We hope to make this an official makerfaire event next year with an even bigger cash prize.
More details to follow on our blog, will post when it's up.
Siert and Martijn immediately accepted the challenge when I came by, unlike some other companies that rhyme with "akerBot". Siert and Martijn are rock stars.
Let me just emphasize, this print was thought to be physically impossible yesterday. Today Ultimaker proved it real. Amazing.
> We hope to make this an official makerfaire event next year with an even
> bigger cash prize.
> More details to follow on our blog, will post when it's up.
> Siert and Martijn immediately accepted the challenge when I came by,
> unlike some other companies that rhyme with "akerBot". Siert and Martijn
> are rock stars.
> Let me just emphasize, this print was thought to be physically impossible
> yesterday. Today Ultimaker proved it real. Amazing.
> congrats again.
> jordan
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Ultimaker" group.
> There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for
> Ultimaker operators:
> http://forum.ultimaker.com/
> If you still want to post to this group, send email to
> ultimaker@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
Yeah, share those .ini file to further everyones knowledge.
Next: printing that structure in sugar? I've read a mix of glucose, sucrose
and dextran gives some nice results... :)
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Bernhard Kubicek <bernhard.kubi...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> It would be great to know some more details:
> * which slicer was used?
> * which temperature?
> * which build speed?
> * length of retraction?
> * cooling?
> very nice greetings, and congrats,
> Bernhard
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Jordan Miller <jrdn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We hope to make this an official makerfaire event next year with an even
>> bigger cash prize.
>> More details to follow on our blog, will post when it's up.
>> Siert and Martijn immediately accepted the challenge when I came by,
>> unlike some other companies that rhyme with "akerBot". Siert and Martijn
>> are rock stars.
>> Let me just emphasize, this print was thought to be physically impossible
>> yesterday. Today Ultimaker proved it real. Amazing.
>> congrats again.
>> jordan
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Ultimaker" group.
>> There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for
>> Ultimaker operators:
>> http://forum.ultimaker.com/
>> If you still want to post to this group, send email to
>> ultimaker@googlegroups.com
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Ultimaker" group.
> There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for
> Ultimaker operators:
> http://forum.ultimaker.com/
> If you still want to post to this group, send email to
> ultimaker@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
> wrote:
> It would be great to know some more details:
> * which slicer was used?
> * which temperature?
> * which build speed?
> * length of retraction?
> * cooling?
> very nice greetings, and congrats,
> Bernhard
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Jordan Miller <jrdn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We hope to make this an official makerfaire event next year with an even
>> bigger cash prize.
>> More details to follow on our blog, will post when it's up.
>> Siert and Martijn immediately accepted the challenge when I came by,
>> unlike some other companies that rhyme with "akerBot". Siert and Martijn
>> are rock stars.
>> Let me just emphasize, this print was thought to be physically impossible
>> yesterday. Today Ultimaker proved it real. Amazing.
>> congrats again.
>> jordan
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Ultimaker" group.
>> There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for
>> Ultimaker operators:
>> http://forum.ultimaker.com/
>> If you still want to post to this group, send email to
>> ultimaker@googlegroups.com
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Ultimaker" group.
> There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for
> Ultimaker operators:
> http://forum.ultimaker.com/
> If you still want to post to this group, send email to
> ultimaker@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
On Monday, October 1, 2012 8:39:08 AM UTC-4, MoonCactus wrote:
> BTW shame on *akerBot no to have tried, as such contests are nice ways to > prove more than to claim or to advertise ! ;)
Actually it was smart that MB did not since they weren't sure they could win. Best for them to exhibit corporate self-control, stick to their script and stay away from worthless contests with printers not in their league. They're in a different league now -- a rigorous, plug-and-play, home 3d printing appliance. I think they have the best chance for success staying in that space.
A more appropriate contest would have been UM vs. some other assemble yourself, wooden printer (hobbyists, tinkerers, modders league).
hahaha nice. ya I'm printing it in sugar today for a demo we are doing.
the non-manifold model was revealing because KISSlicer gave artifacts in
the print while Slic3r interpolated the surface correctly.
jordan
On Oct 1, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Jelle Boomstra <je...@protospace.nl> wrote:
Yeah, share those .ini file to further everyones knowledge.
Next: printing that structure in sugar? I've read a mix of glucose, sucrose
and dextran gives some nice results... :)
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Bernhard Kubicek <bernhard.kubi...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> It would be great to know some more details:
> * which slicer was used?
> * which temperature?
> * which build speed?
> * length of retraction?
> * cooling?
> very nice greetings, and congrats,
> Bernhard
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Jordan Miller <jrdn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We hope to make this an official makerfaire event next year with an even
>> bigger cash prize.
>> More details to follow on our blog, will post when it's up.
>> Siert and Martijn immediately accepted the challenge when I came by,
>> unlike some other companies that rhyme with "akerBot". Siert and Martijn
>> are rock stars.
>> Let me just emphasize, this print was thought to be physically impossible
>> yesterday. Today Ultimaker proved it real. Amazing.
>> congrats again.
>> jordan
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Ultimaker" group.
>> There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for
>> Ultimaker operators:
>> http://forum.ultimaker.com/
>> If you still want to post to this group, send email to
>> ultimaker@googlegroups.com
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Ultimaker" group.
> There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for
> Ultimaker operators:
> http://forum.ultimaker.com/
> If you still want to post to this group, send email to
> ultimaker@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ultimaker" group.
There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for Ultimaker
operators:
http://forum.ultimaker.com/
If you still want to post to this group, send email to
ultimaker@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
I disagree! UP! at least accepted the challange, though I have no idea how they did, and they've been in the not-wood/preassembled/easy-software/appliance game a lot longer than MBI has. Even if they didn't submit a print in the end, they at least were willing to try. MBI won't look good by refusing to try.
I'm also not sure it was a "worthless contest" if it helps move Jordan along. He's breaking ground on pretty important stuff, IMO.
On Monday, October 1, 2012 11:59:29 AM UTC-4, Bradley wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 8:39:08 AM UTC-4, MoonCactus wrote:
>> BTW shame on *akerBot no to have tried, as such contests are nice ways to >> prove more than to claim or to advertise ! ;)
> Actually it was smart that MB did not since they weren't sure they could > win. Best for them to exhibit corporate self-control, stick to their > script and stay away from worthless contests with printers not in their > league. They're in a different league now -- a rigorous, plug-and-play, > home 3d printing appliance. I think they have the best chance for success > staying in that space.
> A more appropriate contest would have been UM vs. some other assemble > yourself, wooden printer (hobbyists, tinkerers, modders league).
thanks Dave! awesome seeing you at MakerFaire. We are hoping to make it an
official contest next year. Sooo many 3D print veterans, after seeing that
Ultimaker print, were excited about FDM again like they were discovering it
for the first time.
It was kind of magical. Definitely more of what MakerFaire needs instead of
the "let's print this model again and again with this perfectly tuned
slicing profile so we don't look bad in front of the audience". Chris
Thompson was genius to come up with a time limited 3D print challenge.
And we are showing off the Ultimaker print during our demo today too.
jordan
On Oct 1, 2012, at 12:30 PM, ddurant <dduran...@gmail.com> wrote:
I disagree! UP! at least accepted the challange, though I have no idea how
they did, and they've been in the
not-wood/preassembled/easy-software/appliance game a lot longer than MBI
has. Even if they didn't submit a print in the end, they at least were
willing to try. MBI won't look good by refusing to try.
I'm also not sure it was a "worthless contest" if it helps move Jordan
along. He's breaking ground on pretty important stuff, IMO.
On Monday, October 1, 2012 11:59:29 AM UTC-4, Bradley wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 8:39:08 AM UTC-4, MoonCactus wrote:
>> BTW shame on *akerBot no to have tried, as such contests are nice ways to
>> prove more than to claim or to advertise ! ;)
> Actually it was smart that MB did not since they weren't sure they could
> win. Best for them to exhibit corporate self-control, stick to their
> script and stay away from worthless contests with printers not in their
> league. They're in a different league now -- a rigorous, plug-and-play,
> home 3d printing appliance. I think they have the best chance for success
> staying in that space.
> A more appropriate contest would have been UM vs. some other assemble
> yourself, wooden printer (hobbyists, tinkerers, modders league).
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ultimaker" group.
There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for Ultimaker
operators:
http://forum.ultimaker.com/
If you still want to post to this group, send email to
ultimaker@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
On Monday, October 1, 2012 12:30:02 PM UTC-4, ddurant wrote:
> I disagree! UP! at least accepted the challange, though I have no idea > how they did, and they've been in the > not-wood/preassembled/easy-software/appliance game a lot longer than MBI > has. Even if they didn't submit a print in the end, they at least were > willing to try. MBI won't look good by refusing to try.
UP! and MB are in the same league. UP! and UM are not.
> I'm also not sure it was a "worthless contest" if it helps move Jordan > along. He's breaking ground on pretty important stuff, IMO.
At present, it was worthless for MB. Competing and not winning would cause them more harm than good. For them, right now, it's all about maintaining a clear differentiation from UM and all other hobbyist brands. I'm actually really happy they are doing this now. They're finally on the right track.
On Monday, October 1, 2012 12:33:55 PM UTC-4, Jordan Miller wrote: > thanks Dave! awesome seeing you at MakerFaire. We are hoping to make it an > official contest next year. Sooo many 3D print veterans, after seeing that > Ultimaker print, were excited about FDM again like they were discovering it > for the first time.
> It was kind of magical. Definitely more of what MakerFaire needs instead > of the "let's print this model again and again with this perfectly tuned > slicing profile so we don't look bad in front of the audience". Chris > Thompson was genius to come up with a time limited 3D print challenge.
> And we are showing off the Ultimaker print during our demo today too.
> jordan
> On Oct 1, 2012, at 12:30 PM, ddurant <ddur...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote:
> I disagree! UP! at least accepted the challange, though I have no idea > how they did, and they've been in the > not-wood/preassembled/easy-software/appliance game a lot longer than MBI > has. Even if they didn't submit a print in the end, they at least were > willing to try. MBI won't look good by refusing to try.
> I'm also not sure it was a "worthless contest" if it helps move Jordan > along. He's breaking ground on pretty important stuff, IMO.
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 11:59:29 AM UTC-4, Bradley wrote:
>> On Monday, October 1, 2012 8:39:08 AM UTC-4, MoonCactus wrote:
>>> BTW shame on *akerBot no to have tried, as such contests are nice ways >>> to prove more than to claim or to advertise ! ;)
>> Actually it was smart that MB did not since they weren't sure they could >> win. Best for them to exhibit corporate self-control, stick to their >> script and stay away from worthless contests with printers not in their >> league. They're in a different league now -- a rigorous, plug-and-play, >> home 3d printing appliance. I think they have the best chance for success >> staying in that space.
>> A more appropriate contest would have been UM vs. some other assemble >> yourself, wooden printer (hobbyists, tinkerers, modders league).
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ultimaker" group.
> There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for > Ultimaker operators: > http://forum.ultimaker.com/
> If you still want to post to this group, send email to > ulti...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > ultimaker+...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
On Monday, October 1, 2012 12:39:50 PM UTC-4, Bradley wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 12:30:02 PM UTC-4, ddurant wrote:
>> I disagree! UP! at least accepted the challange, though I have no idea >> how they did, and they've been in the >> not-wood/preassembled/easy-software/appliance game a lot longer than MBI >> has. Even if they didn't submit a print in the end, they at least were >> willing to try. MBI won't look good by refusing to try.
> UP! and MB are in the same league. UP! and UM are not.
>> I'm also not sure it was a "worthless contest" if it helps move Jordan >> along. He's breaking ground on pretty important stuff, IMO.
> At present, it was worthless for MB. Competing and not winning would > cause them more harm than good. For them, right now, it's all about > maintaining a clear differentiation from UM and all other hobbyist brands. > I'm actually really happy they are doing this now. They're finally on > the right track.
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 12:30:02 PM UTC-4, ddurant wrote:
> I disagree! UP! at least accepted the challange, though I have no idea how they did, and they've been in the not-wood/preassembled/easy-software/appliance game a lot longer than MBI has. Even if they didn't submit a print in the end, they at least were willing to try. MBI won't look good by refusing to try.
> UP! and MB are in the same league. UP! and UM are not.
> I'm also not sure it was a "worthless contest" if it helps move Jordan along. He's breaking ground on pretty important stuff, IMO.
> At present, it was worthless for MB. Competing and not winning would cause them more harm than good. For them, right now, it's all about maintaining a clear differentiation from UM and all other hobbyist brands. I'm actually really happy they are doing this now. They're finally on the right track.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ultimaker" group.
> There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for Ultimaker operators:
> http://forum.ultimaker.com/
> If you still want to post to this group, send email to ultimaker@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
On Monday, October 1, 2012 12:59:51 PM UTC-4, Jordan Miller wrote: > good point.
> And if Siert wants to email me the manifold STL file to jm...@hive76.org<javascript:>I will post it on the thingiverse page. Don't think I have his email.
> jordan
> On Oct 1, 2012, at 12:39 PM, Bradley wrote:
> > On Monday, October 1, 2012 12:30:02 PM UTC-4, ddurant wrote: > > I disagree! UP! at least accepted the challange, though I have no idea > how they did, and they've been in the > not-wood/preassembled/easy-software/appliance game a lot longer than MBI > has. Even if they didn't submit a print in the end, they at least were > willing to try. MBI won't look good by refusing to try.
> > UP! and MB are in the same league. UP! and UM are not.
> > I'm also not sure it was a "worthless contest" if it helps move Jordan > along. He's breaking ground on pretty important stuff, IMO.
> > At present, it was worthless for MB. Competing and not winning would > cause them more harm than good. For them, right now, it's all about > maintaining a clear differentiation from UM and all other hobbyist brands. > I'm actually really happy they are doing this now. They're finally on > the right track.
> > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Ultimaker" group.
> > There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for > Ultimaker operators: > > http://forum.ultimaker.com/
> > If you still want to post to this group, send email to > ulti...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > ultimaker+...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
On Monday, October 1, 2012 12:59:12 PM UTC-4, ddurant wrote:
> Well, I guess I just disagree then. I think it's going to be seen, to the > relatively few who see it, as an invalidation of their differentiation.
That's because your a hobbyist and not an ordinary consumer or business customer.
Actually what's been disappointing is the UM folks. The printer has changed little in the 1.5++ years since release. It prints basically the same way it did back then. Impressive, but not so novel anymore to veteran owners, like me.
There's still no heated bed option, no multiple extrusion option, a hellish lead time (for a new order, or a simple email response) and they still still charge $80 for shipping a single screw to the US.
Hopefully, by next year, the UM folks will, too, be more corporate and all of us will benefit from that.
Sorry I wasn't at MF this year, Dave. We had fun chatting last year.
> UP! and MB are in the same league. UP! and UM are not.
Those leages are all in your head IMHO, they are all available on the 3D
printer market. Perhaps the intended audience differs a little, but if you
consider to buy an UP! will not prevent you from considering the UM too.
After all, the results from an UM can be much better.
On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:01:39 PM UTC-4, ddurant wrote: > I'd guess he's on a plane, stuck at the airport or unconcious.. Have you > tried running it through the netfabb cloud thing?
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 12:59:51 PM UTC-4, Jordan Miller wrote:
>> good point.
>> And if Siert wants to email me the manifold STL file to jm...@hive76.orgI will post it on the thingiverse page. Don't think I have his email.
>> jordan
>> On Oct 1, 2012, at 12:39 PM, Bradley wrote:
>> > On Monday, October 1, 2012 12:30:02 PM UTC-4, ddurant wrote: >> > I disagree! UP! at least accepted the challange, though I have no idea >> how they did, and they've been in the >> not-wood/preassembled/easy-software/appliance game a lot longer than MBI >> has. Even if they didn't submit a print in the end, they at least were >> willing to try. MBI won't look good by refusing to try.
>> > UP! and MB are in the same league. UP! and UM are not.
>> > I'm also not sure it was a "worthless contest" if it helps move Jordan >> along. He's breaking ground on pretty important stuff, IMO.
>> > At present, it was worthless for MB. Competing and not winning would >> cause them more harm than good. For them, right now, it's all about >> maintaining a clear differentiation from UM and all other hobbyist brands. >> I'm actually really happy they are doing this now. They're finally on >> the right track.
>> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Ultimaker" group.
>> > There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for >> Ultimaker operators: >> > http://forum.ultimaker.com/
>> > If you still want to post to this group, send email to >> ulti...@googlegroups.com >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > ultimaker+...@googlegroups.com >> > For more options, visit this group at >> > http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
> Actually what's been disappointing is the UM folks. The printer has
> changed little in the 1.5++ years since release. It prints basically the
> same way it did back then. Impressive, but not so novel anymore to
> veteran owners, like me.
Blatant nonsense! I agree though that most improvements have been made on
the software side, but they are improvements none the less. Prints are a
lot better than 1.5 years ago. Why would you need to redesign the whole
machine if it works good? What we are seeing now is small incremental
changes (bolt, nozzle, extruder) that will make the machine better and
easier to assemble.
> There's still no heated bed option, no multiple extrusion option, a
> hellish lead time (for a new order, or a simple email response) and they
> still still charge $80 for shipping a single screw to the US.
When was the last time you placed an order? There is two persons full time
on support now, very little lead time and much better shipping options.
They do listen you know?
> Hopefully, by next year, the UM folks will, too, be more corporate and all
> of us will benefit from that.
Let's hope not. We have seen how that changed MakerBot for the worse.
On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:26:51 PM UTC-4, Jelle Boomstra wrote:
> Blatant nonsense! I agree though that most improvements have been made on > the software side, but they are improvements none the less. Prints are a > lot better than 1.5 years ago. Why would you need to redesign the whole > machine if it works good? What we are seeing now is small incremental > changes (bolt, nozzle, extruder) that will make the machine better and > easier to assemble.
Like I said the machine prints the same as before -- it was always excellent.
I won't buy the new nozzle, etc. because 1) the shipping costs more than the parts, and 2) I solved, on my own, the issues that the original nozzle, etc produced.
The machine was always easy to assemble, but most people (other than hobbyists) won't do it or if they do it, will fail and give up.
>> There's still no heated bed option, no multiple extrusion option, a >> hellish lead time (for a new order, or a simple email response) and they >> still still charge $80 for shipping a single screw to the US.
> When was the last time you placed an order? There is two persons full time > on support now, very little lead time and much better shipping options. > They do listen you know?
Actually they didn't listen, after 4 email exchanges with Harma (about 2 days between each reply). The still shipped me a peek piece for $80 shipping.
>> Hopefully, by next year, the UM folks will, too, be more corporate and >> all of us will benefit from that.
> Let's hope not. We have seen how that changed MakerBot for the worse.
I don't agree. The changed MakerBot is now a HUGE win for consumers and businesses. I will, without reservation, recommend the new R2 over the UM for anybody looking to buy a 3D printer right now --- unless....they live to tinker.
The UM organization, I assume as I haven't been there, is probably in the same position as MB was about 1.5 years ago. Massive personnel expansion, lot's of folks working, lot's of orders coming in, little time for anything corporate, but filling orders.
UM may always stay that way. MB didn't have a choice once they accepted outside investment. They had to grow up and become a company
UM may someday have the same decision to make. Hopefully I'll still be an UM owner by then.
> I won't buy the new nozzle, etc. because 1) the shipping costs more than
the parts
They've done work on this recently and it's a lot better now.. I got the v2 nozzle a couple weeks ago and think it was around $25 for the medium-cost shipping. There's an uninsured one for less. That said, it'd be great if they could have a US distributer because shipping lots of little individual parts across the pond will never be as cheap as we'd like. It might make support easier too, or at least in a nearby timezone.
> The changed MakerBot is now a HUGE win for consumers and businesses.
**IF** it does what they say it does. I think that's where our opinions differ. I have much cynicism (based on my personal experiences, which aren't the same as everybody elses) about what they say they can do vs. what they can actually do.
If it doesn't do what they say, lots of people will be very disappointed. Probably a lot more disappointed than they would have been with a kit that set reasonable expectations.
> Sorry I wasn't at MF this year, Dave. We had fun chatting last year.
Seeing the Rostock/delta printers, the SLA resin printers and the giant Ultimaker were worth the price of admission.. The 'Faire is a lot more fun if you're not chained to a table - you should go next year! I'll be there.. :)
On Monday, October 1, 2012 2:09:05 PM UTC-4, Bradley wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:26:51 PM UTC-4, Jelle Boomstra wrote:
>> Blatant nonsense! I agree though that most improvements have been made on >> the software side, but they are improvements none the less. Prints are a >> lot better than 1.5 years ago. Why would you need to redesign the whole >> machine if it works good? What we are seeing now is small incremental >> changes (bolt, nozzle, extruder) that will make the machine better and >> easier to assemble.
> Like I said the machine prints the same as before -- it was always > excellent.
> I won't buy the new nozzle, etc. because 1) the shipping costs more than > the parts, and 2) I solved, on my own, the issues that the original nozzle, > etc produced.
> The machine was always easy to assemble, but most people (other than > hobbyists) won't do it or if they do it, will fail and give up.
>>> There's still no heated bed option, no multiple extrusion option, a >>> hellish lead time (for a new order, or a simple email response) and they >>> still still charge $80 for shipping a single screw to the US.
>> When was the last time you placed an order? There is two persons full >> time on support now, very little lead time and much better shipping >> options. They do listen you know?
> Actually they didn't listen, after 4 email exchanges with Harma (about 2 > days between each reply). The still shipped me a peek piece for $80 > shipping.
>>> Hopefully, by next year, the UM folks will, too, be more corporate and >>> all of us will benefit from that.
>> Let's hope not. We have seen how that changed MakerBot for the worse.
> I don't agree. The changed MakerBot is now a HUGE win for consumers and > businesses. I will, without reservation, recommend the new R2 over the UM > for anybody looking to buy a 3D printer right now --- unless....they live > to tinker.
> The UM organization, I assume as I haven't been there, is probably in the > same position as MB was about 1.5 years ago. Massive personnel expansion, > lot's of folks working, lot's of orders coming in, little time for anything > corporate, but filling orders.
> UM may always stay that way. MB didn't have a choice once they accepted > outside investment. They had to grow up and become a company
> UM may someday have the same decision to make. Hopefully I'll still be > an UM owner by then.
the tree is a set of manifold cones penetrating each other instead of one
contiguous surface. Skeinforge and Slic3r handle it fine, but KISSlicer
does not apparently.
But blender cant handle the Boolean union of all 48 branches. So I'm hoping
to get Siert's file.
jordan
On Oct 1, 2012, at 1:21 PM, ddurant <dduran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Have you tried running it through the netfabb cloud thing?
I just tried this and it seems to have fixed the mesh errors. Went from 10k
triangles to 18k triangles, though.. http://cloud.netfabb.com
On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:01:39 PM UTC-4, ddurant wrote:
> I'd guess he's on a plane, stuck at the airport or unconcious.. Have you
> tried running it through the netfabb cloud thing?
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 12:59:51 PM UTC-4, Jordan Miller wrote:
>> good point.
>> And if Siert wants to email me the manifold STL file to jm...@hive76.orgI will post it on the thingiverse page. Don't think I have his email.
>> jordan
>> On Oct 1, 2012, at 12:39 PM, Bradley wrote:
>> > On Monday, October 1, 2012 12:30:02 PM UTC-4, ddurant wrote:
>> > I disagree! UP! at least accepted the challange, though I have no idea
>> how they did, and they've been in the
>> not-wood/preassembled/easy-software/appliance game a lot longer than MBI
>> has. Even if they didn't submit a print in the end, they at least were
>> willing to try. MBI won't look good by refusing to try.
>> > UP! and MB are in the same league. UP! and UM are not.
>> > I'm also not sure it was a "worthless contest" if it helps move Jordan
>> along. He's breaking ground on pretty important stuff, IMO.
>> > At present, it was worthless for MB. Competing and not winning would
>> cause them more harm than good. For them, right now, it's all about
>> maintaining a clear differentiation from UM and all other hobbyist brands.
>> I'm actually really happy they are doing this now. They're finally on
>> the right track.
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Ultimaker" group.
>> > There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for
>> Ultimaker operators:
>> > http://forum.ultimaker.com/
>> > If you still want to post to this group, send email to
>> ulti...@googlegroups.com
>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> > ultimaker+...@googlegroups.com
>> > For more options, visit this group at
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ultimaker" group.
There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for Ultimaker
operators:
http://forum.ultimaker.com/
If you still want to post to this group, send email to
ultimaker@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Jordan Miller <jrdn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the tree is a set of manifold cones penetrating each other instead of one
> contiguous surface. Skeinforge and Slic3r handle it fine, but KISSlicer
> does not apparently.
> But blender cant handle the Boolean union of all 48 branches. So I'm
> hoping to get Siert's file.
> jordan
> On Oct 1, 2012, at 1:21 PM, ddurant <dduran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Have you tried running it through the netfabb cloud thing?
> I just tried this and it seems to have fixed the mesh errors. Went from
> 10k triangles to 18k triangles, though.. http://cloud.netfabb.com
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:01:39 PM UTC-4, ddurant wrote:
>> I'd guess he's on a plane, stuck at the airport or unconcious.. Have you
>> tried running it through the netfabb cloud thing?
>> On Monday, October 1, 2012 12:59:51 PM UTC-4, Jordan Miller wrote:
>>> good point.
>>> And if Siert wants to email me the manifold STL file to jm...@hive76.orgI will post it on the thingiverse page. Don't think I have his email.
>>> jordan
>>> On Oct 1, 2012, at 12:39 PM, Bradley wrote:
>>> > On Monday, October 1, 2012 12:30:02 PM UTC-4, ddurant wrote:
>>> > I disagree! UP! at least accepted the challange, though I have no
>>> idea how they did, and they've been in the
>>> not-wood/preassembled/easy-software/appliance game a lot longer than MBI
>>> has. Even if they didn't submit a print in the end, they at least were
>>> willing to try. MBI won't look good by refusing to try.
>>> > UP! and MB are in the same league. UP! and UM are not.
>>> > I'm also not sure it was a "worthless contest" if it helps move Jordan
>>> along. He's breaking ground on pretty important stuff, IMO.
>>> > At present, it was worthless for MB. Competing and not winning would
>>> cause them more harm than good. For them, right now, it's all about
>>> maintaining a clear differentiation from UM and all other hobbyist brands.
>>> I'm actually really happy they are doing this now. They're finally on
>>> the right track.
>>> > --
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Ultimaker" group.
>>> > There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for
>>> Ultimaker operators:
>>> > http://forum.ultimaker.com/
>>> > If you still want to post to this group, send email to
>>> ulti...@googlegroups.com
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> > ultimaker+...@googlegroups.com
>>> > For more options, visit this group at
>>> > http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
>>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Ultimaker" group.
> There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for
> Ultimaker operators:
> http://forum.ultimaker.com/
> If you still want to post to this group, send email to
> ultimaker@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Ultimaker" group.
> There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for
> Ultimaker operators:
> http://forum.ultimaker.com/
> If you still want to post to this group, send email to
> ultimaker@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
On Monday, October 1, 2012 2:57:38 PM UTC-4, ddurant wrote:
> They've done work on this recently and it's a lot better now.. I got the > v2 nozzle a couple weeks ago and think it was around $25 for the > medium-cost shipping. There's an uninsured one for less. That said, it'd be > great if they could have a US distributer because shipping lots of little > individual parts across the pond will never be as cheap as we'd like. It > might make support easier too, or at least in a nearby timezone.
I know, I've been following the progress. I would have ordered one except my hot end mod has worked flawlessly for eons, along with the new V3 bolt kit -- no plugs and retraction works great.
> If it doesn't do what they say, lots of people will be very disappointed. > Probably a lot more disappointed than they would have been with a kit that > set reasonable expectations.
I'm pretty certain it does (otherwise wired wouldn't have them as the cover story) and, even so, they still have the best branding and PR of any company in the category.
> > Sorry I wasn't at MF this year, Dave. We had fun chatting last year.
> Seeing the Rostock/delta printers, the SLA resin printers and the giant > Ultimaker were worth the price of admission.. The 'Faire is a lot more fun > if you're not chained to a table - you should go next year! I'll be there.. > :)
I wanted to see the SLA resin printers. I think that's the future for me.
Was that the form 1 printer? I saw a vid on there kickstarter site updates.
Looks good but question is it slower than a um printing at 25 microns. And
one other thing can you control the thickness on layer heights?
On Oct 1, 2012 11:32 PM, "Bradley" <bradley.feld...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 2:57:38 PM UTC-4, ddurant wrote:
>> They've done work on this recently and it's a lot better now.. I got the
>> v2 nozzle a couple weeks ago and think it was around $25 for the
>> medium-cost shipping. There's an uninsured one for less. That said, it'd be
>> great if they could have a US distributer because shipping lots of little
>> individual parts across the pond will never be as cheap as we'd like. It
>> might make support easier too, or at least in a nearby timezone.
> I know, I've been following the progress. I would have ordered one
> except my hot end mod has worked flawlessly for eons, along with the new V3
> bolt kit -- no plugs and retraction works great.
>> If it doesn't do what they say, lots of people will be very disappointed.
>> Probably a lot more disappointed than they would have been with a kit that
>> set reasonable expectations.
> I'm pretty certain it does (otherwise wired wouldn't have them as the
> cover story) and, even so, they still have the best branding and PR of any
> company in the category.
>> > Sorry I wasn't at MF this year, Dave. We had fun chatting last year.
>> Seeing the Rostock/delta printers, the SLA resin printers and the giant
>> Ultimaker were worth the price of admission.. The 'Faire is a lot more fun
>> if you're not chained to a table - you should go next year! I'll be there..
>> :)
> I wanted to see the SLA resin printers. I think that's the future for
> me.
>>>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Ultimaker" group.
> There are also forums, which are the official gathering place for
> Ultimaker operators:
> http://forum.ultimaker.com/
> If you still want to post to this group, send email to
> ultimaker@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> ultimaker+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/ultimaker?hl=en
> I'm pretty certain it does (otherwise wired wouldn't have them as > the cover story) and, even so, they still have the best branding and > PR of any company in the category.
We'll see.. :) I don't doubt they'll generate lots of press - they've always been good at that, even while shipping product that barely works.
For the resin printers, I think the quality is better than anything FDM machines will be able to do unless somebody comes up with some really huge change in FDM technology.. OTOH, I also think they're always going to be smaller build sizes (unless you have a LOT of money) and I seem to be reading lately that resin's not very strong compared to ABS/PLA. All the prints I handled seemed a bit tacky - almost a rubbery surface. Based on what the prices of ABS/PLA have done over the last couple years, I doubt it's going to get much cheaper anytime soon too..
If you're fine with those things and just want higher resolution for (probably) less effort, you should definitely check one out. The prints I saw were really, really nice.
Kibble: both the Form1 and B9Creator were at the show and both were producing impressive prints (or had impressive prints to show anyway.. not sure I saw one actually printing). For varying layer heights, I think it's more of a software issue than a hardware one. That's not to say it's easy to do different layer heights - just that (within reason) it's probably doable. No idea how much work they've done in that area but these are new machines...
For speed, I really have no idea but guess they're all at least near the same ballpark. Form1 moves a laser around to set the goo, sorta like our toolpaths, B9C uses a DLP projector to do a whole layer at once. I think this means the B9C is going to sorta have a fixed layer time for a given layer height regardless of the size/complexity of that layer and the Form1 will have varying time depending on how much it has to draw. Could be that Form1 is faster on smaller (in x/y size) layers and B9C is faster on larger ones. I have a vague memory of hearing some print times for objects and remember not really being either impressed or unimpressed, which is why I think they're all, on average, around the same as we can do..
On Monday, October 1, 2012 6:32:19 PM UTC-4, Bradley wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 2:57:38 PM UTC-4, ddurant wrote:
>> They've done work on this recently and it's a lot better now.. I got the >> v2 nozzle a couple weeks ago and think it was around $25 for the >> medium-cost shipping. There's an uninsured one for less. That said, it'd be >> great if they could have a US distributer because shipping lots of little >> individual parts across the pond will never be as cheap as we'd like. It >> might make support easier too, or at least in a nearby timezone.
> I know, I've been following the progress. I would have ordered one > except my hot end mod has worked flawlessly for eons, along with the new V3 > bolt kit -- no plugs and retraction works great.
>> If it doesn't do what they say, lots of people will be very disappointed. >> Probably a lot more disappointed than they would have been with a kit that >> set reasonable expectations.
> I'm pretty certain it does (otherwise wired wouldn't have them as the > cover story) and, even so, they still have the best branding and PR of any > company in the category.
>> > Sorry I wasn't at MF this year, Dave. We had fun chatting last year.
>> Seeing the Rostock/delta printers, the SLA resin printers and the giant >> Ultimaker were worth the price of admission.. The 'Faire is a lot more fun >> if you're not chained to a table - you should go next year! I'll be there.. >> :)
> I wanted to see the SLA resin printers. I think that's the future for > me.
