"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.
Skip to main content
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:
- increase FDM quality standards to a higher but realistic level (hence the guidelines)
- 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.
"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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
@3DHubs: You better acquire more print jobs for us. thx
Thanks both, it is indeed true that we’re trying to appeal to a more professional audience. We believe that this doesn’t move us away from makers at all as the features we’re developing should benefit both.
@Enza3D’s explanation on why we use the word “prototyping” for FDM is correct. It will appeal to a more professional audience. I also strongly feel this does not marginalize FDM at all, as the intended audience is looking for exactly that, prototyping. For the non-professional audience, price is always the key factor, which we’ve also clearly tried to indicate for FDM. Therefore, we expect FDM will not decline because of this (as said, I do agree some copy could be more nuanced)
1. We’ve discussed with a lot of experts as well as a good amount of Hubs, which were all supportive of the change. It’s not standard practice we ask all Hubs for input on changes.
5. See @Enza3D description above, which is accurate. We feel it appeals to a more professional audience (without harming existing audiences) and also differentiates FDM clearly from both SLA, mostly visual without mechanical props, and SLS, best mechanical props. Also here @Enza3D has mentioned good points.
6. We implemented the FDM guidelines already to prevent a decline in print quality. I can confirm this is working. Success means high conversion numbers, for a variety of materials, without decline in terms of absolute numbers.
7. I completely understand your view. Therefore I’ve intended to put data arguments forward (see earlier comment) with the goal of taking away that concern. Also, to be clear, 3D Hubs cannot benefit from any change if it does not benefit our Hubs.
8. I apologize, fear that’s a result of not being a native. Was not intended that way.
I do hope this answers your questions.
@Enza3d I appreciate your response. Your first sentence mentions product design. This is a small segment of what 3dprinting is. The bulk of your paragraph then discusses several examples of the use of FDM, none of which are prototyping.
As for your second point, there are many material options for FDM, including TPU, Nylon, etc. My printers are not cheap sub-$200 printers. When I am done modifying them so they print perfectly, they are an investment that can buy 8 cheap printers. I guess I don’t fit into the new model. Be very clear, with 3dhubs changing the rankings by massaging the marketing so that bad prints get better reviews, they are directly minimizing my efforts on 3dhubs, and moving poorer quality competitors upwards in the rankings.
You are slowly getting around to it, but just can’t come out and say it. You finally admitted that it is indeed true 3dhubs is trying to appeal to a more professional audience. From there we can assume you are trying for higher margin prints. One small step from there - 3dhubs admits that they chose “Prototyping” because it denigrates FDM and therefore it helps with that goal!
What do you know, my original reply to the OP is complete.
Now if I can just get 3dhubs to admit that this is now the policy, and nothing we say is going to change that, then BOTH my original points that I posted will be shown to be true.
1. “discussed with a lot of experts as well as a good amount of Hubs” Please ask some of the experts and hubs you discussed this with to join the discussion here, otherwise this is just a straw man “people are saying this…” argument.
“It’s not standard practice we ask all Hubs for input on changes.” Well, it should be. It’s called “voice of the customer.” Its the only thing that prevents a competitor from taking your market away. You also refer to this as “the change.” Meaning it is now policy, not a test. If I could just get you to admit it!
You did not answer my question, which was “Why did you not get input from US on this change?” Your answer that it is not standard procedure is indefensible on such a broadly sweeping change, that affects the greatest majority of your existing hubs.
5. “without harming existing audiences” is not the same as not harming existing hubs. This change harms your best hubs, who print the best quality, and in the materials your FDM market serves.
6. “We implemented the FDM guidelines already to prevent a decline in print quality” Actually, that’s the opposite of what you said the results were. You said “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.” This means you made changes to what customers should expect. You did nothing to prevent a decline in print quality. In fact, lowering the expectation means better reviews for poorer prints, better rankings for poorer prints, creating additional competition for high quality FDM hubs. You have not done anything to increase the quality of prints. You cant say you are lowering customer expectations and getting better reviews, and then say its increasing the quality of the prints. You are saying that because we told people they are going to get bad prints, they are happy, so they must be getting better prints. This is faulty logic that assumes a correlation between two poor connections, and I know you are smarter than that.
7. I don’t think you “completely understand my view” as you say. Following that up with saying “the data” supports you is another straw man argument. Since I have stated I am suspect of the motives of 3dhubs here, and you have no way of actually sharing any data, this is an invalid statement. Directly, you failed to answer the specific question. Let me rephrase it: “Please tell me specifically how your data shows that an FDM hub with hundreds of prints and perfect reviews will benefit from these changes” Saying your data shows that customers are returning to hubs, that reviews are going up, everybody wins, etc. is not a metric we can trust. “A rising tide lifts all boats” is fine. But not in business. I want you to explain how your data outcomes are different from my views, specifically. You said it raises the reviews for poorer prints. If you don’t answer this, all your other statements are an attempt at calming us down, when you are really trying to denigrate FDM in the marketplace in an attempt to get higher margin prints.
8. How did you intend it?
Finally, stop saying you are going to “do more nuanced copy.” If you don’t say you are removing Prototyping, stop sugar coating it. The truth is, this policy is here to stay, regardless of the input.
I know it’s a small segment, but that (product design, engineering development) is the market I think 3D Hubs is trying to get into and therefore, that is who they are catering to with these changes. They have already cornered most of the other markets I mentioned, hence the changes we are seeing here.
I did not say your printers are sub-$200 printers (non of mine are either, especially my Axiom), what I am saying is that it is now very cheap to buy FDM printers (and the material for them thanks to eSun and other Chinese manufacturers) versus a few years ago, when really only established companies could afford them. So why spend more than $200 on a Hub order when you can buy a printer for that price (especially if a maker/hobbyist plans to do a lot of printing)? Obviously, there’s no guarantee of any print quality with that route (especially with the cheaper machines), but makers/hobbyists who have time to learn the ropes are taking that path more and more frequently. In my experience over the last few months alone, that income source (the maker/hobbyist) is drying up a bit due to the the low cost of FDM machines. I can definitely see that being a motivating factor here, and agree with you that is not necessarily being implemented properly if this is the path they plan to take.
FDM hubs and FDM prints make up a huge portion of 3D Hubs (based on Hubs’ own data, here 3D printing trend report | Hubs), and pushing changes that hurt these Hubs will negatively impact 3D Hubs themselves. Looking for new user bases is a very important part of growth, as you know, but it can’t be done at the cost of the original base and the Hubs themselves, which is where I think all these issues discussed here are stemming from.
@Vienna3DPrint You are an FDM hub with good reviews. You are not a benefactor in this change. You are now a low quality prototyping hub, sorry.
Yes, @Enza3D, I know you were not calling my printers $200 printers. And you know my modified printers, if you have seen them on all the other forums, are definitely not $200 printers.
To your other point, I have many repeat customers, and more than once I have said “Well, you’ve printed enough to buy a good solid printer” and they always say “not for me, I just want the parts.” A 3d printer is a pain in the butt. They don’t want to get married, they just want a part.
On the other hand, I just spent all day (which is why it took me so long to respond today) with a fortune 100 company, where they are installing $100,000+ printers. See, they have software people, CAD designers, etc. They are the ones that don’t need 3dhubs. They are the ones who will buy their own printers. Small and medium size businesses, who are very price conscious are the ones who do not have the correct geography for dealing with what it takes to get and keep getting 3d prints. These are my guys. They order end user items from me, and yes, sometimes, prototypes. And you keep mentioning injection molding. Many folks order FDM prior to putting their models to the molds. They do not need the in between SLA prints.
A $200 printer is not a good printer. I have seen your reviews, and your prints online. You are also not doing that with a $200.00 printer, lol. I also went through your prints, and see very few FDM PROTOTYPES in those pictures. I am starting to wonder if 3dhubs even knows the meaning of the word prototype. They definitely do not understand the stigma, and refuse to listen.
To your second point that “Looking for new user bases is a very important part of growth, as you know, but it can’t be done at the cost of the original base and the Hubs themselves”:
They don’t even know who we are. I have been 3dprinting for people as side income long before I signed up on 3dhubs. I built my first 3dprinter before Makerbot had a cupcake kit and I started selling prints. I have a lot of customers. I also am on other sites besides 3dhubs that do 3d printing, but 3dhubs has always been my home. Because they offer great software, great support, and never tried to get between me and my customers. They did the job of their manifesto discussed. This is changing.
I am pretty well known in this area, set up printers with makerspaces, given talks, helped schools, etc. I am the most prolific author on the 3dhubs knowledge base. (They took the photos. No, my prints are not that bad.) I always have had 3dhubs on my business cards. I put up posters, at my own costs, at several universities. These did not have my specific hub on it. I was just all into it. I even took some of my own customers and put them on 3dhubs, for ease of upload, quoting, etc. I am #6 in comments on THIS FORUM with over 600 messages, usually helping other hubs. I am on a lot of forums, write articles for some of the 3d printing news sites, contribute to the 3dprinting on Reddit. I am a strong influencer in this industry. I don’t see myself pointing any of that in the future at a site that says I am a prototyper, that I use “Prototyping plastics”, etc. And you should see my email inbox today, oh my some hubs are upset!
They don’t really know who we are. They think we are just whining. We have been patted on the head here. We are pretty smart. We are engineers and software developers and teachers. We run CAD machines and keep our 3d printers running, and run STEM programs. We do complicated things like 3d modeling, and robotics, and some are even lawyers who just love the hobby. Some of us handle very complex issues for our customers. No amount of " don’t worry about it, the data shows you will be fine" will make us feel better.
Because we are smart enough to understand that:
This is a zero sum game.
When a customer uploads a model, one hub gets that print. Everyone else loses.
When a bad hub gets artificial reviews for poor quality prints, and moves up on the list, another hub moves down.
If you can’t understand that we understand this simple fact, any other “keep calm and keep printing” statements will ring false.
I am not going to type much more, because I am getting ridiculous, and I am just starting to get angry about this. Suffice it to say that I stand by my first posts to a thread that I did not even start…
A: 3dhubs is denigrating FDM printing by saying the prints are low tolerance, by asking new users if they want “help selecting materials”, stating that they should have low expectations for quality at the shopping cart point, and labeling our materials as “prototyping materials”. They are doing this to push customers to do higher margin prints. They are doing this slowly and methodically, and hoping FDM hubs, or competitors to 3dhubs.com do not notice.
B. 3dhubs made a sweeping change that only benefits them**, and they did it without any input from US, and will not use different terminology even though they know “prototyping” is distasteful to the quality FDM hubs, because nothing we say will matter to them. As of today, its been up for 3 days****. WOW. And most hubs don’t even know about it, YET.**
I really like your solution.
I do have to say that these issues we’re experiencing now were really foreshadowed back on our forum page a few months back, with the lack of response for several weeks over our concerns with the new idea for tolerances, which were then promptly pushed out with pretty well a blatant disregard for all of the concerns raised.
I do agree that it is misleading, and unlike some of the other people in this forum post I do believe it is intentional. 3D Hubs makes more off of the one time big shot deals than the would off of several smaller FDM deals. It’s just common up selling techniques being used, customers pay more money then 3D hubs gets the same proportional slice of the pie, but in this case the pie is bigger.
By pushing SLA and other printing methods over the cheaper alternative to FDM they increase their potential revenue. This is unfortunate to see as for a while the 3D Printing community really truly did seem to be solely focused on getting the customer 100% exactly what they need and what suits their projects best.
I also disagree with the statement ‘visible lines’. I can get my fdm machines to do layer heights as low as 20 microns, and at that point the layers are invisible unless you look extremely close, and are fine enough that you can’t tell by the touch.
Not a happy hub either. My orders have dropped since the change as well.
@Enza3D, I like that idea too, but can we trust 3dhubs to write the descriptions in a fair way? BTW, this is your idea, that is not what I was suggesting. I was pointing out that they used prototyping as the only “outcomes based” description of the materials.
HQ, Flexible, Prototyping. One of these things is not like the other.
--------------------
@imagine3dps Those are some fantastic prints you have on your hub! Those are some of the finest “low quality prototype” prints I have ever seen!
Nice hub, nice work!
This is most likely the result of including “retention” into the Hub rankings, see changelog. The checkout does not appear to influence overall FDM numbers (see my earlier comment). Feel free to nudge support@3dhubs.com to find out about the cause
@PepCo_Parker Excellent prints, excellent reviews, wonderful work. I see you are also a person who has posted over 100 times in TALK, which means you have probably put more time into 3dhubs TALK alone than you have made in profits.
I think 3dhubs should spend more time working on helping you make more money, since you are a good contributor and a good hub, instead of trying to steal your customers.
This doesn’t seem right indeed. I’ll look into it asap
Blind loyalty is Fandom. Like here in Cleveland, where we have the Cleveland Browns.
Actual loyalty is a two way street.
You can look through my posts in the past here on talk, where hubs ask “Why should I keep my customers on 3dhubs” and “If a customer wants another print, do I have to keep them on 3dhubs.”
I immediately wag my finger at the questioner. “How do you think 3dhubs gets paid?” “This is cost of sales”. “Supporting 3dhubs helps them improve the software.” “Always stick with whoever brought you to the dance.”
Hi Simon (@Steelmans), I’ve been told the links have been removed, can you confirm?
For SLS the main advantage has be not needing support material. I recommend customers go to SLS when models require complex support that cannot be removed easily, for example inside cavities.
I recommend customers go to SLA when they require very small detailed features that not easily produced on FDM, for example jewellery or dental.
(By the way, I am not suggesting you should rename “High Detail Resin” with “Jewellery Resin” as this would be unfair on SLA printers, Much the same as “Prototyping Plastic” is unfair to FDM printers.
Clear, will discuss your ideas here. I do think SLA deserves a ‘smooth surface finish’ highlight as well, as many customers use it to get a sense of what an injection moulded part would look like, would you agree?
For Q2 we’re also looking into possible splitting current material groups into a 2-step technology + material selection flow. In that scenario, FDM will probably just be called “FDM”, which might be the most objective of all ideas.
Yes SLA does deserve “smooth surface finish” but it is more a capability rather than a standard feature. Remember some SLA machines can print at higher layer heights too.
Calling FDM just “FDM” seems odd but it depends how it is displayed. Maybe is will be listed as just FDM, SLA and SLS. Why not revert back to “General Purpose Plastics”?
I have been pointing out for several days that customers are being shown a “Can I help you select a material” dialogue, including returning customers. At the checkout point, the screenshot you included tries to move your customer away from FDM.
Since we as hubs seldom PLACE an order, we have didn’t see it. A customer had to point it out to me. Its been there for weeks. I mentioned it several times.
----------
I follow “how to hub”, I work hard for customer, I advertise, customer places new order–3dhubs tries to steal customer.
Customer comes to 3dhubs, uploads part, reads reviews, chooses hub, chooses material and price, makes sales decision – 3dhubs tries to move customer away from hub.
Now I do all that, and to add insult to injury, the customer is told that I am doing Prototyping Materials.
Who sees this? Let me tell you who:
My repeat customers. (Then I get dinged on ratings)
Customers who are referred to my hub from existing customers.
Customers where I paid for the advertising!
Customers from my Facebook page.
Customers from my business cards.
HERE IS A THING TO NOTE HERE: The other non-FDM hubs have NO WORDING or warnings about the downside of choosing that.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH the guidelines, that last line “consider something else” is outright an F.U. to us.
Yes the links have been removed, much better. Whilst we are on this subject I still don’t like the term “disclaimer” would it not be better as “Material Information”?
You could also add that although FDM parts are printed with 20% infill by default, they can be printed at higher infills at an extra cost?
Also why is there no disclaimers for SLA or SLA? Surely “SLA can be brittle and is not suitable for mechanical parts” or “SLS has longer lead times” etc would be along the same lines as the FDM disclaimers?
Or perhaps the customers came to your site and found that you do protoyping materials, and went to a different hub.
Or perhaps the customers came to you and was shown a “can i help you choose a material” and went to a different hub.
Or perhaps the customers got the point of placing the order, and was told they should “consider a different material” and went to a different hub.
Hi Filemon, I also noticed a couple of other things you might be interested in…
The disclaimer appears with ABS and PLA but not Polycarbonate. The reason I noticed that is because other materials (PolyFlex, PolyWood, Taulman T-Glase etc) are missing from my listing. I Imagine this is because they are not classed as “Prototyping Plastics”. This is another argument to change back to “General Purpose Plastics” that cover all FDM used materials.
Ok, good.
Re: infill - over the next few weeks we’ll add support material calculation to our uploader, after which we’ll also do infill. At that point we can do this automatically. That’s also when we plan to introduce infill adjustments to the customer.
SLA limitations we’re currently working on (similar to FMD guidelines). Once finished we’ll make sure to add those as well.
Will put the word “disclaimer” up for discussion, but as I mentioned earlier, we’ve seen no decline in orders so far.
Thanks again!
True point, we’re touching upon a lot of things here 
We’re working on a complete overhaul of our material database (and thus grouping), which will address this issue. I plan for this to go live in May. That will solve this problem
You are correct here, but that view is only one application of the technology (much like prototyping is only one application of FDM).
The general flow (for engineering design) starts with FDM printing, which is used to print as many iterations as is necessary to reach a final design. The FDM prints are used to help gauge how the final product will “feel” and behave so the design can be improved upon as needed. This is why it’s not uncommon to have multiple prints which demonstrate multiple changes to each part at this phase (the prototyping phase).
SLA is used once the design is refined and finalized for injection molding because, as you mentioned, it’s surface finish mimics that of an injection molded part well (when it’s properly post-processed) and it gives a really good representation of what the final, market product will look like. This print will include all the injection molded pieces components (gussets, coring, ribs, draft, etc.), which are not necessarily included in the initial FDM prints. Generally, the final design is printed once in SLA but can be printed again if major design changes occur.
To be honest, I think labeling each technology by it’s name from the get go is a better approach. Yes, customers may not know what it means initially, but it’s a more holistic approach to doing this (in my opinion). Not only does it eliminate almost all the issues being addressed in this thread, but it helps the customers better understand the process if they want to. FDM has a much wider range of materials than PLA and ABS (which is what people think of when you say just plastic), and customers may not even know TPU, Nylon, wood based, metal infused, etc. are options. Breaking it down by process, then material is much better for everyone as each process has a lot of materials at this point. For SLA, you can choose casting, dental, flexible, standard, etc. all of which have drastically different properties, but none of that is well explained by the default selection process. The same goes for FDM; PLA is nothing like Nylon, TPU, or WoodFill (or any of the exotics), and that really should be better presented to the customer. It’s more work on your end, but we are rapidly approaching the point where the choice of material/desired end properties supersede the choice of print technology. Gone are the days where SLA was just for visual models and delicate prints, and when FDM was just for ABS. Material variety is growing more and more diverse by the month, and that’s not represented here.
Question - if my orders have slowed, it might be difficult to pull repeat orders, not just new orders. When the change went into effect, did you look back at a hub’s history to see what kind of repeat business they already had? I’ve had a few repeaters already.
One thing that is interesting here is that I actually push some of my customers to HQ hubs on my own:
1. When the customer needs really smooth parts, such as an art piece.
2. When a nylon customer wants a part , and the customer’s reason for choosing nylon really wont hold up well for FDM nylon.
3. When the part has a lot of really thin, complicated structures.
4. When a customer wants to know what the weight will be like when they have it pressed.
And more. My numbers of referrals from my own hub to others hub is probably very high. I am sure this has hurt my rankings, because it creates more “rejected” orders.
This is where voice of the customer comes in. We get dinged for pushing customers to higher margin prints when we should get rewarded. In fact, instead of lowering the bar, 3dhubs should have a way for us to get bonus points AND CREATE AN ORDER IN A PARTNERING HUB so that 3dhubs does not lose control of the customer in that step. That is, we have the ability to just move the order over to an HQ hub, POOF that order appears in an HQ hub, and a dialogue between that hub and the customer begins automatically. Rising tide! Not denigration.
Personally, I’d love a disclaimer for SLA that the “perfect” smooth finish a lot of SLA pictures have is only achievable with sanding and good post-processing. It is impossible to get that smooth finish with only basic support removal (I can get close but not all the way there), and some customers have the expectation that the print will be smooth everywhere by default. I am continuously explaining that that’s additional processing, and there’s no feasible way to build that into my pricing by default as each print is unique (and it’s not fair to the customers who don’t want the sanding).
@Filemon would you consider adding this?
I was under the impression that “rejecting” an order because it was better suited for a different technology had no impact on your rankings but who knows at this point. I do this a lot too, and haven’t seen a negative impact in my rankings when I check by uploading a part and poking around.