3D printing

[Bullitt]

I have a general question concerning 3D printing of parts etc. I am 66 yrs old & am retiring in April. I have approx 45-50 kits waiting to be assembled, and, hopefully my wife will be understanding. I am very interested in 3D printing and am wondering if it would be worthwhile to purchase a small one for the models I will be building. I have no idea if I would need a scanner for the parts or if there are programs out there that would be available at low or no cost. I would be greatly appreciative for any info or input that any members can supply.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Couple threads you might want to go through to get an overview, and maybe help to clarify exactly the questions you have...

 

[Pico]

Although prices have been dropping, it is still not economical to buy a high resolution printer for hobby use. For high resolution prints (engine parts, etc.) I suggest Shapeways or Randy Ditton ( randy@modelbuilderswh.com ) . See his work in the Desktop Manufacturing thread. For medium resolution prints (bodies) I use Steven Furick ( SF@Flywheelit.com ). See his work in my "Supersonic has landed" thread. Steven can scan , so he can take a 1/43rd model, scan it and print it at 1/24th. Free CAD programs: I've used Sketchup for 8 years; it's an advanced hobbyist program and will probably do everything you need. No need to pay for the Pro program. Get the 2017 Sketchup, if it is available. I think with the new versions they have been taking functionally out of the software, that you have to pay to acquire. But, to go first class, I suggest you get Fusion360. This is professional software that is highly capable. Check out the Autodesk site and Udemy.com for teaching videos. Both have learning curves that can be daunting, Sketchup is probably easier, Fusion will take you further.

[Bernard Kron]

I just got back from the NNL West for 2019 and the show was a major hotbed of 3D printing. I would say, compared to previous shows, this was a "breakthrough" year. But I would defer to Pico Elgin, because if anyone who frequents this board knows his oats in this realm it's Pico, who has been scratch 3D designing and building car models for many years, moving across the arc of media as the technologies have evolved.  His impressions are ones I saw confirmed at the show.

Over on the Drastic Plastics board there is an excellent summary of the show by former MCM board member jbwelda which contains some salient comments on 3D.  (see http://drasticplastics.proboards.com/thread/6119/2019-west-trip-report-photos )To quote:

" ...there was some REALLY interesting vendors this year, with 3D printing making a good showing. Particular note to Model Builders Warehouse who are about to release some incredibly detailed 72 spoke Borrani style wire wheels. For an incredible price too, if the plans come to be. Randy [Ditton] offered to send me a set to fit tires to and otherwise give him some feedback. I am trying to think of a project that will come up to the standard set by these wheels.
....
...look for much the same level of detail and quality [as Randy Ditton's Maserati Birdcage scratch build on these MCM pages] with these wheels. He did not have any for sale at the show, only a few samples to show, but just in the two or three times I was there talking to him, people were pulling cash out of their pockets for them but none to be had...he said he was going to get into production this current week and offer them soon after. And the best for last, the price. He said he wants them "affordable" ... He also mentioned he was not using Shapeways, he had access to his own printer that easily outperformed, both in rendering time and in detail holding potential, the printers that were used when one ordered from Shapeways. And the product seemed to support that claim.

The other vendor of 3D parts who I noticed sells on ebay as mnagatani, and he has a bunch of really great larger scale stuff. Really sweet wheels for hot rods. Beautiful finned brake drums. Exhaust systems for vintage look engines. And those Uncertain T bodies! He is really interesting in models and enthusiastic about developing new products. Like I mentioned, a lot of it is in larger scales, 1/12, 1/8 mostly, and I believe he does use Shapeways for his printing (and as I understand it, they farm it out for actual print these days). "

The level of excitement and interest for these products, with several vendors offering them, was extremely high. The breakthrough was in the achievable quality and emerging practicality of this technology. I responded to the above comment with my own impressions of 3D at the NNL West:

" JB writes about 3D printing, and that was indeed the big story of the show. There have been a couple of breakthroughs, apparently, in the past several months. One is the development of lower priced resin printers, which is why Randy Ditton was able to show such crisp and smooth Borrani wire wheels. So, the technology itself is approaching a cost of capital level that will facilitate the emergence of very small businesses that can survive using it. Randy, for example, has bought two printers in the past 12+ months, the first of which cost him 5K and the more recent of which, the one that can do the Borranis, costing 3K. So the cost/technology crossover point is plummeting. Using a service bureau intermediary like Shapeways will become far less necessary.

There will, however, remain two major barriers to entry. One is creating the 3D files to drive the printers, and the other is the actual print time required to make a piece. For now, printing even very small pieces like the Borrani wire wheels, take many, many minutes, and often hours or even days. It isn't like pouring a resin mold and then un-molding after passive curing. And the little hobby printers out there, the ones costing less than $500.00, apparently burn out after just a few dozen (verrrrry slowwwwwwww) sessions. These issues will eventually get solved. Affordable high-resolution scanners will emerge that will be hooked up to software that will automatically generate serviceable files to drive high resolution, robust printers that will sell for prices serious hobbyists will consider. And there will always be those who lack the funds, time or talent to be motivated to do the work required, and these folks will constitute a market of end users for those who are brave or foolish enough to start businesses to supply us! It's coming, and it’s exciting."

The comment I made about the reliability of hobby printers was from a vendor who draws up his own 3D files, then has them printed by a third party (not Shapeways) and uses the result as a master for resin molds. He was selling modern Pro Mod and large diameter stylized wheels in 1/24-1/25 scale.

As I said, I tend to agree with Pico. It's not time yet for most hobbyists to consider 3D printing as a practical option for their current projects, though for the more ambitious and talented that time may be right around the corner (or in the case of some, like Randy and Pico, has already arrived).

Edited January 30, 2019 by Bernard Kron

[89AKurt]

^^^ Very interesting information!

My two cents, am disappointed in the Shapeways sourced COE body, but the Berlinetta body is useable.  If a cottage industry vendor wishes to do this, the product better be better than what looks like hot-wire cut styrofoam.

[Bullitt]

Thanks guys for the input. Looks like it may be more fruitful to put my pension money to better use.

[1930fordpickup]

3 minutes ago, Bullitt said:

Thanks guys for the input. Looks like it may be more fruitful to put my pension money to better use.

If you can use the software or would like to learn why not start drawing up the parts first?  When you are ready to print parts you are happy with then splurge and pick one up. Another thread here  looking for Canadian suppliers.  

[my66s55]

If you want to know about desktop 3d printing and printers, ask someone who's been there, done that. Here are my current printers that I have purchased over the last 4 months. I built my first printer in 2013. Downloaded Blender, an excellent software and started the process. December 26, 2014 saw a post I made on this forum using a uv resin curing dlp printer that I made. November 2017, I bought my first led lcd printer. A Wanhoo D7 that cost me $620. The large one below came this last September and was $1275. The smaller one came last week and was $799. Through all these years and these printers, I had made posts on this forum showing what could be done with them. The Dodge 1954-55 241-270 hemin in my avatar is one of my current projects. Larger Stl. file pictures are below.

[Ace-Garageguy]

26 minutes ago, my66s55 said:

If you want to know about desktop 3d printing and printers, ask someone who's been there, done that...

I'd say Pico qualifies.

[my66s55]

1 minute ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

I'd say Pico qualifies.

He did't print it.

 

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 minute ago, my66s55 said:

He did't print it.

He built his own printer, and began modifications to it, very early in the game. Maybe he didn't print this model in house, but he's certainly qualified to speak very knowledgeably on the subject.

[Casey]

35 minutes ago, my66s55 said:

If you want to know about desktop 3d printing and printers, ask someone who's been there, done that. Here are my current printers that I have purchased over the last 4 months. I built my first printer in 2013. Downloaded Blender, an excellent software and started the process. December 26, 2014 saw a post I made on this forum using a uv resin curing dlp printer that I made. November 2017, I bought my first led lcd printer. A Wanhoo D7 that cost me $620. The large one below came this last September and was $1275. The smaller one came last week and was $799. Through all these years and these printers, I had made posts on this forum showing what could be done with them. The Dodge 1954-55 241-270 hemin in my avatar is one of my current projects. Larger Stl. file pictures are below.

Your posts and experience regarding 3D printing have been the most helpful I have read on the forum, and for those interested, here's one of Doug's earlier posts worth reading:

 

One thing I find frustrating is the insistence upon using a virtual or rendered image to show the finished product, when it does not give an accurate representation of what the finished product looks like. This is very common on Shapeways, but maybe that particular site does not allow people to upload images of the finished, printed items in each available print medium? It leaves the end user guessing, and essentially, going in partially blind as to what the will receive.

Doug, you have posted pictures of actual, printed items, and even taken the time to explain the different resolutions and how the thickness of each layer affects the look of the finished part, which has been very helpful. Unfortunately for me, even after paint has been applied and the parts has been sanded to remove some of the high spots, I can still see the texture. If the part is supposed to be smooth and I can see texture, it won't work.

I think the thing most people tend to gloss over is there is a fundamental difference between how 3D parts are created and how a model part is created using a two-part mold. One allows for perfectly (or nearly so, far beyond what the human eye can perceive) smooth parts, with graceful curves and crisp, sharp corners which can maintain their integrity, while the other cannot reproduce these features. I hesitate to add the qualifier "yet" to the end of the previous sentence, because I'm not convinced 3D printing will ever reach that point, and maybe it was never designed to. Perhaps instead of thinking about 3D printed parts as a replacement for traditional injection molded parts, we should be thinking of it as and additional option, with it's own unique limitations and features.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Casey

[Ace-Garageguy]

12 minutes ago, Casey said:

One thing I find frustrating is the insistence upon using a virtual or rendered image to show the finished product, when it does not give an accurate representation of what the finished product look like. This is very common on Shapeways... It leaves the end user guessing, and essentially, going in partially blind as to what the will receive.   Very true.

...there is a fundamental difference between how 3D parts are created and how a model part is created using a two-part mold. One allows for perfectly (or nearly so, far beyond what the human eye can perceive) smooth parts, with graceful curves and crisp, sharp corners which can maintain their integrity, while the other cannot reproduce these features. I hesitate to add the qualifier "yet" to the end of the previous sentence, because I'm not convinced 3D printing will ever reach that point... Have you looked carefully at the resolution of the best stuff available recently?

These are, I believe, 1/32 scale.

 

 

Edited January 30, 2019 by Ace-Garageguy

[1930fordpickup]

So I see that there are many supports under the body, yes I understand what they are for. Could these supports be parts to use on the model and not just wasted material and time printing? 

[Bernard Kron]

1 hour ago, Casey said:

...

I think the thing most people tend to gloss over is there is a fundamental difference between how 3D parts are created and how a model part is created using a two-part mold. One allows for perfectly (or nearly so, far beyond what the human eye can perceive) smooth parts, with graceful curves and crisp, sharp corners which can maintain their integrity, while the other cannot reproduce these features. I hesitate to add the qualifier "yet" to the end of the previous sentence, because I'm not convinced 3D printing will ever reach that point, and maybe it was never designed to. Perhaps instead of thinking about 3D printed parts as a replacement for traditional injection molded parts, we should be thinking of it as and additional option, with it's own unique limitations and features.

This, of course, is the difference between analog and digital. Anyone who ever thought about the issue when first traveling from geometry and trigonometry to calculus has encountered the issue. In the practical "real world" the whole issue is resolved, sometimes with a step "backwards", with a consensus decision about what is "good enough". I'm thinking, for example, of digital audio technology where, to my ears in any case, a consensus decision regarding high fidelity (an apt term) has resulted in an overall degradation in audio fidelity with more artifacts and equalization compromises as older analog technologies have been increasingly abandoned by artists and producers. It has fundamentally changed how recordings sound. Are things worse for it? I'm unsure, even if I think that they sound worse to my ears. That's because of the positive impact it's had on the affordability and accessibility of relatively noise-free, simple to create audio recordings where before only those with sophisticated, bulky and expensive equipment could create relatively high quality audio. Instead, the creative community, as well as the general listener community, have adjusted what they expect to hear. And the creative community, in particular, has benefited mightily from the change, since good audio is within reach of so many. But I agree that at this point this technology exists, even as it improves rapidly in its capabilities, more as a complement to older casting technologies, than it does as an end in itself. But for some, like Doug, Pico and Randy, it is already a very real means of creation and self expression.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Bernard Kron

[Ace-Garageguy]

There's a lot of knowledge out there. 

 

[my66s55]

1 minute ago, 1930fordpickup said:

So I see that there are many supports under the body, yes I understand what they are for. Could these supports be parts to use on the model and not just wasted material and time printing? 

The supports are needed to ensure the correctness of the print. Without them, there would only be a glob of cured resin in the vat. It's slanted that much because the print wouldn't have fit on the build platform. Ideally, you want to use as few supports as possible. To sum up. The supports are removed and discarded.

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 minute ago, my66s55 said:

The supports are needed to ensure the correctness of the print. Without them, there would only be a glob of cured resin in the vat. It's slanted that much because the print wouldn't have fit on the build platform. Ideally, you want to use as few supports as possible. To sum up. The supports are removed and discarded.

I believe the question was "can other, smaller model parts be incorporated into the supports, or are they an automated part of the process that are not controllable by the user?"

[1930fordpickup]

1 minute ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

I believe the question was "can other, smaller model parts be incorporated into the supports, or are they an automated part of the process that are not controllable by the user?"

Thank you Bill, for a better way to ask my question.  I just think the supports could be better used and not discarded. Maybe I am wrong and have been before. 

[Casey]

49 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

 

Yes, I've seen that image, and the person who printed it mentioned that is the actual raw, printed product. No question that is very nice, but I would like to see an up close image.

Here's the info regarding where that image was posted: https://www.planetfigure.com/threads/next-by-reedoak-3d-printed-figures.76813/

And here's the info regarding the printer which was used. No cost for the printer is listed, as you must request a quote: https://envisiontec.com/3d-printers/perfactory-family/

Introducing the only DLP-based 3D printers utilizing a true 4M pixel projector with UV optics tuned to 385nm wavelength. The P4K Series delivers the highest accuracy coupled with the highest finished product functionality. Utilizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) in pixel tuning to deliver extremely high quality surface finish, the P4K delivers next generation advanced DLP technology in 3D printing: https://envisiontec.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2018-P4K-Series.pdf

 

39 minutes ago, Bernard Kron said:

This, of course, is the difference between analog and digital. Anyone who ever thought about the issue when first traveling from geometry and trigonometry to calculus has encountered the issue. In the practical "real world" the whole issue is resolved, sometimes with a step "backwards", with a consensus decision about what is "good enough".already a very real means of creation and self expression.

I was told there'd be no math.  

I think there will always be a demand for things which are, for lack of  better words, "hand made", but I think you are right regarding the line between good enough and unacceptable shifting with multiple variables-- cost availability, ease of use, etc. Probably fodder for a larger discussion regarding craftsmanship, standards, and recognition of quality, though. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

13 minutes ago, Casey said:

 No question that is very nice, but I would like to see an up close image...

Those are 1/32 scale. They display magnified at least 3 times actual size on my monitor, in high resolution. I don't know how much closer you could need to be.

And the point I was making was what's POSSIBLE, NOW, in high-res output...not implying this is current desktop output, but responding specifically to the phrase of yours I quoted above..." I'm not convinced 3D printing will ever reach that point". Well, it has.

[Casey]

41 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

Those are 1/32 scale.

Yes, I read that the first time you posted it.

42 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

I don't know how much closer you could need to be.

Close enough so I can see the individual areas to determine if there is any texture. The shot is overexposed to my eyes, with lots of light reflected off the high areas, such as the folds in the jackets, leaving the image as a whole a bit washed out. I'm not denying it appear to be a excellent printed item, I just want to be able to discern some details myself.

44 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

And the point I was making was what's POSSIBLE, NOW, in high-res output...not implying this is current desktop output, but responding specifically to the phrase of yours I quoted above..." I'm not convinced 3D printing will ever reach that point". Well, it has.

When I feel satisfied the 3D printed items I wish to buy meet my requirements, I'll have no issue purchasing them. That time is not now for me.

[Joe Handley]

Hey Bill, thanks for posting that 3D Printed Tabletop video, I was watching it and my Sister recognized his printer as the same one the library she and her husband works at has and nobody has really figured it out so that it prints all that good.  She had me forward this to her so she can forward it to a co-worker so they can start to get some decent prints with it.

[Spex84]

This is all interesting discussion. Thanks Pico for the reference links to the printers you have employed for your projects...that "Supersonic" is incredible.

RE: Photo previews of items: For Shapeways vendors, this can be tricky for a couple of reasons. One, this means vendors have to buy at least one of every object they offer in their store, and then photograph it. For some vendors, who offer the same part in multiple scales, this would be totally cost-prohibitive.

Two, the parts are made of a translucent resin that doesn't photograph well at all. A coat of primer helps.

Three, taking photos of such small parts requires a good camera and lots of light, something I need to improve upon!

////Here are some photos of recent test prints from Shapeways that I've been fiddling with. I'm trying to find out how little clean-up I can get away with.

On the topic of surface texture: some 3D printed objects, like these, will have surface texture that is SO slight that it's difficult to see with the naked eye, and doesn't even show up in photos very well.  I had to cherry-pick photos and adjust lighting specifically to make the texture look as bad as possible in these shots. With the right lens, it's possible to get super-human closeups that would make any scale object look terrible, haha.

Pictured are S&P-top Stromberg carbs, Y-block lakes headers and finned valve covers, and Buick-script nailhead valve covers. Working on getting the S&P tops and headers smooth enough to chrome with Molotow, the ultimate surface finish stress-test for 3D printed items.

I tend to soak the parts in alcohol, give them a light buffing with a toothpick to knock down the fuzzy white texture left by the support material, and give flat areas a light scraping with an X-acto blade if necessary. Then a shot of primer so I can assess the texture..and from there, it either gets a light sanding or a couple coats of gloss paint to drown the slight surface irregularities. Objects with heavy stepping will require some filler-primer and sanding first.

Either way, view 3D printed parts as a means to an end, rather than a 100% perfect "out of the box" solution.

 

 

[Bernard Kron]

57 minutes ago, Spex84 said:

Pictured are S&P-top Stromberg carbs, Y-block lakes headers and finned valve covers, and Buick-script nailhead valve covers. Working on getting the S&P tops and headers smooth enough to chrome with Molotow, the ultimate surface finish stress-test for 3D printed items.

Either way, view 3D printed parts as a means to an end, rather than a 100% perfect "out of the box" solution.

 

 

 

Below is a picture of the Maple Leaf Modelworks Stromberg 97s with SP tops which Chris offers. This is from a completed application I finished in December. They are as received from Shapeways and I paid the small premium for their highest resolution output medium. The have zero prep work except for a soaking in Bleche White. The main bodies were brush painted with Tamiya Titan Gold and the intake tops finished in Molotow Chrome applied with a 2 mm tip.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Bernard Kron