rasputin

Beautiful. r

You're asking the wrong person. All I ever printed myself is PLA, because it's simple to print, and fuel-resistant. The market is moving so fast, and I spend little time on checking the news... but I have seen that there's PEEK filament available by now. IF there would be a tried&proven solution for a dual extruder UM2(+) kit, would there ever be a general (!!!) chance that it received "official" status? Using the foehnsturm solution as an axample, would there be a chance that one day I could download a new Cura version, update my UM2 firmware through Cura, and choose "UM2 foehnsturm" in Cura? As I and others have noted, for some people the printer is only a tool, for some there's no point in having a dual extruder solution where one needs to install a hacked firmware, or face problems when any new software might shut down a necessary feature, or modify gcode. I was one of the people offering to "put in work", but that would be limited to mechanical design and development. Afterwards all I'd want to be is a "stupid plug&play user"... r

There's a new material called "Scalmalloy", invented by Airbus (they then founded a separate company to make it available to the public). It has pretty much the same mechanical properties as Al7075 (on their website they compare it to titanium, which is stupid Marketing blahzay). I had a part printed there 6 months ago, it's beautiful, even the price tag is OK (twice the price of printing the rather low-tech AlSi10Mg material). r

ivan-lipunov, it's not like engineers "don't take 3D printing technology features into account". That's a quite common misjudgement, bytheway, but I guess it's necessary part of the Makers' "underdog mentality" of being "revolutionaries, ahead of the industry". Just last week I was reading this article, and I was surprised to find out that the author is in fact an engineer himself. I don't even understand the headline, since "the industry" were in fact the pioneer users of 3D printing technology (who else would have had the money to pay for its development?), and I can't confirm any of his "7 reasons". Even today, the main reason against 3D-printed parts in a mass-produced product is "part price", that's it. The applications where a printed part (no matter which material) would be "better suited" are and will remain quite limited to where's lots of money involved and low build quantity (i.e. Aerospace, motorsports, tools). While Your new car might not contain any 3D-printed part, the tools to build it do. Before You hang me from a tree, let me explain what fascinates me about "affordable rapid-technologies" and the "maker idea" in general: Firstofall, it will lead to a "democratization of manufacture possibilities". It is no longer necessary to have huge amounts of money to do anything, and it's no longer necessary to build a crazy large numer of parts to reach "return-on-investment". Rapid technologies will break the industry's "hegemony". Second, after we experienced "globalization", it will lead to what could be called "re-localization". It will be no longer necessary to move pre-products and products all around the globe. Mankind wastes way too many resources to ship stuff all around the globe. Anyway, I'm way off-topic now... If You design a part especially for a 3D printer, You can "take features into account). But any serious prototype part for a mass-produced product, no matter in which way it will be produced later-on, has to be 100% identical to the final mass-produced part. Otherwise it would be nothing but useless "bling". This is not limited to 3D printed parts: If You design an engine casing explicitly for CNC machining, it looks quite different than the same engine casing designed for casting. But if You want to CNC a prototype of the cast engine casing, You even add the 1° tooling angle to each "vertical" surface and include all those tiny edge radiuses everywhere, which often requires stupidly small mill cutters (sometimes even EDM). This easily triples the price, compared to a slightly simplified part. But in most cases You won't do that, because You wouldn't experience the very same haptics, stiffness, force and heat distribution, water flow, and so on. As for the cylinder head I mentioned, doing a 3D print of its mold would be a very simple thing for any 3D printer. Molds follow a rather simple logic (well, it's not that simple) that makes it easy to print because printer-optimized parts follow a rather similar logic. But the actual cast part is the negative to these "simple" molds, and quite often very complicated. And printing one such part without dedicated support material is accordingly complicated, too, if You want to achieve a high quality (after all, such prints are often dedicated for presenting a project to managers). I don't understand Your comment about a "Thingyverse engine", but foehnsturm's link to that cylinder head on GrabCAD leads to a Honda cylinder head that was scanned, reverse-engineered (re-designed according to the scan), and then rendered. One can easily tell that this is a rendered picture, not the scan, because a lot of surfaces show the wrong texture (i.e. drilled holes and threads showing a "cast" surface), and many of the mold's separation lines are missing. If You are interestd to see a real scan, I could upload a screenshot of a motorcycle cylinder that was scanned with a high-end GOM system, where the operator went crazy and did 700 "shots" (he was bored in-between two projects). In comparison, I could show a screenshot of a Yamaha engine that was scanned with a rather cheap (14.000€) Artec Eva system, just to point out why some companies are willing to invest "the extra 250.000 bucks". foehnsturm, I would love to let You try printing the cylinder head I developed, but I am not allowed to share any info or data (I'm a freelancer, I'm restricted by NDAs). But the cylinder head in the link You posted is quite comparable. luisito, I have learned about the David-HP deal just yesterday... I guess it's a good deal for David.

Thank You for the insight, Titus. Long story short, I guess we all can agree upon that Ultimaker "sort of promised" (as Daid put it) dual extruders for the UM2, and that the news it won't be possible didn't reach everybody, which caused quite some irritations and anger. For the Ultimaker company, this may probably lead to rethinking some communications aspects, for everybody else it's by now a thing of the past. We can now leave it as it is, or try to change it. It's never too late. I for my part would be willing to put in work for any "UM2(+) dual extrusion" idea as long as it's "open", and has a chance to later-on receive official Ultimaker support. I'm not interested in "third party", and/or "business". foehnsturm: The aforementioned aircooled four-stroke cylinder head. r

It's a young company. I guess nobody would be upset if they'd ever need to say "due to limited resources und unforeseen complications, we need to postpone our product launch by 4 weeks" (actually, it already happened anyway; if You order now, You'll receive the UM3 in November). Just look at Kickstarter, how many companies have delays? I never cared. Look at Tesla, they're big, and always in delay, and nobody's angry... I tried to keep it short, too. I failed miserably, as always. This applies to parts that were meant to be 3D-printed from the beginning. It does not apply if You want to print a sample of a cylinder head that later-on will be manufactured in a 5-piece steel mold with 2 sandcores. r

Well, I initially did not want to jump in on that discussion, also because I already ranted extensively on Facebook, but.... Meduza, I don't know why You keep talking "on behalf of" the Ultimaker company, especially when You start acting rude towards disappointed customers (the "bullshit" comment), especially when Your comments contradict the official staff... I agree with most things that CCA1 wrote, and mostofall, I can understand his point of view (because I am pretty much in the same position), while You obviously can't. While an ultimaker for most people is "a hobby", and for some people is "a small printing business", for professionals it is simply "a tool", nothing more and nothing less. There is no such thing as "a hobby tool", it's either, or. And You simply can't and don't follow every tools manufacturers' "press release" or "CEO interview", it's just not possible. I also use a computer as a tool (first computer in 1984, first "personal computer" in 1992, 3D-CAD since 1999), and still don't follow Intel's or Nvidia's gossip either. I've been using of 3D printed prototypes since 15 years (when having just a small part printed cost as much as a used car), and I've been following the "desktop printer" and "Ultimaker story" since the beginning. And while I liked the UMO, I didn't want an "experimental" printer (so I had my friends buy one; clever me). The UM2 seemd mature enough, also because of that "dual extrusion promise", so I finally bought that one. Someone has asked CCA1 why he bought the UM2+ even when it didn't fulfill his needs (yet)... well, sometimes You simply cannot wait any longer and need to opt for a compromise, plus, sometimes You decide to support an idea or a company through an early purchase, expecting them to redeem their promise one day in the future. I buy a lot of stuff that offers little use for my work, (i.e. buying a 400€ "David Laserscanner Starter Kit" even though I had access to a 250.000€ GOM system), only because I'd like to see that company prosper and hope for their future products to be valuable for my work. Mentioning "valuable", that's another point that sets hobbyists apart from professionals. It's not like freelancers or companies can "easily affor to spend some extra hundred bucks" on something, like someone said, the opposite is true: For a professional, invest requires benefit, and time has a high value. While an enthusiast might exaltedly spend a couple thousand bucks on their hobby (I do, too, but 3D printing is not my hobby), every professional needs to consider if the benefit is worth the invest. And while an enthusiast might experience deep satisfaction from tinkering with his machine for hours, to a professional it's just a time where he loses money. In retrospective, I bought my printer too early. I don't print a lot, but when I do, it's important. In many cases, I would have been way better off if I had just bought an SLA/SLS print. Remembering this one situation where I had developed a product that required a tooling invest of 30.000€, and I promised to print a prototype for my customer, and then messed with parameters for hours, to finally realize that a spare part is needed, and then finding out that spare part is "out of stock" everywhere... Therefor, enthusiasts, be happy to enjoy Your printing machine and Your hobby. But please acknowledge that other people might have different points of view and judge/value things differently. (Years ago, I have turned my hobby into my profession. But even when I succeded to maintain my enthusiasm, and live my passion on a higher level, I sort of lost my hobby. And even when I regret nothing, not one day goes by without a moment where I'm envious of "the amateur".) The only thing I disagree with CCA1 is the "target audience". To me, the UM3 is targeted at "printing hubs", and I for my part woudn't need a webcam, or many of the automatization features (why didn't Ultimaker go for a modular system with a "base model" and upgrade features?). Nevertheless, I still need the dual extrusion feature. I am not confusing "want" with "need" here. I once had to print a prototype of a four-stroke cylinder head in 13 (!!!) pieces, glue them together to 4 pieces, and then alltogether, when with support material I could have easily done it in one piece. As I wrote before, simply ordering an SLS/SLA prototype would have saved me lots of time and money. Daid, I really appreciate Your calm and reasonable explanation of how and why You stopped the dual extrusion idea for the UM2. I haven't known any of that before (not even that it was stopped), and I totally understand Your point. But still... have You ever wondered what would have happened if Ultimaker had published Your posting instead of that "company announcement"? Imagine Ultimaker admitting in early 2015 that "our staff is too small, and too busy with other projects", I guess that quite a few people (including myself) would have jumped in to help out. In the end, we all shared the same goal: To have a dual extruder on the UM2. (I am aware that quite a few people are working on that, but a "3rd party product" is no option to me, I don't want to hack code or firmware and the like, I want full and one-stop manufacturer support) All this finally leads to my "list of disappointments" about Ultimaker: 1. Upgrade price policy. I consider the "2+ upgrade kit" to be a "bugfix", a "service pack", and the 500€ price tag for that kit is way too high (I consider 300€ to be appropriate). Yes, it offers a new feeder and a new hotend, but there's a lot of feeders and hotends out there... a few people have promoted that "upgrade" to people like myself, but fail to acknowledge that a Bondtech and an E3D cost way less and offer at least the same performance... 2. Product policy. I do understand that the UM3 is a "totally new product". That doing so was necessary, and that the new printer is targeted at a slightly different audience. But still, I feel left behind. Instead of an upgrade (based on point 1, I was expecting it to be costly anyway), or a trade-in, I and others have to decide about an all-new purchase. And the new printer comes with a price tag that makes it hard to decide for an Ultimaker (or other fused-filament printer) instead of an SLA printer (I for my part will most probably go for a Form 2; I don't need all these "colour" and fancy-material stuff that FFF offer). 3. Communication policy. Out of the blue, You started a "printed with the new Ultimaker" hype. People like myself immediately saw "ah, dual extruder, finally!", only to find out a few days later that "we" would not benefit, that "we" could not go to the promised land. That is stupid, plain and simple. You just don't hype people up only to pi** them off immedately after that, that's a "Marketing coitus interruptus". You may have noticed that many of Your Facebook postings received less than 100 "likes", and You are surely well aware now few "I want that" lead to a real "I bought that" in the end. Why not go back to the way You went about the UM2? You had a clear statement about the "old" product, and the new product, about the differences between them, so everyone could chose. As for the UM3, You could even have communicated the dual extruder in way that gently (!!!) informed even the last one that it is a UM3-only feature. And You should have communicated all that way sooner! There's reasonable arguments for all three generations of printers, it's not like UM3 announcement would have stopped all UM2+ sales immediately. People would have looked at the features, and the price tags, and then decide. After all, did UM2 stop all UMO sales? Hell no. Now, since Meduza explicitly mentioned "Apple"... well, I disdain Apple products since the early 1990s (when they were mostly used in typesetting), but even I have to admit they have a cult-like following for a reason: Excellent/supreme products. If one looks at Ultimaker test results, i.e. the "Make Shootouts": In 2014, the UMO won the shootout, confirming to my friends they had made the right choice in 2013 (they were sceptical at first, because they had bought a p.i.t.a. printer in 2012). In 2015, the UM2 won the shootout, confirming myself I had made the right choice, convincing my friends to buy an UM2+ (that never performed as well as their UMO, bytheway). In 2016, the UM2+ came sixth! So anyone still throwing an "Apple attitude" at me has most probably not heard the calls, and should probably rather google one of the follwing: AOL. Nokia. Silicon Graphics. Yahoo. Especially when the requirement of to purchase an all-new product to reward an old promise is seriously cutting ties to many current customers anyway... So yes, the rant is over. It may have been some hard critics, but I did so because I care. (I still want that dual extruder ) r

I'd be interested to help implement dual extrusion to UM2(+). Actually, that's why I bought that UM2 in the first place... :( r (mechanical engineer; 18 years of experience in special machinery, manufacturing machines, product development)