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
Skip to main content
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.
@Enza3D Good to hear from you. I always expect the best from you, and honestly thank you for your response. Below my first comments, I will respond to the FDM for prototyping statements you make. But I don’t want to get off track here by spending too much time arguing the reasons why any particular customer set will want to choose FDM or SLA etc.
SO FIRST, Filemon in this thread says that although it appears they are steering customers away from FDM, that is not the reason for the change. Its not a statement that specifically says they are NOT moving away from FDM, but it is a positioned by him as the indicator.
So, we would like to know what went into this decision, which they made without informing us. We see 3dhubs attempting to influence what FDM is used for. And we disagree that the problem they say they are trying to solve is going to be solved by their actions. We also see that one of their outcomes is to raise the reviews for those who would otherwise have poor reviews, which only harms those hubs who have been doing a good job. Finally, we also want to know if any input we put in will result in a change. That is my main issue here.
But since you cannot speak to any of that, and have offered your opinion, which I respect, on what prototyping is, I will give my opinion on that. SO:
I do a lot of prints for businesses, and many are not prototypes. I work with industries who need a part fast, and trust my ability to deliver a high quality print. Sometimes there are budget constraints. They may also need a working plastic hinge, or many, many copies of the same print. None of this would be called prototyping. This is in reference to industry.
Numbers wise, however, most of my FDM prints would not be for industry, and I would have a hard time believing most 3dhubs prints are for industry. As such, I don’t want those non industry people thinking they are receiving prototypes. It demeans the quality of FDM printing for those of my customers who want a good print, and are utilizing the advantages of FDM printing, which go beyond price.
" 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" To assume that I do not understand how 3D printing is viewed in industry implies I don’t work in industry, which is an incorrect assumption. Your statement only adds to the narrative that FDM is somehow less, and since I am an FDM hub, I must not work with industry. This is dead wrong. I am a leading consultant in my paying profession to industry. In fact, some of the largest industry in the US.
You say you cannot speak for 3dhubs, but you seem to believe they are trying to place themselves as more for industry, and higher quality, higher margin prints. Why would you believe this? Perhaps it is 3dhubs own actions that created this belief. Which is why this was the first question that was asked, and it was denied.
We are suspect of this, because what they did without our input, and are apparently continuing to do while ignoring us so they can run some test, harms our business reputations. DLP and SLA are great technologies. You know this, and I agree with some of your points, obviously. But FDM is not just prototyping.
As a side note, prototyping creates a picture in the minds of the customers, and while all the other descriptions for the cards accurately describe the process and materials, FDM is the only one with a results oriented label such as “prototyping.” For example, they don’t refer to SLA prints as “Sales Presentation” quality. The tense and content on the other cards do not match the tense of the card for FDM. They do not paint a picture of a USE case. Only FDM, “prototyping”.
I like this idea, and think it would really help customers who are new to choose something. Just list a couple of common applications under the title of the material and that’s way more helpful for a customer who doesn’t know the difference between each technology. It’s how most other websites break this down anyway, so why reinvent the wheel?
For FDM:
“Title - General Purpose Plastic”
“Common Applications - Small Volume Production Runs, Prototyping, Electronics Enclosures, Outdoor Use, etc.”
For SLA:
“Title - High Detail Resin”
“Common Applications - Jewelry Master, Visual Presentation, Dental, Mold Making, etc.”
And so on for each of the material. If I had no idea what 3D printing was, I personally would find this way more helpful than a very short pro/con list.
Perry,
I apologize if I generalized too much in my post; I am referencing the product design and development industry, where FDM is generally just a great tool for us engineers for prototyping. I did not say that because you were an FDM hub that you do not work with industry and I did not mean that to be offensive; FDM is huge in the industry I am referring to, just not as means of production for final products. It’s just not efficient to 3D print thousands of pieces when the pieces can be injection molded in seconds, but injection molding is expensive and the cost isn’t justifiable below a certain volume. Small scale production can utilize FDM for final production runs, and it’s a great avenue for makers and entrepreneurs due to how affordable and comparatively fast it is (especially versus the cost of tooling for molding). I’m planning on releasing some kits for various products this year geared towards makers, and most of those components will be FDM printed or casted with my small system for that. In my post, when I say FDM is mainly for prototyping I am exclusively talking about the market I think 3D Hubs is trying to break into, not the education sector (where FDM printing is incredible) or the open source industry, or really anything outside the commercial, mass-production product design/development industry.
I do believe they are pushing towards a more commercial customer base, because that’s where the money is and at the end of the day, 3D Hubs is a company. Implementation of print quality standards, emphasis being placed on “HD” materials (there’s 12 material options under “Materials” and only 2 of them are non-commercial machine options), and some other small changes here and there all imply to me the 3D Hubs wants to snag the commercial/industrial base better than it currently does. I can’t fault them for it, especially seeing as 3D printing is getting so cheap (I can pick up an Anet or Monoprice printer for sub-$200) but I don’t know if it’s the right move. As you said, most orders here are not industrial/commercial orders. They’re from makers, students, and hobbyists who want the unique connection you get with a Hub (which you don’t get from Stratasys or other large print shops) and I am concerned they are going to push too far from that base with changes like this.
@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.