Home » Support » Suggestions » Preventing Rejections - Update on Project Caterpillar
Search Search  
 () 4 Vote(s)
Show: Today's Messages    Show Polls    Message Navigator
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #74271 is a reply to message #62565 ] Thu, 05 September 2013 16:20 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar robs_mw  is currently offline robs_mw
Messages: 27
Registered: May 2010
Go to my shop
Junior Member
Just to keep this thread alive..

First customer of an earlier successfully (test) printed model, now rejected of course....bye bye customer....
'The minimum thickness for free wires' message...hello SW, before it was exactly the same...

con·sist·en·cy
kənˈsistənsē/
noun
noun: consistency; noun: consistence; plural noun: consistencies; plural noun: consistences

1.
conformity in the application of something, typically that which is necessary for the sake of logic, accuracy, or fairness.

Difficult to build a business like this.

Cheers,
Robert


Rob's Model Workshop
http://www.shapeways.com/shops/rmw
http://robs-mw.com
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #74281 is a reply to message #74270 ] Thu, 05 September 2013 17:04 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar Mechanoid  is currently offline Mechanoid
Messages: 121
Registered: October 2010
Go to my shop
Senior Member
Mr. Jetten,

There was a reason I didn't post that pic. It's a private project. You and the others at ShapeWays knew what I was talking about. I did notice that you did attempt to print it. And I even said something to Mrs. Hagens about it. Thanking her for her efforts. And that is not what this is about. That model, for all intents and purposes met the design guidelines. Except for those side support bars, That I admit was an error. But your the ones making the rules. I guess I can't fight you. So it's going to be made 1.1mm. But it is once again, not something that is posted on the design guidelines page.

The rest of THIS issue I will take up in private.


I.D.I.C. = Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #74285 is a reply to message #74281 ] Thu, 05 September 2013 17:40 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar Youknowwho4eva  is currently offline Youknowwho4eva
Messages: 5734
Registered: September 2008
Go to my shop
Shapie Expert
I work here
Mechanoid wrote on Thu, 05 September 2013 17:04

Mr. Jetten,

There was a reason I didn't post that pic. It's a private project.


I have removed the image.


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: Preventing Rejections [message #74323 is a reply to message #72997 ] Fri, 06 September 2013 05:50 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar MrNib  is currently offline MrNib
Messages: 668
Registered: November 2012
Go to my shop
Senior Member
MrNib wrote on Tue, 13 August 2013 16:04

Last night I ordered a bunch of ARTG pen blanks (B0019 in WSF, WSF-P, cranberry, FUD, alumide, polished alumide) with just over 0.5 mm pattern engraving detail (over 1mm thick walls) in several processes

blah blah blah....


-------------------------------------------



Just to follow up on this... I did manage to get all these parts back and they look great. The good news is that the alumide parts that were at risk of being rejected were not. The bad news is that the alumide B0019's that were to be polished came back unpolished. I'm not sure if this was an oversight or if someone decided the "shallow engraving" (i.e. MrNib desired subtle surface patterning), would not be to their liking after polishing. No matter, I can still do my own polishing on a lathe for this blank design although I was hoping to see for myself what polishing would do to it in terms of dimensional reductions compared to non-polished in the same order. No need to bother customer service with this one.

So I must try, try again. This time I ordered 9 different patterned ARTG blanks only in polished alumide, which also happens to be the most desireable and default material choice, IMHO. So far so good seeing as they are now in production. Will they make it through the entire production process? Will they all be polished? Stay tuned for more exciting updates!

Now I need to start making some reference pens with the ones that made it back to me. ...After I caulk and paint the back wall of the house.


Re: Preventing Rejections [message #74328 is a reply to message #74323 ] Fri, 06 September 2013 08:58 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar MitchellJetten  is currently offline MitchellJetten
Messages: 805
Registered: June 2011
Go to all my models
Senior Member
I work here
In Production Printing 2013-08-14
In Production Quality & Finishing 2013-08-16
In Production Ready To Ship 2013-08-16

You are correct, it seems that they didn't polish your model Sad
If you reach out to the service team, I'm sure they will fix this for you Smile

As soon as I see a "manufacturer rejected" model with small details which might not show up, i re-assign them back to the production team and ask them to have them printed as is (without notifying the customer).
This way you won't receive a rejection for this.


Edit: your current order is printing since the 4th, this tray will most likely be unpacked today.
I have added a comment to the order to make sure they will polish it this time!

Mitch

[Updated on: Fri, 06 September 2013 09:00 UTC]


Kind regards,

Mitchell Jetten
Customer Service Coordinator
Shapeways
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #74352 is a reply to message #74328 ] Fri, 06 September 2013 16:07 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar MrNib  is currently offline MrNib
Messages: 668
Registered: November 2012
Go to my shop
Senior Member
Thanks! There's no need to deal with customer service on this matter since I have plenty of R&D to do with the parts I received on unrelated issues. I can wait for the next order with polishing.

The only reason I need the polishing is for one class of parts, the "Almost Ready To Go" blank series that lets people assemble pen kits if they do not have access to a lathe. All I hope for is for these parts to be fabricated using the standard manufacturing process. If that calls for 10 minutes of polishing time then they should get 10 minutes of polishing time. Ultimately I'll decide if the polished versions are proper for sale and use, if they need to be redesigned for better appearance after polishing, or if they should not be offered as polished components. I don't think the burden of final appearance related to decorative detail in this case needs to be on the shoulders of Shapeways. All Shapeways needs to do is to follow a process that generates reasonably consistent results that would allow a customer to see a photo of the polished part on the model page and expect to purchase something close to that.

One of these days I need to put together an instructional primer on pen assembly using these blanks made with the various materials. I've futzed around with this work for almost a year so I should share the techniques I've learned. People I've given samples to love the polished alumide pens, others like the unpolished versions, and others prefer the SF versions. And those older pens have 0.38 mm details (or less!) on the bodies. I've altered the designs to have 0.5 mm patterning depths which actually risks making the pens less pleasant to hold and use in some cases but if it helps with manufacturing that's a trade-off I'm willing to make. Another option is to drop alumide completely but unfortunately that seems to be the best material for this application.

I've also identified two other common pen kits that lend themselves well to being made with printed blanks. The sooner I can lock down the processing issues and acceptable dimensions the sooner I can generate blank models for those kits as well.
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75134 is a reply to message #62565 ] Fri, 20 September 2013 13:18 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar matt_atknsn  is currently offline matt_atknsn
Messages: 26
Registered: August 2011
Go to my shop
Junior Member
Will the nuanced rules for the Frosted Ultra Detail material ever return?
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75146 is a reply to message #62565 ] Fri, 20 September 2013 17:52 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar TrainThingz  is currently offline TrainThingz
Messages: 107
Registered: March 2012
Go to my shop
Senior Member
Been working like a madman since I decided to get into making things here. My cup runneth over with product ideas. Got a bunch of things ready, ordered some, and started the long, long wait...

Then I get a list of items rejected. <<sigh>> Ok, that's part of life and learning. Looked over the items, puzzled out what the rejection messages were about, made some fixes, resubmitted and re-ordered.

A couple of the fixed ones passed... but one in particular of the fixed items was rejected again... for a DIFFERENT reason. <<sigh, again>>

Went back and fixed it, reuploaded and re-ordered. I can be pretty persistent. It's in for the third try now.

But this brings up an issue - why weren't the problems caught the FIRST time through? From what i could tell, they weren't really judgement calls, just my mistakes (Hey, I'm still a noob at this...) ... but now it's been what... 4 days, and twice I've had to fix something, and you're inspecting it for the third time now... wouldn't it be more efficient for ALL of us for you folks to tell me about ALL the problems the first time, instead of "Whoops! One issue! I'll stop now and throw it back!"
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75165 is a reply to message #75146 ] Sat, 21 September 2013 01:50 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar Roy_Stevens  is currently offline Roy_Stevens
Messages: 143
Registered: November 2009
Go to my shop
Senior Member
TrainThingz wrote on Fri, 20 September 2013 17:52



But this brings up an issue - why weren't the problems caught the FIRST time through? From what i could tell, they weren't really judgement calls, just my mistakes (Hey, I'm still a noob at this...) ... but now it's been what... 4 days, and twice I've had to fix something, and you're inspecting it for the third time now... wouldn't it be more efficient for ALL of us for you folks to tell me about ALL the problems the first time, instead of "Whoops! One issue! I'll stop now and throw it back!"


This is pretty typical. The production partner see something they don't like, they'll find a reason to reject it and then they move on. Another reason why a validation process is badly needed. I like your products, one suggestion is that if you are going to sprue your semaphores you should sprue them from both sides. With the unique capabilities of printing I have re-thought the sprue concept, preferring now to sprue my thin parts vertically. It keeps things more compact which reduces rejections and handling errors.


Earl Grey, hot.
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75175 is a reply to message #75165 ] Sat, 21 September 2013 11:58 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar mkroeker  is currently offline mkroeker
Messages: 2074
Registered: June 2012
Go to all my models
Shapie Expert
This is not limited to production partners, I think - the check is for "printability", so one flaw found and you are out (though they often flag additional
issues when they are in the same general area of the model and easy to spot for them) . Thorough checking for additional defects would cost time in a workflow streamlined for high throughput - after all, the customer might just shelf the project after the technician took an hour to flag numerous problem areas. Perhaps shapeways will offer it as an additional service at some point.
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75177 is a reply to message #75165 ] Sat, 21 September 2013 13:10 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar TrainThingz  is currently offline TrainThingz
Messages: 107
Registered: March 2012
Go to my shop
Senior Member
Quote:

I like your products, one suggestion is that if you are going to sprue your semaphores you should sprue them from both sides. With the unique capabilities of printing I have re-thought the sprue concept, preferring now to sprue my thin parts vertically. It keeps things more compact which reduces rejections and handling errors.


I'd prefer not to sprue them at all, but they're so small that they'd be easily separated and lost if they weren't attached. I considered attaching them in two places, but the blade and spectacle, though tiny, are the one part of the semaphore that is the focus of attention, so I need to minimize any possible flaws... and they assemble as moving parts, so there's an additional limit as to where I can actually attach sprues, because of the difficulty in cleaning the sprue off something that small.

They're in N scale, so the entire print including sprue box is only about 2 x 3.5 cm. I might be able to stack them vertically, still attached at the same point on the spectacle - though they won't "show" as well on the page, it might reduce the cost significantly.... though it probably would make them much more difficult for SW to clean. Right now I think the sprue costs more than the actual parts! I'll play around with that idea and see what I can come up with.

Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75178 is a reply to message #75175 ] Sat, 21 September 2013 13:16 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar TrainThingz  is currently offline TrainThingz
Messages: 107
Registered: March 2012
Go to my shop
Senior Member
Quote:

Thorough checking for additional defects would cost time in a workflow streamlined for high throughput - after all, the customer might just shelf the project after the technician took an hour to flag numerous problem areas. Perhaps shapeways will offer it as an additional service at some point.


To me, it would be far less discouraging to get an item kicked back ONCE with many fixes noted than to get it back, fix one problem, get it back again, fix a DIFFERENT problem, get it back yet AGAIN, fix a THIRD problem, ad nauseum... THAT is the very definition of frustration and wasted time on EVERYONE'S part.
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75183 is a reply to message #75178 ] Sat, 21 September 2013 14:26 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar stonysmith  is currently offline stonysmith
Messages: 2153
Registered: August 2008
Go to my shop
Shapie Expert
moderator
I work in Z scale (1:220) - two thirds your size, and have had MANY rejections.
I realize that it can be a bit frustrating to go thru the "cyclical" process of multiple rejections, but, doing so has taught me more about what the human checkers are looking for, so I now comprehend how to design better models that very often will pass the checks on the first try.

They are not being "mean" or "evil" by stopping after the first few failures found, they're keeping the cost down by pushing more of the checking back onto my plate.

You can think of it as they're not checking "everything" on your model, but rather they're checking for general design techniques that are problematic. If you know that you used the same thin wall in 50 places around a model, then by the operator checking only one of them, they are in fact warning you that all 50 of them will fail. The particular wording they use could be a bit more explanatory, but if you look at it as a critique of your overall style rather than only pointing out individual trouble spots, then it'll make more sense.

There are a couple of programs that could be used to check the entire model for thin walls, etc. in a single pass, but the two or three that I have found so far increase exponentially in run time as the triangle count of the models increase. One 300,000 triangle model I tried to process told me that it was going to take 14 hours to check!


Patience, Persistance, Politeness - the 3Ps will help us get us to Perfect Printed Products
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75188 is a reply to message #75183 ] Sat, 21 September 2013 15:16 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar Roy_Stevens  is currently offline Roy_Stevens
Messages: 143
Registered: November 2009
Go to my shop
Senior Member
stonysmith wrote on Sat, 21 September 2013 14:26


There are a couple of programs that could be used to check the entire model for thin walls, etc. in a single pass, but the two or three that I have found so far increase exponentially in run time as the triangle count of the models increase. One 300,000 triangle model I tried to process told me that it was going to take 14 hours to check!


Solidworks checks the entire model for thin sections in a fraction of a second, even the ones exceeding 1 million polygons. But it doesn't know the difference between a wire and a wall. Then again, neither do the people working in Shapeways production.


Earl Grey, hot.
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75189 is a reply to message #75178 ] Sat, 21 September 2013 15:47 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar stop4stuff  is currently offline stop4stuff
Messages: 3178
Registered: June 2010
Go to my shop
Shapie Expert
@TrainThingz: You can check your model over yourself and save loads of time (as in wasted time waiting for the dreaded next rejection) with tools like NetFabb and the NetFabb Cloud Service.

Luckily I've not suffered any disapointements recently, mainly because I've done nothing new and the models that were probelmatic aren't selling because I changed them so much (after being previously printed) or the other one hasn't not sold as I've put a kind of 'disapointment disclaimer' on the model page - that one is pot lick as to what excuse comes up for the rejection.

Might be back sometime.

ttfn
Paul
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75196 is a reply to message #75189 ] Sat, 21 September 2013 19:42 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar TrainThingz  is currently offline TrainThingz
Messages: 107
Registered: March 2012
Go to my shop
Senior Member
Well, I tried the NetFabb cloud service ( cloud.netfabb.com ) - uploaded a model to them, and let them work on it, then downloaded the result and loaded it back in to sketchup to look at it...

wow...

The model was pretty much destroyed. Gaping holes all over where the geometry and parts were not just altered, but completely missing. I wonder how much of this is due to the conversion process... from .skp to .stl. and back to .skp?

Doesn't really matter - if I can't check the work it does, it's not a viable solution, no matter the cause.

Seeing the results, though, makes it HIGHLY unlikely I'd even consider dropping $300.00 US on NetFabb Private!

[Updated on: Sat, 21 September 2013 19:45 UTC]

Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75199 is a reply to message #75196 ] Sat, 21 September 2013 20:39 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar dcyale  is currently offline dcyale
Messages: 141
Registered: February 2013
Go to my shop
Senior Member
Netfabb cloud service can really screw up a small model- like a scale model railroad item. Other times it fixes reversed faces and other problems like a champ. You have to take a good look at the results. I have found Netfabb studio (free version) can really mess up a model when I scale it down from 1/1 (as designed in sketchup) to 1/87 to print. BUT, the studio version is good for finding problems and changing the units from mm to inches. It seems the export plugin I use in sketchup has problems with that metric/imperial stuff.

I have been tempted to spend the $300 to buy the home version of Netfabb, but first would want to know how well it's ability to hollow out solid shapes works, as well as it's ability to work with a 2d picture and develop a 3d part. I haven't had the time to do the research into it yet and decide if the expense would be worth it. I wish there was an evaluation copy, even if it didn't save the work so I could get some hands on time.

I now use Meshlab almost exclusively to scale down models and I have found that it works very well for that, even though the interface is a little clunky.

Dave Yale
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75200 is a reply to message #75196 ] Sat, 21 September 2013 20:42 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar dcyale  is currently offline dcyale
Messages: 141
Registered: February 2013
Go to my shop
Senior Member
Oh, one last thing- I use <a href="http://www.3d-tool.com/en_cad-viewer-download.htm" target="_blank">3d tool</a> to view stl files after netfabb cloud gets done with them. I find skectchup is not totally happy looking at stl files with a lot of detail.

[Updated on: Sat, 21 September 2013 20:42 UTC]

Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75221 is a reply to message #75200 ] Sun, 22 September 2013 07:43 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar AmLachDesigns  is currently offline AmLachDesigns
Messages: 1360
Registered: September 2011
Go to my shop
Shapie Expert
Maybe talking hogwash here (I am not a SketchUp user), but I seem to remember people saying that for small objects scale them up to work with them and only make them the correct size right at the end. Some peculiarity of SketchUp. Maybe. I don't know...
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75296 is a reply to message #62565 ] Mon, 23 September 2013 15:56 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar MrNib  is currently offline MrNib
Messages: 668
Registered: November 2012
Go to my shop
Senior Member
Here's my latest rejection in WSF. While I would also admit that this could be considered "sloppy" design by some standards ( I could eliminate that joining seam) but I didn't expect it to necessarily appear in the final print. I'd really like to know, for future reference, why this type of thing is considered so bad that it results in a rejection. Does it somehow negatively impact the print process in terms of printer damage or creating shards of lasered plastic that hurt re-use of extra powder? Is there concern that I would get upset if I did not see a 0.06mm step when the process rules state an accuracy of only 0.15mm? Is this another example of aesthetics being judged by operators putting together the trays? Why is this considered to be embossing or engraving as opposed to a non-fatal noisy artifact due to design technique or design software limitations?

I probably shouldn't mention it but there were two other items in the same order with basically the same feature that were not flagged (4 occurences total between all of the designs). And of course I've had no rejections with previous versions of such parts dating back to about a year ago. It's the same old same old.

index.php?t=getfile&id=41566&private=0

Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75298 is a reply to message #75296 ] Mon, 23 September 2013 16:30 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar stonysmith  is currently offline stonysmith
Messages: 2153
Registered: August 2008
Go to my shop
Shapie Expert
moderator
Was the rejection due to the engraving? (What was the message?) This could be a rejection in that they are trying to faithfully reproduce your design, and the 0.06mm channel would end up disappearing (hence the 0.2mm embossing rule). As to the exterior of the tube, 1mm - 0.12mm is still thicker than the WSF minimum of 0.7mm so you should be good there.

If it is because of the engraving, then this model fits into a "gray area" (which is WHY we can't have hard-fast rules based on cold computer logic). If they allowed this to pass, it might be that the engraving was crucial to your design, and therefore you'd be asking for reprints. They don't know whether it's acceptable or not on the final product.

I again make my case for Notes on each model to be delivered to the Production team... if this model could be notated "loss of resolution is acceptable", then the production team could make the decision without having to worry that you would ask for reprints or credits if the engraving disappears on the final model. The production team can only make assumptions about what we wish to have done on such "gray area" models. We need a way to communicate our needs/desires.


Patience, Persistance, Politeness - the 3Ps will help us get us to Perfect Printed Products
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75299 is a reply to message #75296 ] Mon, 23 September 2013 16:30 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar stonysmith  is currently offline stonysmith
Messages: 2153
Registered: August 2008
Go to my shop
Shapie Expert
moderator
Was the rejection due to the engraving? (What was the message?) This could be a rejection in that they are trying to faithfully reproduce your design, and the 0.06mm channel would end up disappearing (hence the 0.2mm embossing rule). As to the exterior of the tube, 1mm - 0.12mm is still thicker than the WSF minimum of 0.7mm so you should be good there.

If it is because of the engraving, then this model fits into a "gray area" (which is WHY we can't have hard-fast rules based on cold computer logic). If they allowed this to pass, it might be that the engraving was crucial to your design, and therefore you'd be asking for reprints. They don't know whether it's acceptable or not on the final product.

I again make my case for Notes on each model to be delivered to the Production team... if this model could be notated "loss of resolution is acceptable", then the production team could make the decision without having to worry that you would ask for reprints or credits if the engraving disappears on the final model. The production team can only make assumptions about what we wish to have done on such "gray area" models. We need a way to communicate our needs/desires.


Patience, Persistance, Politeness - the 3Ps will help us get us to Perfect Printed Products
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75300 is a reply to message #62565 ] Mon, 23 September 2013 16:43 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar MrNib  is currently offline MrNib
Messages: 668
Registered: November 2012
Go to my shop
Senior Member
Yes, it was the embossing engraving error. It's not actually a channel, it's just a small step at the end of the narrowing section where it joins with an internal tube that establishes the 1mm minimum wall thickness for the entire length of the object.

"Your detail is too fine to print correctly, Min Embossed Detail is > 0.2mm; Min Engraved Detail is 0.2mm, while recommended for readable text is 0.5mm (embossed, engraved and clearance). Please increase the height/depth/clearance of your detail. For more information about the design specifications for this material please visit: http://www.shapeways.com/materials/strong-flexible-design-gu idelines."

index.php?t=getfile&id=41581&private=0

The step is obviously not something a reasonable person could construe as being text or a logo. If I increased the height of the step the pen would end up looking kind of stupid, although I don't expect Shapeways to know the final application for this part. Is it detail or an artifact?

I agree that a waiver of some sort would be great, particularly one you could establish after a rejection that would get the part back into the fabrication flow and shipped with your original order. I still find it amusing that Shapeways works so hard at not making a sale (although technically with no refund of the money they don't really lose a sale in the strictest sense, but it could prevent future sales).



[Updated on: Mon, 23 September 2013 17:02 UTC]

Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75306 is a reply to message #75300 ] Mon, 23 September 2013 18:15 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar stonysmith  is currently offline stonysmith
Messages: 2153
Registered: August 2008
Go to my shop
Shapie Expert
moderator
That is definitely something that you should have turned back to service@shapeways.com

I've had fairly good luck by simply explaining to them that the part is "acceptable the way it is".


Patience, Persistance, Politeness - the 3Ps will help us get us to Perfect Printed Products
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75311 is a reply to message #75306 ] Mon, 23 September 2013 19:02 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar MrNib  is currently offline MrNib
Messages: 668
Registered: November 2012
Go to my shop
Senior Member
I took your advice and did that, although I suspect it will be an exercise in futility.



I requested that either they try to reinsert the rejected part into the process flow and have it made with a permanent waiver Rolling Eyes , or, reject all the other parts in the order that slipped through checking having the same issue. Since I'm trying to have some "final" version reference parts fabricated prior to taking photos and putting parts up for sale it doesn't make much sense to get parts back that are rejectable yet still fabricated. These repetitive redesign loops based on inconsistent rejections are a real 3D downer.

[Updated on: Tue, 24 September 2013 04:16 UTC]

Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75425 is a reply to message #75177 ] Tue, 24 September 2013 23:23 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar TrainThingz  is currently offline TrainThingz
Messages: 107
Registered: March 2012
Go to my shop
Senior Member
They're in N scale, so the entire print including sprue box is only about 2 x 3.5 cm. I might be able to stack them vertically, still attached at the same point on the spectacle - though they won't "show" as well on the page, it might reduce the cost significantly.... though it probably would make them much more difficult for SW to clean. Right now I think the sprue costs more than the actual parts! I'll play around with that idea and see what I can come up with.
[/quote]

With this in mind... what ARE the requirements for being able to clean FUD items? I'm looking at "boxing" these together, and am wondering if getting inside to the individual blades is going to be an issue, or if the cleaning process for FUD even requires any kind of manual "scubbing"
<<considers for a bit...>>> Hmmmm... hold off on any replies.. I'll go ahead and do one so you can see exactly what I'm talking about.

<< a little later...>>
OK. here we go... Is cleaning this item an issue? Dimensions noted in drawing.

index.php?t=getfile&id=41656&private=0[quote title=Quote:]

[Updated on: Wed, 25 September 2013 00:10 UTC]

Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75429 is a reply to message #75425 ] Wed, 25 September 2013 00:39 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar stonysmith  is currently offline stonysmith
Messages: 2153
Registered: August 2008
Go to my shop
Shapie Expert
moderator
I would put a center beam down each side of the box. That keeps large objects *thumbs* from penetrating the box and breaking off the fragile parts.

Also, I pack the items closer together.. no need to be pretty. Then, I use an image of a single one as the primary image in my shop.

http://shpws.me/oA1O
http://shpws.me/oIbA

[Updated on: Wed, 25 September 2013 00:42 UTC]


Patience, Persistance, Politeness - the 3Ps will help us get us to Perfect Printed Products
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75430 is a reply to message #62565 ] Wed, 25 September 2013 01:04 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar MrNib  is currently offline MrNib
Messages: 668
Registered: November 2012
Go to my shop
Senior Member
For my problem customer service decided that was an unnecessary rejection/cancelation and also credited shipping since it would be a redundant cost. However I should probably redesign those parts and remove the micro-steps just to be safe for store sales, I guess.
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75431 is a reply to message #75429 ] Wed, 25 September 2013 01:04 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar TrainThingz  is currently offline TrainThingz
Messages: 107
Registered: March 2012
Go to my shop
Senior Member
Quote:

I would put a center beam down each side of the box. That keeps large objects *thumbs* from penetrating the box and breaking off the fragile parts.

Also, I pack the items closer together.. no need to be pretty. Then, I use an image of a single one as the primary image in my shop.



!?!?

How small are their thumbs there? Do they have pixies working in the shop? Smile The whole thing is only about 1 x 1.5 x 2 cm

The blades are only a bit under 3mm apart now, and I'm worried about cleaning... how much closer can I get them? I'm not thinking about "fusing moving parts", but the practical cleaning issues... if any.

[Updated on: Wed, 25 September 2013 01:05 UTC]

Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75437 is a reply to message #75431 ] Wed, 25 September 2013 02:05 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar Roy_Stevens  is currently offline Roy_Stevens
Messages: 143
Registered: November 2009
Go to my shop
Senior Member
[quote title=TrainThingz wrote on Wed, 25 September 2013 01:04]
Quote:


The blades are only a bit under 3mm apart now, and I'm worried about cleaning... how much closer can I get them? I'm not thinking about "fusing moving parts", but the practical cleaning issues... if any.




I don't know if this link will work, but it's a stack of fresnel lenses for a scale caboose lantern.
https://www.shapeways.com/model/1201528/24lensassy.html
They are linked by a rod that just kisses each one at three places, and they are 0.21mm apart at the closest. This prints and cleans up very well. The standard way Shapeways cleans FUD is with heat that melts the support wax away, which works well if you design for that in mind. I have also been told that sometimes they use a toothbrush *gasp*. I'd rather they just send me the print with all the wax on it rather than attacking my finely detailed models with brushes.


Earl Grey, hot.
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75438 is a reply to message #75437 ] Wed, 25 September 2013 02:16 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar TrainThingz  is currently offline TrainThingz
Messages: 107
Registered: March 2012
Go to my shop
Senior Member
Yeah, hence my concern about spacing things TOO close together. I really don't want someone in there with a toothbrush! Smile
I think I'll leave them as they are for now... I might try closing ranks later, but i want to be sure they're printable as they are first.

It's not just cleaning... I don't want the customer breaking them trying to get them out, either... right now, I think you could use some rail nippers to snip out the whole runner, and throw a "tarp" over the box and use it for part of a flat car load.
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75439 is a reply to message #75437 ] Wed, 25 September 2013 02:18 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar stonysmith  is currently offline stonysmith
Messages: 2153
Registered: August 2008
Go to my shop
Shapie Expert
moderator
The support material for FUD is a waxy like substance - they heat the items in a small oven and the wax (mostly) just drains out.
That means that you can actually have parts spaced at the minimum distance - 0.05mm (although I use 0.10mm) and you'll get the same amount of "cleaning".

There is a bit of the waxy (oily) material left on the surface of the models.. I use a product called Bestine (chemical name heptane) to remove the wax. Other folks have found that a bit of Dawn dishwashing soap and agitation work acceptably well too.

I prefer the Bestine because it leaves the surface of the FUD an opaque white, much the same as if you had coated the item in primer paint.


Patience, Persistance, Politeness - the 3Ps will help us get us to Perfect Printed Products
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75457 is a reply to message #75439 ] Wed, 25 September 2013 12:27 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar dcyale  is currently offline dcyale
Messages: 141
Registered: February 2013
Go to my shop
Senior Member
Hi Stony-

Have you used acetone in the past for FUD clean up? I have been looking for a direct compassion it with Bestine from someone with experience. Does Bestine make the model soft like acetone?

(My gosh, this thread goes all over the place)

Dave
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75466 is a reply to message #75457 ] Wed, 25 September 2013 14:24 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar Youknowwho4eva  is currently offline Youknowwho4eva
Messages: 5734
Registered: September 2008
Go to my shop
Shapie Expert
I work here
dcyale wrote on Wed, 25 September 2013 12:27

(My gosh, this thread goes all over the place)


Good point,

Probably would be best if this discussion started it's own thread in 3D Printing


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: Preventing Rejections [message #75467 is a reply to message #62565 ] Wed, 25 September 2013 14:52 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar MrNib  is currently offline MrNib
Messages: 668
Registered: November 2012
Go to my shop
Senior Member
91% isopropyl also seems to work although I don't paint any of my FUD so I don't know how thoroughly it removes the gunk as a prep step. It also leaves an opaque white surface and is less noxious.
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75491 is a reply to message #75457 ] Wed, 25 September 2013 18:58 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar stop4stuff  is currently offline stop4stuff
Messages: 3178
Registered: June 2010
Go to my shop
Shapie Expert
@dcyale : some dicussion here FUD wax removal - best way I've found is with a drop or two of washing up liquid in plain water in an ultrasonic cleaner.

Having been out of the loop (re: rejections) for a while, has anybody found Shapeways current position to be of any use with regards to informatoin about rejections?

Cheers,
Paul
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75493 is a reply to message #75491 ] Wed, 25 September 2013 19:24 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar dcyale  is currently offline dcyale
Messages: 141
Registered: February 2013
Go to my shop
Senior Member
Although the messages have changed, the results do not seem to have. I leave open the possibility that there have been behind the scene changes that help, but are transparent to the designer.

As usual, most of my rejections are my own fault in failing to catch something. My last was a thin wire. I had test printed a model called "test print" which was a bunch of smaller sub-models sprued together (they were all separate STLs made into one STL in blender with sprues attached). It passed and printed perfect. When I took one of the sub-models, a 1/87th scale steam radiator, and made it a separate model consisting of multiple copies of the same radiator that had printed OK, it was rejected because a wire was OK for free, but too thin for free with weight. I'll own the mistake of misclassifying the diameter needed. Still kinda' frustrating, though, as the model obviously prints OK.

I still want to know if one of my models has trouble printing so I can check and see if there is something I can change to make it more robust, and minimize the customer will order one and get a rejection out of the blue.

Dave
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75958 is a reply to message #75493 ] Wed, 02 October 2013 15:42 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar dcyale  is currently offline dcyale
Messages: 141
Registered: February 2013
Go to my shop
Senior Member
Well, the latest rejection completely floored me. I have a model of a port-a-potty in 1/87th scale with a complete interior (well, almost complete). The stl file that makes up the model has printed fine in the past as you can see from the little bit blurry picture. The successfully printed version was the same stl file that was made part of a larger model- I separate the individual models and direct sell them.

The font I used to make the copyright notice on the bottom of the model has small gaps between the letters and the inspector thought it might fuse. Did they really think that the letters printing slightly incorrectly on the bottom of a port-a-potty model was a reason to reject it? Come on. Where is the thought process? Or is the inspector given absolutely no discretion in a case like this.

At least this time, for the first time, the customer messaged me about the rejection so I could apologize and offer to try to make his inconvenience right, and maybe make a repeat customer out of him as opposed to someone who just thinks I'm an idiot.

SUGGESTION: The form email that goes to the customer when a model is rejected, can it specify that the designer is not told their identity and provide a link to a private message if the customer wants to contact the designer about it? Or is this already in place (I have never seen the message a customer gets).

index.php?t=getfile&id=42108&private=0

  • Attachment: ppnuts.jpg
    (Size: 95.31KB, Downloaded 114 time(s))

Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75960 is a reply to message #62565 ] Wed, 02 October 2013 16:21 UTC Go to previous messageGo to next message
avatar stop4stuff  is currently offline stop4stuff
Messages: 3178
Registered: June 2010
Go to my shop
Shapie Expert
post reply system is bust - used to be that the forum topic post that is being replied to was shown below my response typing box - now there is the first post and responses. = bug


Anyhow, DC, what material is the model in?
If wsf, the thin wall issue with the text may be one of those "uh oh, that might mess up the whole print run" type of things, depends which wsf printer it was sent to.

Shapeways, I've been asking you for the last year/18 months to open up clear and direct communications with your print partners... I hate being the middle-man in any deal and sometimes, I really just wonder if Shapeways cares about being the employed middle-man?

Hoping for changes every day,
Paul
Re: Preventing Rejections [message #75962 is a reply to message #75960 ] Wed, 02 October 2013 16:39 UTC Go to previous messageGo to previous message
avatar dcyale  is currently offline dcyale
Messages: 141
Registered: February 2013
Go to my shop
Senior Member
It was SWF, and the rejection message made clear it was that the clearance might be fused:

Start rejection message-----------------------------------

Model: Port-a-Potty (x2) HO Scale
Version: 1
Materials Affected:
- Black Strong & Flexible (Guidelines)
- White Strong & Flexible (Guidelines)


Here is why we cannot print your model:

Your detail is too fine to print correctly, likely to fuse together.
Min Embossed Detail is > 0.2mm; Min Engraved Detail is 0.2mm, while recommended for readable text is 0.5mm (embossed, engraved and clearance). Please increase the height/depth/clearance of your detail. For more information about the design specifications for this material please visit: http://www.shapeways.com/materials/strong-flexible-design-gu idelines


Pages (15): [ «    1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15    »] 
   
Previous Topic:Suggestion for Shapeways
Next Topic:Add this 3D software to the 3D software list

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.