[HN Gopher] Design for 3D-Printing
___________________________________________________________________
Design for 3D-Printing
Author : q3k
Score : 763 points
Date : 2025-05-04 17:38 UTC (1 days 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.
| sho_hn wrote:
| OnShape and SolidWorks use Parasolid, FreeCAD uses Open
| CASCADE.
| 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
| sfifs wrote:
| You can right click a body and export as mesh locally
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Are you sure this doesn't use the same functionality?
| I'll try.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| I'm pretty sure this now also leverages the cloud
| converter. It doesn't quite show as much because they've
| massively sped up the cloud conversion. It used to take
| minutes, now it is almost instant. However when the cloud
| is down it still doesn't work, so it's still cloud based
| for sure.
| 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/
| yehoshuapw wrote:
| also have a look at https://github.com/CadQuery/cadquery (and
| https://github.com/gumyr/build123d) python, but more pythonic
| then openscad
| 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.
| ansgri wrote:
| While this is a good idea in theory, one needs quite a lot of
| patience to deal with its bugs and kernel limitations. It has
| definitely become much better since 1.0, but the inability to
| put chamfers and fillets wherever is extremely annoying --
| whether the features compute is order-dependent and they
| routinely conflict with each other for unclear reasons.
|
| So, maybe it's not a bad idea to start with a free version of
| something more ergonomic, just to avoid getting too
| discouraged.
| 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).
| highdeserthackr wrote:
| I did a lot of poking around when I first started. Tried ~10
| different apps. On one end there are the toys, and the other
| end were sophisticated apps that were too big an investment in
| time. Settled on SolveSpace as the Goldilocks solution and have
| been using it for 4 years now. Can run on Linux, never crashes,
| GUI based, parametric constraints (which as someone that is not
| a mechanical engineer was the hardest part to get my head
| around), no cloud and no concerns about it getting crippled by
| a vendor. In the beginning, it took a day to get a simple
| design right. Now things can be whipped out in as little as 30
| minutes. I'll caveat this as I don't make fancy stuff, just
| items in support of homelab projects and the workshop (examples
| at https://www.printables.com/@HighDesertHacker).
| 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-...
| ugh123 wrote:
| Thats great! Reminds me of this dragon egg my son had me print
| for him with a screw shell but has a hollow inside to put
| things in it like baby dragons, x-wings, etc
| https://makerworld.com/en/models/192494-dragon-egg-with-baby...
| 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.
| immibis wrote:
| It turns out there's a massive speed advantage to parallel
| processing that outweighs the cost of making the molds when
| you're making hundreds of the same item. Look at a machine that
| makes plastic bottles - it stamps out something like 1 to 10
| bottles per second per machine, by inflating a bubble of
| plastic inside a mold. You will never ever get that speed with
| something that only prints one part of the bottle at a time.
|
| Resin printers are kind of parallel but I don't know how much
| faster they are. And they still won't beat the bottle molding
| machine.
|
| For serial processing for expensive parts made of strong
| materials, wasn't there already CNC milling?
| 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.
| hengheng wrote:
| The people I've talked to found it similarly unnecessary. But
| mainly because they weren't able to imagine a _good_
| implementation.
|
| "But what if I want to do x" is what I heard the most. Like,
| sure, if you want to make your part on a 3-axis router and
| then drill one sideways hole, then put that in the markup.
| CAD always seems to have a feature stack, so apply a 3-axis
| design rule and discard it before the last step. Similar for
| multiple setups on a mill, or for surface treatment.
|
| The gold standard still seems to be a signed and printed
| drawing that is never complete and full of implications.
| Mapping a design to a factory, or even pricing it, is an art
| form that has resisted automation. I expected this to change
| with all the "industry 4.0" push from ten years ago, but
| somehow that just meant adding wi-fi.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Totally just spitballing, I know nothing about this.
|
| Thinking about the problem, it seems like it would be
| extremely difficult to come up with a set of design rules
| that cover everything somebody might want to print.
|
| But would it be possible to literally simulate the printing
| process? Maybe using some kind of CFD code? I mean, for
| arbitrary designs this could get really complex. But, there's
| a hard limit--the thing actually has to get printed, which is
| a slow mechanical layer-by-layer process, and the end result
| has to fit in the print chamber, haha.
| hengheng wrote:
| Fusion has CAM integrated, which is already a small
| revolution.
|
| Used to be that CAM was entirely separated software,
| operated by a separate person who usually spoke fluent
| g-code.(No seriously, old mills had pushbuttons where you
| could punch in your G72 with coordinates, and the grey
| beards would do that with no hesitation.)
|
| CAM software simulates the machining process, not
| dynamically but with constraints and filters that use the
| results from dynamic measurements. Printer software is
| actually quite sophisticated there, Klipper knows about
| machine dynamics as well as how to compensate for
| acceleration in the molten plastic.
|
| My issue is that all CAM integration only happens after the
| design stage. I draw up whatever, then check for
| manufacturability, and then realize that it's failed again.
| Electronics CAD software for a while now has had real-time
| design rule checks that don't let me draw an impossible
| line in the first place, and I kinda want that.
| sitkack wrote:
| I use many of these techniques and have modules in openscad
| to create build orientation aware parts and have for years.
| You can be less not entirely sure, because many people
| already do this.
| MadnessASAP wrote:
| > I wonder if any CAD engine can do "production-aware design"
| that constrains design to the capabilities of standardized
| machines
|
| At this time, none that I'm aware of. I am considering some
| manner of FreeCAD workbench that would integrate slicing to
| allow specific printing techniques to be applied to specific
| features of the part. I'm still not sure exactly what it would
| look like or integrate into the workflow yet.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| There are DFM tools that you can use on the back end of your
| design process e.g. through fictiv/protolabs etc. However there
| is a lot of stuff that is "technically machineable" but way
| more expensive to do, and it really is an engineer's job to
| both understand how the part is made, talk to the machinists if
| they don't, and to trade off the design complexity vs. the
| engineering needs.
| WillAdams wrote:
| I'm actually working on something along the lines of:
|
| >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.
|
| by modeling a part by only using subtraction based on tooling:
|
| https://github.com/WillAdams/gcodepreview
|
| you'll need: https://pythonscad.org/ but it's allowed me to do
| pretty much everything I've tried out in it thus far, and I'm
| putting the finishing touches on a joinery module which should
| let one make pretty much anything of wood, and metals should be
| much the same --- even turned out a thread cutting program as a
| proof of concept a while back.
| hengheng wrote:
| Oh, that looks nifty. I'm going to take a closer look at
| this!
| gragundier wrote:
| Never heard of pythonscad before, but I've always thought it
| would be a good idea (if only I honestly had the skill to
| make this myself). Thanks for the links!
| WillAdams wrote:
| It was absolutely game-changing for me --- I'd been
| flailing at this for a long while, and was most of the way
| there w/ RapSCAD, but stuck on it not being very popular
| --- within a week of release I had a working version of my
| library --- it's been nothing but upside since then.
| jdietrich wrote:
| CAD has a number of features to _help_ design engineers with
| manufacturability. In Fusion, take a look at the Inspect panel
| - you 'll find analysis tools that will highlight areas on your
| geometry that might have insufficient draft to release from a
| mold, or areas that might be difficult or impossible to access
| with a milling tool. With the right extension, you can set EDA-
| style design rules for injection molded parts.
|
| There are a number of software packages dedicated to design
| analysis for injection molding, although the price is far out
| of reach of hobbyists.
| 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
| DonHopkins wrote:
| I'd love to read an article (or watch a video) of such depth
| and expertise about techniques for printing parts in place,
| which this article just touches on.
| 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.
| oofbaroomf wrote:
| Things like Hunyuan 3D are nice for game assets and the
| like, but they aren't able to really do CAD well. That
| would be like using Stable Diffusion to code.
| 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!!
| baq wrote:
| Bambu AMS is useful even if you're doing single color
| prints - you don't have to worry about filament running
| out, it'll just continue on the next roll if it has the
| same filament loaded on two slots. It can also print
| multiple (small) objects in the same job with only one
| filament change per object.
| q3k wrote:
| Right, but I'm also wary of the extra complexity and
| whether it's worth it for me personally. (I've seen Bambu
| AMS systems act up, and I also know they're picky about
| spools).
| baq wrote:
| I'm using the AMS mini with an A1 together with a Sunlu
| filament drier - never had a single spool on the AMS
| itself, the filament sits in the drier and the AMS is
| empty on top of it. Works great with all filament brands
| I tried.
| 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.
| sho_hn wrote:
| Note that Prusa recently opened a US-based factory
| according to their blog, so in addition to EU-made they
| also got US-made going.
|
| As a big fan of the company I'm hoping this will make
| them price-competitive to Bambu (or even considerably
| cheaper) while the tariffs rage. I'm not a fan of the
| tariffs, but if it gives a boost to the Core ONE launch,
| welp ... good for them.
| the_af wrote:
| For those of us in Latin America, Prusa being US-made
| makes no difference price-wise. Chinese is cheaper.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| Raise3D. Even the lower-end ones are expensive, but
| they're a step up in reliability.
| lawn wrote:
| While they target a completely different audience
| (tinkerers and DIY vs "just works") the VORON printers
| are the gold standard of open source printers, and you'll
| get a very capable machine when built.
| rileyphone wrote:
| I got a Sovol SV06 ACE a few months ago as it seemed to
| have most of the nice features of the Bambu (like auto
| bed leveling) without the closedness. The printer runs
| Klipper and you can ssh into it. So far there's been one
| issue where I had to replace a fan but otherwise it's
| been great. Much cheaper than a new Prusa too.
| Orygin wrote:
| Have you got a source for the GPL non compliance ?
|
| If I remember what I saw during the day, and from recaps
| since then, it was only the Bambu Studio slicer (that is a
| fork of Prusa Slicer), which was provided with review units
| but without the source code being released yet. The code
| was released in time for production units. The only
| violation of the license is if they did not provide the
| code to reviewers when asked (which may have happened, but
| is not as clear cut as what their competitors imply)
| 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 a community with an
| open philosophy, and for 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.
| imtringued wrote:
| >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.
|
| This is the correct answer. A lot of people got used to
| eating shit. Turns out the 3D printer industry was selling
| you overpriced garbage. Bambu Labs was too good to be true
| so people were thinking that there must be a catch and now
| that there is a barely significant inconvenience, they
| start dog piling the company as if all hell had started
| breaking loose.
|
| Now look at reality: everyone is building copycats of bambu
| lab printers, proving that the 3D printer industry was
| selling overpriced garbage products, because they knew they
| could get away with it. What people really wanted is the
| alternative reality where bambu Labs didn't exist and
| printers still sucked.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| > Turns out the 3D printer industry was selling you
| overpriced garbage.
|
| Mostly cheap "garbage" actually. Before BambuLabs,
| manufacturers competed on price more than anything else,
| using the Ender3 as a model. BambuLabs printers were
| considered rather expensive. Kind of an intermediate
| between semi-professional printers like Ultimakers and
| Ender3 clones. Even the affordable BambuLabs A1 at its
| base price is about twice the price of an Ender3.
|
| They did shook things up on the high end though, and
| this, I think, is a good thing.
| the_af wrote:
| I gotta say the A1 Mini is the only printer I see myself
| using, unless something better comes along that is even
| _easier_ to use.
|
| I see my printer as a tool, a means to an end. I already
| have hobbies I want to use it for, I don't need _another_
| hobby of tweaking, configuring, modding, trying different
| brands of things, etc. My A1 is _almost_ there and
| requires _very little_ fiddling. "It Just Works". If I
| were younger, around the same age trying different Linux
| distros was a viable hobby, maybe I'd try more open
| source friendly printers, but I simply don't have the
| time or patience anymore.
| Pawka wrote:
| > If you are broke <...>
|
| Buy used Prusa! Their printers are reliable machines, easy
| to fix or upgrade. I have seen MK3 or even Prusa Mini
| (which is a newer option) for ~150 EUR. Still great options
| for anyone who wants to go into this hobby.
| the_af wrote:
| > _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._
|
| This is the only part I was aware of: I own an A1 Mini and
| having lots of fun with it. _Almost_ "it just works" (not
| really there yet, in my opinion, but getting really close).
|
| Thanks for sharing the rest of the background. I was aware
| about the update (which is optional so far) and wasn't too
| concerned about it, but I understand why other people may
| be. I wasn't aware of the "open source", printers printing
| printers part of the hobby; I'm new to it.
| 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.
| harrall wrote:
| My Prusa Mk3 had perfect prints too and now I have a Bambu
| P1S.
|
| I got a budget printer in 2017 and that's when I learned that
| tinkering was not for me.
| 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.
| lttlrck wrote:
| My biggest complaint is that the filament RFID spec is
| closed.
|
| BBL parts are not very expensive and their support is
| stellar. Of course if they go bankrupt we'll be high and dry.
|
| Prior to my two A1s I spent more time, and more money in
| parts, mucking about with the printers, modifying and
| calibrating, tweaking Klipper than getting anything done.
| gaudystead wrote:
| One of the biggest selling points for me upgrading to an
| X1C was for similar reasons... I wanted more time to work
| _with_ the machine, not work _on_ the machine (if that
| makes sense).
| baq wrote:
| I've seen this put as '3d printing hobby' vs '3d printer
| hobby'.
| Vespasian wrote:
| We had no issues with our bambu whatsoever. It's a great
| machine that does exactly what it advertised to do.
|
| It's not magic and faces the same limitations as all other
| 3D-priters but it's execution is top notch. I can't remember
| a single instance where I felt the need to change the printer
| settings in the slicer besides selecting one of the presets.
|
| Our filament purchases went up by at aleast an order of
| magnitude and new members to our club get the hang of it
| really quick.y
| sho_hn wrote:
| Because a lot of the readers here seem to be comparing Bambus
| and Enders: These aren't the only options. If you want a
| similarly-featured and reliable printer that doesn't phone
| home, I'd recommend taking a look at Prusa.
|
| It's where Bambu forked much of their software from, they're
| equally easy to use after recent updates, very reliable and
| easy to service.
|
| They also added US-based manufacturing recently, and I think
| you can get US-made Core ONEs, which given the tariffs may mean
| they're soon to be cheaper than equivalent Bambus.
|
| Some people will groan that every 3D printing thread must have
| a Prusa fanboy, but then again the company inspires that
| attachment also not without reason :-) I've printed for
| thousands of hours on my MK4(S) and I've had zero issues, and
| it's pretty great they offer upgrade kits to turn this into
| their next-newer model.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| I'm a huge Prusa fanboy as well, but Bambu does deserve
| credit. There's clearly a before-Bambu and after-Bambu era
| for 3D printing. Prusa had to adapt (and did, IMO, pretty
| quickly), and now so have a lot of the other Chinese printer
| manufacturers.
|
| I totally don't trust China from a manufacturing perspective.
| I think it's literally an intentional policy of the Chinese
| government to try to de-industrialize the rest of the world
| (in particular the West and the US, geopolitical rivals), and
| this is most clearly seen with how China has dominated drone
| manufacturing and rare earths mining and (just as important)
| processing. Rare earths is relevant not because it's
| irreplaceable or incredibly rare (they're not, in spite of
| the name)but because it's super easy to see the Chinese govt
| use access to what would otherwise be a kind of niche mineral
| group as a geopolitical trade weapon. DJI leveraged corporate
| espionage and stolen IP of rivals (like Parrot) as a
| launching platform for absolute dominance of what has become
| a national security relevant sector. And Bambu Labs was
| started by former DJI folks, so they're playing some of the
| same game. But geopolitical motivations aside, they
| legitimately HAVE upped the game dramatically, bringing to
| bear just an insane level of electrical engineering,
| software, and mechanical design and manufacturing expertise
| on what was not long ago a hobbyist driven sector, producing
| machines superior to the industrial Statasys machines at a
| hobbyist price with an Apple-like polish.
|
| But I do think Prusa has, against all odds, actually kept
| pace. The Mk4S and XL, and then especially the Core One
| really are comparable machines that keep most of the core of
| the open source Prusa ethos (although diminished as Prusa got
| burned by cheap Chinese clones in the past & now doesn't open
| source as much) and far less of the corporate control and
| surveillance embedded in the IoT-ified Bambu machines. The
| ONLY non-Chinese company to still make competitive machines.
| poulpy123 wrote:
| Bambu Lab make good printers, and with the X1C and they were
| one the first to propose "click & print" 3D printer affordable
| for consumers. The issue is that they are currently closing
| their ecosystem, and we cannot know where they will go.
|
| Also comparing recent printers and the old enders is very
| unfair, you have to compare with similar current technology
| 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.
| DannyBee wrote:
| Sure, but at that point, you'd almost certainly be better off
| using resin.
| 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.
| justaj wrote:
| Would you say Blender is a nice tool for this purpose? I'd
| much rather learn one graphical tool which does a lot of
| different stuff than lots of different graphical tools that
| do different specific things (it's a different story in the
| terminal though :))
| AnIrishDuck wrote:
| Blender is serviceable for simple stuff, but you really
| want CAD for mechanical parts.
|
| Think figurines (Blender) vs gears (CAD).
|
| Constraints, among many other important features, just
| aren't as well represented in Blender.
|
| An analogy is C vs JavaScript. Can you do "memory
| management" in JavaScript? Sure, but you're fighting the
| tool. Ditto for building a complex frontend in C.
|
| The desire to "just learn one thing" is naturally strong.
| But the "design 3d things" problem space is as large (if
| not larger) than "programming computers". Hence the
| proliferation of tools with very different approaches (the
| underlying _representation_ in CAD is generally brep [1],
| which is much different than vertices / edges / faces at
| the core of Blender)
|
| The good news is the underlying thinking is somewhat
| transferrable, especially for core concepts.
|
| 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boundary_representation
| Geee wrote:
| It's not really suitable. Blender uses polygonal modeling,
| which is quite limiting. It's possible but very difficult
| compared to CAD, unless you're modeling something organic
| like human figures.
|
| I'm currently using Shapr3D and it's very quick to design
| simple parts. Blender doesn't have any of the tools which
| I'm using in Shapr3D, such as sketches, constraints,
| parametric modeling etc. and most of the direct modeling
| tools are just way easier to use than Blender.
| baq wrote:
| Fusion 360 is an absolute beast of a tool if you're willing
| to live with its license and can spend a few hours learning
| it.
|
| Blender is for modeling, not CADing.
| adornKey wrote:
| Parametric modelling isn't really there in Blender, but
| Blender is too good to not use. And it is still improving
| at an astonishing rate.
|
| For me Blender has all I need for creating Models for
| 3D-Printing. And if e.g. Geometry-Nodes get some more love
| in Blender, they could become a base for proper parametric
| modelling...
| bschwindHN wrote:
| Give SolveSpace a try. It's fantastic for 2D sketches and then
| you can extrude/revolve/subtract these sketches into other
| solids to build up your part. It can export to STEP or STL and
| then it's an easy trip through the slicer and you're ready to
| print!
|
| If you're more programming minded, try out RepliCAD. Or if you
| don't mind dealing with Python and its build ecosystem, there's
| CADQuery or Build123d
| 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.
| taneq wrote:
| If you don't gave a tap handy you can quickly "heat-set"
| threads in a part. Print the hole slightly undersized (I
| usually go 0.2-0.4mm under for M3-M4 size screws) so it takes
| some effort to screw in, then quickly screw the screw all the
| way in with a cordless drill. Friction should heat it up enough
| to melt the plastic and form it round the screw. Wait until
| cool before removing the screw. :)
| hamandcheese wrote:
| In my experience even small machine screws (M3) can cut their
| own threads into a properly sized hole, and function well
| enough for a small number of re-assembly. That said, I'm rarely
| designing for portability, I just find the right sized hole for
| my printer by printing some test prints.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| Does the world have an oversupply of ESP32/RaspberryPi/3D
| printers/similar but not enough use cases?
| lucasoshiro wrote:
| No.
|
| 3D printers are not the revolution that they looked at first.
| But after the initial hype, they found their niche and they are
| strong in it.
|
| Nowadays I even dare to say that it's more useful to have a 3D
| printer at home than having a ink jet.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| Question regarding two apparently conflicting bits of
| information:
|
| - A: Fillet edges in the filament direction - B: Have a sharp
| edge for the seam.
|
| How would you crack that nut, as A prevents B. For example, on a
| rectangular box, maybe fillet 3/4 of the corners, and leave the
| 4th sharp?
| aix1 wrote:
| Some possibilities that come to mind:
|
| 1. not care about seam placement; or
|
| 2. place seams manually in the slicer; or
|
| 3. add a tiny V-shaped notch specifically for the slicer to put
| the seam there.
| Filligree wrote:
| 4. Use a scarf seam, which Bambu's does if it can't find a
| better option. Still visible, but much less so.
|
| 5. Use rear. The seam will be a single line down the back of
| the part.
| aix1 wrote:
| Thanks for mentioning scarf seams. They seem like a very
| neat development that I didn't know about.
|
| This was an interesting read:
| https://www.printables.com/model/783313-better-seams-an-
| orca...
| AgentElement wrote:
| This is a fantastic article. It neatly summarizes several tricks
| that took me years to pick up.
|
| Another useful trick to minimizing material in a print is to not
| print surfaces at all. Most of the mass in a print is
| concentrated in the shell. If the top and bottom surfaces are not
| particularly critical to the function of the part, then you can
| remove either surface. The slicer can still fill in the volume
| enclosed by these surfaces with infill. If you use a planar
| infill, such as a rectilinear, hexagonal, or triangular infill,
| the parts can look quite nice. This trick works particularly well
| on mostly flat parts.
|
| I use two TPU parts printed in this manner daily: A phone case
| [0] and a relief strap for a pair of headphones [1].
|
| [0] https://www.printables.com/model/615154-google-pixel-8-case
|
| [1] https://www.printables.com/model/577575-hifiman-comfort-
| stra...
| darkteflon wrote:
| This looks so good. I've gotten into 3D printing in the past six
| months with an A1 Mini. I initially bought it intending solely to
| do creative projects with my kid, but I've been surprised to find
| myself getting deeper into printing functional parts. I recently
| printed a 6" server rack for a GLi.net Beryl and Apple TV for
| travel, from a combination of pre-designed and self-designed
| parts.
|
| 3D printing as a pursuit can be time-consuming - there's always a
| risk with these things that you take them on as a dilettante and
| they end up gathering dust in a corner. I initially scraped by
| with some middling Blender skills (leaning into non-destructive
| operations where possible), but that is far from ideal - you
| really do need CAD. But to anyone considering jumping in, I would
| say: if you get an A1 (get the full size, not the Mini) and use
| Claude to write your parametric OpenSCAD scripts, the time
| commitment is such that you can _just about_ indulge in this
| hobby as a dilettante - eg, as a project for your kids. Without
| LLMs, I think it would be too much of a commitment unless you're
| really dedicated, or already have CAD skills.
|
| Anyway, gonna go read this in full.
| abeindoria wrote:
| the Bambu P1S with AMS is one of the better purchases I've
| made. I've had an ender3v2 for so long and while it worked ok
| (and arguably better than many people's experiences with them),
| I got tired of constantly fiddling with stuff.
|
| Now, it just works. It doesn't matter what I throw at it. Made
| me get into the CAD hobby too.
|
| >use Claude to write your parametric OpenSCAD scripts
|
| Can you talk a little about it?
| prawn wrote:
| I use ChatGPT to help me with OpenSCAD and really enjoy it.
| It doesn't always nail it, but often works as a shortcut,
| especially with loops to create radial extrusions. You can
| muck around with things like asking it to give you code to
| design a castle, and then see how off-track it is.
| causality0 wrote:
| If you can assemble Legos you can design in Tinkercad. You
| don't need to mess around trying to get LLMs to write scad
| files, though the results _can_ be hilarious.
| RodgerTheGreat wrote:
| Worth noting: TinkerCAD is capable of parametric modeling in
| "CodeBlocks" mode. I prefer writing OpenSCAD (by hand, rather
| than via a warmed-over markov chain), but having the option
| within something as inviting as TinkerCAD seems great for
| beginners.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| Side bar... There are a lot of people who are going to use LLMs
| to try to do 3D modeling stuff and who are going to hit a wall
| with it really, really fast. Mechanical design really is a
| completely different discipline that is very poorly
| abstractable in the particular way that software engineers are
| used to.
| kriro wrote:
| I disagree. My co-worker is an industrial designer and uses
| Rhino as his day to day CAD tool of choice. I was delighted
| to see that it translates everything you do to a command line
| syntax and there's also Python integration. We did some
| simple tests the other week and you can actually prototype
| reasonably well by instructing an LLM to generate the Python
| code that creates the models. It still requires fine tuning
| but seems like a similar multiplier like using LLMs for
| programming to get the boring boilerplate out of the way.
|
| I'd say a good designer will at least 2x, probably 5x. We are
| preparing to test with students next semester to see how non-
| experts profit from this.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| Edit: I realize I was imprecise, I specifically was
| referring to 3D CAD for mechanical parts of the type you
| would generally produce a print for i.e. with controlled
| geometry and dimensioning.
|
| A) That's a surface modeler.
|
| B) Parametric CAD doesn't have boilerplate in the same way
| as software. In a part, you have a feature tree, and a lot
| of thought goes into constructing the feature tree in a way
| that both allows for reconfiguration and also somewhat
| resembles the manufacturing process. Every step depends on
| the previous step in a way that is necessarily impossible
| to isolate. If you make a step without being aware of the
| end state of the tree, you will probably have to redo a
| bunch of the tree if the part is complex.
|
| Also _that 's not what mechanical engineers spend most of
| their time doing._ Plenty of MEs can code and use an LLM
| btw, nothing stopping them from optimizing their work
| processes if they saw fit, yet you don't really see the
| shoehorning of AI into the space yet.
| hinkley wrote:
| For a second I thought that first picture said Festool.
| owenversteeg wrote:
| Great article. Unfortunately it seems that there is a lot of
| information out there about DFM for 3D printing but not much
| about the actual print process itself: temperatures, bed
| flatness, bed adhesives, nozzle size, etc. Does anyone have any
| suggestions or resources on the subject?
| joshvm wrote:
| Are you asking about best practices? Or the theory behind the
| printing process? I think there is a ton of this actually,
| because when 3D printing became affordable, the community did a
| huge amount of experimentation to figure out how to make their
| $250 Ender reliable.
|
| Stefan's CNC Kitchen is a good channel if you want to see
| experiments with things like temperatures and materials.
| https://www.cnckitchen.com/
|
| Or you could look at the original RepRap research and how it's
| evolved. The MK4S+ is just a very refined version of the
| original bed slinging printers. There are also papers on slicer
| development. There has been a trend towards thicker nozzles as
| slicers have gotten better (eg using 0.6 by default instead of
| 0.4).
|
| Otherwise advances in printer technology, particularly first
| layer calibration, have improved massively in the last few
| years. So things like bed flatness and adhesives are much less
| of an issue with auto-levelling/probing nozzles. Bear in mind
| Ultimaker has been doing it this way for years, but it became
| mainstream (cheap) more recently. Any of the major modern
| enclosed printers (Prusa Core/XL, Bambu) shouldn't have
| adhesion problems with standard filaments. It's also highly
| filament specific, though the really high end machines
| (Markforged) are reliable in my experience because they
| discourage any deviation from their recommended materials and
| print settings.
|
| For example MarkForged - a $10000+ printer - shipped their
| desktop FDM machine with Elmer's purple glue. They said it
| worked best in their testing and it still works for me.
| owenversteeg wrote:
| I'm looking for best practices, although any theory as it
| relates to higher quality finished parts is also welcome.
|
| And thank you, I've seen Stefan's work and it seems to be
| about as good as it gets. I'll take a look at the original
| RepRap research too, probably some interesting bits in there.
|
| I agree that the really high end machines from Markforged and
| co look dead reliable, but they remind me of that old quote,
| "you can make anything on a lathe but money." It took me a
| fair bit of scrolling through slick marketing pages to find
| out that they are 5-figure machines that print at half the
| speed of consumer printers and can't print ABS (but can print
| $200/kg high strength proprietary filaments!) Instead I just
| got a handful of the major modern enclosed printers.
| owenversteeg wrote:
| Background: I am trying to produce some ABS parts in small
| volume (10s of kg per day) and going crazy trying to find any
| decent source of information about the print process.
| Everything seems to be based on anecdotes and if you're lucky
| maybe a Youtube video.
|
| Here is what I have gathered so far, in case it helps anyone:
| 1) print ABS enclosed in a chamber temp of a minimum 50C, ideal
| 60-80C. 2) use quality filament, Polymaker filament is good;
| issues are plastic composition and diameter variation. 3) dry
| the filament properly. 4) the fumes will destroy your lungs and
| eventually the printers themselves, so they need to be vented
| out, and also filtered inside the enclosure. 5) bed flatness is
| critical. 6) use a good bed adhesive such as Magigoo.
| joshvm wrote:
| My gut feeling is that 10s of kg per day should be injection
| molded. Or SLS/resin printed so you can take advantage of
| layer speed. That's what 10x printers running at full tilt
| constantly, at least?
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/3Dprinting/comments/7n0go2/my_first.
| .. for an anecdote.
| owenversteeg wrote:
| Plan is definitely to injection mold at some point, but
| this is for several different complex parts that will be
| expensive to mill molds for. The breakeven point between
| injection molding and 3D printing is really about the cost
| of the molds. Let's imagine a 1kg part. If you say 10x
| $1000 printers at 1-2kg/day and $10-20/kg filament then you
| can produce 900-1800 parts in 90 days for a total of
| $15-30/part. Meanwhile with injection molding you have a
| mold cost of $5k-50k and say $3/kg for pellets, so for 1k
| parts it costs $8-53/part. So if you're making a thousand
| 1kg simple parts ($5k mold), molding will be better. Making
| a thousand complex parts ($50k mold), 3D printing is
| better. And making five complex parts (5x$50k mold), you
| can do a lot of 3D printing before injection molding
| becomes competitive.
|
| I am also in a bit of an unusual situation because of the
| size of the parts: voluminous enough that shipping from the
| manufacturer is no longer negligible.
|
| Oh, and unfortunately can't do resin because of strength
| reasons. 3D printed ABS is already pushing it.
| joshvm wrote:
| Yeah that's tricky. I suggest Occam's razor:
| environmental control is likely to be the most serious
| factor? Any $1k printer should be able to extrude
| filament at the right rate in the right place, and I
| don't know that ABS is particularly challenging to melt.
| The difficulty seems to be in fume management
| (extraction) and the parts not warping on the bed?
|
| Or you pay a lot of money for a higher end printer and
| make use of a support contract where they can figure out
| where your parts are failing.
|
| One other suggestion would be to contract the parts out
| to a company like Shapeways and see if people are
| actually able to reliably make them in low volume, then
| try to replicate. May be a dumb question, but presumably
| you've tried to print the same parts in PLA or a more
| forgiving material to confirm that they are "printable"?
| terribleperson wrote:
| If you're printing ABS, you do not need magigoo or any
| special 3d printing adhesive. Forget it. Among the most
| useful characteristics of ABS is that it's soluble in
| acetone.
|
| Dissolve a portion of ABS in pure acetone (often available as
| nail polish remover). You're looking for something very
| roughly the consistency of milk. Colloquially this is called
| 'ABS juice'. Apply a thin coat to your bed/buildplate in the
| print area. I use a small amber glass bottle with a brush,
| but there are certainly faster ways to do this if you're
| doing a lot of printing every day. You now have a thin layer
| of ABS strongly attached to the surface of your bed. When you
| print ABS on top of this, it will be strongly attached to
| this, just the same as the layers adhere to each other.
|
| You should be aware that acetone will damage PEI. It won't
| instantly destroy them, but it's something to be aware of. As
| a hobbyist, I just dedicated one side of my buildplate to ABS
| and don't care about the damage. You could just as easily use
| a different bed/buildplate material, though, since you're
| adhering the prints with ABS juice. I have had success with
| Kapton sheets in the past.
|
| For hot-end temperatures, this is something you actually are
| best off figuring out yourself. To some degree, it depends on
| what you're doing and also your setup. Filaments generally
| come with a documented temperature range, but that should
| just be considered an initial starting point for testing. You
| should test print at different temperatures. The classic
| 'temperature tower' is a diagnostic print used for this
| purpose. Colder prints (to a point) will have crisper details
| and superior bridging. Hotter prints are stronger. ABS
| particularly loves to be printed hot, and when printed really
| hot I have found that layer failure pretty much stops
| occurring. ABS also abhors cooling. When testing cooling %s
| with a temperature tower, I found that even a small amount of
| cooling massively reduced layer adhesion. This does mean that
| if you're printing ABS for strength, you'll need to seriously
| limit overhangs and bridging at the design and slicing stage.
| Also consider that your nozzle can have an effect. It's often
| suggested to bump your print temperatures if you use a
| hardened steel nozzle.
|
| Plastic composition is definitely something to be concerned
| about. Polymaker is solid. My favorite brand for ABS is
| Atomic Filament but they're too pricy to use in large
| quantities, so I save it for specific projects. For just one
| example of how things can get off with some brands, if you
| acetone vapor polish Hatchbox ABS it gets a matte texture
| instead of shiny, likely indicating there's something in
| there besides ABS.
|
| Bed flatness is critical, but it's not something you should
| have to worry about. Good machines should have a decently
| flat and rigid bed to begin with, and even remotely modern
| machines also have mesh bed leveling features that correct
| for bed errors in software. It's usually not an issue
| nowadays. Back in the day, people would compensate by
| printing on a raft.
|
| I didn't see you mention nozzles. If you're printing in ABS
| it's unlikely to be a pressing issue, but do consider that
| nozzles are a wear component and some filaments are abrasive.
| You will eventually need to replace your nozzles, as a worn
| nozzle can badly harm print quality.
| bilsbie wrote:
| This is neat! What's the angle you can do before you need
| supports?
|
| What amount of bridging is ok?
| DannyBee wrote:
| It actually is fairly filament dependent (among other things)
|
| For example, stiffer filaments can usually handle more overhang
| before they sag and screw things up.
|
| The easiest rule of thumb is to assume 45degrees, which works
| for ~all filaments.
|
| You can do a lot better if you choose filaments right however.
| bilsbie wrote:
| Is prusa the way to go for someone who wants something that just
| works?
| codingrightnow wrote:
| I'm not sure anything 'just works'. I have an Ender 3 S1 with
| autoleveling. I still have to adjust 4 knobs while getting
| under the print head with a feeler gauge. It's absolutely
| maddening. I need to do this with every print. If I don't touch
| the thing for a few months it's really bad. If you don't get it
| right it will gauge your printing surface or alternatively rip
| your piece apart as it prints. Then you need to know about bed
| temperature, nozzle temperature, and a hundred other things.
| Then what types of filament work best with certain bed types. I
| wish I never got it.
| sho_hn wrote:
| I've never any sort of pre-print processing/calibration on my
| Prusa MK4(S), other than cleaning the build plate. This sort
| of hand-holding really isn't required anymore on the modern
| printers.
|
| Slicers also come with presets for different filaments these
| days, which generally do a reasonable job and knowing about
| temps & co is largely optional to getting going.
| lawn wrote:
| You should upgrade to another printer. You shouldn't have to
| do this for every print with a better printer.
| sho_hn wrote:
| Yeah, they're work horses. I've printed for thousands of hours
| on my MK4(S) now, and it's still going strong. I've had no
| issues at all. Similar experiences around me.
| bschwindHN wrote:
| Get a Prusa, you'll love it. I have an MK4 which pretty much
| never fails to print.
| Geee wrote:
| Yes, Prusa and Bambu should both be reliable. I've been
| printing with Prusa MK3s for a couple of years without any
| problems. I think I've had just one failed print and it was
| because there was dust on the plate and I needed to wash it
| with water and soap.
| terribleperson wrote:
| There are lemons, but generally Prusa is excellent for that,
| yes. My Mk3s has been working reliably for six years. The only
| problem I ever had with it was an error I made in assembly. I
| can go six months without using it or use it every day all day
| for a week and it prints reliably either way.
| 91bananas wrote:
| Yes and you're supporting a company that is keeping things
| open.
| Art9681 wrote:
| The moment the teacher realizes it was never about the perceived
| correct answer, but the questions that led to the paths taken.
| The sudden realization that teaching is more than the teacher
| initially perceived. Its not about teaching "this is so", but
| rather, "why do we know this is so?".
|
| Which is what education should have always been about. It's not
| about responding with the correct answer. It's about asking the
| right questions. A famous Greek philosopher knew this, as did
| many before and after.
|
| This is another after.
| stackedinserter wrote:
| Circles are not that harmful if you print a diameter template
| with 1-10mm holes with 0.1 or 0.2 step. Don't measure your bolt,
| stick it into the hole where it's tight enough and you're good to
| go.
| gitroom wrote:
| yeah i bounced off freecad so many times but once i finally got
| something printed it was worth the grind
| Geee wrote:
| One additional trick that some people are doing is printing just
| the shell and then filling the 3d print with some kind of resin,
| foam or concrete.
|
| Here's a concrete filled CNC machine:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8t82OQXefM
| DannyBee wrote:
| Thankfully, support necessity will go away as 4/5axis 3d printing
| comes to consumer hardware over say, 10 years.
|
| With 5 axis, you can print any model without the need for
| supports.
|
| (I'm well aware of the difficulties/realities here, i've built 5
| axis motion control systems before)
| victorhooi wrote:
| The article states it is specifically geared towards FDM (i.e.
| filament) 3D printers.
|
| I wonder if anybody with more experience knows how much of this
| would overlap with SLA (i.e. resin-style) 3D printers.
|
| For example, there's rough guidelines like, overhangs are less of
| an issue with SLA - and the Z-height is ultimately what most
| affects print-time, but would be great to see something more in-
| depth here, with some engineering behind it.
|
| Or if there's similarly in-depth articles for resin 3D printers?
| WillAdams wrote:
| It should be much the same except no layer lines or other
| aspects of squeezing stuff out through an extruder
| incrementally.
| alnwlsn wrote:
| From when I was briefly working with "personal" resin printers
| (elegoo, anycubic, etc):
|
| - In terms of strength, print orientation doesn't really
| matter.
|
| - The z height is pretty much the only thing that affects print
| time since it exposes a single layer all at once. So it takes
| the same time to print one item as it does to print with a bed
| full of them.
|
| - The supports in resin aren't to push the print up like FDM,
| they are to pull the print up. Each layer needs something above
| it to pull it out of the vat for the next layer.
|
| - Unlike FDM, the surface attached to the bed isn't normally
| used as one of the finished surfaces. The printer usually
| exposes the first few layers long to make a solid base which is
| well adhered to the bed. If you want good surfaces all around,
| raise your part up a bit and use supports.
|
| - It's pretty unusual to not use supports in resin printing.
|
| - It can help to orient the print so that the least cross
| section area is in contact with the FEP film at any given time.
| This makes it less likely for the print to get stuck to the
| bottom of the vat.
|
| - Resin parts don't really have a concept of infill. You either
| print hollow parts or ones that are 100% solid (you never print
| FDM parts at 100%). If you print hollow, make sure you have a
| way to drain out the resin when it's done printing.
|
| - Even if your print is open at the top, it can still become
| filled with resin during the print, like putting your finger
| over the end of a straw. Make sure this doesn't suck up all the
| resin in your vat, or put a somewhere so air can get in.
|
| - The whole business of washing and curing parts is more than I
| can get into here. Of note is that you can't really cure the
| "inside" of a part because light from the outside only makes it
| so far in.
|
| - Resin parts tend to be very brittle. I once pressure tested
| one with 800 Psi CO2 once, through a small printed tube, and it
| held, but it would break if you hit it with a hammer. We tried
| the "tough" resins too, but never got any result comparable to
| even regular FDM with PLA. I used to say that I thought of
| resin parts not as a solid piece of plastic, but of finely
| powdered dust particles glued together.
|
| - Large resin parts warp, badly. Dimensions will be accurate on
| the small scale (millimeters) but not on the large scale (10s
| or 100s of millimeters). Not sure if it's because there's a
| good amount of force pulling on each layer during the printing
| process, or from stresses introduced during the curing process.
|
| I mostly make mechanical parts. Between the messy processing,
| weak materials, warping that throws off dimensions, and health
| concerns surrounding the resin (not to mention the intolerable
| smell), I pretty much gave up on resin printing. Any more, if I
| need something that must be resin printed, I'll order it from a
| professional service (which have both better performance resins
| than the home gamer can get and the correct setup to deal with
| them).
| baq wrote:
| How is this free.
|
| I usually don't bookmark anything nor print to pdf; done both
| just to be double sure I don't lose it.
| danpritch wrote:
| Extremely interesting.
|
| From a readers perspective as well, this was a long read, but the
| way it was written was very clear and interesting all the way
| through. So well done on both counts!
| immibis wrote:
| Note also the more general concept of "Design for Manufacturing"
| - tailoring your design to use the strengths and avoid the
| weaknesses and maximize efficiency in your particular
| manufacturing process, whatever it is.
|
| 3D printing was once conceptualized as a magic way to create
| absolutely anything. It turns out to be just one more tool in the
| manufacturing toolbox, bringing some very unique strengths and
| weaknesses, but still just another of many. DFM applies to 3D
| printing just as much as it applies to CNC milling, sheet metal
| stamping, plastic injection molding, or any other process - it's
| _always_ important to think about how the end product is
| physically created, and optimize for that.
| alnwlsn wrote:
| In the old days you needed to be a lot more cautious with sharp
| corners.
|
| If you print into a sharp corner, the hotend has to decelerate to
| a stop and then accelerate in the new direction. During this
| time, a little extra plastic will leak out of the nozzle. You can
| soften this transition with a rounded over corner.
|
| Current printers usually have pressure advance, so this is a lot
| less important now.
| ajuc wrote:
| > Divide and Conquer
|
| This is the most important, it's so much better for obvious and
| less obvious reasons.
|
| I tried to print a front basket in one piece for my wife's bike 2
| times before I got it to print. It broke the next week. I changed
| it from 1 part to 5 and joined them with zip-ties, thread and
| 3d-printed pins. Despite the assembly time I was finished in less
| than half the time, every part was stronger because it was in
| best orientation, the linkages had some give to them which
| provides surprising amount of amortization that wasn't there when
| everything was in one piece. It shakes the contents much less on
| uneven road because the linkage to the bike is only rigid one-
| way. It also prevents parts breaking easily, and if something
| breaks I just have to reprint the weakest sacrificial part that
| joins the bike with the basket.
|
| And if I think of an improvement - I just need to reprint small
| part instead of everything.
|
| BTW another very useful trick is preventing layer splitting by
| designing a vertical through-hole into which you put a zip-tie in
| tension. Some people use bolts and nuts for that, but that's more
| expansive and much heavier solution.
| sitkack wrote:
| Best thing to cross hn on 3d printing in years.
|
| Many of the design considerations they outline are classified
| under "Compliant Mechanisms"
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compliant_mechanism
|
| https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=compliant+mecha...
| Jubijub wrote:
| This article is incredible, in the age of AI slip it's refreshing
| to read content of this quality.
|
| I'm very new to 3D printing (designed my first part this
| weekend), and so I learned a lot
| Xmd5a wrote:
| A couple techniques I used the article doesn't mention:
|
| - Molds: in my case for silicone joints for high pressure
| environments.
|
| - Flexible filaments/TPU: custom shaped joints to make boxes
| rainproof. Custom elastic straps with a seam in the box makes for
| a very nice alternative to screws.
|
| - Triboplastics: self-lubricating polymers that can be used as
| bearings.
|
| https://www.igus.com/3d-print-material/3d-print-filament
| semireg wrote:
| I started 3D printing about 10 years ago with the first Taz
| machines and they left me a broken, broken man.
|
| Fast forward to a month ago, I bought a Prusa Core One, loved it,
| and then bought a XL 5-toolhead. It's been so much fun using
| printers that "just work."
|
| I finished this 6-day print last week!
| https://www.reddit.com/r/prusa3d/comments/1kb3p0w/xl_full_be...
| tgtweak wrote:
| These are excellent tips. Also helpful is the fact that since
| Bambu came into the scene, the tooling (slicers) and printers
| (core-xy and others) are all stepping up their usability game,
| getting the entire space into a "just print" mentality which is
| really driving a lot of adoption, model creation and just good
| for the overall ecosystem.
|
| I design a lot of parts in fusion360 and have been printing for
| nearly a decade, and even I found some good tips in here.
|
| I would add one very important section here which is filament
| selection. Modern filaments like PC-CF (carbon-fiber impregnated
| polycarbonate) are unbelievably versatile for real-world prints
| and parts, and the higher-end consumer printers can print this
| (requires a ~300'C capable print head and hardened steel nozzle)
| with relative ease. There are so many different filaments out
| there outside the standard PLA that really shine in many ways and
| aren't 10x more expensive to print with.
|
| Slicers are getting pretty good now too with a lot of work going
| into slicers to improve print quality, speed and part strength.
|
| Love seeing cnckitchen called out here so many times - such a
| great resource to follow and learn from if you're getting serious
| about new developments in 3d printing and unbiased reviews. The
| quality of models on printables and thingiverse is really getting
| better and the amount of things you can simply download and print
| and have a fully functioning device with 0 external parts (print-
| in-place and single-print components) is really encouraging to
| see.
|
| Once generative AI gets a grasp on object modelling and cad
| principles I think we'll see an explosion in functional part
| models in the same way parameterized models are becoming more
| mainstream.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-05-05 23:02 UTC)