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

[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.

[PepCo_Parker]

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.

[PepCo_Parker]

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.

[Perry_1]

@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.

[Perry_1]

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.

[Filemon]

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

[Perry_1]

@PepCo_Parker Thanks for agreeing with me. However, I was not saying to not point out the downsides. Just do so in an informative and positive way. For example, with Resin, rather than say “extensive exposure to UV light” which (besides being nonsensical) sounds bad, when it really isn’t. How about “HQ Resin is made with light. Long term exposure to UV light is not good for the part. This can be mitigated by painting the object in cases where extended exposure to UV light or sunlight (for those that dont know) is expected.”
SLS Nylon instead of Cavities within design, go with “Modelers should design holes where cavities occur, so nylon can escape those cavities during the process” More informative, less negative. Much better than a big red minus sign.
Full Color Sandstone instead of “intricate features” say “Sandstone is less smooth, and small intricate features could be lost during the FULL COLOR process” emphasizing that hey, you are going to get full color!!
I cant find the one that said Longer Lead times. But what if it said HQ printing takes longer than lower resolution printing, and requires more human interaction during the printing phase, so HQ printing has longer lead times.

All more informative, none of which degrades that material or FDM.

Finally, as for the tolerances, that was sold to us as a means of lowering the expectations for customers, who may be unaware of just how FDM works. They say they were getting a lot of complaints. Rather than listen to suggestions, they just threw that out there. It could certainly be worded as "Tolerances on less expensive, fast printers are not as close as tolerances on higher quality printing methods. We guarantee prints will not have tolerances beyond +/- 1% or 1mm.

This is the kind of input they ignored.

[Perry_1]

You would be amazed at the number of folks that ask about that. I have my own reasons for why it is there, but suffice it to say I cut that boat on my large CNC machine.

[cobnut]

Good for me @Filemon, although I’ll need to stoke up on coffee…

Jon

[Perry_1]

No, you are incorrect. Referring to a different hub, at this time, does indeed hurt your ranking. It affects your ratio of of archived orders to completed orders, an important ranking. See below…

This is more of my voice of the customer diatribe. If they asked US how to increase HQ prints, we could have told them to let US push orders directly to a partnering hub, wiithout hurting our rankings.

Instead they went negative…

I can’t find the actual posting here on talk, because searching talk can be a tough thing for me. But I think it was the same post where the 3dhubs person said they have to check with programmers to find out why a hub is ranked a certain way above or below another hub, that they could not tell how it was done.
You can view the statistics on the BETA rankings in your hub dashboard. I rank way above on reviews, response time, and every other metric than the top 10% of all hubs. I rank below on that metric, even though I probably helped them!