So, FDM is only for "low accuracy prototypes"?

[MikeD]

Yes, I have a big issue with this as well. I am convinced that this is affecting my order volume and might explain some confusion from customers. The current part entry experience seems to do everything to steer a customer away from FDM printers. Do you not want FDM printers on 3dHubs? I just printed a replacement light bezel for a high end kitchen range - the customer liked the FDM print at 0.1mm layer height better than the original part. This was not a prototype and was a retail replacement part.

The wording needs to be changed to not steer customers away from viable options, I think it would be better to have “select a finish” listing part detail spec level and more prominent finish pictures to select materials from versus general terms that have limiting connotation.

Also the flow to get a part entered and estimated has become much more complicated in my opinion. I just tried to upload a part to test the experience and couldn’t get through the flow because colors and layer heights listed in my hub were not showing. I find it very confusing.

[Zapaer]

Hi @cobnut,

I understand your perspective.But FDM can be used for finished products but most of the time it’s used prototyping. Considering that a majority of Hubs print in PLA and ABS and not specialty material like ULTEM or PEEK (which are used as finished products), I can see why 3D Hubs would list FDM as a prototyping solution. In terms of surface finish, FDM prints typically require post processing to make the layers less visible this includes using epoxy, sanding, and etc.

Whereas with SLA it’s just a matter of UV curing and then you have a finished product. Also there is the fact that FDM simply cannot compete with the dimensional accuracy of SLA. Each printing method has it’s pro’s and con’s.

We should also keep in mind that 3D Hubs has a materials selection tool, which helps customers choose the appropriate printing method and material.

Also for most customers price is the strongest determining factor, which so far FDM dominates in terms of affordability. So independent of how 3D Hubs chooses to describe the 3D printing methods, I doubt it will have a significant impact on the FDM portion of the 3D printing market at least for the near future. (SLA printers and resin could become more open source and affordable with new innovations and companies popping up).

[Enza3D]

Your comment made something clear in my mind too - 3D Hubs has set forth a guideline for FDM prints and that is what they guarantee. As we all know it’s ±1 mm or 10% (whichever is larger). That is what they will guarantee to a customer, and anything else is between the Hub and the customer, but 3D Hubs is not financially on the hook if something doesn’t meet the customers standards but is within 3D Hubs guidelines. So the guidelines listed in the material selection tool are based on that, not on what a Hub can actually produce. +/- 1mm (or 10%) is low accuracy by most standards, so I do see where they’re coming from and it’s not really incorrect. What would be better is just putting that in the material blurb; something like “Higher accuracy can be achieved but should be discussed with the Hub before printing” would (in my opinion) negate a lot of the issue here.

[Perry_1]

I do not wish to be disagreeable, but I must disagree. The statement that “most of the time it’s used for prototyping” this is simply not the case. Most of the prints on 3dhubs are FDM, and most of them are NOT prototypes.

You said"I can see why 3D Hubs would list FDM as a prototyping solution. "

No, you cannot see why, if that is why you think they are doing this. They are listing it as a prototyping solution as a means of trying to get customers to consider higher margin prints. It has nothing to do with the fact that most orders are FDM, and are not prototypes. I just looked at my last 300 prints. 3%, stretching it, can be considered prototypes. All FDM. This is all about 3dhubs hitting some internal targets for increasing the profitability of their platform. It has nothing to do with pushing a customer in the right direction for the customers’ needs, in fact, probably they are doing the opposite. If you think this is anything more than the slow release of changes that attempts to get more per print, you are not seeing the real reason 3dhubs is doing this.

You said “In terms of surface finish, FDM prints typically require post processing to make the layers less visible this includes using epoxy, sanding, and etc.” Nope. Not the case. It is very rare for my customers to decide they need to post process.

Look, this is about money. That’s it. This is not about listening to the voice of the customer, the hubs, etc. This is about attempting to get more margin from the customer. Its about trying to label FDM as not only lower quality, but flat out less desirable.

If they wanted to listen to our opinion on this, they would have asked, announced the coming change, etc. This is about trying to upsell the customer, period. They have the data. They know that most FDM prints are not prototypes, but products for end use. They are on a slow burn of releasing changes that control the narrative of “FDM is not so nice…” They are trying to reset their business model in a slow way, so as to not have a revolt on the FDM side.

[Perry_1]

"What would be better is just putting that in the material blurb; something like "Higher accuracy can be achieved " Again, this, and other better wording would be nice. We have suggested better wording on these issues before. 3dhubs is not going to listen to us. When you say it would be better, you mean for the hubs and for the customers. But not better for 3dhubs the company. They want to push FDM slowly downward, to increase the margin on the prints.

[Filemon]

Hi all!

@cobnut​ thanks for raising your concern, allow me to quickly explain.

From our customer research we’ve learned that the biggest issue they face when using 3D Hubs is low print quality. Specifically for FDM prints. We’ve found that this is mostly caused by unrealistic customer expectations concerning FDM. Especially professionals who are used to injection molded parts which are then compared against FDM. Some very high potential customers state this is the key reason they don’t use 3D Hubs more often.

As such, the goal for 3D Hubs should be two-fold:

1. increase FDM quality standards to a higher but realistic level (hence the guidelines)
2. setting more realistic customer expectations

We started with the latter by adding an excerpt to the checkout a few weeks ago, that highlights FDM limitations. What we’ve found is that, if exposed to these limitations, no fewer FDM orders are made, but print quality ratings do increase. In short, it appears that the excerpts succeeds in setting customer expectations better.

The new cards in the checkout (only shown to a small group of customers btw) aim to do the same. The data so far seems to indicate it’s working, no fewer FDM orders, but increasing print quality ratings (not yet significant though).

So, even though I understand it looks like we’re sending people away from FDM, the data shows differently. Customers choosing FDM are currently happier customers, meaning they will come back more often which benefits all Hubs.

Our long-term vision is, and has always been, to build a distributed platform that can deliver reproducible quality parts. See our original manifesto. At this point, 3D print technologies still have their limitations which we should communicate clearly. My personal belief, is that over time the technology will evolve into a fully reproducible technology and this will no longer be necessary.

Hope this explains our reasoning. Happy to answer any further questions.

[cobnut]

Hi @Filemon thanks for the response. I do appreciate that customer expectations are an issue; that is clear from the quality guidelines as discussed. However, I feel that the precise wording used in the new cards is overly critical of FDM potential quality and likely to dissuade potential FDM users. Imagine you’re completely new to 3D printing and you want a final use part, maybe a Go Pro mount, for example. Would you choose the option that’s “low accuracy”, with a “rough surface finish”? Would you even consider that option if the entire card is labelled for “prototyping”? I wouldn’t. If the data suggests there’s no reduction in FDM orders, then we’ll all be happy, but it would be surprising.

Perhaps some consideration could be given to alternative wording that still manages customer expectations, but which isn’t so much of a potential deterrent to customers for whom FDM would be a good solution.

[Filemon]

That’s fair enough indeed. When the first significant data comes in, we’ll work on some copy changes as well. Will keep you posted on that

[Steelmans]

See attached! A bit cheeky but no less valid than 3D Hubs interpretation.

Btw I have gone from getting regular orders to just getting one repeat customer order since this change.

[Perry_1]

Since the largest distributed manufacturing website in the world decided to label FDM printing as low quality prototyping, it affects my whole business, not just my business on 3dhubs. Thus, I have some questions.

1. Why did you folks not get input from us on wording?

2. Are you going to just implement this regardless of our discussion here?

3. Now that you know we feel bad about it, are you just going to leave it up or are you going to take it down?

4. Is there anything we can say to get you to change the wording off prototyping?

5. Why did you choose the word prototype, (meaning a test, a sample, an experiment, not final “proto=first type=item”)?

I am not really interested in a bunch of feel good answers. “Happier customers mean more business” is hardly a data metric. I am looking for specific answers to specific questions.

[Perry_1]

To me this translates as:

“This is the policy now, we will look at the data, and if it fits our internal goals, we will be happy with it. We are not listening”

How about working on some copy changes NOW, as a result of OUR INPUT. You have to be loyal not only to your own data, your own internal goals, but to THE HUBS!

[Zapaer]

Yes, we want this!!!

If more Hubs want to get these changes, please communicate this with 3D Hubs staff.

Not just through the forums, but contact support and get in touch with actual staff.

I am sure once there is enough demand, and 3D Hubs realizes that Hub owners are not happy with the wording, they will make an adjustment.

But I also see Filemon’s point, the wording is not going to change the demand for the FDM parts on a global/macro level.

At the end of the day, most users are very price dependent, so they will naturally go for FDM. Then once you have them you can educate the customers on the extensive applications and possibilities of FDM printing.

[Perry_1]

“no less valid than 3D Hubs interpretation” Consider that your input is probably more valid, as you are a customer facing business that deals directly with the customer, and would therefore have a better idea of what happens between a hub and a customer.

As a hub that has over 300 prints, and great reviews, I want to hear your real opinion!

1. What is the ratio between your prints that are end user items vrs. protoypes?

2. Have you gotten poor reviews, and if so, what have you done about it?

3. Now that 3dhubs has lowered expectations, resulting in higher reviews for hubs that do worse prints, do you feel at all slighted?

4. Do you print outside of 3dhubs, and if you do, do you think this will affect your business generally, now that what you do has been labeled as low quality prototyping,?
5. Do you work with your customers on resolving issues, generating expectations, determining materials, etc.? (this question is unfair, as I already know the answer from reading your reviews)

6. As 3dhubs continues to push expectations for FDM printing to the lowest common denominator, what do you feel your edge will be over hubs that do not do what you do.
7. What is the most significant factor in determining whether a customer chooses your hub?

[Perry_1]

"I am sure once there is enough demand, and 3D Hubs realizes that Hub owners are not happy with the wording, they will make an adjustment. " Historical precedence indicates otherwise.

With honest respect to your suggestion, I would say 3dhubs is more likely to change as a result of many, many hubs voicing their issues here, in the open. Or do both public and private. I try to be more positive in public, because I have had a lot of respect for 3dhubs and what they have accomplished so far. I tend to be more negative in my direct email to customer support.
My responses today are not nearly as strong as I would like them to be, but I HATE people who are mean on open forums. You can read my responses in the past on these forums to folks that fire a one-off hate posting about some printer, vendor or 3dhubs.
I have been more negative today as this affects my reputation both on the hub, and off. 3dhubs has relabeled what I do for a business.

[Filemon]

We’re running an A/B/C test. I can’t change the test halfway as that would remove all possibilities of a significant test. I do hear your points and agree we should consider alternative copy. We aim to reach significance early next week, after which we can implement changes (or drop this variant all together if it doesn’t perform well).

In the near future we hope to automate metrics such as estimated price and speed, both on which FDM will score well. Also, the current positioning as “fast and affordable” highlights the 2 most important aspects why most customers use 3D printing. My view is thus a little bit more nuanced on how ‘bad’ FDM is currently positioned. Again, the data confirms this.

[Steelmans]

I’m not sure if you were asking me but I’ll give my replies to your questions…

1. What is the ratio between your prints that are end user items vrs. protoypes?

I don’t have an exact figure but I know the number of prototypes are low. More recently I have been printing more and more finished enclosures for direct re-sale. I find the “Prototyping” tag insulting.

2. Have you gotten poor reviews, and if so, what have you done about it?

​I have received a few poor reviews but these were mostly due to me trying to help the customer by printing the impossible rather than declining the order. I do explain to the customers but unfortunately this led to some poor reviews anyway.

3. Now that 3dhubs has lowered expectations, resulting in higher reviews for hubs that do worse prints, do you feel at all slighted?

This has always been the case. Many people are impressed with 3D printing regardless of the quality. Why not raise expectation to widen the gap between poor hubs and good ones?!?

4. Do you print outside of 3dhubs, and if you do, do you think this will affect your business generally, now that what you do has been labeled as low quality prototyping,?

You answered your own question here. Labeling FDM as low quality is bad for 3D printing in general. I don’t think my Cubicon Single Plus at 100 microns can be classed as low quality in a scale of 3D printing.

5. Do you work with your customers on resolving issues, generating expectations, determining materials, etc.? (this question is unfair, as I already know the answer from reading your reviews)

Of course, with almost every order.

6. As 3dhubs continues to push expectations for FDM printing to the lowest common denominator, what do you feel your edge will be over hubs that do not do what you do.

It won’t matter who has an edge if FDM is treated this way. It will end up being “SLS Hubs” with a lot of stagnant FDM hubs for users that don’t mind getting one order a month.

7. What is the most significant factor in determining whether a customer chooses your hub?

Unfortunately… price! Look at the listings, nothing else distinguishes between hubs apart from price (and a very small number next to the stars).

[Perry_1]

You solicited questions. I have a few up there that are still waiting for answers.

1. Why did you folks not get input from us on wording?

5. Why did you choose the word prototype, (meaning a test, a sample, an experiment, not final “proto=first type=item”)?

I am adding:

6. How are you measuring the performance, as in, what are the metrics for success? For example, do you consider this a success if lower quality prints get better reviews, which you have stated is the outcome for the changes on the checkout page?

7. Do you think we might view this as a poor outcome, as some of us have worked very hard to earn the ratings and thus the rankings we deserve?

8. Your response indicates disdain for our opinion. Did you consider that maybe our views are also nuanced?

I am trying to be fair to you.

[Perry_1]

@Steelmans Yup, was directed to you. Thanks for taking the time!

[Enza3D]

SLA is generally not a good choice for mechanical prototyping, and I say that as an owner of a Form2. Even the new engineering materials are more brittle than thermoplastics, and there’s no reason to choose SLA if the part is of a reasonable size and detail level (unless it is going to be used as a master for a mold). There’s some real potential with Formlabs new PP simulating resin, but it’s still got ways to go before it can compete with ABS, PETG and Nylon. For anything with snap fits, press fits, etc. I would almost never recommend SLA over FDM unless there was a very good reason for it.

A well tuned FDM machine should have no issue reproducing a well designed part within reasonable tolerances, and that should be fine for most makers/hobbyists (engineering design companies should know the limitations of FDM and have built appropriate tolerance into their prototype/design). No printer, is going to achieve the same accuracy as a machined piece, and if that’s what a customer wants, they shouldn’t be on 3D Hubs in the first place. If that’s our benchmark, all 3D printers are “low accuracy”, and I agree with whirlybird that it’s misleading for certain customer bases. I don’t necessarily think it was intentionally meant to be hurtful to FDM Hubs (they make this site a pretty chunk of change as well), but it definitely could stand to be reworded as it can/will confuse customers new to 3D printing.

[Enza3D]

Perry,

I’m not from 3D Hubs (just a Hub here, like the rest of you) but I do a lot of work (and work in) the engineering development and design industry as my day job. The use of the word prototyping is, as I see it, fully accurate for the target market 3D Hubs is trying to appeal to (commercial industry). While a lot of the orders you print may not be for prototyping, in the engineering/design/industrial world, FDM printing’s primary application is only for prototyping. It’s a cheap and fast way to turn around multiple iterations of a design within a company, and allows for moderate levels of functional testing. It’s not a big deal if an FDM printed part breaks because they’re cheap and you can have a new one in a few hours.

That being said, FDM prints are not an accurate reflection of a tooled or machined parts functional properties (SLS is a better for that) and don’t work as well as SLA models do for product demonstrations to clients. SLS printing allows for uniform material properties, which is not possible with FDM printing, and SLS materials are closer to what you’d expect from a final product (after mass production) than an FDM print is. If you want a pre-production model to show off to a client, SLA is a much better choice than FDM, as it’s surface finish is very smooth without a lot of post-processing and carries tighter tolerances. Each type of 3D printing process has it’s specific use, and generally, FDM is a good first run prototyping choice but that’s about it (in terms of the design cycle); FDM printing allows you to get a good feel for a part/what should be tweaked about the design, and generally how it’s going to break, without having to shell out a pretty chunk of change for an SLS print. I understand you (and many others) are primarily FDM Hubs so this is viewed as damaging/offensive, but you also have to understand how 3D printing is viewed in industry, especially if this is the direction 3D Hubs is going in. It’s simply a tool for designers and a means to a final product, but an FDM print (or SLA or SLS print, generally) is not the final product in itself.

If this is the direction 3D Hubs wants to go, then I understand why things are worded as they are. Bigger companies and professional appeal mean more profit for the company, and better growth opportunities. I can’t speak for whether or not this is the right direction for 3D Hubs to go in though, especially seeing as a lot of orders here (at least for me) are not from design companies but are from makers/hobbyists or people looking for custom trinkets. I am a bit concerned that this wording will alienate that group of customers and turn them off to the idea of FDM printing.