FDM v. the Rest of the 3D World

[JohnStack]

Yesterday, I went to a 3D Systems Seminar.

The two-hour presentation was oriented towards noobs, giving them an introduction into what can be 3D printed. The attendees were primarily industrial manufacturing professionals with the occasional Harley Head machinist (no kidding).

In spite of 3D Systems having FDM printers (consumer and prosumer), the presenter was critical of FDM due to strength and dimensional conformity. While some of the $50K plus printers yield incredible prints and colors, I can't help thinking that, at times, FDM is getting a really bad rap in the industrial market. Countering that notion is the reprap community and smaller manufacturers.

I kept thinking Highest and Best Use. In general, people buy for highest and best use, a term used in real estate. Physically possible, financially feasible, reasonable and most probable. Ten years ago, people shared laptops and had their own desktop. Now, they'll share printers. Those won't be $50,000 printers. Those will be kept in a managed state as a scarce, business-driven resource.

To me, it was mission-oriented FUDD being passed around. This is going to happen again and again.

[0110-m-p]

It is a hard battle for sure, but I think the key to the non-industrial "cheap" FDM machines current growth and success is in the constantly growing user-base. Large companies will continue to use the better and more expensive SLS and SLA machines and I think this is inevitable, but more and more smaller companies, startups, and consumers will continue to use low cost FDM machines because it makes financial sense and truly expands capabilities. The fact that anyone can build a printer as amazing as the Rostock Max for $1000 or buy and Orion for under $1500 is nothing short of incredible.

[bvandiepenbos]

I am not at all surprised that 3D Systems down plays FDM... they are scared of us!
SO, that just adds more fuel to my fire to prove them wrong.
We as a open community of makers can change the world.


Thanks John, for sharing your experience of the seminar.

[Generic Default]

The way I see it, FDM has much more potential than any photoresin based printing system. The first 3d printer I used was a Stratasys dimension printer, which gave decent ABS prints at layer heights of about 0.2mm. My Rostock can print at 0.05mm layers in Nylon for strong, tight tolerance, functional mechanical parts. FDM printers are able to print just about anything can can be melted, which includes all thermoplastics and elastomers, as well as other stuff like pastes and foods. Right now we are stuck with just ABS and PLA, with a few other "exotic" filaments such as nylon and PET that have better mechanical and chemical properties.

Warping and dimensional accuracy are the biggest problems with FDM printers right now. Once people start designing their printers with closed build chambers and better bed materials, this will almost be eliminated. Fiber reinforced plastics eliminate warping and increase print strength and rigidity. Multi-nozzle hotends will be the standard within two years guaranteed; the lack of different support material is a huge problem for even simple part geometries. FDM printers have the capability to do what is called 'overmolding' in injection molding. Multi-material prints lack support from slicing software right now, but they will also be standard in the near future.

I don't see much of a future for photoresin based printers; they are more advanced than FDM right now but I think most of their progress is behind them, and materials advancements may not happen at the scale that they will for FDM printers. Right now they have advantages for printing aesthetic models that require a smooth, translucent surface and good tolerances. They also have the advantage of faster print speeds. Once FDM printers catch up in tolerances, photoresin printers will be limited to non-functional aesthetic models.

Laser sintering printers definitely have a bright future, since they can make strong metal parts. The cost of the systems and the cost of the print materials are the biggest barrier for laser sintering systems.

The types of printers that glue powder together are a joke. They don't make durable parts. The only thing they have is the ability to print full color objects, which is being matched with other types of printers now.




I'm an engineer and inventor, not an investor. But if I were, I'd put my money on consumer grade FDM printers. DMLS right behind that, which will hopefully hit the retail market in the new few years.

The machinist you saw at the seminar was probably curious about 3d printers, but I'm guessing he was also worried about losing his job to them this decade. Traditional subtractive machining still makes stronger, smoother, more dimensionally accurate parts than any 3d printer today. I hope we see CNC machines go through the same transition that 3d printers are going through now. 3d printing is a hype but the future is in robotics in general.

[JohnStack]

Thanks for posting this. I love hearing people's opinions about this stuff. I agree that the consumer market will pick up and that most of the issues it faces now will be smoothed out over time. I'm hoping the RepRap community stays very strong - but to primarily counter-balance the influence of closed source, IP-intensive efforts made by larger manufacturers and integrators.

[Generic Default]

I agree that the consumer market will pick up and that most of the issues it faces now will be smoothed out over time. I'm hoping the RepRap community stays very strong - but to primarily counter-balance the influence of closed source, IP-intensive efforts made by larger manufacturers and integrators.

I hope the reprap stuff keeps going too! I go to a large research university (CU), and it seems like the people who are interested in 3d printing are largely pro open source; it just appeals to them. Anyone can contribute and there is no formal paperwork or legal issues. We should also remember that ten thousand hobbyists who each contribute just a tiny bit will make more progress than a team of specialized engineers hired by a tech company. Open source has passed the corporate industry in FDM printing technology (in my opinion). Hobbyists with basic machine tools and a small budget can build a top of the line printer.

What you said about "IP-intensive efforts" is the only thing that really worries me. Overly broad patents can greatly limit us, and from what I understand about the history of reprap, early patents were what delayed the 3d printing boom by so many years.

I'm also concerned for other people's sake when it comes to businesses that decide to invest in the high end, expensive 3d printers. These 'job shops' will face major problems in the next few years as the consumer market (should we start calling the market the makit?) is flooded with cheaper, consumer grade printers that perform just as well as the larger machines. As an analogy, it would be like buying a copy machine for the office when everybody is about to get their own inkjet printer at home.

I just think that the larger companies in 3d printing are doing something that's slightly unethical, which is providing a product that will [unknowingly to the buyer] be obsolete by 2017. Smaller investments can pay themselves off quickly, but businesses that invest in the expensive printers right now will have heavy losses.

[grabredemeyer]

I've personally used every technology hands on that you guys have discussed and much more. I don't mean to seem like the negative one here, but FDM really does have quite a few downsides compared to other technologies I've used on a per case basis. I hear everyone about FDM and the cost going down and things...and that's great, but even the hobbyist community will grow beyond that. The multijet and polyjet (brand names) technologies of the world will come down in cost and the community will opensource these technologies as well. There are large benefits to these technologies over FDM in many applications and the materials that they're using are more interesting than FDM in some ways. Trust me, I've seen it first hand..even on the experimentation side. Personally, I believe FDM is just the first step down a long road of development and experimentation. I think you'd be very naive to believe that FDM will be an end all to even at home printing technology.

It's great and I love it, but if you think it's going to be the best thing there will be for at home additive manufacturing technology, I think you're mistaken. And at the end of the day, the best fit technology for even at home printing will be on a per case basis. Some projects FDM will be the right fit for. Some projects it won't be. I think it's very naive to get stuck in one technology and think it's the "best" solution. Just my 2 cents.

[Generic Default]

Right now FDM sucks compared to the other types of printing. It's slower and it leaves bad surface finishes and bad tolerances. But I think these problems can be and will be fixed within a few years.

Polyjet looks cool, but it's [still] really expensive [right now]. The "extruder" on the polyjet printers work like a conventional ink jet printer so they're way more complex than the hotends that we use. If they quit monopolizing and selling their proprietary photo-resins at ridiculous prices, they could get their printers into home and office use. Their printers already look very similar to 2d inkjet printers.

But keep in mind they have patents on their stuff which will keep it away from tinkerers for another decade. Inkjet cartridges are $50; the printers you put them in are $40. Expect a similar standard in 3d printing because it's already going that way.

The patents prevent us from making competitive printers, but if FDM prints can offer an inexpensive alternative to polyjet prints, they may have to lower their prices to maintain sales.
It will be interesting to see what the reprap community does with the other types of 3d printing technology once they're available for open source development. Count me in.