@Filemon I think you were trying to fix something that wasn’t broken. “Prototyping Plastics” isn’t only insulting, it is incorrect! It doesn’t matter if the data says it works because it is wrong to claim that the actual plastic is just for prototyping. A waste of a test due to incorrect terminology… ABS is not just a prototyping plastic. Polycarbonate isn’t a prototyping plastic…
They are “General Purpose Plastics”!!!
I just Googled “Prototyping Plastics” to get a list but unsurprisingly I couldn’t find one because nobody groups plastics by just one application. Apart from 3D Hubs which Google gave this link… https://www.3dhubs.com/material-group/prototyping-plastic
The prototyping plastics page also stated “rigid plastics”. What about flexible filaments available on FDM?
Also the comment “Prototyping Plastics are printed using Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) technology” is incorrect. Is this assuming that nobody uses SLS for prototyping? I know that many people use SLS for prototypes including myself in the past. The term “Prototyping Plastics” is just wrong!
I can’t seem to get over this. The information about FDM is full of errors and misconceptions.
Hi Simon, I scheduled a call today at 17.30h Amsterdam time. that’s my only possibility for today. If preferred, we can reschedule for tomorrow as well
I would add that ABS as prototyping plastic is silly, many final objects are ABS, including the mouse I am using, I would think.
Also, it is wrong and confusing because the other cards have not changed. So prototyping as a result shows in several of the other cards. Its just bad wording. I agree, a test to see if no fewer FDM orders is what is being measured, they are in fact testing something that is just wrong. If the data shows FDM orders went up, it would no less wrong.
“I can’t seem to get over this” Don’t get over it. Stay vocal.
I have much respect for you, your input, and your continued help with others here in “Talk” who need help from experienced hubs. You are great!
And you and I, in general, do not disagree on the many of the issues here, so disagreeing on the effectiveness of repeating points, particularly in response to new posts is not so bad. I do have a tinge of protest in my motivations, as well.
Also, I think you were off the thread for awhile, if I recall, so reading it from top to bottom, instead of how it occurred naturally over two weeks, it certainly reads much worse! Plus, if we do not respond, the thread will disappear, something we should not be willing to let happen, at the cost of it being unwieldy.
After this is all over, I hope you resubscribe. The forum really does need folks like you.
Yeah for sure! Thanks BTW Perry. You’re right about me being away for a few days. I turned off my notifications for it and then didn’t get back into the conversation until a few days later. That definitely made it much harder to follow the thread!
Hi all, the ‘material disclaimer’ on FDM has been removed for the reasons discussed in this thread. To give full disclosure, we might still add such material disclaimers in the future but we’ll do that on another note and across all materials when we do, not just FDM. More updates later.
I have a really random question for you Filemon, at first I thought the 20XX printer guide badges just get removed each year but after seeing everyone else’s I realized this wasn’t the case. I had the 2016 printer guide badge (as I contributed to it) until the newer one came out for 2017. After that I had the 2017 one but the 2016 disappeared… is there any reason why or information about how I can get it back? Thanks in advance
I’m usually not a grammar nitpicker (at least not to other people!), but the change you made on the Accept or Decline page (see the attached jpeg) - shouldn’t it read “or the customer and I have agreed…” rather than “or me and the customer have agreed…”
@filemon, will we ever get all our materials back? Many of us (prototyping) FDM printers went through the trouble to enter in different exotic filaments, i.e. flexible, woodfill, metalfill, etc. and now customers cannot see those unless the customer already knows in advance to specifically search for them.
At the very least, can those be put back in the drop-down list AFTER a customer chooses a hub so they at least get some clue that those are options?
They are not listed anywhere else. With all the debate about FDM vs. SLA/SLS etc., all those other materials have been quietly removed.
If that’s the case this is very upsetting… I just spent almost 1000$ on getting new exotic filaments, testing them and getting them working with my fdm systems. This would explain my sudden decline with exotic material orders. This goes back to my question about the materials I had asked before, specifically at the time armadillo by ninkatek, but if this is an issue across all materials I think something needs to be done.
I was going to mention it to you when I looked at your hub earlier, I noticed you had a lot of exotic (prototyping) materials.
Check it out for yourself, play Customer and see if you can see any of those materials from the front-end without knowing the name of them.
I already raised the issue with support@3dhubs and was quite bluntly shut down. Not sure if someone was just having a bad day or who knows. Before giving up completely, I thought I would give it one more try by asking @Filemon directly.
I am not trying to be unreasonable, I understand the goal is to increase conversions by not overwhelming the customer with too much information, but by the same token, I feel it is a gross error to completely eliminate materials that are available. Add an options button just for those customers that want to look, or just put them back in the drop-down again after they’ve selected a hub to let them see what is really available.
The downside? None, they’ve already converted from upload to material to hub selection. The upside? At that point, they may actually decide to choose a material that (usually) yields higher revenue for the Hub and 3D Hubs. Win-Win.
Hi guys, maybe best to start a new thread for this.
I’ll very quickly respond here, although I’m not sure I completely understand. None of the materials have been removed. Especially for the examples you give, e.g. Woodfill, search has always been the only option to find it. Or is that not what you mean?
Having that said, we’re working on a BIG improvement of our material database we plan to put live in Q2. It will be a very comprehensive index where customers can search amongst all materials. I expect a lot from that. The goal is exactly what you mention, to make it easier for customers to search and find what they need between all the different (exotic) 3dp materials.
@Filemon I mentioned this before. The materials are still there but the customer can’t see them…
Previously the listings stated “General Purpose Plastics from £???” and “Other Materials from £???” (or something similar). The customer could then click on a hub and see all the materials you provide.
Now the listings states just certain materials such as ABS and PLA. Now when the customer clicks on a hub it only shows some of the materials (probably the ones you have classed as prototyping plastics?). For example my hub shows ABS and PLA but when you click on my hub Polycarbonate is shown but no others (such as PolyFlex, PolyWood, Taulman T-Glase etc).
Like I said, maybe this is because they are not classed as “Prototyping Plastics”. This was one of my arguments to change back to “General Purpose Plastics” that cover all FDM used materials (so they are all shown).
Before selecting a material, this is what I see (see attached). If I click “other”, I can still select all the ‘exotics’.
When I select a material group, e.g. “prototyping plastics”, the “other” group disappears but this has always been the case.
Depending on the variation you’re in, there’s 1 variation in which the customer needs to select a material before moving on. In that scenario it is indeed true that if you select a material group, the ‘other’ group has disappeared when you move to Hub selection. If a customer is searching for Woodfill for example, they would need to use the search in that case.
Sorry yes I’m on a variation where the customer needs to select a material.
I like this layout but I believe it would be better for customers to see all the materials. Now if the Prototyping Plastics tab was GENERAL PURPOSE PLASTICS (FDM) it could cover and show all FDM materials that the hub offers. If the customer needs something specific they can still search using the advanced tab.
Hello guys, I’ve created another forum specifically for this topic as @filemon suggested. We can move our conversation over there for organization purposes if you like. As well, if you could please repost any evidence you have put here over there for future reference, and for anyone new jumping onto the topic!
Those options are ‘greyed out’ until customer selects a material. Then they disappear.
Expecting customers to use a search box to find a material that probably don’t know the name of and may not even know exists is guaranteed to NOT increase sales.
@Gfisherwils was nice enough to post a video of the tree that it takes when a customer is shown the “Selector”, and its pretty funny. https://streamable.com/a7d8t
