geert_2

Wow. I had already been wondering how you got those really fluent hairs and other features modeled. Now I see. I tried Skulptris once (if I remember that name correctly?), but could not make a decent model with it, with my standard mouse and screen. I can imagine this tablet works 100 times better. Is that pen pressure sensitive, and angle sensitive too? And does it accurately skulpt under the pen tip, without offset?

I was also going to suggest heat gunning the edges, before I read your last line above. :-) When making dental models 10 years ago, I also used a small but very hot heat gun for smoothing the edges. The trick was to apply *a lot of heat for only a very short time*, so a thin outer layer would melt immediately. But the heat would not be enough to distribute to the inside and melt the whole model. I used a gas burner heat gun with catalytic combustion (=producing just heat but no flame, due to a platinum catalyst), which could easily reach 600°C and more. It took a bit of getting used too: apply the heat for too long from a too big distance, and the whole thing would deform. Apply it from a too short distance, and it would burn and get brown or black, and start to cook and bubble. Apply not enough heat, and then you had to wait too long for any effect, so the heat would get inside, and the whole model would deform too. The balance was critical.

If it only prints the supports, but not the car body, it could be that the body is too thin (smaller than the nozzle diameter), or the body-part of the file is defective or corrupted. In my old version of Cura, most of your model appears to be just a single surface layer (thus infinitely thin) instead of a solid 3D-object. And it has lots of other defects too. Maybe this model was designed for a game, or for a visual rendering only, but not for 3D-printing? 3D-printing needs solid volumes for all parts, not surfaces. If you are not yet familiar with 3D-printing, and as said by the others before, I would recommend printing small simple test models first, until you know your printer, and the limitations of the concept. Carefully inspect the model in Cura, in "layer view" and "xray view" modes, before printing. For example, print a simple test model like this with and without supports. So you see what the effect is. This model also shows what lack of cooling does in the tiny cones on top. overhangtest3d.stl overhangtest3d_defective.stl In the defective version of this file I deliberately removed a couple of side panels, so the model is no longer a solid (except for the base plate), but only consists of surfaces. You could load them both in Cura and see how they differ and how they would print.

Yes, I do fully understand. I dislike all this legalese too, and I feel the same. The problem is that shareholders, thieves and lawyers often have a totally opposite viewpoint compared to us, technicians, designers, developers and artists. Often they do not understand the concept of creating and sharing artistic and technical beauty. It is the creation, sharing and admiring of this beauty that makes us happy. So I tend to learn the legalese well enough to keep me out of trouble. Applying a license to your work also helps to prevent others from stealing it, and then going to court and claiming that you stole it from them. And thereby excluding you from using your own work, or even forcing you to pay fines and "damage-repairs" to them. This will be very unlikely in your art, but in big-business it is common practice. Especially small technical developers should be aware of this risk (and apply for patents, registration, licenses or other defense mechanisms where appropriate). Don't let all this discourage you, and don't let it bring your enthousiasm down. On the contrary: keep creating so much beauty that these ugly people can't keep up bringing it down. Sort of "out-creating" them, like outrunning. :-)

I am not an Ultimaker spokesperson, and not related to the company. So what I say is only from experience, and has no official value. There are hundreds of different silicones, from very soft (flesh-like) to very hard, from elastic to very brittle, from non-stick for mould making to very sticky for glueing, high-temp and low-temp, platina-cured, tin-cured, liquid, paste, kneadable, sanitary/non-sanitary, filled and unfilled, overpaintable and non-paintable, chemically resistant and non-resistant,... The list is endless. I mainly use non-sticking silicones for mould making, which obviously don't stick at all. Then there are lots of different PLA-formulations and additives. And also surface-shape and surface-preparation could play an important role. Also, there do exist activators that improve bonding of silicones to plastics, but I don't know how they work chemically. So I think the only one who could answer this question, is you yourself, depending on which materials you use in which circumstances. I guess you will need to do your own strength tests. The same is probably true for the use of chemicals and solvents on PLA and other 3D-printing materials. At best manufacturers could give general rough guidelines. 3D-materials may contain lots of additives: softeners, colors, UV-protective agents,... These may have different chemical resistances from the base resin. Some of my models have been used in the hospital and desinfected with isopropyl alcohol without damage. But they are only for single use, so the chemical contact is very superficial and short, they are not drowned into it. Additionally, expect PLA to get harder and more brittle over time. Snap-fit mechanisms that work well originally, are likely to break if you try them after a year, in my experience. It seems that this is due to changes in crystal structure, from amorphe to more crystalline, if I understood it well. Also, expect PLA to deform in a car, or in sunlight behind a window. Even in moderate spring or autumn weather. This too is from experience...

I once read that originally ABS wire was the easiest available, in the beginning of 3D-printing, because it was also used for other purposes. But today I wouldn't use it anymore. I use PLA for most standard models, and PET or NGEN (thus sort of polyesters) for things that need to be a bit more flexible (e.g. for snap-fit lockings), and for higher temperatures in a car.

In addition to what Smithy said about printing cool, printing thicker layers also may help. Then tend to sag less than thin layers in my models. The basic problem is that your overhangs are too steep.

Here a bit more on intellectual property. Take a look at this classic example: imagine you were the first one ever to invent a chair. And then for the beauty of it, you would decorate it with a lot of fine details and ornaments, as you often see in old chairs in castles from the middle ages. Then no one else can copy and re-use the decorative details and ornaments, even not in another piece of furniture like a table or door. Because they are art and fall under the copyright law. Unless you would explicitly give others permission to copy. However, anyone can copy the seating-function, thus the concept of a chair, although without any decorations. Or he could apply his own decoreations. Because purely technical principles do not fall under copyright law. If you wanted to protect the concept of the chair, as a "Method of seating a human body", you would need a patent. (And the chair-concept would have to be something new and inventive of course.) If you would market your chairs under your own brand, let's say "Buttseat", and you have protected this brand (name, logo), then no one can use your name and logo, and put it on his own seats, or on whatever else. This summarises it a bit. People selling Ultimaker-clones under the name and logo of Ultimaker, is clearly a fraud. However, if they would sell a very similar printer under a different name, they are likely to get away with it, unless everything in the Ultimaker would be patent-protected, and model-protected. Copyright law does not apply to technical principles. (This apart from the fact that Ultimakers are open source, so copying is explicitly allowed, if I understood this well?) But for training purposes, almost all masters started out by copying the works of other masters, just to learn the technical basics. Musicians learn play work of others, all great painters made copies of other works in the beginning. Engineers re-calculate existing bridges. Until they know how to do it. And then they develop their own style. Here the purpose is just to learn the techniques, not to copy and parasite on it. To become a master, you have to learn from the old masters. You can't learn from the idiots who can't do anything. And then there are fans who copy pieces of art, not as plagiarism, but rather as a tribute, because they admire the original art so much. Like on Youtube where people make beautiful clips and animations around their favorite music. Legally this is plagiarism. But emotionally it definitely isn't, it is a tribute. So a lot of artists don't mind and even like it and allow it, as long as the fan does not try to make money out of it. But lawyers of big companies generally don't like it: they have a totally different mindset than we do. This is a typical grey area in 3D-printing too. There are lots of such grey areas in intellectual property regulations. So the best thing is to contact the original author, explain what you would like to do, and kindly ask permission. I have already gotten permission to use photos of art paintings as background images on scientific posters. I just explained the purpose, and I also explained that I would need to crop the images, and to change colors so that text on top of it would remain legible. Some artists may not like such "tampering", but very often you get permission. A new trend are "Creative Commons Licenses", which explicitly allow copying and redistribution under certain conditions, depending on the chosen license. For example under the "CC BY-SA" license (Creative Commons - Attribute - Share-alike license): you can copy, modify and redistribute the work, even for commercial purposes. But only on the condition that you credit the original designer, that you do not claim your derivation as the original, and that you apply the same license to your derivative work (so you can not take the existing freedom away). There do exist more restrictive CC-licenses too, e.g.: no derivations allowed, no commercial purposes allowed,... It is worth having a look at these. For 3D-printing, any of your own original creations is automatically copyright protected. But you can give others some copyrights by applying a Creative Commons License to it. However, any technical thing you develop cannot be protected unless you get a patent. Here the CC-licenses have no legal value, and they only serve as a sort of *gentlemen's agreement*. But even then I would recommend applying a license anyway. Most people are going to follow it, because: (1) they are ethical people and want to honor the original designer, and they are rightfully proud of this, (2) they don't know the law well enough, and (3) they want to stay out of doubt or legal trouble. The license tends to make you known, and to prevent others from stealing the work and from claiming they were the original designers, or from assuming it is in the public domain. This is why I usually apply a CC license to my technical designs too. As said, I am not a lawyer, nor specialised in this area. So take this only as a general guideline. And inform yourself further where required.

Yes, feedback on the life of materials is always very welcome. Thanks. If you would have the opportunity to submerge models for a longer time, preferably of different materials, I would suggest you do so. PLA is supposed to be bio-degradable, it should decompose into lactic acid and then further into CO2 and water, but I think it will take a long time before it completely vanishes. A big unknown is at which point it becomes too brittle to be functional?

The intellectual property laws differ a bit from country to country, and they are very complex. There is *copyright* which automatically makes the creator of any original piece of art the intellectual owner. Then there are *protected models*, in which a company can protect its brands and models. And then there are *patents*, which can protect new technical equipment and manufacturing methods. Copyright is automatic and free, patents and protected models have to be applied for and paid for. Generally: - If you make an original piece of art (=something new, it doesn't exist yet), you automatically get the copyright to it. No one else can sell it without your permission. - Often but not always, the law allows you to make a copy for personal home use only, of a copyrighted work of someone else. This differs a lot from country to country, and also depends on the type of art. - Small portions of a work can often be copied as citations, and for scientific and educational use. In case of discussions, the judge will have to decide if this was fair use or plagiarism. - Generally, it is forbidden to copy and sell anything (or even give it away or put it on public display), unless you have written permission from the copyright holder. - In addition to copyright, commercial models are usually protected as "deposited models" too. - You can not copyright ideas, laws of nature, etc. So it have to be exact, concrete materialised models, texts, music, paintings,... So, you can not make a verbatim copy of an art statue and sell that. But you could make a totally new statue that is vaguely inspired by the existing one. You can not copy and sell existing movie characters like Donald Duck, even not in different poses that are not in the films or in their shops. Big companies like Disney make sure that all their characters are deposited models. You can not sell a verbatim transcription of a speech given by a professor in class. But you can write down the contents *in your own words* and sell that. However, if the data from the professor were indispensible for your text, thus you couldn't have written it without his input, then again the professor automatically becomes co-author of the text, and you need his permission to sell it. Or you can not copy and sell existing models like a Chevrolet Corvette. You need a written permission and license from General Motors to do so. But you could design a new sports car that has some vague similarities to a Corvette, let's say a coke-bottle shaped body. Some people make a verbatim copy and then modify only a tiny little part, to sell it as their own creation. This is not allowed. On the opposite side, some big companies try to suppress anything that even vaguely resembles any of their characters or models, which is not allowed either. So you can not copy a Dart Vader costume and sell that. But you can design a new space suit that has some vague similarities. If you do, it is always a good idea to make sure the thing is inspired by multiple different sources, and you put a lot of your own creativity into it. And document it and keep the intermediate steps, especially if you want to sell it. I am not a specialist or lawyer, but I read a bit on this subject. It is all quite complex, with lots of exceptions and vague borders. So in case of discussions, which are likely if you have a big commercial success, the judges will have to decide. And the one with the most money or patience usually wins... So I suggest that you google a bit on the subject. For those who speak Dutch, the Belgian government has a good website on intellectual property. At least, they had. It is now in the process of being renewed, so I don't know what will come out of it.

It is not clear if the problem is caused by a corrupted file, a design error (=something that masks part of the design), a stuck temporary file, corrupted program settings, or whatever else. So the following is all guessing, and things you could try. On Windows, programs may store temp files on weird, weirder or weirdest locations. Might be worth googling for it. I don't know about other operating systems. What you should definitely do is make a copy of that file under a different name, preferably multiple copies (also on USB-stick), and *only work on the copy*. Leave the original untouched, except for making extra copies as necessary. If the problem would be caused by a stuck temp file, in this way you might be able to get through. And you don't run the risk of damaging the original even further. Another test: start the CAD program empty (=without any file loaded), and make a simple new design (a cube with a few holes or so), and save that under a different name. Check if all settings in the program itself are correct, as they should be. And check if the new simple design comes out well. If you can open the file, but it seems to auto-correct or to auto-deform itself, there might be things that hide part of the design. Or that deform it. For example, if you have duplicates sitting on top of each other. Or there might be parts that are disabled from editing, or made invisible, or moved to another layer. Or that jump out of view to the side. Or similar. So you might want to search for such things too. If you can't see them in the graphic editing window (e.g. hidden items), maybe these items are visible in a structure-tree or so? Also, try opening a copy of the damaged file (always work on the copy, not the original) in another editor that can handle that type of files. And try saving from there, under a different name, but same format. Or try to find a program that can repair defective files, or an online service. I think you need to search along this line. If it doesn't take too much time of course. At one point it might become easier and faster to just redo the design, and learn from the experience. CAD-programs are immensely complex, among the most complex there are. And there are zillions of 3D-designs that we can make, which all behave differently. So there will always be bugs and unforeseen things. You need to calculate that in. Hope this helps.

First, search your harddisk and USB-sticks for old or deleted copies, and try restoring them. Most programs make temporary versions of a file while editing them. And afterwards these temporary files are deleted. So you may be able to restore these. Or if you lost the file due to a software crash, chances are that the temporary file is still intact in one of the "temp" directories on the hard disk. Search for these. Next time, you should save every iteration under a new name. I usually add the date of today into the name, with added letters a, b, c,... for important changes on the same day. For example ("rsdoc"-files are the native format of DesignSpark Mechanical, a free 3D-CAD editor): - somedesign_20181026a.rsdoc - somedesign_20181026b.rsdoc - somedesign_20181026c.rsdoc - somedesign_20181030a.rsdoc etc. For the final version, simply make a duplicate, and use that for exporting, for images, and 3D-printing. If you lose that last due to errors, you can easily go back. And of course, make backups on separate portable disks, stored in multiple places. Or on USB-sticks.

You could consider casting them yourself. 3D-print the original, make a high-temp silicone mould, or a mould in casting-sand or plaster, and then cast metal into that. There are metals that melt at low temperatures, such as zinc, tin, lead, and several alloys, and also rarer materials. There do exist special ovens for this purpose in dentistry, to make crowns etc. They might be usefull for small juwelry too, it's about the same size? Try to find an alloy that is stable and doesn't oxidate. Some dental alloys should work. But if I were you, I wouldn't use low-temp metals like magnesium, sodium, potassium, cadmium, and plutonium. Some are highly flammable or explosive, some highly toxic, and plutonium, well, you know... :-) For printing the nose, I guess it is melting while printing, due to not enough cooling? If so, you could consider printing the whole thing under an angle of let's say 45° (head back, chin up)? Then layer lines would run in a different direction. Printing multiple at once, or a dummy block next to it, could also help a bit, but will not eliminate the effect.

Forgot to say: I print PET on bare glass, bed temp around 80...90°C. And little or no cooling fan if the model allows it, which also helps with layer bonding. I tried using dilluted wood glue too for bonding to the glass, but that was too good: it took out slices of glass while cooling down, even before I started pulling the model off the glass... The major problem I have when printing PET is that it is difficult to fill top gaps, thus to make a roof on a hollow model. Due to the fact that while extruding over air it rather tends to form blobs on the nozzle instead of stringing, it doesn't pull a nice string over a gap. So it takes way more top layers to close a roof, than for PLA. This may be a result of printing at the cool side, and no fan? But since most of my models are rather thin and solid anyway (see pic), this doesn't really matter for me. If you need to bridge gaps and make roofs, you may need more cooling, and you may need to increase temp to compensate for the heat loss, to still get a good layer bonding?

You don't tell which printer you use, nor whether it is a single material system (like UM2) or dual material with dedicated support materials (like UM3), nor which support material, nor which slicer you use. So for other people it is not possible to diagnose this. But what you could always do is design your own custom supports, as part of the CAD-model. And switch off all automatically generated supports. Then you can fine tune all parts to get the exact shape, dimensions, thicknesses and gaps you want for support. You can also design-in features to make removal easier, such as openings to insert pliers or hooks for pulling, or for cutting, etc... I often do this for complex models with hard to reach areas.

I would suggest you try modelling it in plasticine first, but then in a good quality plasticine like used by professional artists. Not the baby-stuff which doesn't allow fine details. Use a color that shows details well, like beige-brown-grey or so. Choose one that has no sulphur and is compatible with mould making silicone. And as cloakfiend said, use other photos as well to get the dimensions right. Modeling by hand will give a much better feel for the right proportions, I think, if you are not familiar with modeling. Once you have the model, you can easily look at it from all sides, if you want to make a 3D-computer model from it and 3D-print that. Or you could make a silicone mould from the plasticine model, and cast that. There are lots of good Youtube videos for mould making and casting. Be aware that this has a huge learning curve, since there are three things to learn: modeling from photo, modeling in CAD, and 3D-printing (or casting) itself. Each will take time to master, so persist and don't give up too soon.

I don't know which perspectives or camera-lenses you could choose in CAD, or if you can enter numerical lense values at all? But in real life, long ago when I still did photography, I found that 150mm to 200mm lenses (with standard color slide film of 24mm x 36mm frames) gave the most beautiful perspective for photos of people. On the opposite side, shorter lenses like 35mm or 50mm gave a lot of distortion: people get thick potato-noses, dumb cow-eyes, etc..., which I didn't like at all. With a 200mm lens they look way smarter. With a 200mm lens you have some distance from the object or person, in real life. So when printing rather small models like you do, maybe setting the lens to 200mm might be a good starting point? Most smartphones today have short, wide-angle lenses, so they may give ugly distortion too for faces.

I usually print PET (ICE brand) on my UM2 at ca. 220 to 225°C, and slow: 25...30mm/s. This gives very little stringing, but it does give some sort of blobs. While traveling through the air, the nozzle leaks a little bit, and that blob is deposited on the next item the nozzle lands on. If new blobs are deposited on older blobs from previous layers, this can cause a sort of "insect antenna" like features extending from the side of objects. Layer bonding is still good, due to the slow speed, so the material seems to have enough time to flow into all corners and to melt the previous layer. I don't know if this applies to your PETG too, but it might be worth trying?

This one would do well in a James Bond film. :-)

I think this one actually looks better in black than in copper plated. The black suits her somewhat somber expression. At least on photo. But when plated, the light around her mouth and around the hair on her cheecks falls in a weird way. While sculpting, in your CAD program, can you apply different materials to the model to preview the final effect? Well, sort of preview, because it won't be identical of course.

If you mean the single diagonal lines, these are not scars but sort of "travel lines" (I don't know the official name), where the nozzle travels from one point to another without stopping extrusion. I guess the idea behind this is that this causes the least amount of pressure- and flow change in the nozzle, and thus the most stable temperature and extrusion? But I don't know if there is a setting where you could turn this on or off. I just consider it part of this specific production method. Like seam lines and ejection marks are part of the injection moulding process.

As said before, it are the STL-export settings that you need to adjust. An STL-file only consists of triangles, thus with straight edges. It has no curves. So all curves need to be aproximated by lots of small triangles. If you would be using DesignSpark Mechanical as CAD-program, set the options for STL-export to "Fine". This will create more polygons and give a smoother shape. If they would be on "coarse", you would get this sort of crude shapes, due to not enough triangles. Don't set the export resolution higher than you need. If you set it extremely fine, it causes very huge STL-files with zillions of triangles.

Het kan natuurlijk altijd een bug zijn. Maar ben je zeker dat er niet ook een andere oorzaak is? Heel dikwijls krullen de randen van een model een beetje op, vooral als er overhangs zijn. Dan krijg je ook een opstaand randje waar de kop met geweld tegenaan botst, met grote kans dat de modellen losgeklopt worden van het glas. Zie deze foto (dit was een test met extreme overhangs).

Lifting corners is normal when printing on bare glass: in my experience the environmental effect plays a big role and is hard to predict: temperature, moisture in the air, wind,... If you want to be sure, use glue. Or if you want to keep printing on bare glass without glue, try my salt method: - first thoroughly clean the glass, - then clean again with pure tap water only (no soap, no dish washer,...), - wipe the glass with a tissue moistened with salt water, - genlty keep wiping while it dries, so it leaves a thin almost invisible mist of salt stuck to the glass. It should look just a little bit dusty. The glass bed has to be heated to ca. 60°C. Without heating there is no bonding at all. After cooling down, models come off by themselves, without any effort. The ease of applications (just wiping with a moist tissue) and ease of removal are the most attractive aspects for me. For PLA this greatly increases bonding for me. But it does not work for other materials. Also, it is not optimal for thin, very tall objects like poles: the salt does not flex, and can not absorb any shocks. In this case you might be better off trying glue. Whatever bonding method you try, stay with the printer during the first tryouts, and observe what happens.

Could it be that your export to STL is in too low resolution? So the STL-triangles get too big? You need to look at the STL-file in an STL-viewer, or look at how it shows up in Cura. Maybe there could also be too much play in the printer, but before looking into the hardware, be sure to sort out any wrong STL-export settings first.