perfect but a fair result for 15 minutes work.
  45. 5 points
    This is an egg I made for my granddaughter to 'hatch,' UM PVA Egg with PLA surprise inside ? Edit: You know I was out of it because I did not credit the creator of the Pikachu. I did create and set it up with the egg and PVA, but I did modify the tail a bit to fit inside the egg. But, I am not the creator of the Pikachu model. File name: Pikachu Deluxe Hug pose Creator: Geoffro (Geoff Wicks)
  46. 5 points
    Hi Ultimaker-community, I´m using my Ultimaker 2+ for building of splittable kiteboards. The edges are made of ABS. When I started with this I thought about building a big printer with approx. 800x500mm but realized then that it´s absolutely no problem to connect the pieces together with little bone-shaped parts. The top- and bottom layers in CURA are set to zero so that the epoxy-resin can later flow trough the edges during lamination process. This makes the bottom and top glassfibre stick very good together. Off course not very complicated parts to print but what I think a good example how 3d-printing helps to built stuff you need for hobby ;-) Greets Micha
  47. 5 points
    Bonjour et merci pour votre aide, au final on a éclaté la pièce pour faire de l'assemblage, ce qui a permis de ne pas mettre de support en option dans Cura, cela a vraiment simplifié la difficulté de nettoyage du support. Voici l’œuvre de mes élèves une fois assemblé. Prix A-Fictionados 2018
  48. 5 points
    After a long time not posting, here is my first larger print: This is a Moulinsart TintTin Monochrome bust I wanted to have for some time, but it being a collectors item, very hard to find one for sale, so I decided to draw it myself, also to chalange myself. The UM extended barely fitted the head at 8mm to spare ? Printed in white PLA, 0.2 layers, and is in 2 parts, bottom and head, I still need to do some sanding, and hoped to have printed with PETG or ABS for easy sanding, but I still could not get a good result, and am still messing with the settings in Cura. after sanding I will paint it as a matt white finish
  49. 5 points
    Simply speaking; The Cura Engine must do these things. The idea that there is a simple model that fits everything is false. The solution space is vast. Not only are we talking about differences between materials (PLA, ABS, CPE, PVA), inter material variation (Blue PLA vs metalic PLA), Machine variation (Which is it's own fied; Accelerations are different, has bowden tube, different behaviors, you name it), model variation, etc. The notion of oxxams razor is a nice one, but fairly naive. Compare this problem with making an autonomous car. If you're only writing software for a single instance thereof, you don't need a lot of exposed settings. All cars you make it for will have the same type of sensors, the same engine and the same interface. We made it really difficult for ourselves by not doing that. We made a bit of software that should work for *all* instances. So we need to have those settings (eg; Sensors are different, speeds are different, even interfaces are different). We could make it simpler. It would be doable for us, but the price would be destroying the possibility to use it for other machines. So there isn't just "one" model. There is perhaps one model that can "Get most models working for PLA on an Ultimaker". Those parameters won't work at all for a machine that has a direct drive or when printing with ABS. Also note; Only the frontend was redesigned. The engine is one continued process to get to this state. As for optimisations; Yes, we mostly focus on stuff that helps ultimaker. Makes sense as they pay me. We're already doing a lot of work that helps others, so we kind of have to draw the line somewhere. As for overfitting on models; We don't. We fully understand what overfitting is and why it's bad. I also disagree with the idea that there are so much hacks in the engine. Is that code the best maintained code out there? No. There are architectural mistakes we made there. But i don't believe that there is a simpler model that will have the same results. The creation of models with different speeds is intentional. I've also seen vast improvements of g-code since the legacy version especially when using dual extrusion (and of course; When using ultimakers, because we provide the right settings). Now, I do believe that profiles can be smarter. Changing a setting is an action; It makes property X of a print better and property Y worse. But with 500 ish settings, that is a lot of knowhow to have in the head of a user (and thus is unreasonable). But users perform actions because they have an intent. If we can somehow capture intent and transform them into actions we can get what we want.
  50. 5 points

    Version 1.0


    The original dodecahedral kinetic sculpture by Stijn van der Linden a.k.a. Virtox. Made of five nested dodecahedra, each one is limited to rotate around its own axis. It was printed with dual extrusion on an Ultimaker 3 with water-soluble PVA support material.
This leaderboard is set to Amsterdam/GMT+02:00
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to the Ultimaker Community of 3D printing experts. Visit the following links to read more about our Terms of Use or our Privacy Policy. Thank you!