Home » Community » General Discussion » New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request
Search Search  
Show: Today's Messages    Show Polls    Message Navigator
Stronger build materials on ProJet ? [message #32183 is a reply to message #31734 ] Sat, 06 August 2011 07:38 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar fx  is currently offline fx
Messages: 105
Registered: July 2008
Go to my shop
Senior Member
@ Nancy:
fx wrote on Fri, 05 August 2011 14:42

Maybe it could be worth to review VisiJetĀ® EX200 and MX Plastic Materials, to look if the strength can be improved with another build material without having to make new rules...
and
Stannum wrote on Fri, 05 August 2011 19:19

@fx: And the HR200, which not only has some higher specs, but is also described as having better surface finish.

Did you try these materials ? I think it should be the first thing to do before making new rules.

I'm also afraid we designers will suffer from absurd orders rejections. I like this material because I can create models which aren't clunky. Now this will be much less fun. Some people know what they do, they know what they design.
Why not allow a two "check mode" option drop-down at part upload: A "dummy*- not the right word but you get it" mode and an "expert" mode. The dummy mode would strictly enforce the rules while the expert wouldn't.
Dummy mode: "Sit back and relax! You model is almost guaranteed to become a nice 3D printed model."
Expert mode: "For people who know what they do. Please be aware that your right to get a reprint in case of DOA is limited in this mode. If you feel unsafe, please choose Dummy mode"

@Stannum: I received identical parts where the pattern was almost unvisible and other where the "ugly support material shadow" was raised by 0.2-0.3 mm on the part. I'm sure machine calibration plays a big role in the part quality. I read on the net ( http://hackaday.com/2011/04/01/3d-printer-gets-a-big-resolut ion-improvement/#comment-372344 and next comments) the printhead cleaning process on ProJet machines involves a high build material consumption...

edit * maybe "failsafe mode" would be a better name... /edit

[Updated on: Sat, 06 August 2011 12:03 UTC]

Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #32191 is a reply to message #32175 ] Sat, 06 August 2011 11:22 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar tebee  is currently offline tebee
Messages: 383
Registered: December 2010
Go to my shop
Senior Member
stannum wrote on Sat, 06 August 2011 00:38

Youknowwho4eva is the one saying FUD is getting bead blasted. .


Ah ! I was assuming that as Youknowwho4eva is a moderator here he was speaking on behalf of Shapeways, but I guess that may not be the case as he doesn't have a "I work here" tag

So lets try and work out what is fact. I take it we can deduce that there is some problem with the downfacing side side of FUD prints where the support martial is as Nancy has asked us to keep this "open"

Are we sure this is the problem that ha been reported with poor detail and a rough surface? I would guess so, but I don't know if there are any other issues.

Do we know what causes this problem ? Is it the wax removal process or is it the resin taking on the contours and texture of the support material ? This I have no idea though both sound plausible.

What can we do to minimize the problem ? Well I assume what Nancy wants us to do is to have one side lacking detail but this begs the question how do specify that side to Shapeways so it is printed in the right orientation?

If they do allow us to do this is it going to cost more as they can't then pick the most economical way to print - minimizing support martial and making maximum use of the space on the platter ?

Any thought on this summery?

Tom


[Updated on: Sat, 06 August 2011 11:23 UTC]

Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #32198 is a reply to message #32191 ] Sat, 06 August 2011 14:14 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar BillBedford  is currently offline BillBedford
Messages: 346
Registered: November 2008
Go to my shop
Senior Member
tebee wrote on Sat, 06 August 2011 11:22


So lets try and work out what is fact. I take it we can deduce that there is some problem with the downfacing side side of FUD prints where the support martial is as Nancy has asked us to keep this "open"

It is not just the down facing side. It is anywhere that the plastic and the wax support come into contact. Have a look at this model. There is a trail of white texture under each of the bolt heads where they have been supported by the wax
Quote:

Are we sure this is the problem that ha been reported with poor detail and a rough surface? I would guess so, but I don't know if there are any other issues.

There is also a diagonal hatch pattern on some surfaces, it isn't very deep, but shows up because the surfaces are reflective.
Quote:

Do we know what causes this problem ? Is it the wax removal process or is it the resin taking on the contours and texture of the support material ? This I have no idea though both sound plausible.

The white texture is due to the resin taking on the surface finish of the wax at the interface.
Quote:

What can we do to minimize the problem ? Well I assume what Nancy wants us to do is to have one side lacking detail but this begs the question how do specify that side to Shapeways so it is printed in the right orientation?

If they do allow us to do this is it going to cost more as they can't then pick the most economical way to print - minimizing support martial and making maximum use of the space on the platter ?

The build envelope is 152 mm deep, and I suspect that at times of high demand, as in the last couple of months, there will be a temptation to fill the build volume so that some pieces overlay others giving those at the top of the build a better finish than those further down.

For my part, I want to know how to deal with all the quirks of this material, both for my own use in producing patterns and to give advice to my customers who, for the most part are competent enough to clean up and paint the pieces I produce.



Bill Bedford
Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #32238 is a reply to message #31734 ] Sun, 07 August 2011 23:04 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar Robear9992  is currently offline Robear9992
Messages: 8
Registered: June 2011
Go to all my models
Junior Member
What about a tiered pricing structure?

If we know FUD can go down to a certain level of detail but there's a risk of reprint or all-out failure, can we be given the option to try anyway and pay a premium? This way the more detailed designs assume the risk rather than spreading it across all designs for the material.

For example, what about adopting the limitations in the draft as FUD, and then also have FUD+, where FUD+ allows the designer to push the limits with the understanding that the printing may fail or not print properly? FUD+ will reprint up to 3 times (or something), and all failures will be sent back to the customer for review & redesign. (Maybe FUD+ is just that prototype checkbox people have mentioned....?)

I think most makers here understand that we're dealing with prototypes and it's almost always an iterative process (Unless we're really lucky and it comes out right the first time, making us feel godlike - A designer's hole-in-one Smile. If we can "borrow your printers" for a small fee we're happy (I know I am!), and I think it's unreasonable for customers to expect designs to be printed perfectly the first time, especially with intricate detail. I wonder if a few squeaky wheels have made us seem finicky?

On the other hand, if it's possible to get this kind of 99% guarantee it's going to "print as designed," I can see the value in that, as long as we have the option to push the envelope.

Re: Orientation

I sent out a FUD design with Ponoko and expected it oriented based on my model and it had been reoriented. I designed around the 0.1 mm vertical layers and expected 0.05 mm resolution horizontally, so it messed me up a bit. An option to select print orientation would be great. Again, if a premium is required, a premium is required.


I want to mention that it seems like you're trying very hard to keep prices competitive, which is appreciated, but if given the choice I'd prefer to pay a little more for more flexibility in my designs.

[Updated on: Sun, 07 August 2011 23:10 UTC]

Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #32252 is a reply to message #32191 ] Mon, 08 August 2011 13:12 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar Youknowwho4eva  is currently offline Youknowwho4eva
Messages: 5484
Registered: September 2008
Go to my shop
Shapie Expert
I work here
tebee wrote on Sat, 06 August 2011 11:22

stannum wrote on Sat, 06 August 2011 00:38

Youknowwho4eva is the one saying FUD is getting bead blasted. .


Ah ! I was assuming that as Youknowwho4eva is a moderator here he was speaking on behalf of Shapeways, but I guess that may not be the case as he doesn't have a "I work here" tag




I mentioned in my post for Nancy to correct me if I was wrong, as I don't know how shapeways production facilities work with FUD.

To clear things. I am a moderator, not an employee. I try to inform, keep the peace and what not.

The production facility I talked to was not (as far as I know) a shapeways production facility, they very well may melt the wax away I didn't ask them about that, but they said to me about the model I was getting quoted that there would be a residue left from the build material that normally they would use bead shot to remove, but for the model I was getting quoted, it would remove my details as well. So the white sticky residue on the models, not the build material itself, would be removed by bead shot, by the supplier that I talked to.

Hope this clears things up

Thanks,
Mike



I learned a long time ago the wisest thing I can do is be on my own side, be an advocate for myself and others like me. -Maya Angelou
michael@shapeways.com Community Advocate
Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #32253 is a reply to message #31734 ] Mon, 08 August 2011 14:04 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar nancyliang  is currently offline nancyliang
Messages: 155
Registered: January 2011
Go to my shop
Senior Member
I work here
Ok, I'm aiming to have a new version of the design rules by end of the day today. Stay tuned.

Thanks,
Nancy



Product Manager
Twitter: @nliang
Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #32318 is a reply to message #32253 ] Tue, 09 August 2011 04:27 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar nancyliang  is currently offline nancyliang
Messages: 155
Registered: January 2011
Go to my shop
Senior Member
I work here
Here's an update. Please note, this does NOT include the design rules for wires supporting other items. Like this: http://www.shapeways.com/topics/udesign/design-rules/frosted -detail/wire_sprues.jpg

Those will likely have to be 0.6mm to prevent breaking. We are running some more tests (the original tests failed to survive.. .even at 0.6mm and 0.8mm, so we are modifying the designs and running some more tests).

I added some additional guidelines for wires within 0.3-0.6mm that would make them stronger.

Last, this is important.. there are no guarantees that this will pass our operations cost/benefit test. The more nuanced the rules (you can do 0.3mm but you must do this and that), the more time it takes to check the files. The more time it takes to check the files, the more EXPENSIVE the material will be. If it comes down to raising the price, we will have to enforce stricter rules. We definitely value community feedback, but there are other elements (like labor costs) that must be taken into consideration as well.

Thanks,
Nancy



Product Manager
Twitter: @nliang
Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #32319 is a reply to message #32318 ] Tue, 09 August 2011 04:37 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar CGD  is currently offline CGD
Messages: 219
Registered: April 2009
Go to my shop
Senior Member
nancyliang wrote on Tue, 09 August 2011 04:27

Here's an update. Please note, this does NOT include the design rules for wires supporting other items. Like this: http://www.shapeways.com/topics/udesign/design-rules/frosted -detail/wire_sprues.jpg



After reading through the new guidelines, I still cannot see why my tiny soldiers are declared as unprintable... Confused

CGD
Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #32321 is a reply to message #32319 ] Tue, 09 August 2011 04:44 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar nancyliang  is currently offline nancyliang
Messages: 155
Registered: January 2011
Go to my shop
Senior Member
I work here
CGD: It might be the stool the leg is standing on is too weak to support the weight of the soldier.

For the rest.. one thing I forgot to mention. You'll notice the orientation bit is no longer on the new version, and that's because the two layer problem has been solved!!! Well.. almost. We still need to run a few more test batches to be sure, but it looks good so far!



Product Manager
Twitter: @nliang
Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #32323 is a reply to message #32321 ] Tue, 09 August 2011 05:11 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar CGD  is currently offline CGD
Messages: 219
Registered: April 2009
Go to my shop
Senior Member
nancyliang wrote on Tue, 09 August 2011 04:44

CGD: It might be the stool the leg is standing on is too weak to support the weight of the soldier.




Hi Nancy,

Thanks for the reply. If that is the case, it would be very, very easy to fix. However, this is what I received when my order was canceled:
Quote:

The following models have been rejected:

- 1:144 WWII German Tank Crew @ Depot in Frosted Ultra Detail: Can not be printed : parts to fragile, arms etc will break
http://www.shapeways.com/model/246464/1_144_wwii_german_tank _crew___depot.html


bounding box: please clarify [message #32328 is a reply to message #32318 ] Tue, 09 August 2011 09:07 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar kontor_apart  is currently offline kontor_apart
Messages: 159
Registered: February 2010
Go to my shop
Senior Member
Quote:

White Strong & Flexible Polished bounding box: we are asking for minimum of 10x10x2mm per part
I am not usually into these tiny models, but for the sake of clarity. Would the following 2 models be accepted for polishing:


Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #32371 is a reply to message #32321 ] Tue, 09 August 2011 21:50 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar jzichek  is currently offline jzichek
Messages: 56
Registered: June 2011
Go to all my models
Member
The random surface roughness issue is basically solved? Awesome! If so, that eliminates my main concern about using this material. Very good news indeed!

nancyliang wrote on Tue, 09 August 2011 04:44


For the rest.. one thing I forgot to mention. You'll notice the orientation bit is no longer on the new version, and that's because the two layer problem has been solved!!! Well.. almost. We still need to run a few more test batches to be sure, but it looks good so far!

Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #32377 is a reply to message #32318 ] Wed, 10 August 2011 02:10 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar CGD  is currently offline CGD
Messages: 219
Registered: April 2009
Go to my shop
Senior Member
nancyliang wrote on Tue, 09 August 2011 04:27

Last, this is important.. there are no guarantees that this will pass our operations cost/benefit test. The more nuanced the rules (you can do 0.3mm but you must do this and that), the more time it takes to check the files. The more time it takes to check the files, the more EXPENSIVE the material will be. If it comes down to raising the price, we will have to enforce stricter rules. We definitely value community feedback, but there are other elements (like labor costs) that must be taken into consideration as well.

Thanks,
Nancy


I'm all for adding a "Prototype" or "Print As Is" checkbox option to the upload or order page. Then Shapeways don't have to check the file regarding thin wall and we bear the consequences. Shapeways can save cost and we got the chance to push the envelop.

As a matter of fact, I would like to have the option available for all materials, not only for FUD.

CGD
Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #32383 is a reply to message #32377 ] Wed, 10 August 2011 06:59 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar stop4stuff  is currently offline stop4stuff
Messages: 3111
Registered: June 2010
Go to my shop
Shapie Expert
CGD, without human checks, the issue could become a whole tray of prints gets ruined due to thin wall parts breaking whilst being printed and getting dragged across the print tray.

Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #32384 is a reply to message #32383 ] Wed, 10 August 2011 07:26 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar CGD  is currently offline CGD
Messages: 219
Registered: April 2009
Go to my shop
Senior Member
stop4stuff wrote on Wed, 10 August 2011 06:59

CGD, without human checks, the issue could become a whole tray of prints gets ruined due to thin wall parts breaking whilst being printed and getting dragged across the print tray.




stop4stuff,

Not necessary. Those like me asking for the "Prototype" checkbox are mostly been working with Shapeways for a while and want to push the envelop. The 3D printers itself can actually do better than Shapeways' rules indicated. I have a lot of models that printed without problem the first time, but at the second order (without any change to the file), Shapeways catches a thin wall error they missed the first time and mark the file as unprintable.

Such files for example, as we already knew that they can be printed okay even with the thin wall error, a "Print as Is" button will save Shapeways rechecking and rejecting the model.

CGD
Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #32385 is a reply to message #32384 ] Wed, 10 August 2011 08:02 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar stannum  is currently offline stannum
Messages: 971
Registered: May 2009
Go to my shop
Senior Member
CGD: breaking a full run depends on the tech, some machines are more prone than others. The dust based systems (WSF, Alumide, Sandstone, Steel...) seem to be the worst, as all is "in contact" while being printed. If you are talking about being lucky with Black Detail, in those machines parts share a tray but they shouldn't be in contact, except with extreme stacking to fill up all the work volume.

Another option (suggested for long) would be a paid check service that verifies the model completly. When ordering, full checks instead of the first handful would also be nice.
Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #32387 is a reply to message #32385 ] Wed, 10 August 2011 08:47 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar CGD  is currently offline CGD
Messages: 219
Registered: April 2009
Go to my shop
Senior Member
stannum wrote on Wed, 10 August 2011 08:02

CGD: breaking a full run depends on the tech, some machines are more prone than others. The dust based systems (WSF, Alumide, Sandstone, Steel...) seem to be the worst, as all is "in contact" while being printed. If you are talking about being lucky with Black Detail, in those machines parts share a tray but they shouldn't be in contact, except with extreme stacking to fill up all the work volume.


stannum,

99% of my prints are WSF, and all occurrence of these lucky prints are of WSF except one, which is Black detail.



Quote:

Another option (suggested for long) would be a paid check service that verifies the model completly. When ordering, full checks instead of the first handful would also be nice.


Somebody could start an independent service with this and get rich. Laughing

Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #32419 is a reply to message #32318 ] Wed, 10 August 2011 17:46 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar kolo  is currently offline kolo
Messages: 10
Registered: June 2009
Go to all my models
Junior Member
nancyliang wrote on Tue, 09 August 2011 04:27


I added some additional guidelines for wires within 0.3-0.6mm that would make them stronger.

Thanks,
Nancy


I have been reading through the design rules for wires and have an additional question/comment:

What about if you design a chain? Like in the picture:
http://i833.photobucket.com/albums/zz254/Olovsson/Skerhetskedjafr3DprintV40.jpg

Does in that case the wire need to be square for 0.3 to 0.6 mm? Or will it work like it is drawn in the picture. Diameter is 0.3mm in this case. The ratio is well within 1:30 (1:20).

Anyone with experience of chain designs in FUD?

Kjell
Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #32435 is a reply to message #31734 ] Wed, 10 August 2011 19:14 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar FoxholeAtheist  is currently offline FoxholeAtheist
Messages: 18
Registered: August 2011
Go to all my models
Junior Member
My input might not be worth very much, as I've not printed anything yet, but I'd like to also promote the idea of a "Test Print" checkbox, or something similar. The disadvantage of using Shapeways vs having your own hardware is that you can't as easily run through several iterations of your design to fine-tune it. A "Test Print" button could help with this.

The way I'm picturing it, by clicking the box, the designer would pay a bit extra (per model? per order? per material in that order?... dunno) and it would be flagged as pushing the design criteria in some way. The Shapeways software that would normally reject the design would instead flag those parts that could cause trouble, and the person doing the printing would know to look more closely at that model. If the model failed, the additional fee would offset a reprint (or two?) as well as the additional time for the machine operator to deal with it. The designer could then receive the successful and/or broken pieces, along with a notation as to what they could do to fix it if it is indeed unprintable.

The "Test Print" button would only be available for the designer of a particular part, not for customers shopping in the "stores".
Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #32448 is a reply to message #32419 ] Wed, 10 August 2011 20:07 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar stop4stuff  is currently offline stop4stuff
Messages: 3111
Registered: June 2010
Go to my shop
Shapie Expert
Kjell,

I have experience in FUD chain... maille Smile it's not ncessarily the diameter (point to point) that needs to be 0.3mm, but the wall thickness, i.e. the distance between the flat faces that make up the 'tube/wire' diameter for the chain links... 0.3mm is quite fragile. Another consideration is the space between the links 'as printed', the space will be gone with the support material, so the finished model will have slack in the chain... you would probably get away with 0.05 - 0.1mm spacing (0.1mm works with my chain maille) for the print.

Paul

[edit] tpyos

[Updated on: Wed, 10 August 2011 20:08 UTC]

Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #32482 is a reply to message #32448 ] Thu, 11 August 2011 05:42 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar kolo  is currently offline kolo
Messages: 10
Registered: June 2009
Go to all my models
Junior Member
stop4stuff wrote on Wed, 10 August 2011 20:07

Kjell,

I have experience in FUD chain... maille Smile it's not ncessarily the diameter (point to point) that needs to be 0.3mm, but the wall thickness, i.e. the distance between the flat faces that make up the 'tube/wire' diameter for the chain links... 0.3mm is quite fragile. Another consideration is the space between the links 'as printed', the space will be gone with the support material, so the finished model will have slack in the chain... you would probably get away with 0.05 - 0.1mm spacing (0.1mm works with my chain maille) for the print.

Paul

[edit] tpyos


Paul,

I had a look on you designs and you certainly have a lot of experience in "chain design" Smile

I was a bit unclear in my previous post. What I mean was that the wire that "builds" the link is 0.3mm in diameter:

http://i833.photobucket.com/albums/zz254/Olovsson/link.jpg

Question is how the design rules would look like for a thing like this. The rules really don't cover these cases today (at least in my opinion).

Kjell
Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #32488 is a reply to message #32482 ] Thu, 11 August 2011 07:07 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar stop4stuff  is currently offline stop4stuff
Messages: 3111
Registered: June 2010
Go to my shop
Shapie Expert
yep Kjell, that's what I'm meaning too, but looking at the 'wire' as a mesh, is the 0.3mm a face-to-face or a point-to-pont measurement? Depending how many faces there are in the circumference of the 'wire', if the measurement is point to point, you'll have sub 0.3mm face to face.e.g.

http://www.stop4stuff.com/shapeways/images/0.3mm-point-point.jpg

I don't think there'd be an issue with your design as long as it meets the 0.3mm wall thickness rule, (I tend to think of chain links as rings rather than the wire that makes up the link.) You could always upload the model, and send Shapeways Customer Service a message asking for their opinion as to the printability.

Paul

[Updated on: Thu, 11 August 2011 07:08 UTC]

Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #32489 is a reply to message #32488 ] Thu, 11 August 2011 08:09 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar kolo  is currently offline kolo
Messages: 10
Registered: June 2009
Go to all my models
Junior Member
stop4stuff wrote on Thu, 11 August 2011 07:07

yep Kjell, that's what I'm meaning too, but looking at the 'wire' as a mesh, is the 0.3mm a face-to-face or a point-to-pont measurement? Depending how many faces there are in the circumference of the 'wire', if the measurement is point to point, you'll have sub 0.3mm face to face.e.g.

Paul




Paul,

Now I'm with you.

Actually this is interesting, I myself didn't think of it in this way. You actually get a different "wall thickness" on wires, from what you have in the CAD program when you generate the STL (or whichever format you are using) file.

So in the case with the link in my picture above, the thickness will certainly be a bit less than 0.3 mm. How much less must be depending on how "tight" you generate the triangles in the STL file.

However this is easily fixed with a wire that is drawn some 1/100mm thicker in the CAD program, how much thicker it should be needs probably to be tested.

Thanks for making me aware of this and it would probably be good to mentioned it in the design rules.

Kjell
Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #32761 is a reply to message #31734 ] Mon, 15 August 2011 21:51 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar tebee  is currently offline tebee
Messages: 383
Registered: December 2010
Go to my shop
Senior Member
Can I ask for a clarification on what is meant by a minimum thickness of "More than 0.6mm" for walls of any size?

Would say 0.61 mm be ok or do you mean go up to the next unit and make it 0.7mm like WSF?

Tom
Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #32963 is a reply to message #32371 ] Fri, 19 August 2011 16:32 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar darthviper107  is currently offline darthviper107
Messages: 19
Registered: June 2011
Go to all my models
Junior Member
jzichek wrote on Tue, 09 August 2011 21:50

The random surface roughness issue is basically solved? Awesome! If so, that eliminates my main concern about using this material. Very good news indeed!

nancyliang wrote on Tue, 09 August 2011 04:44


For the rest.. one thing I forgot to mention. You'll notice the orientation bit is no longer on the new version, and that's because the two layer problem has been solved!!! Well.. almost. We still need to run a few more test batches to be sure, but it looks good so far!





Is the roughness fixed? I got some prints that would be perfect if it weren't for the diagonal lines on it, and since they're rough like that, I can't really use them so if it's fixed then I would be able to use Shapeways again.
Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #33014 is a reply to message #32963 ] Sat, 20 August 2011 21:28 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar jzichek  is currently offline jzichek
Messages: 56
Registered: June 2011
Go to all my models
Member
That's not encouraging news...guess I was overly optimistic!

Quote:


Is the roughness fixed? I got some prints that would be perfect if it weren't for the diagonal lines on it, and since they're rough like that, I can't really use them so if it's fixed then I would be able to use Shapeways again.

Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #33371 is a reply to message #32963 ] Fri, 26 August 2011 13:25 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar Nane  is currently offline Nane
Messages: 172
Registered: August 2010
Go to all my models
Senior Member
darthviper107 wrote on Fri, 19 August 2011 16:32


Is the roughness fixed? I got some prints that would be perfect if it weren't for the diagonal lines on it, and since they're rough like that, I can't really use them so if it's fixed then I would be able to use Shapeways again.


Not quite yet with FUD. (If you were talking about FUD) It is very close but still covers about 70% of my models with inconsistent surfaces that a miniature mold would definitely pick up.
http://www.shapeways.com/forum/index.php?t=msg&goto=3336 8&#msg_33368

[Updated on: Fri, 26 August 2011 13:26 UTC]

Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #33841 is a reply to message #32321 ] Tue, 06 September 2011 13:49 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar FredrikB  is currently offline FredrikB
Messages: 14
Registered: December 2009
Go to all my models
Junior Member
nancyliang wrote on Tue, 09 August 2011 04:44

For the rest.. one thing I forgot to mention. You'll notice the orientation bit is no longer on the new version, and that's because the two layer problem has been solved!!! Well.. almost. We still need to run a few more test batches to be sure, but it looks good so far!


Hi,

Just wondering if Shapeways has any more news on this. I'm under the impression that people are still complaining about what appears to be "the two layer problem" in the "It arrived!" section, so I would like to know if this is still being investigated.

Best regards,

Fredrik

[Edit: made my question a bit clearer]

[Updated on: Tue, 06 September 2011 13:51 UTC]

Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #33925 is a reply to message #33841 ] Wed, 07 September 2011 06:32 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar nancyliang  is currently offline nancyliang
Messages: 155
Registered: January 2011
Go to my shop
Senior Member
I work here
Hi, some of these issues have to do with support being stuck inside because the escape hole is too small. Some of these do seem like the two layer issue, and we are looking into what is happening there because it should not be happening any longer.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.



Product Manager
Twitter: @nliang
Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #33927 is a reply to message #33925 ] Wed, 07 September 2011 07:06 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar nancyliang  is currently offline nancyliang
Messages: 155
Registered: January 2011
Go to my shop
Senior Member
I work here
We looked into a few of the issues in the It Arrived section, and we think some of them were printed before the new solution kicked in.

In general, if you see any defect (two layer, or otherwise) please e-mail customer service. The reasons really vary from model to model and it's difficult for me to generalize on most defects (some I can generalize because they affect a larger sample size). They will be able to help you get a better answer.

Based on the models that our shipping team have seen though, the two layer issue has by and large disappeared. There are still models that have two layers due to support material being stuck/escape hole too small, and other reasons but that should be a very small minority.

Let me know if you have any questions!

Thanks,
Nancy



Product Manager
Twitter: @nliang
Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #33937 is a reply to message #33927 ] Wed, 07 September 2011 12:01 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar FredrikB  is currently offline FredrikB
Messages: 14
Registered: December 2009
Go to all my models
Junior Member
nancyliang wrote on Wed, 07 September 2011 07:06

Based on the models that our shipping team have seen though, the two layer issue has by and large disappeared. There are still models that have two layers due to support material being stuck/escape hole too small, and other reasons but that should be a very small minority.


Lovely! Thanks for that info!

Best regards,

Fredrik
Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #33942 is a reply to message #33937 ] Wed, 07 September 2011 13:59 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar CGD  is currently offline CGD
Messages: 219
Registered: April 2009
Go to my shop
Senior Member
When are we going to have the finalized specificaion/design rules for FUD?

I hasitate to design for FUD without the new reference.
Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #34587 is a reply to message #33942 ] Mon, 19 September 2011 15:50 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar Nane  is currently offline Nane
Messages: 172
Registered: August 2010
Go to all my models
Senior Member
Hey Nancy, quick question! Was wondering if you guys would re-print if the models came fused with the two layer issue? I'm asking because I don't have any more money for test prints so all future prints would need to be perfectly smooth all over i.e. production quality as they would be used for casting my master miniatures. As my miniatures were 70% or more covered with the 2 layer issue that would be a big difference going from that to 0%!

I also noticed that the two layer issue is generally hidden by the baby oil (great smell!) and is only seen very clearly once the mini has been washed in soap and water then let dry...

Re: New design rules for WSF Polished & FUD/FD -- Feedback Request [message #34615 is a reply to message #34587 ] Mon, 19 September 2011 21:36 UTC Go to previous message
avatar nancyliang  is currently offline nancyliang
Messages: 155
Registered: January 2011
Go to my shop
Senior Member
I work here
Hey all,

First, apologies that the official design rules are taking a while. The new Full Color Sandstone upgrade took priority.

As for reprints, I think this would follow our normal process, where if you think the prints you got are of an unacceptable quality, you should email Customer Service and they would make the call on a case by case basis.

Thanks all,
Nancy



Product Manager
Twitter: @nliang

Pages (2): [ «    1  2] 
   
Previous Topic:Questions about the new product detail page interface
Next Topic:Starting simple with color but failing

Logo

Hello.

We're sorry to inform you that we no longer support this browser and can't confirm that everything will work as expected. For the best Shapeways experience, please use one of the following browsers:

Click anywhere outside this window to continue.