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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I have a question about this one, how is 3D Hubs in any way ever financially responsible? If a print is rejected, it’s the hub that takes the hit not 3D Hubs. Until they pay out money, they have (In the majority of cases) Put literally 0 time and 0 effort into that particular order. Everything on their end has been automated. One order going bad in no way affects them financially, or at least in any way measurable.
Please critique this if you disagree, or if anyone does. I’d like to hear from other points of view.
I agree with Perry here.
I think the reason so many of us FDM primary hubs are upset about this, is the negativity that was aimed towards us from 3D Hubs.
Don’t push the disadvantages of any type of printing. It’s true, no material or method is better than all the others, but they do all have their strengths. This should be your focus! Tell people about what is best in every material, not the downsides.
If the choose to go through with an order for a specific material, at that point a Hub could point out some possible concerns to them, and reassure them what the exact affects might be for their specific parts. The way it is set up currently, it’s left for the customer to infer what the results might be, instead of having a 1 on 1 talk with an expert.
When you sell a car, you don’t talk about all the things that’s wrong with one car in order to up sell, you talk about what is great about another car and get that person thinking. Going at someone with a bunch of negatives could quite quickly change their thoughts on 3D Printing as a whole, even if what they assumed wasn’t necessarily true.
In all, I really wish the 3D Hubs team would learn from these issues, as it’s not the first time that many hubs have expressed serious concern for wording on newer features of the site. Maybe it would be a good idea to take a step back for a second, slow down and really listen to some opinions before just pushing things through and then doing damage control after the fact.
@PepCo_Parker Yeah, you missed the thread where that was “discussed.” 3dhubs announced it, and folks objected, gave suggestions, etc. (to be fair, I did not mind it. I didn’t see the whole hidden agenda at the time).
Anyway, they published it, with total disregard to their vendors.
THEN the added the “let me help you with choosing a material”
AND added a warning at checkout suggesting that customers should use a different material with a higher margin.
------------------
Then they did this prototyping materials thing. As I said in my first response 3 days ago, THIS IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE regardless of what we say. It is policy now.
Much as it is going to KILL ME in this discussion to take 3dhubs side on this, they also have an investment in every order. They build and maintain the software, and every process that happens on AWS costs them processing costs.
Additionally, look at it this way. Before you got that order, 3dhubs had to pay support costs, development costs, advertising costs, electric, rent, interest, etc. Then, they had to repeat some of those costs to deal with a customer for the refund, and they take a hit with their processor or paypal. So to say they literally have 0 time and 0 effort is wrong.
Also, if the print is bad, and should have been good, they have an opportunity cost. That is, they lost their commission on that sale, lost future prints from that customers, and any customers who may have been referred by that customer.
Which is why I did not object at the time to any guidelines that HONESTLY AND CORRECTLY inform the customer of downsides, because every customer costs them money, and every unhappy customer or refund costs them money.
However, many hubs objected and made GREAT SUGGESTIONS, and they just ignored those vendors. WE have been unable to get them to listen to their hubs. THIS is the BS part. They just went ahead an implemented. It turns out, this was a hidden agenda on their part to denigrate FDM.
THEN they added the “let me help you choose materials” at the start, “Maybe you should consider a different HQ vendor” just before OUR customer finishes the order, and finally denigrated the description of what we do, by calling it “prototyping”. They did this in secret.
Hi again all, as this thread becomes bigger and hard for me to reply on each comment, I’d like to suggest to jump on a call next week to discuss the matter and work towards some next actions together.
Please let me know if you’re available on:
- Tuesday, March 21, 12h New York time (GMT-4)
I’ll add you to the invite once you’re availability is confirmed.
@cobnut @Perry_1 @Steelmans @Enza3D @PepCo_Parker @Zapaer
Please let me know!
Thanks again,
Filemon