More thin wall issues

I have already addressed this issue with customer service and my point here is not to complain but to try and raise awareness amongst users and get any feedback from others...

I recently had a comissioned piece printed successfully in stainless steel. Delivered to customer who was happy and also wanted to see it in Polished Alumide. He ordered it himself and the printing got rejected due to Thin Wall issues. It was explained to me that the polishing of the model would have caused problems... okay, I can see that, and accepted it. So, I ask, can he get it printed in stainless steel again? No, I'm told, because of the afore-mentioned issues. Huh? But it was already printed in s/steel! Yes, but it shouldn't have been, I was told.

Great. And therein lies the problem. Shapeways does their best to print models for their customers even taking risks in doing so sometimes. But, in reality, they shouldn't do so, and here's why: I had the model made and delivered. I gave the client the go ahead to print as many as he wanted since I had successfuly proved the model was good. But it wasn't. And now I look like I don't know what I'm doing and may lose sales over it.

From the error image that was generated (below) I still don't see why it can't be printed in steel. I expected to have problems with the lettering but even that passed muster, just about. Nope, the error was with two rounded points on an anchor. They do not appear flimsy or unsupported. They go from wide to narrow but there isn't really any great area of "thinness". So what gives? I've seen other models printed here that make me ask how the hell did that get through, and this seems passable. A great many models have areas that come to a rounded end. At some point the width is going to be below the minimum wall thickness but if it's well supported it should print, right?

Any thoughts are welcome.

Glenn

dimensions cm: 2.6 w x 0.28 d x 5.02 h

Hi Lensman;

I think the problem is those two points are thinner than the minimum wall thickness and surface detail values for their length.

The minimum wall thickness is 3MM so anything protruding from the body of the piece that measures less than 3MM across cannot extend farther than 3MM out from the body.

Also try changing the radius on the two indicated points to 0.5MM (1MM total thickness); as with the wall thickness I don't think you can let the tip of a surface detail that's thinner than the minimum detail value (in this case 1MM for SS) extend farther than 1MM from the body.

Try adding a little material along the crude lines I drew on the part to make them look more like the other four points on the piece; it should be accepted for printing then.

Thanks for taking the time for that GWMT.... can be very frustrating, especially when something does get printed and you think all is okay.

I know there is talk of Shapeways somehow indicating on model pages that something is printable, or has been printed, but it seems even with that helpful information for buyers it is not going to be completely assuring.

Glenn

"Thanks for taking the time for that GWMT.... can be very frustrating, especially when something does get printed and you think all is okay."

Always glad to help

"I know there is talk of Shapeways somehow indicating on model pages that something is printable, or has been printed, but it seems even with that helpful information for buyers it is not going to be completely assuring."

The only way to be sure something will work is to first order it for yourself. Things can be successfully printed that end up being damaged in transit from the printer to Shapeways or when shipped from Shapeways to the customer.

Yes, but that's my point. I DID order it for myself and it was successfully printed in stainless steel. It was only when then customer went to order it in Alumide that I was then told it was unprintable. Period.

Glenn

This is one of my pet peeves, Shapeways prints a model with no problem, then later when I go to reorder it, suddenly it's "unprintable." It's really frustrating, especially when I have to cancel orders for my customers. I end up losing a lot of money because of this.

We're working on the issue of being printed then being rejected. I think a problem is just because it printed, doesn't mean it printed with no problems. I know I had a piece that took 5 tries a couple years ago. But I'm just the Moderator, I don't know all the internal workings of printing and rejections yet.

Indeed. I remember a model I printed some time ago that looked fine and later got rejected. On closer inspection, some of the protrusions marked as faulty in the second try had actually been slightly flawed on the first print but I hadn't noticed that.

But it would be definetely VERY helpful if Shapeways could be consistent in this - one way or the other.

Greetings
Karl Heinz

I think therein lies the problem: Shapeways was/is trying to be very helpful in printing an item and not really knowing the problems this causes later down the line... All well and good for a one-off item with the dedication appreciated, but when we want re-prints this happens.

Glenn

There are some new people or changed policies at shapeways recently... I have had several things that have been printed plenty of times come back as "unprintable in any material" all of a sudden. In one case a customer ordered the same thing back-to-back and one was OK the next was "thin walls" - as always, the issue is human not your model. If you only upload spheres of at least 3.1mm or more in diameter you should be OK though... but no guarantees there either.

Hi Guys,

As Michael pointed out we are working on ensuring consistency so you should see this happening less and less.

We work with a number of production partners and when a design is close to the edge of the design rules, some will choose to print it and others will reject it. Hence you can print it once, and then the second time you order it might get rejected.

The easy answer is we should reject it the first time so this doesn't happen and is one of the things we are working towards with InShape2. (Josh's blog post does a good job of explaining it https://www.shapeways.com/blog/archives/1460-Inside-Shapeways -Building-an-Infrastructure-for-Growth.html)

That's a shame.
The good news is, there are competitors that will print the same models OK, so if you find Shapeways will no longer work, the alternatives still do.

What we usually recommend is that the designer change the model slightly so it fits the design rules!

Like GWMT helped here.

What I meant was that if the first time was close to the edge and we printed it anyway, we should have rejected it and encouraged a change in design to get a better model that we can print every time.

In my case I had multiple customers print several models via Shapeways that are no longer printable here. I was told by customer service that they are "no longer printable in any material" and I was pointed to i.competitive service and Ponoko.
In the past I have had great experiences from i.materialize but some customers may not like the price difference; at the moment I am waiting for my latest "unprintable" models to be delivered. Hence the recommendation. I'll post comparison photos when they arrive.

It's not possible to send it back to the 'production partner' that printed it the first,second, third.... time?

Glenn

Following up as promised, since the frustrating "Unprintable" rejection issues have returned.

The Carrier below is unprintable by Shapeways - but has never been printable here, so at least there is consistency.
The Hyperion was printed multiple times here, but "is no longer printable in any material" according to Shapeways support.

In every case, they print beautifully when sent to any of Shapeways many competitors. So, for you designers struggling with once-printable-but-now-rejected models I recommend setting up a shop at i.Materialize, Ponoko, competitive service (and I'm sure there are others!) rather than trying to modify models that you already know work OK.