I too am an ignoramus when it comes to 3-D printing, but I have had my doubts.... however, I'd ask "what's the difference between the classic FUD and other types of print?".

However, to blame "the design" without specifying what element of the design caused the finish is more than just a cop-out; I think you're being polite there; I could be wrong, but I cant see the rough finish on your design, can you? I think you've every right to be miffed! Perhaps their information should be clearer when it comes to the customer determining what form of finish to order?

Good luck, if you decide to continue with this...

Jon

Sadly I think this is probably pushing the boundaries of the tequnique right now. I work with a lot of Rapid prototype parts in my work in the car industry, and to me this does look typical. The material plays a role, but the shape, especially of the saddle tank is difficult as it shows up the resolution limits of the printer. I bought a body for a CIE GM diesel produced by Shapeways last year, and although the flatter forms of the diesel make it less obvious, it's just the same. I suspect we need another generation of printer, or maybe two, before this becomes the preferred body fabrication method for us in the smaller scales.

I'd be upset too Missy... for me it's not so much the initial disappointment with the product you received, but the indifferent and unhelpful response to your complaint. It's very poor customer relations and I think they could have handled it better.

I'd be inclined to pick up the phone to Shapeways and ask how you could have supplied the plans differently so that you won't be disappointed next time ... I'd also point out (nicely) how their email reads so negatively and does them no favours.

In broader balance, I'd also say to you Missy that as someone who is at the forefront of pushing the boundaries of fine-scale modelling, it's perhaps inevitable that from time-to-time you'll come up against a few trials and tribulations - you go places no one has been before - and from that perspective you mustn't get downhearted when something doesn't work first time. You're paving the way for those that will follow and that earns much respect from me.

All the best,

Mark

Missy,

That does look rather disappointing. The interior of the cab looks excessively rough, which I can't understand - Are you sure that you removed all of the supporting waxy material from the cab space? I know that after cleaning up my cattle wagons and especialy brake van with a toothbrush and washing up liquid as you have (http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/1009/entry-10020-2mmfs-gwr-cattle-train-in-fud/) that there was still evidence of the waxy stuff in the internal spaces - a bit of tissue on the end of a cocktail stick removed the awkward bits.

Of the 3 Outside Framed Vans that I originally had printed, one had a really rough side (which I think I showed you at the RMweb members day - its the one I have used as a grounded body).

From the evidence of my own prints alone, I can see variations in quality some of which are probably down to the orientation of the model when it's printed (which unfortunately cannot be specified to Shapeways, as they will orientate to minimise supporting material I think). It may well be that your model was orienated on one side when printed because of the boiler bottom assembly, perhaps you could separate that off - The 7 wagons and spring sprues in my latest print were all in the same STL file but were not connected to each other.

Hope this helps

Ian

Thanks for the replies folks.

I dont know what the purpose of this post was really. I dont know if it was open this upto a wider audience to see if anyone had an idea as to why it has happened, maybe it was just to let off some 'steam'. I am very grateful for the replies though, you all have some interesting and valued opinions. At the end of the day the quality of the model is unacceptable in my eyes however it was produced.

I'd ask "what's the difference between the classic FUD and other types of print?".

Jon

Sorry, FUD is short for Frosted Ultra Detail, a material Shapeways use which has a resolution down to 0.3mm. The other materials they use dont have the same resolution but offer better qualities in other areas.

It may well be that your model was orientated on one side when printed because of the boiler bottom assembly, perhaps you could separate that off - The 7 wagons and spring sprues in my latest print were all in the same STL file but were not connected to each other.

Ian

Thats interesting Ian, thank you. I didnt realise parts can be added to the same file and printed but not physically connected to each other. I might have to try that one as I thought the reason why they mention they dont like sprued parts was to get more money as individual parts are more expensive!

I think I am going to try the engine out with some other companies to see what the results are. The whole Shapways thing has left me more than a little skeptical about 3D printing right now, I need to get my confidence back with the manufacturing process...

M.

We tried for over six months and several revisions of the CAD plus reprintings by Shapeways and finally gave up on them when they admitted (at last) they just could not get the quality we wanted on all faces of the model. We went to CWRailways who within two days had produced a far better product. I would advise you to contact them. You can see from their webpage the quality of the locos they are producing for themselves at present. http://www.chrisjward.co.uk/index.html

Thank you.

Rather ironically I have spoken to Chris a few times at shows about printing, but I sent the file to him the same time as Shapeways but never heard back from him, therefore I went down the shapeways route.

I have just spoken to him over the phone to try and sort out the email thing, (I have a feeling it was treated as a spam email).

M

"...Quality of these supported parts were bad because of the design"

If it was down to the design, they could at least offer some feedback on improving your design to reduce the problem of poor surface finish. This would make good business sense as they ought to be trying to keep your custom, obviously they have no idea that a lot of people follow your modelling blogs who might be put of using Shapeways following your experience.

I wonder how it would have looked in 4mm scale? Would the roughness been any more or less noticable?

I'm sure that 3D printing will be an important tool for (some of) us modellers, but as others have pointed out the technology is still very new and will probably be refined further in the future.

Paul.

I wonder how it would have looked in 4mm scale?

Better. Better still in 7mm. Or 10mm etc etc. As others have said, 2mm scale items are pushing the current technology.

It would have been nice to have seen some 'as received' pics, before cleaning up and priming, to give everyone a view of the limitations and what they might be up against in terms of the work involved to get equivalent items looking better. It's good to see a recommendation for Chris Ward's service (no connection), because I think we do need to see some competition in quality in the marketplace.

Ignoring for a moment the matter of the axis orientation of the piece in manufacture, which seems to be a bit 'pot luck' with Shapeways, my question is this - in design terms (which is what Shapeways seem to be complaining about), would it have been better to arrange several separate parts 'sprued-up' a la conventional plastic kit sort of thing?

Hello.

It would have been nice to have seen some 'as received' pics, before cleaning up and priming, to give everyone a view of the limitations and what they might be up against in terms of the work involved to get equivalent items looking better. It's good to see a recommendation for Chris Ward's service (no connection), because I think we do need to see some competition in quality in the marketplace.

Yes, apologies for that one, I guess my frustration got the better of me trying to make something of the model. Photographing bits in raw FUD seems to be a bit hit and miss because of the semi transparent nature of the material.

I have now sent the files to Chris to see what he can come up with. It looks like my original attempt a few weeks back got caught in his spam filter so hopefully this time will be a little more successful. I have seen his stuff at a couple of shows now and had a chat with him and so I am quietly optimistic about it this time.

Ignoring for a moment the matter of the axis orientation of the piece in manufacture, which seems to be a bit 'pot luck' with Shapeways, my question is this - in design terms (which is what Shapeways seem to be complaining about), would it have been better to arrange several separate parts 'sprued-up' a la conventional plastic kit sort of thing?

Thats what I thought I did with the cab roof and boiler but maybe this wasnt the ideal and it limited Shapeways as to the orientation for printing? Ian came up with something interesting when he said adding the parts to the same assembly file but not physically attaching them to the other parts. Maybe that is worth pursuing?

Missy

Thats what I thought I did with the cab roof and boiler but maybe this wasnt the ideal and it limited Shapeways as to the orientation for printing?

That is possible, I don't know. I think the orientation is up to the whim of whoever is loading the Shapeways machine(s).

Ian came up with something interesting when he said adding the parts to the same assembly file but not physically attaching them to the other parts.

I understand that very useful clarification, which nicely kicks my sprue notion into touch. I suppose what I was trying to get at is whether an arrangement of parts such that the vertical (z) direction is minimised would be better. (The vertical direction being the one where it seems to me one sees the most effects of the 'layering process'.) For example, if doing a simple van, would a separate set of essentially-flat four sides/ends and roof be better (in terms of surface texture quality) than an integrated whole?

" if doing a simple van, would a separate set of essentially-flat four sides/ends and roof be better (in terms of surface texture quality) than an integrated whole?"

This is what we did with our GNSR externally framed kit but Shapeways still couldn't get it to come out at an acceptable level of detail. We went to CWR and you can see a raw primered only (no sanding down or touching up) version of our kit on this thread from post No.16 onwards: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/56296-gnsr-4mm-kits-any-available/

From what I have seen I think that shapeways orientate the model to minimise the footprint within the limitations of the build height of the machine in the Z direction. I had four models printed in one file and they were built end on. One was scrap, two were okay and one was so-so.

I'm uncertain about going back with more things for 3D printing myself because it seems to be a lottery how good a particular print run is and they are not cheap. I could go to a more expensive supplier with better machines but that is cost prohibitive. Unfortunately the best candidates for 3D printing are the most complicated so cleaning or fixing them up is not easy because of the geometry and you can easily end up with expensive scrap. If the geometry was less complex they would probably not be too arduous to produce from more traditional materials.

I wonder if there is anything obvious in the affected areas if you scrutinise the STL file output by importing the triangulated model yourself, but I suspect not. That is my only thought on the 'design' aspect being bad, as they put it.

Thanks for that. I encountered that GNSR kit thread this afternoon. Ignoring the surface quality difference between Shapeways and CWR for the moment, would you say the 'flatpack' approach was the better strategy for that type of shape?

We started off with a full model, four sides, roof and all but no floor and only went to a flatpack because we couldn't get an acceptable model - I've a plastic butter container full of rejected models in both H0 and 00. If you can find a printer who can guarantee the quality you want on all four faces go for it but the "safe" option is to go flatpack because there is you 'only' need one face to come out right. Plus a one guy operation seems to take more care than a big firm like Shapeways where the guys on the machine seemed to have no contact with the PR etc people and just would stick it on willy nilly. Up to recently Shapeways would give you a voucher if the print "failed" so you could ask them to try again for free, but I hear they no longer do this.

Sorry I forgot to point you to here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/56339-gnsr-outside-framed-wagons/ where there is a photo of the flatpacks made up into complete models.

Have you tried i-materialise? Over on NGRM forum they've been used by a few people recently with quite excellent results.

Hi James.

Have you tried i-materialise? Over on NGRM forum they've been used by a few people recently with quite excellent results.

 

i-materialise do seem to be far more consistent quality wise than Shapeways, unfortunately though the best material they use (prime grey) has a minimum part thickness of 1mm compared to the 0.3mm of Shapeways FUD. I cannot see that being a problem in the larger scales but in 2mm scale that makes a huge difference..

 

M

 

They do other materials though, I'm going to try having some of my parts for the IZAs done in their detail resin, which seems to have the same qualities as FUD. I think it's a bit more expensive though.

I'm no expert, but from what I've learned talking to people about 3D printing, the reason why you get a rough printed side has a lot to do with the orientation of the drawing in the file. Basically, if you put what you want it to look "good" you have to put it on a certain axis (I don't know which) so it will print smooth (or less rough at least depending on the shape.). 3D printing is still an evolving technology, having a perfectly blemish free print won't happen just yet. It looks like it won't be too far away though, especially when you consider how much its' come on in the last few years.

Even so the quality does vary between the producers but this maybe down to the use of different printers and/or materials. Shapeways from the sounds of it could have handled your complaint better and at least try to explain why. Hope this helps from my limited knowledge.

Carl

Hello

They do other materials though, I'm going to try having some of my parts for the IZAs done in their detail resin, which seems to have the same qualities as FUD. I think it's a bit more expensive though.

Thank you for that tip Pugsley. I didnt realise, especially as everyone seems to plump for the Prime Grey. I will take a look at that.

I'm no expert, but from what I've learned talking to people about 3D printing, the reason why you get a rough printed side has a lot to do with the orientation of the drawing in the file. Basically, if you put what you want it to look "good" you have to put it on a certain axis (I don't know which) so it will print smooth (or less rough at least depending on the shape.). 3D printing is still an evolving technology, having a perfectly blemish free print won't happen just yet. It looks like it won't be too far away though, especially when you consider how much its' come on in the last few years.

Even so the quality does vary between the producers but this maybe down to the use of different printers and/or materials. Shapeways from the sounds of it could have handled your complaint better and at least try to explain why. Hope this helps from my limited knowledge.

 

Carl

I think you have got it pretty much spot on there Carl and as people have said previously you cant easily specify the orientation of the model with Shapeways. As you said, things WILL get better with time as the technology develops.

I have left myself with a question though, I have sent the information to Chris to see what he can do but I am also tempted to try Shapeways again using Ians method of separating the bits in the same file.

M

"I have received a feedback about your complaint in the mean time, but I am afraid we can't arrange a reprint for this model. Quality of these supported parts were bad because of the design"

In my experience I am with Ian's observation. I too think putting both parts on a sprue rather limited Shapeways options, and that is what they are referring to as "Design".

The set-up charge is for a single STL, not for the number of pieces within it. They only prefer very small parts on a sprue.