Announcing "3d Print On Hold" Beta

Discussion in 'Shapeways Beta Testers' started by NimlothCQ, Sep 6, 2017.

  1. Model_Monkey
    Model_Monkey Well-Known Member
    SW, any word on extending "3D Print on Hold" to the market?

    After several weeks of successful printing, my shop is experiencing a string of cancellations over the past few weeks. Extremely unusually, one of the products has been canceled 3 times as of today for the same customer. For that product, which has always passed the autochecks, each design tweak took just a few minutes to make. Surely this iterative process to meet the 3D print engineer's requirement could have been done behind the scenes very quickly without frustrating the customer who I have now asked to re-order the product for the third time.

    Interestingly, the recent "Helps us resolve..." messages have come with the same unusual-looking screen captures. Just speculation, but are these rejections coming from the new partner in Ogden, Utah? "Learning curve" issues, perhaps?

    Really looking forward to the extension of 3D Print on Hold to the market. It would be a big help.
     
  2. lensman
    lensman Well-Known Member
    Yeah, it does get frustrating. I recently had an old pendant design that had been printed NINE times in FIVE different metals rejected because the details were too fine to print.... Not so.
     
  3. woody64
    woody64 Well-Known Member
    Was taking a look on the news in the forum and found this burning topic still not solved yet.

    5 minutes later I found a "Yippee" and "Help us ressolve" mail in my box.

    First it was one of the crude rejections where they tend to reject forms which sharpens on an edge, which has nothing to do with thin walls or thin wires.
    Second the correction, upload and customer mail was done within 2 hours. Normally it's possible for me in 1 to 2 days where a "Customer: 3d print on hold" would make so much sense.
    As said also from some of the others before for me as designer this feature is complete without value. I can easily reorder since I know the process. For a customer that's a break he doesn't understand and maybe doesn't order again.

    In principle I also understand and support that SW wants to deliver trusted prints and therefor also generates customer value, but they need to sort out some topics:
    - "3d print on hold" for customers as general way to react
    - getting rid of wrong rejections
    - dealing with design rule changes and rejection of old products. I have products for nearly 10 years in the shop and don't ask me how often I had a bunch of redesign work caused by such changes (=> please beware also my investment as designer in time and test orders)
    - bearer and printing multiple items. As also seen in a lot of discussions bearers are one of the major rejection topics. We can get rid of bearers and all rejections involved if there would be a suitable price model for ordering of multiple items of a type or maybe designer.

    Woody64
     
    Model_Monkey and Sparkshot like this.
  4. shrap_x
    shrap_x Active Member
    This is fantastic news. This happened a few times and a minor tweak would have made the part printable, and prevented a second order.
     
  5. Hi all! Thanks so much for coming back around here. We understand that model rejections are a pain point, and doubly so when it comes to your customers ordering models from your shop.

    We are working to improve your experience and I'll make sure that your comments reach the right departments. Thank you again, as always, for your support. Your feedback helps!
     
    Sparkshot likes this.
  6. DoctorOctoroc
    DoctorOctoroc Well-Known Member
    I'd wager that the purpose of making the feature available to designers first is to ensure all of the programming of the UI and back end are working properly. The last thing SW wants is a slew of designers blasting them for bugs in the new feature and it wouldn't do our customers any good either. At least this way, any issues will be experienced by the designers and not our customers - all the more important for a feature that is meant to give our customers a better experience! I have no issues with a new feature taking the time needed to ensure proper functionality before being rolled out.

    However, I'm with Model-Monkey here on the rejections - I've had a lot of odd rejections lately (usually on account of surface detail that the engineer reads as thin walls), and poor quality imagery accompanying them to boot. In the last rejection I received, the image was so tiny I could barely tell which parts of the model were being called out. This lapse in consistency SCREAMS of outsourcing and is very disappointing if the case. I mean, it's frustrating regardless, but if the problem is cause by Shapeways putting crucial QA jobs into the hands of less experienced engineers (or maybe they aren't even actual, qualified engineers?), there will be more hiccups than it's worth to supplement the 'A team' with a lesser experienced 'B team' as Model Monkey perfectly put it.

    I love the idea of accompanying 'production notes' as well. Most of my rejections could be avoided if I was able to communicate to the engineer that certain details are suggestive or meant to be surface details, not solid geometry. I understand that Shapeways bears the responsibility of representing products as accurately and honestly as possible but it's clear that some of the engineers are less than capable of recognizing the difference between weak geometry and surface detail - or perhaps it's not their fault at all and they need some direction - hence an option for being able to communicate with them as designers, even if it's only a small note on the product. I wouldn't expect this to guarantee a print of any model just because the designer says 'yeah, no, it's fine' but it would help give the engineers some context to the model and help them make a more informed decision as to whether or not a model rejection is appropriate.
     
  7. southernnscale
    southernnscale Well-Known Member
    I work mostly in Z scale which is Small and it's not hard to design something with thin walls or support wire size. After ordering 100's of my own model and taking notes on size and knowing what passes and what doesn't. Working with the smallest wall size material like Smooth fine detail plastic. Keeping close to the min. size so price is better Making buildings with thick walls brings the price up so high a person doesn't want to spend that much.
    So the rejection are a problem to a point when and Engineer checks a piece and you repair it and place another order just to get it rejected again for another part on that same model! Sure it takes time but QA should be part of the process. I have gotten models with some one else parts that didn't even belong to the model I designed and it was even attached. Then when it come to cleaning model that are to small so they rejected because handling them they might break! I have gotten models that looked great and was well cleaned but then order again and they look worse then the first and they blame it on wall thickness. I think the Engineers are not all trained the same in what they should look for as said about details like a handle on a door or a ridge in a roof gets rejected due to size. good example is the cane in the old mans hand! so small but printed several times and the cane is still there! Not my design just the table!
    IMG_5196.JPG