Orientation

Discussion in 'Suggestions & Feedback' started by AGAH, Feb 21, 2014.

  1. AGAH
    AGAH New Member
    Currently I understand that the orientation chosen by Shapeways is to get the best loading , which presumably means the most economical. How about charging a premium for choosing your own orientation ?
     
  2. AlwaysSolutions
    AlwaysSolutions New Member
    I would like to revisit this topic, as I came here to suggest this very thing. My models are predominantly Frosted Ultra Detail which has a unique set of printing quirks rooted in orientation. My customers would very like pay an additional fee ( $5 US?) ) to receive a print oriented as the designer had planned. I know that with my models, the print technicians usually print them in a way that minimizes the support material streaks that blemish the finished product. I recently used this knowledge to modify a design to take advantage of what is known about the streaking, and conceal them where they are unavoidable. No sooner had I done that, the model was printed in a completely different manner and all of it was for naught.

    What I propose is the following:
    1) Online "Certification" for designers that will give Shapeways an assurance that the designer really does know how the print process works, and is capable of designing and orienting a model in accordance with that knowledge for optimal and predictable print results. A certification could be had for each of the offered material types available from Shapeways. (Pilot program should be FUD - I'm being selfish on that. lol) Having this certification would then allow the option for designs to be printed as set by the designer.
    2) Charge a flat $5 "Use Designer's Orientation" fee to the purchaser to offset revenue risks associated with non optimized print trays. This of course would be optional for the purchaser. Default would leave orientation up to the print tech.
    3) The "Use Designer's Orientation" option would carry the same caveats as "Print It Anyways" If the designer's orientation is flawed, tough cookies if you want to complain about it.
    4) For efficiency, print these "custom orientation" models separately in batches during certain times of the day so that the optimized trays aren't cluttered with the riffraff.

    I've been blown away by some of the print quality I've seen with the Frosted Ultra Detail material, then equally disheartened by a ruined print that could have been great had it been oriented differently.

    It's 2015 - It's time - Let's make this happen! :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2015
  3. sbhunterca
    sbhunterca Well-Known Member
    Absolutely... please... this absolutely needs to happen, at least in FUD.

    For critical designs, I would gladly pay a reasonable service charge for this option- on a $100 print, it would be great insurance.

    Steve Hunter

     
  4. wesnewman
    wesnewman New Member
    I 100% agree. We need to be able to specify print orientation.
    Some models lend themselves to being printed from one orientation.
    I've had the same model printed from multiple orientations on the same order.
    One looks great and has smooth transitions, the other looks like a staircase.
     
  5. MiniMondoMayhem
    MiniMondoMayhem New Member
    I fully agree, i just got back an UFD printed face. Half the face is smother and half the face is rougher.

    Human operator choice of the day is not going to cut it when potentially you could have a much better and more consistent product.

    I thought there was a way to orientate the best sides, doesnt exist, dohh . :/
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2015
  6. rens
    rens Member
    Yes, yes, triple yes. I'd gladly pay a small fee to cover a possible loss of machine space, if that would be the problem holding this back. : )
     
  7. railNscale
    railNscale Well-Known Member
    YES. Print orientation should be at least consistent.
    Currently this is not the case.

    For FUD models print orientation is absolute essential.
    I have tried an FXD print now. The result is marginally better then FUD. But since the print orientation, the SW cleaning process, the SW packaging issues are not solved or improved, there is hardly any reason to use FXD. The potential print quality improvement is completely overshadowed by variations in print orientation etc.

    I would welcome a fixed print orientation (SW may decide what is the best, based on their knowledge).

    Maurice
    RAILNSCALE
    http://www.railnscale.com