Suggestion for Shapeways

Discussion in 'Suggestions & Feedback' started by Arcathorn, Oct 24, 2013.

  1. Arcathorn
    Arcathorn New Member
    What if...you paid for a print check..say a five dollar fee to have your models gone over once before you place your big order. Just to be certain that the model won't run into issues when it is printed. The fee could be a qty of models to be checked.....that way shapeways gets some money to check the model before it goes into the production mode...and if theres a problem it can be worked out before you order six models and only get five and you have to redo the sixth....

    And if you don't want to pay the fee then you just go through the system as it stands now....and run the risk your model will be denied....That way the community gets a check system...shapeways can get additional revenue to pay for the extra work..and everyone goes home happy
     
  2. stannum
    stannum Well-Known Member
    Easier: check everything before sending anything to the printers. If anything fails, give the option to cancel the full order.
     
  3. stonysmith
    stonysmith Well-Known Member Moderator
    While I generally agree, this option does not properly cover the situation where the model breaks DURING or AFTER printing.
     
  4. Youknowwho4eva
    Youknowwho4eva Shapeways Employee Community Team
    Or with multiple materials in an order. You'd have to hold a model till all checks are performed and backlogs could make things messy.
     
  5. FreeRangeBrain
    FreeRangeBrain New Member
    Maybe a "submit for print" and a "submit for checking" differentiation? This would place the model in a different "production stream" so that it's not holding up a build tray, etc. A seperate evaluation service, you might say, for a fee.

    I'm sure as the checkers get more accumulating experience they'll start to get a feel for what should be just fine, what probably won't make it through the process, and what may fall somewhere inbetween. I don't expect anyone could ever be 100% right 100% of the time, but I also don't think it has to be a yes/no evaluation either. "We suggest a test print to confirm" would be perfectly acceptable to me, perhaps including some estimated probability of failure and maybe some indication of the likely flaw(s).
     
  6. Arcathorn
    Arcathorn New Member
    Yeah thats precisely what I was suggesting...save there would be a fee for it....and yeah I know...a fee?! But I figured if there was a fee that would help them justify the man power and price and give us what we really want.
     
  7. Youknowwho4eva
    Youknowwho4eva Shapeways Employee Community Team
    We're working on better automation, free of charge of course, that will give you a much more accurate feel of printability.
     
  8. Arcathorn
    Arcathorn New Member
    Yay I like free even better :)
     
  9. TrainThingz
    TrainThingz New Member
    Please tell me that the automated checks will indicate ALL the problems, not just bounce it at the first one.

    My biggest irritation with SW is trying to print a piece and having it rejected multiple times, each time for something different that wasn't pointed out in previous checks. I could have fixed all the problems in a couple of hours if I'd known about them... instead, it took over two weeks. That's a terribly inefficient use of time, on both sides of the process.
     
  10. PeregrineStudios
    PeregrineStudios Well-Known Member
    ALSO please tell me that if the automated checker makes a mistake or points out something as an error that SHOULD be printable, we can e-mail customer service and have them check it themselves and approve it if needed.

    I don't think I've EVER had a single stainless steel model that followed every guideline to the letter - it's much more loosey-goosey and sometimes-this-sometimes-that than, say, WSF.
     
  11. MitchellJetten
    MitchellJetten Shapeways Employee CS Team
    Well if we would create a check for this, it will never stop you from ordering in that material,
    It will more be like "hey we see that there is a potential problematic area on your model, you might want to have another look at this"
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2013