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

[Perry_1]

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.

[Steelmans]

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.

[imagine3dps]

Thanks! I try to do the best “low quality” work I can. Nice boat btw!

[Filemon]

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!

[Filemon]

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

[Steelmans]

Support and infill calculations would be superb.

The word “disclaimer” is not a huge problem but just conjures up thoughts of a warning or reduced liability rather than just being informative.

[Enza3D]

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.

[imagine3dps]

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.

[Perry_1]

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.

[Enza3D]

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?

[Enza3D]

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.

[Perry_1]

Do these links still show up if a repeat customer comes to an FDM hub to place an order?

[cobnut]

Hi @Filemon I’m not Simon, but having started this thread I feel obliged to participate a little more…

In my opinion, it’s important to differentiate between what 3DHubs could/should be doing pre-order to steer a customer towards a particular technology, and what an individual Hub should/could do once they receive an order. Once I’ve received an order I enter into a dialogue with the customer, find out what the part is, what it’s for, where it’ll be used and so on. Sometimes those conversations can be lengthy, and may involve redesigns of the part, uploaded photos of other pieces, etc. There’s no way 3DHubs could, or should try to, replicate that sort of customer liason. Even if you had a mighty team of people ready to interact at the pre-order stage, you could not cover the personal opinions and experience of the Hub that finally produces the print. If, in my opinion, I cannot print the object I’ll decline it, either suggesting another FDM Hub that can meet the requirements (though that’s rare) or suggesting SLA.

If we accept that the only reliable way of truly determining the needs of a customer is through one to one dialogue with an actual Hub, I’m not sure there’s anything that 3DHubs should do to influence customers in terms of their chosen technology. There are a very few absolutes that match certain technologies; full colour, for example, metal or certain other specialist materials, but when it comes down to the choice between FDM and SLA, I think it’s virtually impossible to make a recommendation without engaging one on one with the customer. For example, we know that FDM has a problem with isotropy (and here’s an excellent, if promotional, article by FormLabs on the topic), but how would 3DHubs know if that was important without knowing the exact usage of the object? The current beta is trying to “pigeonhole” technologies by firm boundaries that simply don’t exist; SLA is not “better” than FDM, it’s different, and those differences are not just quality. More importantly, how are cheap SLA machines going to affect this thought process? Will the $400 Wanahoo D7 SLA, really knock the $3500 Ultimaker 3 out in terms of print quality?

There’s another issue here that I think has not yet been raised. Most of the upset people on this thread are FDM only Hubs, like myself. We cannot print SLA, certainly not SLS, so if more customers order SLA they’re simply gone for us. However, how many SLA capable Hubs can also print FDM, how many SLS capable Hubs have both SLA and FDM at their disposal as well? For these Hubs, the change is irrelevant, if a customer’s order would actually better suit FDM (and they’re a fair and honest Hub) they can offer that technology, they won’t lose any orders.

I can fully, totally understand the problem of managing customer expectations, but for me that seems more of a problem at the individual Hub level than a problem with the technology of FDM itself. I’ve worked hard to try and ensure a 5.0 star rating and it really hurts when I drop a star here or there with a customer. If it’s possible to achieve that sort of review history with FDM, and it is because there are plenty of top-notch FDM Hubs here, then surely any action from 3DHubs should be focused on reducing the risk of poor quality output from individual poor quality Hubs, not to penalise FDM as a technology and bring risk to those of us who, it seems, have not caused the problem in the first place.

[PepCo_Parker]

@FilemonCan I ask how are flexible fdm plastics handled? I have a variety of materials I can print some of them being flexible, but they don’t fall under your, now ‘prototyping plastics’ section. But they are also not found under your flexible materials section. What’s up with that? Also I would like to place another concern with 3D hubs algorithms. I’ve had slowdowns on a few orders recently. They fell behind schedule, but not because of myself. One of the orders had a pretty damaged part that I had to repair, and then the customer had doubts about their material. So I fixed the part and sent the samples in the mail for free, I then had to wait for it to ship and the customer to review and respond. This takes a bit so the order falls behind. The other was issues with the strength of a part, so I modified it for the customer and did some testing on it, so it too fell behind the initial date scheduled for it to be finished. Neither of these issues were because my printers were overwhelmed. And yet, since that order has fallen behind I have not received a single order!!! I’m aware this could be coincidence but I’m suspicious you have some algorithms that push back hubs with jobs that are currently delayed.

[PepCo_Parker]

Yeesh, post one comment on this forum and suddenly my email explodes and crashes on my phone with 30+ emails instantly about replies xD

Glad everyone is talking about the issues at least, always good to hear collaboration.

[Perry_1]

Really push up those descriptors. SELL the advantages.

I would go with “extremely smooth surface finish” and “no layer lines” for HQ. (Sorry FDM folks, but layer lines exist on FDM prints.

SLS Nylon is strong as heck. So say “Extremely Strong Parts” This is how you upsell. By helping the customer see the correct purchase.

Your descriptions of these options are so dry. How about “Amazing surface detail” for Resin. Because it is amazing!

Also, hit on some common usability descriptions. Even business people like parables to help them make a decision.

–can survive the dishwasher --wont break when dropped --feels great to touch --wont soften in sunlight

Increase your industrial print market by pushing it to non-industrial customers as well:

For any materials that are food safe, say that. Food safe is a big deal, and I get orders for bowls and kitchen items and I have to point out that no matter what material, FDM is NOT food safe.

Also, if a material can survive in the dishwasher, food safe or not, say that on those materials.

Or if they can be autoclaved.

Weight. If a customer wants to know the approximate weight of an object. For example, I work with the largest hand tool company in the US. Sometimes they ask about having an item that will match about the approximate weight of the final product. Objet ABS prints give them the actual feel of the object.

Millable, drillable, tappable. I do not care what anyone says, this is not a feature of FDM. You will never tap a good thread into a low melting point plastic. I even warn my customers about sandable, even though I have customers who get good results.

Brittle is also relative. I don’t like that description for resin. While it is brittle, unless you drop it or pull on it, its not like it is going to crumble. Say something more positive, like “Cannot be flexed”. That is, soften the downside.

The key here is to sell the heck out of the actual advantages for the price. That is, establish value in a clear way to a customer that is unaware of those features.

Right now, you discuss a little too much in a technical way how these other print methodologies are used. Almost as if you ONLY expect to get orders from industry. An artist should look at HQ. An auto mechanic should look Simulated ABS. A kitchen person should look at SLS nylon. You wont lose any industrial customers by bringing some of those advantages “down to earth.”

The key is to use strong positive language on the explanations.

[Perry_1]

One final piece of advice: if you want to inform the customers, get rid of that scrolling materials bar on the main upload page. Let the users see ALL the options at once. (design issue). Customers are not likely to scroll left and right, because it is not a common user paradigm for web or mobile based interfaces. Customers are prone, still these days, to not scroll left and right for information. Create a way for customers to see all the options, or scroll vertically. In fact, a lot of just plain redesign on the site would help customers who NEED HQ to select it.

[PepCo_Parker]

I dont understand this wording at all.
‘FDM printers can only guarantee a certain tolerance’ This is total nonsense. 3D HUBS only guarantees those tolerances, not the hubs. That’s total rubbish that because they have slapped some generic tolerances forced upon every hub, they are now using that against us. That makes FDM printers look insanely poor! I know for a fact that our qualities, when tuned right can reach far above that! When I print parts for people, I let them know the exact tolerances to expect. The fact that this generic expectation is now being stated as a limitation is appalling and needs to be changed.

[Perry_1]

Also some sales stuff: have you thought about rewarding FDM users who get you HQ prints?

[Perry_1]

None of which would affect my existing hub, my existing customers, or my reputation, and would actually save me some time in having to explain to customers who should use a different material to use a different hub.