Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts
Sign in to follow this  
sebastianf

Makerbot Replicator Print Quality

Recommended Posts

This is not a dig at Makerbot :!:

I sent a model of one of my projects the local Maketbot reseller to have a sample printed. My line of work is injection mould design and related product design (so mostly thin-wall stuff) so printing toy rockets and the like is not really a good test.

I received the sample earlier this evening was quite shocked to honest. Its nowhere near is good as I expected. Obviously I don't expect it to be of moulded quality but this was quite poor. I have uploaded a screenshot of the model and a photo of the printed part. Note the circled areas in the screenshot.

Capa1

20140410 220235

Is this result normal?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, then I'd say no, that's not what you'd expect. Provided there's nothing wrong with the source file. Those little "nubs" that are sticking out will need support and I'm guessing the guy/gal who printed that for you didn't bother. I would put in support manually for those in your CAD software for best result.

It also looks like there's some kind of geometry sandwiched in the lower part of the model? That'll get tricky to print.

Posting the model would help.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Sebastian

But I think the following well:

No one at MakerBot has obviously trying to distort the result.

It is actually not clear whether in fact optimal settings were used for reproduction.

I also suspect that no one has made efforts to replicate this object as possible. There are simply too many factors to consider. Unfortunately, objects have to be adapted to the capabilities of a machine. I do not know any machine from MakerBot / Ultimaker / etc, which dissolves finely identical in all three dimensions.

It is not the first time that I see such patterns.

From basically good machines, terrible object pattern are sent. Perhaps the manufacturers simply lack trained personnel, an appropriate section, and or enough time.

I could put no conclusion from this result, which judges about the overall machine quality.

One conclusion I have, however: Some manufacturers believe it is sufficient to be able to build a good machine.

But it would be good to see how close our most experienced users come here to the original.

In parallel, I would like to see what the most experienced MakerBot users can do with their machines.

Markus

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Sebastian

But I think the following well:

No one at MakerBot has obviously trying to distort the result.

It is actually not clear whether in fact optimal settings were used for reproduction.

I also suspect that no one has made efforts to replicate this object as possible. There are simply too many factors to consider. Unfortunately, objects have to be adapted to the capabilities of a machine. I do not know any machine from MakerBot / Ultimaker / etc, which dissolves finely identical in all three dimensions.

It is not the first time that I see such patterns.

From basically good machines, terrible object pattern are sent. Perhaps the manufacturers simply lack trained personnel, an appropriate section, and or enough time.

I could put no conclusion from this result, which judges about the overall machine quality.

One conclusion I have, however: Some manufacturers believe it is sufficient to be able to build a good machine.

But it would be good to see how close our most experienced users come here to the original.

In parallel, I would like to see what the most experienced MakerBot users can do with their machines.

Markus

I tend to agree. I don't that the reseller was the best at 3D printing. He was very helpful. He knew what he was talking about. perhaps though the practical side lacked some experience.

I think the part was also printed way too fast. Seriously I'm not that interested in speed... quality comes first.

My gut tells me it can do much better but lack of experience and time constraints made for a shoddy print.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the objects posted here:

http://umforum.ultimaker.com/index.php?/topic/467-post-your-latest-print/page-77&do=findComment&comment=45603

Scroll through all 77 pages of 1700 posts...

Going through the posts from the back. This terminator head is the only one so that shows the detail I'm looking for:

http://umforum.ultimaker.com/index.php?/topic/467-post-your-

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a dig at Makerbot :!:

I sent a model of one of my projects the local Maketbot reseller to have a sample printed. My line of work is injection mould design and related product design (so mostly thin-wall stuff) so printing toy rockets and the like is not really a good test.

I received the sample earlier this evening was quite shocked to honest. Its nowhere near is good as I expected. Obviously I don't expect it to be of moulded quality but this was quite poor. I have uploaded a screenshot of the model and a photo of the printed part. Note the circled areas in the screenshot.

 

 

Is this result normal?

Normal, I don't know, but it is definitely not unseen to have prints of the detail level you are asking for come out something like that...

3D printing is NOT an "out of the box and everything will be dandy" kind of thing, and to print models like the one you have posted there in that sort of detail will require both experience and skill (the two go hand in hand really)...

Can it be printed better than shown in the picture? Definitely. Will it ever live up to your expectations...? Hard to say...

I'm wondering if you are maybe expecting a bit too much from the technology, a sort of "this could/will be the tool that will solve all my problems and headaches" approach...

In the end, its a machine that presses molten plastic through a 0.4 mm. hole that moves... There are limits to what it can do, and again, those limits are reached through a lot of tinkering...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... Obviously I don't expect it to be of moulded quality...

Normal, I don't know, but it is definitely not unseen to have prints of the detail level you are asking for come out something like that...

3D printing is NOT an "out of the box and everything will be dandy" kind of thing, and to print models like the one you have posted there in that sort of detail will require both experience and skill (the two go hand in hand really)...

Can it be printed better than shown in the picture? Definitely. Will it ever live up to your expectations...? Hard to say...

I'm wondering if you are maybe expecting a bit too much from the technology, a sort of "this could/will be the tool that will solve all my problems and headaches" approach...

In the end, its a machine that presses molten plastic through a 0.4 mm. hole that moves... There are limits to what it can do, and again, those limits are reached through a lot of tinkering...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those bad parts on the MB print look like break-away support material which isn't removed yet. I could be wrong here.

However, I would have printed it without break away support. Still, some of those details look awfully small for FDM printing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is definetly a lot that you can do to improve the quality of the piece you showed there.

First things first: If you upload your model (for example at youmagine.com), then we can tell you if there's something wrong with it.

For now: there's probably room for optimisation in the model. (There always is ;) )

Then, it matters A LOT which settings you use to print. You can go fast, or high quality. Or anything in between. Some people achieve both at the same time - with a lot of tinkering and good experimenting. Everyone can achieve good quality just by printing slowly and doing a bit of tuning.

Next, it matters what filament you use. There are lots of good filaments, and there are even more bad filaments. You need a good quality filament to get a good quality print, period.

Then, you can modify your machine. The 0.4mm nozzle somewhat limits the resolution / surface quality of your prints. There are smaller diameter nozzles which can improve that. For the Ultimaker (Original) there are lots of hacks and mods that will increase your printing quality. The UM2 already is a good machine from stock - only little work is needed to achieve great results.

No doubt you can do better with a Replicator 2. Seems like your reseller wasn't very interested in delivering you a good sample.

It would be interesting to challenge both Replicator 2 and Ultimaker users to print a predefined model as good as they can and see who turns out winning :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those bad parts on the MB print look like break-away support material which isn't removed yet. I could be wrong here.

However, I would have printed it without break away support. Still, some of those details look awfully small for FDM printing.

It is. I've been sitting breaking it away with a knife but not all wants to come off.

It is a very tricky model; probably the most complex of what I usually work with. Still, I want to push the machines and see what it can do...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then post the model online and see what Ultimakers can do :D

Or just send 2-3 Volunteers the file. I would agree to print this and take some pics.

Btw the upper part in your picture is more or less very hard for any printer to print nicely if not impossible.... the lower part is not easy either....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then post the model online and see what Ultimakers can do :D

Or just send 2-3 Volunteers the file. I would agree to print this and take some pics.

Btw the upper part in your picture is more or less very hard for any printer to print nicely if not impossible

I can't post it publicly but by all means pm me your email address and I'll send it to you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Our picks

    • Print Core CC | Red for Ruby
      Q: For some users, 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...
      • 1 reply
    • "Back To The Future" using Generative Design & Investment Casting
      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 the energy usage of the product during it’s service life.
        • Like
      • 12 replies
×

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!