[HN Gopher] Design for 3D-Printing
___________________________________________________________________
Design for 3D-Printing
Author : q3k
Score : 309 points
Date : 2025-05-04 17:38 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.rahix.de)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.rahix.de)
| lawn wrote:
| What an impressive looking article (I've only skimmed it so far).
|
| I've been meaning to try my hand at CAD and designing models to
| print but I haven't quite made the jump.
|
| One thing that has given me pause is a good CAD program for
| Linux, does anyone has any good tips for a complete Newbie where
| to begin?
| q3k wrote:
| FreeCAD is fine (the author also uses it). Make sure to follow
| the official documentation (eg. PartDesign tutorial) to not get
| immediately frustrated.
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| The parametric workflow can be confounding to some people,
| but most pick up the newer FreeCAD interface fairly quickly:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/@4axisprinting/videos
|
| Best of luck =3
| titaphraz wrote:
| I highly recommend MangoJelly Solutions's tutorials.
|
| Here's a playlist for FreeCAD 1.0: https://www.youtube.com/wa
| tch?v=t_yh_S31R9g&list=PLWuyJLVUNt...
|
| But he has a bunch of other videos.
| pcl wrote:
| I've had a lot of success with https://onshape.com, which just
| needs a browser.
| retrochameleon wrote:
| I use FreeCAD, but it definitely leaves some UX refinement to
| be desired. There are a couple of web based options like
| OnShape that seem to work well, too.
| rekenaut wrote:
| OnShape is great (we have been using it exclusively for a
| project over the past four months, the collaboration tools
| are phenomenal), but FreeCAD has made some fantastic progress
| over the past year. Some of the underlying technology
| problems have solved, and the UX has improved a lot with 1.0.
| The customization and scripting opportunities are also
| wonderful with FreeCAD. That said, if you're coming over from
| Solidworks/NX/Inventor, as much as there are buggy parts of
| those, FreeCAD still has extremely frustrating workflows and
| buggy parts that you have to work around. It feels like it's
| moving closer to Blender-like quality, but it still has a
| long road ahead of it.
| nullc wrote:
| All of Solidworks, Onshape, and Freecad have a very similar
| operating philosophy (I believe they're all based on the same
| backend engine). I used onshape for a while because I found
| freecad unusable but recent improvements solved most of those
| issues and now I prefer freecad.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| I use Fusion 360. Free for hobbyists. Yeah it's quirky and they
| constantly screw the free plan out of features (e.g. less saved
| editable designs, having to use the cloud to export STL) but it
| is also a highly capable tool that aligned best with the stuff
| I already knew.
|
| Not entirely sure if it's available for Linux.
|
| I probably shouldn't use autodesk but I'm not trying to make
| the world a better place. Just to unleash my creativity.
| malfist wrote:
| It's not. There is a flat pack version but it says it's not
| supported
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Ah I see. I've been looking at FOSS options like FreeCAD
| and Blender but both didn't feel right (especially blender
| as it's more a tool for animators).
|
| And I rather spend my limited free time creating stuff than
| to learn a new tool. Unless it is actually a more powerful
| one for the purpose that enables me to do things I can't
| now. But this doesn't seem to be the case.
|
| It's the same reason I use BambuLab printers. My hobby is
| making stuff, not tinkering with printers. They're just
| tools, a means to an end.
|
| Ps forgive me my defensive attitude but I often get people
| at the makerspace that take my choice of tools as a
| political statement. But I don't care. I just want to use
| what does the job for me.
| WillAdams wrote:
| For Blender, try adding:
|
| https://www.cadsketcher.com/
|
| and
|
| https://blendercam.com/
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| Not sure if they changed this, but you used to be able to
| local export an STL without cloud by going to Utilities ->
| Make -> 3d print
| seltzered_ wrote:
| I've been a newbie too and tried to use FreeCAD as others
| mentioned but I found myself enjoying build123d (basically a
| python library that uses an long-existing technology called
| OpenCascade and a viewer called OCPViewer generally used within
| visual studio code).
|
| The learning curve is still there, but I felt more empowered to
| adjust/share 3d printing designs made in it over dealing with
| quirks of GUI-based CAD applications. The discord community on
| there is rather helpful too.
|
| https://build123d.readthedocs.io/
|
| https://github.com/bernhard-42/vscode-ocp-cad-viewer
|
| I'll still use FreeCAD on occasion as a secondary viewer for
| stl files, though my hope is to use build123d entirely
| including for describing joints as well.
| today54 wrote:
| BTW there is an open source project on GitHub named 'Mayo'
| which is a pretty incredible viewer for 3d files including
| most CAD formats. 'F3d' is another great viewer. Both are
| cross platform.
| panki27 wrote:
| I just got started recently with OpenSCAD - it's a different
| beast, but very useful for simple parametric designs. You write
| code to describe the form of your object - no clicking and
| dragging things at all.
| WillAdams wrote:
| For traditional CAD the notable candidates are:
|
| - Solvespace --- small and lightweight, the UI may be a bit
| off-putting
|
| - FreeCAD --- hugely improved in the recent 1.0 release, this
| is a large and impressive system
|
| - Dune 3D --- the new kid on the block, it has the advantage of
| a modern appearance and UI standards, and the consistency of
| being a one-man project
|
| If one moves away from traditonal/contemporary CAD there are a
| few other options:
|
| - BRL-CAD --- intensely old-school, this is one of the oldest
| opensource codebases
|
| - OpenSCAD --- programmatic CAD, this has inspired more
| successors than I would care to count (esp. look up libfive and
| Matt Keeter's Master's Thesis if you are academically
| mathematically oriented)
|
| For that last, one of the more successful hybrids is
| "OpenPythonSCAD" which is just what it says on the tin ---
| Python in OpenSCAD:
|
| https://pythonscad.org/
|
| which I have been using for a project on the other side of the
| fence --- making DXF and G-code for CNC mills and routers:
|
| https://github.com/WillAdams/gcodepreview
|
| EDIT: One additional tool to note is Fullcontrolgcode Designer,
| which to bring things full-circle, is the 3D-printing version
| of the above:
|
| https://fullcontrolgcode.com/
| lucasoshiro wrote:
| > does anyone has any good tips for a complete Newbie where to
| begin?
|
| Start with Tinkercad: https://www.tinkercad.com. It runs on the
| browser, it has some limitations, but it is really simple to
| use, just open and model whatever you want joining and
| extracting shapes and importing SVGs for extrusion.
|
| After that, if you know any programming language you'll find
| OpenSCAD easy to learn. I gave a course last year about it, the
| slides are available here: https://lucasoshiro.github.io/posts-
| en/2024-03-24-openscad/. They are in Portuguese, if someone
| shows interest I can translate them to English, but I think
| they are easy to follow even by non-speakers.
| caditinpiscinam wrote:
| As a fellow linux users and 3D printing newbie:
|
| - Tinkercad (browser) fun and great for very simple projects.
| Like the MS Paint of 3D.
|
| - OnShape (browser) seemingly pretty powerful, but not the
| easiest to learn in my experience, and has some annoying bugs.
|
| - Plasticity (desktop) I played around with the free trial and
| liked it a lot, found it more intuitive than OnShape.
|
| - Womp (browser) not CAD software, but easy to use and great
| for making free-form/organic looking designs.
|
| - Blender (desktop) not CAD software and haven't used it
| myself, but I've seen others use it to design 3D prints.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| I can't vouch for this, but maybe you could get SolidWorks
| working in Wine? (e.g. https://github.com/cryinkfly/SOLIDWORKS-
| for-Linux). Of note, SolidWorks is cheap if you're a student or
| veteran, for a non-commercial license. It is a dramatic
| improvement over FreeCAD. (I wish CAS were in a state like EDA
| and artistic model makers where the free/OSS software was on
| par with commercial, but we are not.)
| Vox_Leone wrote:
| OpenSCAD is an underrated but powerful modeling tool,
| especially for developers and engineers who appreciate
| precision and code-driven design. It has a low barrier to entry
| -- the syntax is simple, yet expressive -- and with just a bit
| of practice, you can build tight, parametric models that are
| incredibly robust.
|
| One of its standout features is the `hull()` function, which
| computes the convex hull of multiple shapes. When used
| skillfully, `hull()` becomes more than a geometric operation --
| it's a design primitive that lets you smoothly bridge
| components, create enclosures, and generate complex organic
| forms without manual sculpting. It's like having a smart
| "connective tissue" for your model.
|
| If you're comfortable with code and want exact control over
| your 3D prints or CAD designs, OpenSCAD delivers precision with
| minimal overhead. It rewards clean thinking and composability
| -- making it ideal for rapid prototyping, parametric part
| libraries, and even mechanical design.
| anoldperson wrote:
| Learn FreeCAD. Getting trapped in commercial software and
| having to abandon years and years worth of project files isn't
| a mistake I'm making twice. Fusion seems attractive, but look
| at how they treat their shit tier users.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| Onshape is amazing. The learning curve is much more forgiving
| than other software while still being a feature-rich,
| optionally constraint-based and parametrizable CAD application.
| It works on any OS, even on a laptop with an iGPU, a
| Chromebook, and for basic stuff like exporting a part for
| printing, a _phone_.
|
| Consider signing up via your favorite YouTuber's sponsorship
| link to support them.
|
| Downsides are that the CAM plugin is paid-only (irrelevant for
| 3D printing) and you're obviously trapping yourself in a
| commercial, proprietary walled garden that might start charging
| subscription fees or otherwise rug-pull you once it gets
| popular enough. I've decided that the ease of use benefit is
| high enough to warrant the risk - I'd rather risk not being
| able to edit my models in the future than not creating them in
| the first place because the alternative software is too painful
| to use.
|
| It's helpful to understand how the software works, because it's
| different from what you might have experienced from other
| software: It essentially stores operations, like "start with
| this sketch, then extrude this part of it to a height of 10 mm,
| then add a fillet". You can go back and edit previous steps and
| the following steps will be directly re-applied.
|
| In sketch mode, you can just draw, but you can also add
| arbitrary constraints, e.g. "these points have to be exactly 3
| cm away" and it will adjust your sketch to match the (new)
| constraints. This makes it _really_ easy to change some aspect
| of the part later. This is common in CAD software, although
| OnShape 's implementation seems more intuitive to me than e.g.
| Fusion 360.
|
| If you want to do actual 3D CAM (for CNC machining), Fusion360
| seems to be the only free option (not available for Linux).
|
| In general, with all CAD software, the common "just poke at it
| until you figure out how it works" approach doesn't work well,
| although once you've understood the basic concepts that I've
| explained above and know _some_ CAD terms /concepts like
| creating 3D parts by extruding or rotating 2d drawings, Onshape
| will _mostly_ let you get away with that approach. You probably
| should still watch tutorials before you start.
| q3k wrote:
| > If you want to do actual 3D CAM (for CNC machining),
| Fusion360 seems to be the only free option (not available for
| Linux).
|
| The free CAM available in F360 has been artificially limited
| to only allow extremely slow travel speed. It's almost
| useless.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| Is there any realistic free alternative for 3D (not 2.5D)
| parts?
|
| You certainly won't want to use it for mass production, but
| for hobbyist use where getting the model and CAM config
| right, setting up the machine etc. are the biggest time
| sink and most parts are made in quantity 1, I found it
| acceptable.
| q3k wrote:
| FreeCAD has a built-in CAM. It's not very powerful, but
| it's only going to get better with time (while the
| proprietary alternatives will only continue to get worse
| as companies try to squeeze money out of their users).
| antirez wrote:
| Also useful to turn spheres into two parts you can screw one with
| the other, like in this design of mine:
| https://makerworld.com/it/models/99223-death-star-christmas-...
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| These are some great tips. The teardrop shaped holes are a neat
| idea.
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| Those were a staple of early reprap designs.
| q3k wrote:
| In fact, it was such an iconic piece of early 3d printing
| design language that it became _the_ RepRap logo!
|
| https://reprap.org/wiki/RepRapLogo
|
| Then overhangs got good enough that people just started doing
| normal holes again. :)
| no_wizard wrote:
| I always thought 3D printing would make multi widget machine[0]
| manufacturing possible
|
| While it's done a lot of cool stuff and enabled rapid prototyping
| etc it never scaled the way I really thought it would
|
| [0]: there may be a better turn for this however this is what I
| mean: that is one machine that can output a wide variety of
| different things using the same common material, IE maybe one day
| it produces ball bearings and the next it could produce a bunch
| of car pistons, with only having to make minimal changes to the
| machine itself if not changing anything at all
| analog31 wrote:
| "Flexible" or "Quick Turn" manufacturing are terms used for
| this kind of thing. Quick-turn comes from being able to change
| from one kind of part to another, quickly, with no added setup
| cost.
| codingmoh wrote:
| In theory, it seemed perfect for flexible manufacturing: same
| machine, same material, endless outputs. But in practice, it
| hit limits in speed, material properties, and post-
| processing. You still can't print a high-tolerance metal part
| at scale and cost-effectively replace traditional machining.
| It's amazing for prototyping or niche parts
| earleybird wrote:
| "You still can't print a high-tolerance metal part at scale
| and cost-effectively..."
|
| Dan Gelbart has a response (with caveats)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLgPW2672s4
| codingmoh wrote:
| oh wow - that's cool! - Thanks so much for sharing!
| al_borland wrote:
| There are companies with big print farms that offer this
| service. But of course it's limited to materials that can be 3D
| printed, and if the product reaches a certain scale, it's
| likely best to invest in injection molding or some other
| process.
|
| That said, for smaller scale products, news businesses, or
| things where 3D printing is the only way the thing can exist,
| these services exist.
| EA-3167 wrote:
| This article reminds me of another I read first here, 'Reality
| Has A Surprising Amount of Detail' by John Salvatier. At first
| blush 3D printing seems easy, but especially with smaller parts
| that might go through many duty cycles it's anything but. I'm
| going to have to do more than skim this, I think this one is
| worth multiple reads over many days to really absorb the densely
| packed information.
|
| Thanks to the author for being willing to put so much of their
| hard-earned experience into a resource for the rest of us.
| hengheng wrote:
| Great article. This is all above the skill level of the _average_
| part on thingiverse or printables, but the good parts on there
| are going to follow similar ideas. Love the mouse ears, press-fit
| holes and step-by-step alignment of layers to build impossible
| bridges.
|
| Notably, in fusion 360 this would all be designed in "plastics"
| mode, and yet that mode is oblivious to whether the part is
| printed or moulded. I wonder if any CAD engine can do
| "production-aware design" that constrains design to the
| capabilities of standardized machines, e.g. keeping a metal part
| 3-d millable. I've seen strict design rule enforcement with PCBs,
| and I have seen sheet metal macros, but nothing for general
| mechanical CAD.
| digdugdirk wrote:
| I've investigated this space, and I'm not entirely sure its
| even a desired goal from the perspective of a mechanical
| designer. The benefit tends to be for smaller aspects (ensuring
| hole sizes are appropriate for the desired thread, or that
| holes aren't too close to a bend line on a sheet metal part,
| etc) but the final design of a 3d part is so non-deterministic,
| and the variety of manufacturing methods are so varied and
| unique, it might just cause more issues than benefits.
| nullc wrote:
| This is fantastic-- while I'm aware of most of the techniques in
| it, it would have saved me a ton of time and trouble if I had it
| a few years ago.
|
| Each of the points could basically be expanded to an article on
| their own. E.g. they don't mention for vase mode that you can get
| much better results using a big nozzle with it.
| lucasoshiro wrote:
| 3D printing is fun because there's always something new to
| learn
| sgt wrote:
| Has there been any interest in leveraging LLM's for 3d modelling?
| Sort of an AI assistant with CAD software, to help beginners get
| going and also more rapidly design simple objects.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| Yeah, tons, there are already products like this in use
| lucasoshiro wrote:
| Can you name them?
| iancmceachern wrote:
| Several from Bambu labs to start
| joshvm wrote:
| Just last week:
| https://willpatrick.xyz/technology/2025/04/23/teaching-llms-...
| oofbaroomf wrote:
| Yes, there has been. Unfortunately, there are a few core issues
| blocking this from becoming a big thing:
|
| 1. The majority of 3D modeling is not done parametrically,
| meaning there is not a lot of data. The little data there is is
| generally in OpenSCAD, which isn't very powerful or extensible
| for useful CAD. 2. Generally, when you want to do CAD, you need
| to come up with a way to define everything precisely. Like I
| want this hole 2 millimeters from the bottom, and this exact
| edge next to the hole to be beveled, etc. Saying all that to an
| LLM is slower than just making the whole.
|
| That said, these still can be useful for beginners, and there
| are things like Adam AI that are starting to catch on for
| simple stuff.
| ai-christianson wrote:
| There are AI models that can generate 3D models, e.g.
| Hunyuan3D. Not quite CAD models, but maybe this could
| eventually be adapted to that use case.
|
| Then there's the possibility of an agent automating an actual
| CAD program. This has already been done with game dev, e.g.
| Unity MCP.
| lucasoshiro wrote:
| Amazing. Again: amazing!
|
| I've been playing with 3D printers for 7 years, and I even
| assembled mine at home during the pandemic. Some topics described
| here I already found out by practice and I think most people with
| experience in 3D printing also do that.
|
| But having everything studied, compiled and explained in that
| level is just, again, amazing! Not only that, but there are so
| many other topics covered here that I still have to learn.
|
| Great work, thank you!
| pclark wrote:
| I know they get a lot of hate in the HN community but my Bambu
| Labs P1S is mind blowing. It's so easy to use I print 100x more
| than with my old Ender. It's motivated me to learn Fusion360 ...
| i'm actually printing droids for my kids to color this very
| minute.
| the_af wrote:
| Hate? I missed this. Why hate?
| WillAdams wrote:
| Non-compliance with GPL and other opensource licensing.
|
| Predatory licensing agreements and cloud software which
| presumably allows the company to access/steal designs.
| Gerardox wrote:
| What are some alternatives? Ty in advance for any hint!
| q3k wrote:
| My favorite continues to be hardware from Prusa. They're
| rock solid and respect user freedoms
| (serviceability/upgradability/hackability). Being made in
| the EU is also a big upside for me.
|
| I've had an MK3S+ for years and even though it's a
| primitive machine in comparison to the current Bambu
| hardware I see no reason to upgrade to something else. It
| just keeps printing whatever I throw at it and the
| results continue to be very good. In fact, I seem to have
| better luck with it than the Bambus I sometimes use at
| various hacker/makerspaces.
|
| If you just look at the numbers (speed, volume, ...)
| against Bambu hardware they're not as good, but the
| reliability and simplicity make up for it IMO. The main
| missing feature is multi-material support, but that's
| something I'm not really interested in due to how
| wasteful the current technology is.
| Gerardox wrote:
| Thanks for the throughout reply!!
| adambatkin wrote:
| Prusa. Made in Europe, from quality components (or buy it
| as a kit from them and build it yourself, which is a
| really fantastic experience). Hardware is repairable and
| upgradable and the firmware is open source.
|
| But they cost more than Bambu. Most Chinese things tend
| to cost less than alternatives, for obvious reasons.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| GPL issues and concerns about the SaaS-y aspect. Folks on HN
| and often techy folks in general don't like it when hardware
| requires an internet connection vs local control. These
| concerns are somewhat warranted based on recent moves Bambu
| has made
| kiba wrote:
| More than that. They tried to gaslight people after people
| found out the changes Bambu Lab was making.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| Mostly because they are proprietary in an community with an
| open philosophy, and being successful doing that.
|
| Most consumer-level 3D printers are derived from the RepRap
| project, which was about making a 3D printer that prints 3D
| printers. So if you want your own printer, find someone who
| already has one to print the specialized parts for you, add a
| few standard parts (screws, motors, etc...) and build your
| own, which you can then use to make 3D printers for others.
| You can then share designs, improve, etc... Totally in the
| open source spirit, of course, the software part is similarly
| open source, usually GPL licenced.
|
| And this spirit is found in most of the consumer-level 3D
| printing world. With open source firmwares and slicers, easy
| to modify machines, and standard parts. I think one of the
| the companies that exemplify this the most is Prusa. They 3D
| print their printers using their own printers, and open
| source most for their work.
|
| But then BambuLabs came along, and they have proprietary
| components, a proprietary firmware and a cloud-based system.
| Their slicer is open source, they don't really have a choice
| because it is based on GPL software, but they recently made
| it harder to use the forked version some people made (namely
| OrcaSlicer), and they did so via an automatic update. Of
| course people didn't really appreciate.
|
| But maybe the worst part is that BambuLabs printers are
| actually really great and popular printers, for an affordable
| (but not cheap) price. And many people think that from now
| on, proprietary will become the standard.
|
| If you don't care about that, then BambuLabs printers are
| maybe the best you can get. If you care, go with Prusa. If
| you are broke and don't mind getting a new hobby, go for
| something like an Ender3.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| Enders were... not a great experience. I understand they were
| in a good price spot at the time, but from my experience and
| from what I gather online, very finicky. People who liked
| tinkering with the printer itself loved and recommended them
| because 3D printing became a skill of its own (Not for the
| design considerations in the article, but to make the equipment
| work consistently).
|
| I've heard that Bambus are much better. I have a Raise3D E2
| from the Ender era, and it's rock solid. A step up in price,
| but no finicking. Just works, when new, and now.
| zoky wrote:
| I know two people with that exact model of 3D printer. Both
| printers are routinely out of commission for weeks on end due
| to some failure that the owners lack either the technical
| expertise to diagnose and fix or the desire to pay exorbitant
| prices for proprietary replacement parts to fix (or both).
| Meanwhile my Ender 5 is always chugging along, and is never out
| of commission for more than a day or two while awaiting
| replacement parts from Amazon that cost between a few cents and
| up to maybe $20 each.
|
| I don't actually think Bambu makes unreliable printers; to the
| contrary, they are excellent machines that, if anything, are
| much more reliable on the whole than Creality. But they're kind
| of like sports cars, in that their target market is either
| people who want something fast and flashy and are willing to
| throw money at any problems to make them go away, or for
| technical types who want something they can take out on the
| track and don't mind wrenching their own machines. The problem
| is that Bambu printers are marketed and touted as being great
| for beginners, and while they certainly make it easy to get
| into 3D printing for nontechnical people, I think most of them
| will end up ultimately being disappointed at either the lack of
| customization they allow or amount of time, effort, and money
| required to diagnose and fix them when something goes wrong.
| pclark wrote:
| as I said, as a Bambu owner, i'm really impressed with mine
| and highly recommend them to others.
| Max-q wrote:
| I think that conclusion is wrong, they are absolutely for
| beginners. No bed leveling. Lidar scan of first layer.
| Filament sensors. Good software. Enders are sold to beginners
| but you actually need to be an expert to get good results and
| keep them running.
| vjvjvjvjghv wrote:
| My Bambu A1 just works. I had an Ender 3 before and it almost
| killed my interest in 3d printing because my prints
| constantly failed. I don't see a path where the A1 could
| disappoint me.
| WillAdams wrote:
| One technique which bears mentioning is printing in 100% infill
| using a filament which will allow re-heating/cooling and then
| putting it in a tray of powder salt (very finely ground table
| salt) and then backing and cooling it.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| What is the purpose of this?
| noosphr wrote:
| You get a solid plastic part without layer lines. This makes
| it about as strong as injection molded plastic.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| Nice! Want to try.
| justaj wrote:
| Nice article, though what I'd personally love to see is a
| resource where I can go from zero to actually making (basic)
| designs using open source tools, which can then be taken to a 3D
| printer and printed.
| mikewarot wrote:
| The learning curve was steep, but FreeCAD has allowed me to
| start playing with 3d printing gears and other things on my
| Bambu Lab P1S. I'm largely self taught with electronics and
| programming, so just starting and making small experiments got
| me going. For inspiration, there are lots of sites that share
| 3d print designs.
| ipdashc wrote:
| > There is no excuse to not add text to a printed part.
|
| Super off-topic, but I've always kind of been let down by the
| appearance of 3d printed text. As noted, engraved seems to be
| better than embossed, but it still just looks kind of _weird_. I
| envy the clean, crisp labels that seem to be commonplace on
| commercial injection-molded plastic parts.
|
| The toner transfer technique seems kind of promising. I think
| I've also seen people spray painting 3d-printed parts, and then
| lasering away the paint to draw text, which is interesting (if
| somewhat more materials- and equipment-intensive).
|
| Really cool article though.
| prashnts wrote:
| Another option is water slide decal. It can give a really
| seamless look, but is time consuming and expensive.
| Zekio wrote:
| I've heard people have had pretty good luck laser engraving
| text onto 3d prints with fiber lasers, though it is pretty
| steep price bump just to get some text on a 3d print
| finnjohnsen2 wrote:
| 6 months into 3D printing and I couldnt have asked for a better
| article to stumble upon. What a massive field this is and I love
| some of the take aways. Paricularly circles into hexagons, and
| making things adjustable.
|
| I'm not making my own designs yet. It is too difficult.
| Modifiying a little here using Blender is where Im at
| sysrpl wrote:
| It's super easy to design using OnShape. Hit me up with private
| message and I will show you everything you need to model 3D
| printable parts in under 5 minutes.
| stavros wrote:
| Agreed, you need to know three things:
|
| * Sketch a 2D design on a surface * Make the elements in that
| design depend on each other (this is parallel to that, this
| is equal to the other, X is at an angle to Y) as much as
| possible * Pull the 2D shape up into 3D space
|
| Now you know how to design your own things! The rest is just
| learning the buttons, but there's usually one called
| "sketch", one called "constrain", and one called "extrude".
| alextousss wrote:
| Incredible article, learned quite a lot. To me, a very good
| supplementary reading would be Structures by J. E. Gordon [1].
| Helped me grasp a lot of the mechanical design notions necessary
| for that sort of work.
|
| [0]:
| https://archive.org/details/StructuresOrWhyThingsDontFallDow...
| lukeinator42 wrote:
| My friend and I have been getting into forge molding carbon fibre
| using 3d printed molds like this:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25PmqM24HEk. It is a great
| technique for making small batches of really strong parts and I'm
| surprised it isn't more common.
| timmaxw wrote:
| > Cut threads into printed parts with a thread tap for quick
| design of low-reuse joints.
|
| I've found wood screws work well for this. The wood screw can cut
| its own threads without needing to use a tap.
|
| It does put some stress on the part, though. I mostly print in
| PETG, which is strong enough; but PLA might split if the hole was
| parallel to the layers.
|
| > A design limitation of threaded inserts is that they are not
| reliably usable for screws inserted from the back side. During
| insertion, heat-set inserts often push some molten plastic into
| the hole beneath them, preventing easy insertion of a screw from
| the back side.
|
| A trick I sometimes use:
|
| 1. Before installing the insert, insert the screw from the back
| side
|
| 2. Screw the insert onto the protruding screw
|
| 3. Use a soldering iron to install the insert+screw together into
| the plastic
|
| Because the screw is filling the hole, the molten plastic can't
| block the hole. Instead, the molten plastic forms itself around
| the screw, and it acts like a Nyloc nut.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-05-04 23:00 UTC)