Road To Major Fud Improvements Starts With Repricing

I don't know much if any German, but if Google translated correctly, that's hilarious. Comic relief always helps in a tense discussion.
Steve

One trick that can really help in a part like this is to apply a draft angle to the ribs.

For the most part, it's a wall, and it will be thick enough in that area. However, out in the zone where it could be considered a detail, it is still fine and presents a scale appearance. The draft angle usually isn't really noticeable.

Hopefully this might help.

Steve Hunter

I'm not sure how all the translators work with that one, but as I understand the expression it's along the lines of "A happy fart never comes out of an unhappy butt."

Hummel hummel!

In this case double (100% more) wax and 45% more USD.

Not * 1.25 or x 1.25, whichever symbol you prefer, it's ^1.25 or **1.25 in some computer languages. Power, like 2**2 is 4 and 3**2 is 9. With 1.25 exponent 1 cm tall gives 1, 2 cm gives 2.378..., 3 cm gives 3.948..., 4 cm gives 5.656... and so on.

I'm lost as a monkey watching Westworld.

In my first test you can have this:
STAND UP MODEL=TALLER, SMALL "GREEN GROUND SHADOW"

FLAT MODEL=LOWER, BIGGER "GREEN GROUND SHADOW"


Only regarding Machine volume and Support volume (cause Labor and Material are different due to different number of parts and lack of some sprues in second pic).

STAND UP MODEL: Machine Volume + Support Volume = 1.38 + 1.86 = 3.24 $
FLAT MODEL: Machine Volume + Support Volume = 1.03 + 2.00 = 3.03 $

This is an small model, but I think it demostrates without doubt that machine volume finally marks the difference and FLAT MODELS WILL BE CHEAPER IN THE END as I stated previously.

If I can have the all sprued model (first pic) in FLAT position, you can bet it will be cheaper than now.

Why did machine tends to orientate models in STAND UP position? Read my comment in page 22.

NOTE: My goal was to have the best detailed part -faces- out of the wax. But if FLAT position is also two cents cheaper, as somebody say, it's a win-win.

I bet it will not.

Unless you are assuming, that Shapeways engineers are so dumb, they aren't even able to make this very simple algorithm of computing six numbers and pick the lowest one correctly.
But since Shapeways is running ... somehow ... I guess they are not as dumb, as you are suggesting.

I had a (not visible to public) model cost approx $300 before. Now, it costs over $1800. Same time, I had another (also not visible to public) model used to cost $170 before and now costs only $20. If you can find a pattern, solve the mystery and make accurate cost predictions, you are a lucky man. IMHO, after new pricing policy, it sounds more easier to flip a coin in the air and wait for Shapeway's answer about estimated production cost.

There's no way currently to set print orientation for FUD/FXD. We are however working on that and hope to release this tool next week. Also, the print orientation will be set on a material family level (in this case FUD/FXD will share the user-set print orientation).

How about some stuff:
$60.30 FUD, (old price indicated $78.15)
$56.08 FUD
$50.82 FUD
$38.93 FUD

The above images are the same "HO Scale Tank with Access Port" one as the original whole model, the others all split the same way, ends cut off, length split, but aligned, tilted or turned a little to test the six orientation directions the print layout function seems to use. As you can see, I have one vertical arrangement, and two horizontal arrangements. The second image (first split one) is the favored for surface finish, but costs the most! It has the most support filler material. The cheapest one is the vertical setting where the support material is minimum, despite the height increasing the machine volume cost from the exponent on the height (height to the 1.25 power).

The system seems to be behaving as the technical details indicate. Part of the problem is statements that have been made like this: "we will automatically orient your model so the tallest axis is oriented in the x-y plane." What should have been said is the height and support material both have a new effect on the price, shorter and less support is cheaper. we will automatically orient your model lowest cost direction. Or something like that.

I have been busy documenting my thoughts in a paper for my benefit, and maybe others might find it useful.

Ta ta for now,
Charles Sloane

Looking forward to this! It's been needed so badly, for so long!

Steve Hunter

How did you forced the Check tool to use different orientations?
With the same geometry it should be always the same (ideal), or not?

Btw the last one should be even cheaper in two-pieces (tube + cap). Splitting tube in middle has no cost benefit (and adds per part fee). Also has best surface quality. Or am I wrong?

Funny thing SW claimed, that they want models "flat", so the power of height ... but in real world examples, it seems the most expensive thing in Galaxy is wax. So it is still better option to choose bigger height rather then more wax.

Well, well, I have a question in mind.

It's clear that "Green Ground Shadow" is the minimum wax thickness to separate starting layer of printed material from printing tray.

Then could somebody explain why the printed model starts about 3 mm. above the "Green Shadow" and not directly on it?

Take a look on the pic: square sprue above the lower head is 2mm. thick. Then red wax support from "Green" to sailor cap is about 3 mm. thick. Check it in your own models. Funny, isn't it?

I believe that the green piece isn't support material it's the footprint. So I would expect 3mm of support wax above the green area before the model starts, which is exactly what you are seeing,

Mark

"RailNscale said: ?
Since FUD/FXD is calculated with support volume and machine footprint*height^1.25, it would be recommended to display these variables in the upload screen.
Currently you see 'size', 'part count', 'material volume', 'machine space', and 'surface area'. The 'support volume' and 'machine footprint * height^1.25' is not showed.
Thanks for the feedback, I've forwarded it to the right people."

"Mitchell said: One thing to notice is that all of them that are shown right now apply to all materials.
The support volume only applies to FUD/FXD (due to that 2.8mm).
Not sure if it's a good thing to have it added at the general numbers?"

Well, that is not correct. The surface area is a variable that doesn't matter in FUD/FXD, but it's visisble. Part count is not applicable to other materials and so on. Thus, already information is shown that is not applicable to all materials. And that's not a problem. The problem is that information is missing for FUD/FXD.

Also apicable to some materials, is some data is in milameeters and others centameeters. Seems like picking one standard metric unit and sticking to it.

Are there any quality differences if printing a part flat or upright?
Obviously the flat version has more support material exposure, compared to the upright one.
But would the upright one warp easier?

Furthermore, it is not visible to the designer what the SW printing engineer actual selected print orientation is rite?
Wouldn't this be useful info? (assuming the designer doesn't force a print orientation)

Yes, there are differences. Warping can happen in both cases, but can usually be fixed be using hot water. There are more important differences though.
Horizontal surfaces tend to be the smoothest of all (although the printers sometimes leave ridges). Vertical surfaces are vulnerable to showing minor layering, but are still the next best thing.
To your sample these issues do not really matter because it is a very simple shape. However, when you add details, you get the best quality by having the details face upwards: the print is better, and you do not need to support the details with wax that will damage the surface it comes in contact with.
Wax vs plastic is less of a problem when the wax is a horizontal layer (x-y plane) with the plastic as a different layer on top or underneath it. Having wax next to plastic in the same layer will cause most problems.

Personally I would always try to have items printed as horizonal as possible and I design my sprues with that in mind. It's all about quality.