Go to homepage
3D Printing
3D Printing Service
FDM SLA/DLP SLS MJF DMLS/SLM Material Jetting
CNC Machining
CNC Machining Service
CNC Milling CNC Turning Surface Finishing Part Marking
Injection Molding
Sheet Metal Fabrication
Resources
3D Printing Guide CNC Machining Guide Injection Molding Guide Metal 3D Printing Guide Knowledge Base Webinars Help Center
Get instant quote
Mar 2017
60 / 201
Mar 2017
Jan 2018
Perry_1
Mar '17

"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.

Filemon3D Hubs Employees
Mar '17

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.

Steelmans
Mar '17

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).

Perry_1
Mar '17

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.

Enza3D
Mar '17

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.

Enza3D
Mar '17

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.

Perry_1
Mar '17

@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.

Perry_1
Mar '17

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”.

Enza3D
Mar '17

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.

Enza3D
Mar '17

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.

Filemon3D Hubs Employees
Mar '17

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)

Filemon3D Hubs Employees
Mar '17

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.

MikeD
Mar '17

I like your markups, and perceive the same change with less new customers and repeat customers even telling me they don’t want to go through 3d hubs.

Perry_1
Mar '17

@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.

Perry_1
Mar '17

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.

Perry_1
Mar '17

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.

Enza3D
Mar '17

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.

Perry_1
Mar '17

@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.

PepCo_Parker
Mar '17

Thanks Perry. I wouldn’t say they’re trying to steal, mostly just redirecting. You’re right about the time by the way. If I counted my wage hourly my company would be in the hole ten fold. But that’s just part of the investment I’m putting in with hopes of receiving return later on. Would be a real shame if that never does happen because the majority of orders that should be fdm are scared off to more expensive methods.

Perry_1
Mar '17

From one of my repeat customers today, who is willing to speak directly to 3dhubs management directly if they are interested. This was unsolicited from me. He wanted to know why I was moving to cheaper materials.
He missed the whole point that this was a 3dhubs change, he thought I had changed to lower quality materials. I guess this is a a result of the materials now being called “Prototype Materials.”
This is the same customer that pointed out to me the new “Can I help you choose a material” dialogue. (A solid repeat customer that 3dhubs decided to try to upsell to another material! Which also would have lowered my rankings, since I get points for a repeat customer…)
I did not solicit the call. What is the funniest part of this? This is a customer I actually do prototypes for! (He then gets the models milled in aluminum)

Let me be very clear on what happened with this customer, a good 3dhub customer.
Last week or so, he went to create an order, and got a dialogue box that said “Can we help you select a material?”. This would have presumably tried to push the customer to HQ. Taking my repeat customer to another, higher margin hub. Literally stealing a customer from my hub, that I have worked with for over a year, and then dinging my ratings for not gettting the repeat.
Today that same customer called with an inquiry as to whether I have lowered the quality of my material.

Filemon3D Hubs Employees
Mar '17

Hi Simon, thanks for the suggestion, happy to iterate / debate. In your suggestion, what scenarios would you recommend customers to go non-FDM? Or do you feel the technical specifications should be leading there?

Steelmans
Mar '17

I’m pleased you pointed that out!!!

I put all my customers orders through 3D Hubs. My website points customers to my 3D Hubs page to upload their files so all website orders go through 3D Hubs system. I thought I would test the system as my orders have dropped off (since the changes) and I am disgusted at what I found…

Basically acting as a customer I added my files, then I selected my material and colour, the price looks ok so I go to the next page and see the attached!!! 3D Hubs pushing my customer away from FDM and towards SLA and SLS again!!! Needless to say the links lead through to choosing SLA or SLS hubs.

This is bad when a customer finds your hub through the 3D Hubs platform but when the customer comes from MY own website to place an order on MY hub only for 3D Hubs to redirect them to someone else is disgusting!!!

screen_shot_2017-03-15_at_14.01.17.png
screen_shot_2017-03-15_at_14.01.17.png1762×1084 208 KB

Perry_1
Mar '17

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.”

Steelmans
Mar '17

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.

Filemon3D Hubs Employees
Mar '17

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.

Steelmans
Mar '17

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”?

Perry_1
Mar '17

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.

Steelmans
Mar '17

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?

Perry_1
Mar '17

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
Mar '17

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.

Filemon3D Hubs Employees
Mar '17

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!

Filemon3D Hubs Employees
Mar '17

True point, we’re touching upon a lot of things here :wink:

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
Mar '17

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
Mar '17

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
Mar '17

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
Mar '17

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
Mar '17

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
Mar '17

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
Mar '17

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

cobnut
Mar '17

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
Mar '17

@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
Mar '17

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
Mar '17

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
Mar '17

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
Mar '17

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
Mar '17

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

Perry_1
Mar '17

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
Mar '17

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.