I'm trying to make the decision on which printer to buy: Replicator 2 or Afinia H-Series
I was set on the Replicator 2, but I read the "MAKE:" article and now I can't make my mind up.
Both manufacturers are out of samples (which I think is crazy).
Does anyone know where I can get samples of the same object from both machines at the 3 different quality settings? I'd prefer something like the owl (www.thingiverse.com/thing:18218).
Funny that the object you want to see is the exact one that Make magazine chose to compare. I realize you want to hold them in your hand, but that is way easier said than done. I wish you luck finding someone, but for the most part I'd say trust the folks at Make.
I have a Replicator 1, so I can't send a print to compare, but I've seen both printers in action, so I can pass along impressions. Afinia is the Up PP3DP printer, renamed for US distribution. It's a fine printer, and in particular is small and looks good, which can be important (particularly if you live in an apartment), but it's a pretty old design compared to newer designs such as the Replicator 2 (or Ultimaker, etc.) which are faster, larger, and print higher quality for not much more money. Since you asked about it, the Replicator 2 is much larger, looks even more professional, prints from SD cards (very nice), costs a bit more, and produces markedly sharper prints.
The two printers are quite different. What attracted you to them in particular?
On Sunday, November 25, 2012 4:59:12 PM UTC-5, Cymon wrote:
> Funny that the object you want to see is the exact one that Make magazine > chose to compare. I realize you want to hold them in your hand, but that is > way easier said than done. I wish you luck finding someone, but for the > most part I'd say trust the folks at Make.
Simple put, you can't get any easier then the Afinia/UP! printer. I have
two. I also have a Cupcake, Thing--o-matics, and an Ultimaker. You will
take it out of the box, bolt on the extruder, filament feeder, install
software and be printing in 15 minutes. It prints down to .15 mm layer
height and its software can't be beat by anything out on any
printer, unfortunately. Makerware is pretty familiar in my opinion but not
in the same league just yet. I've spent time getting the Makerbots to also
print .1 layer height so don't believe the 100 micron marketing, all
printers can get to this resolution with patience. If you want to just
print, get the UP!/Afinia. If you want to build larger objects and at .05
layer heights and lower, get an Ultimaker. If you don't like kits it isn't
for you. Aside from time of assembly you can't beat the UM workflow when
using their Ulticontroller (LCD/SD Card)
Don't get me wrong, the Replicator 2 is a pretty box but gimped compared to
a dual Rep 1. Get a Rep 1 Dual and install Sailfish to get the most out of
it. I'd be happy to send you a sample print this week for the cost of
shipping from the UP!.
You never said your budget but I guess it is from $1500-$2200 based on your
choices of sample prints. As far as an old design, the UP! was the first to
create this design and use linear slide rails with pillow-block bearings.
It was then emulated by Makergear for the Mosaic and subsequent M2. Then
Makerbot created the Mk7/8 extruders which are pretty darn similar to the
UP!'s. I should know, I've taken apart all of them at one point or the
other. The UP! uses an on-board SD card and transfers the print to it
during the print process. This means that you can disconnect your
computer/laptop to it once it starts printing.
I've seen beautiful prints on the $450 printerbot so study the 3D printer
review again. But if you are decided between those two, save your money and
enjoy printing on the Affinia, which can print on ABS AND PLA.
What do you want to use it for and what is your comfortableness with kits
and or tinkering?
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Laird Popkin <la...@popk.in> wrote:
> I have a Replicator 1, so I can't send a print to compare, but I've seen
> both printers in action, so I can pass along impressions. Afinia is the Up
> PP3DP printer, renamed for US distribution. It's a fine printer, and in
> particular is small and looks good, which can be important (particularly if
> you live in an apartment), but it's a pretty old design compared to newer
> designs such as the Replicator 2 (or Ultimaker, etc.) which are faster,
> larger, and print higher quality for not much more money. Since you asked
> about it, the Replicator 2 is much larger, looks even more professional,
> prints from SD cards (very nice), costs a bit more, and produces markedly
> sharper prints.
> The two printers are quite different. What attracted you to them in
> particular?
> - LP
> On Sunday, November 25, 2012 4:59:12 PM UTC-5, Cymon wrote:
>> Funny that the object you want to see is the exact one that Make magazine
>> chose to compare. I realize you want to hold them in your hand, but that is
>> way easier said than done. I wish you luck finding someone, but for the
>> most part I'd say trust the folks at Make.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "thingiverse" group.
> To post to this group, send email to thingiverse@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> thingiverse+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/thingiverse?hl=en
If you'll send me your address via email to j...@scottassoc.com I'll send you prints of the owl that Make Magazine cited as the piece in which the Afinia was the only one of 15 that accurately rendered the nostril hole in the beak. I've got three quality settings Fine, Fast and something else that I can't remember...
On Saturday, November 24, 2012 5:32:47 PM UTC-6, eric wrote:
> I'm trying to make the decision on which printer to buy: Replicator 2 or > Afinia H-Series
> I was set on the Replicator 2, but I read the "MAKE:" article and now I > can't make my mind up.
> Both manufacturers are out of samples (which I think is crazy).
> Does anyone know where I can get samples of the same object from both > machines at the 3 different quality settings? I'd prefer something like the > owl (www.thingiverse.com/thing:18218).
Actually, it did NOT render it accurately. If you look at the model, you'll see that there is actually no hole there. What happened is that the UP software undersampled the 3d model and left out a small feature between the two nostrils.
On Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Joseph Scott wrote:
> Eric:
> If you'll send me your address via email to j...@scottassoc.com (mailto:j...@scottassoc.com) I'll send you prints of the owl that Make Magazine cited as the piece in which the Afinia was the only one of 15 that accurately rendered the nostril hole in the beak. I've got three quality settings Fine, Fast and something else that I can't remember...
> On Saturday, November 24, 2012 5:32:47 PM UTC-6, eric wrote:
> > I'm trying to make the decision on which printer to buy: Replicator 2 or Afinia H-Series
> > I was set on the Replicator 2, but I read the "MAKE:" article and now I can't make my mind up.
> > Both manufacturers are out of samples (which I think is crazy).
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "thingiverse" group.
> To post to this group, send email to thingiverse@googlegroups.com (mailto:thingiverse@googlegroups.com)
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> thingiverse+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com (mailto:thingiverse+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com)
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/thingiverse?hl=en
> Actually, it did NOT render it accurately. If you look at the model,
> you'll see that there is actually no hole there. What happened is that the
> UP software undersampled the 3d model and left out a small feature between
> the two nostrils.
> On Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Joseph Scott wrote:
> Eric:
> If you'll send me your address via email to j...@scottassoc.com I'll send
> you prints of the owl that Make Magazine cited as the piece in which the
> Afinia was the only one of 15 that accurately rendered the nostril hole in
> the beak. I've got three quality settings Fine, Fast and something else
> that I can't remember...
> On Saturday, November 24, 2012 5:32:47 PM UTC-6, eric wrote:
> I'm trying to make the decision on which printer to buy: Replicator 2 or
> Afinia H-Series
> I was set on the Replicator 2, but I read the "MAKE:" article and now I
> can't make my mind up.
> Both manufacturers are out of samples (which I think is crazy).
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "thingiverse" group.
> To post to this group, send email to thingiverse@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> thingiverse+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/thingiverse?hl=en
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "thingiverse" group.
> To post to this group, send email to thingiverse@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> thingiverse+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/thingiverse?hl=en
Although, if you look through the "I Made This" pics, quite a few were clearly able to print with the indents, but quite a few were also messed up in that area at the front of the beak. I'm still not sure how much weight I would put in that particular win.
On Saturday, December 1, 2012 6:01:29 AM UTC-8, Mark Cohen wrote:
> So the magazine got it wrong. They were making such a but big deal about > it. > On Nov 29, 2012 4:31 PM, "whosawhatsis" <whosaw...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote:
>> Actually, it did NOT render it accurately. If you look at the model, >> you'll see that there is actually no hole there. What happened is that the >> UP software undersampled the 3d model and left out a small feature between >> the two nostrils.
Mind you, I took it that by "nostril hole" they meant the indentation as those would be the holes on beaks... If there was a hole at the bottom (like on a person) then that's just a error. :-)
> Although, if you look through the "I Made This" pics, quite a few were > clearly able to print with the indents, but quite a few were also messed up > in that area at the front of the beak. I'm still not sure how much weight I > would put in that particular win.
> g.
> On Saturday, December 1, 2012 6:01:29 AM UTC-8, Mark Cohen wrote:
>> So the magazine got it wrong. They were making such a but big deal about >> it. >> On Nov 29, 2012 4:31 PM, "whosawhatsis" <whosaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Actually, it did NOT render it accurately. If you look at the model, >>> you'll see that there is actually no hole there. What happened is that the >>> UP software undersampled the 3d model and left out a small feature between >>> the two nostrils.
On Saturday, November 24, 2012 5:32:47 PM UTC-6, eric wrote:
> I'm trying to make the decision on which printer to buy: Replicator 2 or > Afinia H-Series
> I was set on the Replicator 2, but I read the "MAKE:" article and now I > can't make my mind up.
> Both manufacturers are out of samples (which I think is crazy).
> Does anyone know where I can get samples of the same object from both > machines at the 3 different quality settings? I'd prefer something like the > owl (www.thingiverse.com/thing:18218).
Do you use the Netfabb software for the Ultimaker? I see wonderfull prints ussing this solfware. Like I see that you have a lot of 3D printers, I would like to ask you for the Ultimaker. Like Eric, I´m trying to choose the correct 3D printer but between all of this models is a little difficult decission. I´m product desingner and engineer too and I want to choose a 3D printer with a big print area and very good resolution quallity. I´m beginner in this 3D printer world. I´m between the Replicator2x and the Ultimaker. For me first is the printing quallity and second the side. I need the precission to print gears and good surface quallity and I don´t care about if I have to built it and spent time setting the printer. Dual extruder is very good stuff, but it looks like the Ultimaker has better resolution than the replicator 2x. Other thing that I´m a little confuse is the baseplate. For printing in the ultimaker I have to put tape to hold the printing? And the Ultimaker looks like it has more users support and upgrades. From your point of view, what printers fix better with me?
Sorry, maybe I have to open a new discussion but I really need the point ofview of people that have experience with this machines.
Thanks!
El lunes, 26 de noviembre de 2012 03:02:01 UTC+1, Luis E. Rodriguez escribió:
> Simple put, you can't get any easier then the Afinia/UP! printer. I have > two. I also have a Cupcake, Thing--o-matics, and an Ultimaker. You will > take it out of the box, bolt on the extruder, filament feeder, install > software and be printing in 15 minutes. It prints down to .15 mm layer > height and its software can't be beat by anything out on any > printer, unfortunately. Makerware is pretty familiar in my opinion but not > in the same league just yet. I've spent time getting the Makerbots to also > print .1 layer height so don't believe the 100 micron marketing, all > printers can get to this resolution with patience. If you want to just > print, get the UP!/Afinia. If you want to build larger objects and at .05 > layer heights and lower, get an Ultimaker. If you don't like kits it isn't > for you. Aside from time of assembly you can't beat the UM workflow when > using their Ulticontroller (LCD/SD Card)
> Don't get me wrong, the Replicator 2 is a pretty box but gimped compared > to a dual Rep 1. Get a Rep 1 Dual and install Sailfish to get the most out > of it. I'd be happy to send you a sample print this week for the cost of > shipping from the UP!.
> You never said your budget but I guess it is from $1500-$2200 based on > your choices of sample prints. As far as an old design, the UP! was the > first to create this design and use linear slide rails with pillow-block > bearings. It was then emulated by Makergear for the Mosaic and subsequent > M2. Then Makerbot created the Mk7/8 extruders which are pretty > darn similar to the UP!'s. I should know, I've taken apart all of them at > one point or the other. The UP! uses an on-board SD card and transfers the > print to it during the print process. This means that you can disconnect > your computer/laptop to it once it starts printing.
> I've seen beautiful prints on the $450 printerbot so study the 3D printer > review again. But if you are decided between those two, save your money and > enjoy printing on the Affinia, which can print on ABS AND PLA.
> What do you want to use it for and what is your comfortableness with kits > and or tinkering?
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Laird Popkin <la...@popk.in <javascript:>
> > wrote:
>> I have a Replicator 1, so I can't send a print to compare, but I've seen >> both printers in action, so I can pass along impressions. Afinia is the Up >> PP3DP printer, renamed for US distribution. It's a fine printer, and in >> particular is small and looks good, which can be important (particularly if >> you live in an apartment), but it's a pretty old design compared to newer >> designs such as the Replicator 2 (or Ultimaker, etc.) which are faster, >> larger, and print higher quality for not much more money. Since you asked >> about it, the Replicator 2 is much larger, looks even more professional, >> prints from SD cards (very nice), costs a bit more, and produces markedly >> sharper prints.
>> The two printers are quite different. What attracted you to them in >> particular?
>> - LP
>> On Sunday, November 25, 2012 4:59:12 PM UTC-5, Cymon wrote:
>>> Funny that the object you want to see is the exact one that Make >>> magazine chose to compare. I realize you want to hold them in your hand, >>> but that is way easier said than done. I wish you luck finding someone, but >>> for the most part I'd say trust the folks at Make.
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "thingiverse" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to thing...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> thingiverse...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/thingiverse?hl=en
Well, I've used a Makerbot Cupcake and Thing-o-matic with ABS and PLA so I
don't buy that ABS is experimental or somehow difficult to work with. It is
true that ABS and PLA are different materials and thus attention to
specific settings for each. The use of blue painters tape is used for PLA
mainly and ABS requires a heated bed to slow the rate of cooling and
subsequent warping that can result from a number of factors, mainly a bed
that is not level. The warning on the 2X about ABS is to mitigate support
tickets, in my opinion.
I am truly just a user of 3d printers, not a programmer or 3d modeler, and
can say I have enjoyed using the Ultimaker. From building the kit to
experimenting with different slicers. It is recommended to start with CURA,
but many have used KISslicer, Slic3r, and Nettfab, as you mention. Each
have their idiosyncrasies but on the whole vast improvements over what we
had early on. I've not tried Slic3r or Nettfabb yet.
It's a math problem that was simple for me. I easily had the choice and
chose the Ultimaker, Ulticontroller, and loads of filament over the price
of the Rep 2X, just didn't make sense to me personally. You are correct to
do your research and spend time in the community and see what problems
arise.
No printer is perfect and will require intervention at some point. Is it
getting better each day? Yes.
> I see that you have a nice 3D printer collection!
> Do you use the Netfabb software for the Ultimaker? I see wonderfull prints
> ussing this solfware. Like I see that you have a lot of 3D printers, I
> would like to ask you for the Ultimaker. Like Eric, I´m trying to choose
> the correct 3D printer but between all of this models is a little difficult
> decission. I´m product desingner and engineer too and I want to choose a 3D
> printer with a big print area and very good resolution quallity. I´m
> beginner in this 3D printer world. I´m between the Replicator2x and the
> Ultimaker. For me first is the printing quallity and second the side. I
> need the precission to print gears and good surface quallity and I don´t
> care about if I have to built it and spent time setting the printer. Dual
> extruder is very good stuff, but it looks like the Ultimaker has better
> resolution than the replicator 2x. Other thing that I´m a little confuse is
> the baseplate. For printing in the ultimaker I have to put tape to hold the
> printing? And the Ultimaker looks like it has more users support and
> upgrades. From your point of view, what printers fix better with me?
> Sorry, maybe I have to open a new discussion but I really need the point
> ofview of people that have experience with this machines.
> Thanks!
> El lunes, 26 de noviembre de 2012 03:02:01 UTC+1, Luis E. Rodriguez
> escribió:
>> Simple put, you can't get any easier then the Afinia/UP! printer. I have
>> two. I also have a Cupcake, Thing--o-matics, and an Ultimaker. You will
>> take it out of the box, bolt on the extruder, filament feeder, install
>> software and be printing in 15 minutes. It prints down to .15 mm layer
>> height and its software can't be beat by anything out on any
>> printer, unfortunately. Makerware is pretty familiar in my opinion but not
>> in the same league just yet. I've spent time getting the Makerbots to also
>> print .1 layer height so don't believe the 100 micron marketing, all
>> printers can get to this resolution with patience. If you want to just
>> print, get the UP!/Afinia. If you want to build larger objects and at .05
>> layer heights and lower, get an Ultimaker. If you don't like kits it isn't
>> for you. Aside from time of assembly you can't beat the UM workflow when
>> using their Ulticontroller (LCD/SD Card)
>> Don't get me wrong, the Replicator 2 is a pretty box but gimped compared
>> to a dual Rep 1. Get a Rep 1 Dual and install Sailfish to get the most out
>> of it. I'd be happy to send you a sample print this week for the cost of
>> shipping from the UP!.
>> You never said your budget but I guess it is from $1500-$2200 based on
>> your choices of sample prints. As far as an old design, the UP! was the
>> first to create this design and use linear slide rails with pillow-block
>> bearings. It was then emulated by Makergear for the Mosaic and subsequent
>> M2. Then Makerbot created the Mk7/8 extruders which are pretty
>> darn similar to the UP!'s. I should know, I've taken apart all of them at
>> one point or the other. The UP! uses an on-board SD card and transfers the
>> print to it during the print process. This means that you can disconnect
>> your computer/laptop to it once it starts printing.
>> I've seen beautiful prints on the $450 printerbot so study the 3D printer
>> review again. But if you are decided between those two, save your money and
>> enjoy printing on the Affinia, which can print on ABS AND PLA.
>> What do you want to use it for and what is your comfortableness with kits
>> and or tinkering?
>> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Laird Popkin <la...@popk.in> wrote:
>>> I have a Replicator 1, so I can't send a print to compare, but I've
>>> seen both printers in action, so I can pass along impressions. Afinia is
>>> the Up PP3DP printer, renamed for US distribution. It's a fine printer, and
>>> in particular is small and looks good, which can be important (particularly
>>> if you live in an apartment), but it's a pretty old design compared to
>>> newer designs such as the Replicator 2 (or Ultimaker, etc.) which are
>>> faster, larger, and print higher quality for not much more money. Since you
>>> asked about it, the Replicator 2 is much larger, looks even more
>>> professional, prints from SD cards (very nice), costs a bit more, and
>>> produces markedly sharper prints.
>>> The two printers are quite different. What attracted you to them in
>>> particular?
>>> - LP
>>> On Sunday, November 25, 2012 4:59:12 PM UTC-5, Cymon wrote:
>>>> Funny that the object you want to see is the exact one that Make
>>>> magazine chose to compare. I realize you want to hold them in your hand,
>>>> but that is way easier said than done. I wish you luck finding someone, but
>>>> for the most part I'd say trust the folks at Make.
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "thingiverse" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to thing...@googlegroups.com
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> thingiverse...@**googlegroups.com
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "thingiverse" group.
> To post to this group, send email to thingiverse@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> thingiverse+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/thingiverse?hl=en > ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "thingiverse" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> thingiverse+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Sorry for digging this one out, but I have exactly the same question.
I'm looking for a 3D printer which is very accurate. I also found the article in the make magazine and the Ultimaker (fast and accurate), Afinia H (very good print quality but small printing area and slow) and the Replicator 2 (seems to be a good compromise between Ultimaker and Afinia) drew my attention. My plan is to create burr puzzles, so it's very important that horizontal and vertical edges are even. Further the tolerances have to be as close as possible near zero. If a part is 70mm high design it should 70mm when made, every time. That's also important for the notches in the parts so that other pieces are matching as tight as possible without locking. A good burr puzzle has (when assambled) minimal gaps and parts are moving smoothly.
Which machine would you think matches my interests best? Price should not exceed $2.500/2000€.
Thanks in advance
Heinzzz
Am Sonntag, 25. November 2012 00:32:47 UTC+1 schrieb eric:
> I'm trying to make the decision on which printer to buy: Replicator 2 or > Afinia H-Series
> I was set on the Replicator 2, but I read the "MAKE:" article and now I > can't make my mind up.
> Both manufacturers are out of samples (which I think is crazy).
> Does anyone know where I can get samples of the same object from both > machines at the 3 different quality settings? I'd prefer something like the > owl (www.thingiverse.com/thing:18218).
I'm pretty sure any of the printers you mention can handle this type of puzzle. The important point might be, which one has the easiest to use software for what you need to do.
On Monday, April 15, 2013 4:13:08 AM UTC-7, Heinzzz wrote:
> Sorry for digging this one out, but I have exactly the same question.
> I'm looking for a 3D printer which is very accurate. I also found the > article in the make magazine and the Ultimaker (fast and accurate), Afinia > H (very good print quality but small printing area and slow) and the > Replicator 2 (seems to be a good compromise between Ultimaker and Afinia) > drew my attention. My plan is to create burr puzzles, so it's very > important that horizontal and vertical edges are even. Further the > tolerances have to be as close as possible near zero. If a part is 70mm > high design it should 70mm when made, every time. That's also important for > the notches in the parts so that other pieces are matching as tight as > possible without locking. A good burr puzzle has (when assambled) minimal > gaps and parts are moving smoothly.
> Which machine would you think matches my interests best? Price should not > exceed $2.500/2000€.
> Thanks in advance
> Heinzzz
> Am Sonntag, 25. November 2012 00:32:47 UTC+1 schrieb eric:
>> I'm trying to make the decision on which printer to buy: Replicator 2 or >> Afinia H-Series
>> I was set on the Replicator 2, but I read the "MAKE:" article and now I >> can't make my mind up.
>> Both manufacturers are out of samples (which I think is crazy).
>> Does anyone know where I can get samples of the same object from both >> machines at the 3 different quality settings? I'd prefer something like the >> owl (www.thingiverse.com/thing:18218).
Well, I think all of them are able to do it, too. But I want to know which one is the most accurate/suitable for this special kind of job. I design the puzzles by myself and they have to be as clean as possilbe. The Barrel Puzzle you mentioned shows some pretty big gaps. Or is it impossible to print it better like that?
Thanks
Heinzzz
Am Montag, 15. April 2013 23:17:28 UTC+2 schrieb Darrell jan:
> I'm pretty sure any of the printers you mention can handle this type of > puzzle. The important point might be, which one has the easiest to use > software for what you need to do.
> On Monday, April 15, 2013 4:13:08 AM UTC-7, Heinzzz wrote:
>> Sorry for digging this one out, but I have exactly the same question.
>> I'm looking for a 3D printer which is very accurate. I also found the >> article in the make magazine and the Ultimaker (fast and accurate), Afinia >> H (very good print quality but small printing area and slow) and the >> Replicator 2 (seems to be a good compromise between Ultimaker and Afinia) >> drew my attention. My plan is to create burr puzzles, so it's very >> important that horizontal and vertical edges are even. Further the >> tolerances have to be as close as possible near zero. If a part is 70mm >> high design it should 70mm when made, every time. That's also important for >> the notches in the parts so that other pieces are matching as tight as >> possible without locking. A good burr puzzle has (when assambled) minimal >> gaps and parts are moving smoothly.
>> Which machine would you think matches my interests best? Price should not >> exceed $2.500/2000€.
>> Thanks in advance
>> Heinzzz
>> Am Sonntag, 25. November 2012 00:32:47 UTC+1 schrieb eric:
>>> I'm trying to make the decision on which printer to buy: Replicator 2 or >>> Afinia H-Series
>>> I was set on the Replicator 2, but I read the "MAKE:" article and now I >>> can't make my mind up.
>>> Both manufacturers are out of samples (which I think is crazy).
>>> Does anyone know where I can get samples of the same object from both >>> machines at the 3 different quality settings? I'd prefer something like the >>> owl (www.thingiverse.com/thing:18218).
Sounds like you want the most accuracy. If you go by the Maker review last fall, Ultimaker is the most accurate, though Affinia and M2 come close. Ultimaker has the added advantage of being the fastest as well. But all of them, including Ultimaker, will take some tweaking to get the most accuracy.
On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 7:44:15 AM UTC-7, Heinzzz wrote:
> Well, I think all of them are able to do it, too. But I want to know which > one is the most accurate/suitable for this special kind of job. I design > the puzzles by myself and they have to be as clean as possilbe. The Barrel > Puzzle you mentioned shows some pretty big gaps. Or is it impossible to > print it better like that?
> Thanks
> Heinzzz
> Am Montag, 15. April 2013 23:17:28 UTC+2 schrieb Darrell jan:
>> I'm pretty sure any of the printers you mention can handle this type of >> puzzle. The important point might be, which one has the easiest to use >> software for what you need to do.
>> On Monday, April 15, 2013 4:13:08 AM UTC-7, Heinzzz wrote:
>>> Sorry for digging this one out, but I have exactly the same question.
>>> I'm looking for a 3D printer which is very accurate. I also found the >>> article in the make magazine and the Ultimaker (fast and accurate), Afinia >>> H (very good print quality but small printing area and slow) and the >>> Replicator 2 (seems to be a good compromise between Ultimaker and Afinia) >>> drew my attention. My plan is to create burr puzzles, so it's very >>> important that horizontal and vertical edges are even. Further the >>> tolerances have to be as close as possible near zero. If a part is 70mm >>> high design it should 70mm when made, every time. That's also important for >>> the notches in the parts so that other pieces are matching as tight as >>> possible without locking. A good burr puzzle has (when assambled) minimal >>> gaps and parts are moving smoothly.
>>> Which machine would you think matches my interests best? Price should >>> not exceed $2.500/2000€.
>>> Thanks in advance
>>> Heinzzz
>>> Am Sonntag, 25. November 2012 00:32:47 UTC+1 schrieb eric:
>>>> I'm trying to make the decision on which printer to buy: Replicator 2 >>>> or Afinia H-Series
>>>> I was set on the Replicator 2, but I read the "MAKE:" article and now I >>>> can't make my mind up.
>>>> Both manufacturers are out of samples (which I think is crazy).
>>>> Does anyone know where I can get samples of the same object from both >>>> machines at the 3 different quality settings? I'd prefer something like the >>>> owl (www.thingiverse.com/thing:18218).
Thanks, I think I will go with the Ultimaker. It seems to be the most accurate one and it's also much easier to get one shipped to Germany. It ships from the Netherlands so postal charges are less and there is no customs duty compared to the machines which come from North America or Asia. The printers they sell here are much more expensive. The Replicator 2 e.g. costs 2.500€ (about $3.300)...
What kind of tweakings are necessary to make the Ultimaker as accurate as possible?
Greatings
Heinzzz
Am Donnerstag, 18. April 2013 01:45:34 UTC+2 schrieb Darrell jan:
> Sounds like you want the most accuracy. If you go by the Maker review last > fall, Ultimaker is the most accurate, though Affinia and M2 come close. > Ultimaker has the added advantage of being the fastest as well. But all of > them, including Ultimaker, will take some tweaking to get the most accuracy.
> On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 7:44:15 AM UTC-7, Heinzzz wrote:
>> Well, I think all of them are able to do it, too. But I want to know >> which one is the most accurate/suitable for this special kind of job. I >> design the puzzles by myself and they have to be as clean as possilbe. The >> Barrel Puzzle you mentioned shows some pretty big gaps. Or is it impossible >> to print it better like that?
>> Thanks
>> Heinzzz
>> Am Montag, 15. April 2013 23:17:28 UTC+2 schrieb Darrell jan:
>>> I'm pretty sure any of the printers you mention can handle this type of >>> puzzle. The important point might be, which one has the easiest to use >>> software for what you need to do.
>>> On Monday, April 15, 2013 4:13:08 AM UTC-7, Heinzzz wrote:
>>>> Sorry for digging this one out, but I have exactly the same question.
>>>> I'm looking for a 3D printer which is very accurate. I also found the >>>> article in the make magazine and the Ultimaker (fast and accurate), Afinia >>>> H (very good print quality but small printing area and slow) and the >>>> Replicator 2 (seems to be a good compromise between Ultimaker and Afinia) >>>> drew my attention. My plan is to create burr puzzles, so it's very >>>> important that horizontal and vertical edges are even. Further the >>>> tolerances have to be as close as possible near zero. If a part is 70mm >>>> high design it should 70mm when made, every time. That's also important for >>>> the notches in the parts so that other pieces are matching as tight as >>>> possible without locking. A good burr puzzle has (when assambled) minimal >>>> gaps and parts are moving smoothly.
>>>> Which machine would you think matches my interests best? Price should >>>> not exceed $2.500/2000€.
>>>> Thanks in advance
>>>> Heinzzz
>>>> Am Sonntag, 25. November 2012 00:32:47 UTC+1 schrieb eric:
>>>>> I'm trying to make the decision on which printer to buy: Replicator 2 >>>>> or Afinia H-Series
>>>>> I was set on the Replicator 2, but I read the "MAKE:" article and now >>>>> I can't make my mind up.
>>>>> Both manufacturers are out of samples (which I think is crazy).
>>>>> Does anyone know where I can get samples of the same object from both >>>>> machines at the 3 different quality settings? I'd prefer something like the >>>>> owl (www.thingiverse.com/thing:18218).
> Sounds like you want the most accuracy. If you go by the Maker review last
> fall, Ultimaker is the most accurate, though Affinia and M2 come close.
> Ultimaker has the added advantage of being the fastest as well. But all of
> them, including Ultimaker, will take some tweaking to get the most accuracy.
> On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 7:44:15 AM UTC-7, Heinzzz wrote:
>> Well, I think all of them are able to do it, too. But I want to know
>> which one is the most accurate/suitable for this special kind of job. I
>> design the puzzles by myself and they have to be as clean as possilbe. The
>> Barrel Puzzle you mentioned shows some pretty big gaps. Or is it impossible
>> to print it better like that?
>> Thanks
>> Heinzzz
>> Am Montag, 15. April 2013 23:17:28 UTC+2 schrieb Darrell jan:
>>> I'm pretty sure any of the printers you mention can handle this type of
>>> puzzle. The important point might be, which one has the easiest to use
>>> software for what you need to do.
>>> On Monday, April 15, 2013 4:13:08 AM UTC-7, Heinzzz wrote:
>>>> Sorry for digging this one out, but I have exactly the same question.
>>>> I'm looking for a 3D printer which is very accurate. I also found the
>>>> article in the make magazine and the Ultimaker (fast and accurate), Afinia
>>>> H (very good print quality but small printing area and slow) and the
>>>> Replicator 2 (seems to be a good compromise between Ultimaker and Afinia)
>>>> drew my attention. My plan is to create burr puzzles, so it's very
>>>> important that horizontal and vertical edges are even. Further the
>>>> tolerances have to be as close as possible near zero. If a part is 70mm
>>>> high design it should 70mm when made, every time. That's also important for
>>>> the notches in the parts so that other pieces are matching as tight as
>>>> possible without locking. A good burr puzzle has (when assambled) minimal
>>>> gaps and parts are moving smoothly.
>>>> Which machine would you think matches my interests best? Price should
>>>> not exceed $2.500/2000€.
>>>> Thanks in advance
>>>> Heinzzz
>>>> Am Sonntag, 25. November 2012 00:32:47 UTC+1 schrieb eric:
>>>>> I'm trying to make the decision on which printer to buy: Replicator 2
>>>>> or Afinia H-Series
>>>>> I was set on the Replicator 2, but I read the "MAKE:" article and now
>>>>> I can't make my mind up.
>>>>> Both manufacturers are out of samples (which I think is crazy).
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "thingiverse" group.
> To post to this group, send email to thingiverse@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> thingiverse+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/thingiverse?hl=en > ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "thingiverse" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to thingiverse+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
On Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:07:01 AM UTC-7, Heinzzz wrote:
> Thanks, > I think I will go with the Ultimaker. It seems to be the most accurate one > and it's also much easier to get one shipped to Germany. It ships from the > Netherlands so postal charges are less and there is no customs duty > compared to the machines which come from North America or Asia. The > printers they sell here are much more expensive. The Replicator 2 e.g. > costs 2.500€ (about $3.300)...
> What kind of tweakings are necessary to make the Ultimaker as accurate as > possible?
> Greatings
> Heinzzz
> Am Donnerstag, 18. April 2013 01:45:34 UTC+2 schrieb Darrell jan:
>> Sounds like you want the most accuracy. If you go by the Maker review >> last fall, Ultimaker is the most accurate, though Affinia and M2 come >> close. Ultimaker has the added advantage of being the fastest as well. But >> all of them, including Ultimaker, will take some tweaking to get the most >> accuracy.
>> On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 7:44:15 AM UTC-7, Heinzzz wrote:
>>> Well, I think all of them are able to do it, too. But I want to know >>> which one is the most accurate/suitable for this special kind of job. I >>> design the puzzles by myself and they have to be as clean as possilbe. The >>> Barrel Puzzle you mentioned shows some pretty big gaps. Or is it impossible >>> to print it better like that?
>>> Thanks
>>> Heinzzz
>>> Am Montag, 15. April 2013 23:17:28 UTC+2 schrieb Darrell jan:
>>>> I'm pretty sure any of the printers you mention can handle this type of >>>> puzzle. The important point might be, which one has the easiest to use >>>> software for what you need to do.
>>>> On Monday, April 15, 2013 4:13:08 AM UTC-7, Heinzzz wrote:
>>>>> Sorry for digging this one out, but I have exactly the same question.
>>>>> I'm looking for a 3D printer which is very accurate. I also found the >>>>> article in the make magazine and the Ultimaker (fast and accurate), Afinia >>>>> H (very good print quality but small printing area and slow) and the >>>>> Replicator 2 (seems to be a good compromise between Ultimaker and Afinia) >>>>> drew my attention. My plan is to create burr puzzles, so it's very >>>>> important that horizontal and vertical edges are even. Further the >>>>> tolerances have to be as close as possible near zero. If a part is 70mm >>>>> high design it should 70mm when made, every time. That's also important for >>>>> the notches in the parts so that other pieces are matching as tight as >>>>> possible without locking. A good burr puzzle has (when assambled) minimal >>>>> gaps and parts are moving smoothly.
>>>>> Which machine would you think matches my interests best? Price should >>>>> not exceed $2.500/2000€.
>>>>> Thanks in advance
>>>>> Heinzzz
>>>>> Am Sonntag, 25. November 2012 00:32:47 UTC+1 schrieb eric:
>>>>>> I'm trying to make the decision on which printer to buy: Replicator 2 >>>>>> or Afinia H-Series
>>>>>> I was set on the Replicator 2, but I read the "MAKE:" article and now >>>>>> I can't make my mind up.
>>>>>> Both manufacturers are out of samples (which I think is crazy).
>>>>>> Does anyone know where I can get samples of the same object from both >>>>>> machines at the 3 different quality settings? I'd prefer something like the >>>>>> owl (www.thingiverse.com/thing:18218).
> and they should be the best group to help you out.
> On Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:07:01 AM UTC-7, Heinzzz wrote:
>> Thanks, >> I think I will go with the Ultimaker. It seems to be the most accurate >> one and it's also much easier to get one shipped to Germany. It ships from >> the Netherlands so postal charges are less and there is no customs duty >> compared to the machines which come from North America or Asia. The >> printers they sell here are much more expensive. The Replicator 2 e.g. >> costs 2.500€ (about $3.300)...
>> What kind of tweakings are necessary to make the Ultimaker as accurate as >> possible?
>> Greatings
>> Heinzzz
>> Am Donnerstag, 18. April 2013 01:45:34 UTC+2 schrieb Darrell jan:
>>> Sounds like you want the most accuracy. If you go by the Maker review >>> last fall, Ultimaker is the most accurate, though Affinia and M2 come >>> close. Ultimaker has the added advantage of being the fastest as well. But >>> all of them, including Ultimaker, will take some tweaking to get the most >>> accuracy.
>>> On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 7:44:15 AM UTC-7, Heinzzz wrote:
>>>> Well, I think all of them are able to do it, too. But I want to know >>>> which one is the most accurate/suitable for this special kind of job. I >>>> design the puzzles by myself and they have to be as clean as possilbe. The >>>> Barrel Puzzle you mentioned shows some pretty big gaps. Or is it impossible >>>> to print it better like that?
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Heinzzz
>>>> Am Montag, 15. April 2013 23:17:28 UTC+2 schrieb Darrell jan:
>>>>> I'm pretty sure any of the printers you mention can handle this type >>>>> of puzzle. The important point might be, which one has the easiest to use >>>>> software for what you need to do.
>>>>> On Monday, April 15, 2013 4:13:08 AM UTC-7, Heinzzz wrote:
>>>>>> Sorry for digging this one out, but I have exactly the same question.
>>>>>> I'm looking for a 3D printer which is very accurate. I also found the >>>>>> article in the make magazine and the Ultimaker (fast and accurate), Afinia >>>>>> H (very good print quality but small printing area and slow) and the >>>>>> Replicator 2 (seems to be a good compromise between Ultimaker and Afinia) >>>>>> drew my attention. My plan is to create burr puzzles, so it's very >>>>>> important that horizontal and vertical edges are even. Further the >>>>>> tolerances have to be as close as possible near zero. If a part is 70mm >>>>>> high design it should 70mm when made, every time. That's also important for >>>>>> the notches in the parts so that other pieces are matching as tight as >>>>>> possible without locking. A good burr puzzle has (when assambled) minimal >>>>>> gaps and parts are moving smoothly.
>>>>>> Which machine would you think matches my interests best? Price should >>>>>> not exceed $2.500/2000€.
>>>>>> Thanks in advance
>>>>>> Heinzzz
>>>>>> Am Sonntag, 25. November 2012 00:32:47 UTC+1 schrieb eric:
>>>>>>> I'm trying to make the decision on which printer to buy: Replicator >>>>>>> 2 or Afinia H-Series
>>>>>>> I was set on the Replicator 2, but I read the "MAKE:" article and >>>>>>> now I can't make my mind up.
>>>>>>> Both manufacturers are out of samples (which I think is crazy).
>>>>>>> Does anyone know where I can get samples of the same object from >>>>>>> both machines at the 3 different quality settings? I'd prefer something >>>>>>> like the owl (www.thingiverse.com/thing:18218).
>> and they should be the best group to help you out.
>> On Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:07:01 AM UTC-7, Heinzzz wrote:
>>> Thanks, >>> I think I will go with the Ultimaker. It seems to be the most accurate >>> one and it's also much easier to get one shipped to Germany. It ships from >>> the Netherlands so postal charges are less and there is no customs duty >>> compared to the machines which come from North America or Asia. The >>> printers they sell here are much more expensive. The Replicator 2 e.g. >>> costs 2.500€ (about $3.300)...
>>> What kind of tweakings are necessary to make the Ultimaker as accurate >>> as possible?
>>> Greatings
>>> Heinzzz
>>> Am Donnerstag, 18. April 2013 01:45:34 UTC+2 schrieb Darrell jan:
>>>> Sounds like you want the most accuracy. If you go by the Maker review >>>> last fall, Ultimaker is the most accurate, though Affinia and M2 come >>>> close. Ultimaker has the added advantage of being the fastest as well. But >>>> all of them, including Ultimaker, will take some tweaking to get the most >>>> accuracy.
>>>> On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 7:44:15 AM UTC-7, Heinzzz wrote:
>>>>> Well, I think all of them are able to do it, too. But I want to know >>>>> which one is the most accurate/suitable for this special kind of job. I >>>>> design the puzzles by myself and they have to be as clean as possilbe. The >>>>> Barrel Puzzle you mentioned shows some pretty big gaps. Or is it impossible >>>>> to print it better like that?
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Heinzzz
>>>>> Am Montag, 15. April 2013 23:17:28 UTC+2 schrieb Darrell jan:
>>>>>> I'm pretty sure any of the printers you mention can handle this type >>>>>> of puzzle. The important point might be, which one has the easiest to use >>>>>> software for what you need to do.
>>>>>> On Monday, April 15, 2013 4:13:08 AM UTC-7, Heinzzz wrote:
>>>>>>> Sorry for digging this one out, but I have exactly the same question.
>>>>>>> I'm looking for a 3D printer which is very accurate. I also found >>>>>>> the article in the make magazine and the Ultimaker (fast and accurate), >>>>>>> Afinia H (very good print quality but small printing area and slow) and the >>>>>>> Replicator 2 (seems to be a good compromise between Ultimaker and Afinia) >>>>>>> drew my attention. My plan is to create burr puzzles, so it's very >>>>>>> important that horizontal and vertical edges are even. Further the >>>>>>> tolerances have to be as close as possible near zero. If a part is 70mm >>>>>>> high design it should 70mm when made, every time. That's also important for >>>>>>> the notches in the parts so that other pieces are matching as tight as >>>>>>> possible without locking. A good burr puzzle has (when assambled) minimal >>>>>>> gaps and parts are moving smoothly.
>>>>>>> Which machine would you think matches my interests best? Price >>>>>>> should not exceed $2.500/2000€.
>>>>>>> Thanks in advance
>>>>>>> Heinzzz
>>>>>>> Am Sonntag, 25. November 2012 00:32:47 UTC+1 schrieb eric:
>>>>>>>> I'm trying to make the decision on which printer to buy: Replicator >>>>>>>> 2 or Afinia H-Series
>>>>>>>> I was set on the Replicator 2, but I read the "MAKE:" article and >>>>>>>> now I can't make my mind up.
>>>>>>>> Both manufacturers are out of samples (which I think is crazy).
>>>>>>>> Does anyone know where I can get samples of the same object from >>>>>>>> both machines at the 3 different quality settings? I'd prefer something >>>>>>>> like the owl (www.thingiverse.com/thing:18218).
>>> and they should be the best group to help you out.
>>> On Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:07:01 AM UTC-7, Heinzzz wrote:
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> I think I will go with the Ultimaker. It seems to be the most accurate
>>>> one and it's also much easier to get one shipped to Germany. It ships from
>>>> the Netherlands so postal charges are less and there is no customs duty
>>>> compared to the machines which come from North America or Asia. The
>>>> printers they sell here are much more expensive. The Replicator 2 e.g.
>>>> costs 2.500€ (about $3.300)...
>>>> What kind of tweakings are necessary to make the Ultimaker as accurate
>>>> as possible?
>>>> Greatings
>>>> Heinzzz
>>>> Am Donnerstag, 18. April 2013 01:45:34 UTC+2 schrieb Darrell jan:
>>>>> Sounds like you want the most accuracy. If you go by the Maker review
>>>>> last fall, Ultimaker is the most accurate, though Affinia and M2 come
>>>>> close. Ultimaker has the added advantage of being the fastest as well. But
>>>>> all of them, including Ultimaker, will take some tweaking to get the most
>>>>> accuracy.
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 7:44:15 AM UTC-7, Heinzzz wrote:
>>>>>> Well, I think all of them are able to do it, too. But I want to know
>>>>>> which one is the most accurate/suitable for this special kind of job. I
>>>>>> design the puzzles by myself and they have to be as clean as possilbe. The
>>>>>> Barrel Puzzle you mentioned shows some pretty big gaps. Or is it impossible
>>>>>> to print it better like that?
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Heinzzz
>>>>>> Am Montag, 15. April 2013 23:17:28 UTC+2 schrieb Darrell jan:
>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure any of the printers you mention can handle this type
>>>>>>> of puzzle. The important point might be, which one has the easiest to use
>>>>>>> software for what you need to do.
>>>>>>> On Monday, April 15, 2013 4:13:08 AM UTC-7, Heinzzz wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sorry for digging this one out, but I have exactly the same
>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>> I'm looking for a 3D printer which is very accurate. I also found
>>>>>>>> the article in the make magazine and the Ultimaker (fast and accurate),
>>>>>>>> Afinia H (very good print quality but small printing area and slow) and the
>>>>>>>> Replicator 2 (seems to be a good compromise between Ultimaker and Afinia)
>>>>>>>> drew my attention. My plan is to create burr puzzles, so it's very
>>>>>>>> important that horizontal and vertical edges are even. Further the
>>>>>>>> tolerances have to be as close as possible near zero. If a part is 70mm
>>>>>>>> high design it should 70mm when made, every time. That's also important for
>>>>>>>> the notches in the parts so that other pieces are matching as tight as
>>>>>>>> possible without locking. A good burr puzzle has (when assambled) minimal
>>>>>>>> gaps and parts are moving smoothly.
>>>>>>>> Which machine would you think matches my interests best? Price
>>>>>>>> should not exceed $2.500/2000€.
>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance
>>>>>>>> Heinzzz
>>>>>>>> Am Sonntag, 25. November 2012 00:32:47 UTC+1 schrieb eric:
>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to make the decision on which printer to buy:
>>>>>>>>> Replicator 2 or Afinia H-Series
>>>>>>>>> I was set on the Replicator 2, but I read the "MAKE:" article and
>>>>>>>>> now I can't make my mind up.
>>>>>>>>> Both manufacturers are out of samples (which I think is crazy).
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "thingiverse" group.
> To post to this group, send email to thingiverse@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> thingiverse+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/thingiverse?hl=en > ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "thingiverse" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to thingiverse+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
