Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:09:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Daid <daid...@gmail.com> To: ultimaker@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <784d3907-46e8-463d-b447-f1770d9caa06@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <ff448a16-0727-4071-81be-ed515fa448db@googlegroups.com> References: <51ad3b2e-c2fa-40f1-b72c-ce8deec5c64f@googlegroups.com> <d2bc39fd-d2b0-4ce7-a323-aa678c01c4f0@googlegroups.com> <CAMs5bCFkrVpboaWHWO_va9uY7-vM-8qi5XSyJuMzbRVpd5zeaw@mail.gmail.com> <70A0A16C-50BE-44F6-B0DA-AE8EE4163746@mtbaldy.us> <a44a0f98-fddd-4ca1-9ad9-5ef3ead4b4ef@googlegroups.com> <7bf4aca5-e795-4906-b99c-a72839564ff3@i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com> <CAJa3Yu64B1fe9-Zz0z6DHWJ43c3JA_bYXEW7WCCz+o8DQbO9ng@mail.gmail.com> <CA+paSVhkKSr9ee5cYuEjhS6UMsbQEUznE1W=KNsyNwhk6BL8cg@mail.gmail.com> <974e36de-5dc6-48ca-bd4d-700132c190db@googlegroups.com> <1348726812.41566.YahooMailNeo@web113905.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <1348727024.24955.YahooMailNeo@web113920.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <CAJa3Yu7PgLSH2fD4AUzfcxqz5R93JYiDsbnZNu6FiaFHpUjkHQ@mail.gmail.com> <134096e1-7a6b-4601-bc55-e16ee4aa3d32@googlegroups.com> <003601cd9caf$cf2cc500$6d864f00$@Vinland.com> <CAM7qK_FjZ9njSGGjRggfdkVox4ZMwBB26BjSwoJHjk2ufJ=RgQ@mail.gmail.com> <ff448a16-0727-4071-81be-ed515fa448db@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Compare the facts (Ultimaker and Replicator 2) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_1873_19377326.1348758572798" ------=_Part_1873_19377326.1348758572798 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1874_28955673.1348758572798" ------=_Part_1874_28955673.1348758572798 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The UM+ has some problems, that's why they never released an upgrade kit. There are 2 UM+ versions, the one from Ultimaker and the one from Protospace. Both show Z-wobble in the final print. The lower the platform the more wobble you see in the final model. With tall objects it also became more and more difficult to get the object to stick to the bed during the whole print. I think an UM+ upgrade kit could be assembled by the community. What you need is: -Longer Z screw -Longer Z guides, but maybe these need to be thicker to remove the Z wobble. -New side panels (should be possible to design from the thingiverse lasercut stuff) -Extension cables for the steppers and other electronics. It's quite easy to extend the Z size, unlike the X/Y size which would require stronger guides or they would flex. On Thursday, September 27, 2012 4:48:11 PM UTC+2, ddurant wrote: > > > ...Because if more accurate systems are going to become mainstream, then > FDM > > machines will become the matrix printer of 3D. Right now people are > still amazed by > > 3D printing, even if the resulting prints are rough and inaccurate. But > that will > > change quickly. > > It seems like SLA will always be relatively small machines. Or the > tub-type will be anyway - if somebody came up with a way to do SLA without > having to have a pool of goo, it would be easier to go bigger. Powder > printers, also known for high-detail, are a bit of a turn off for me > because they have a much bigger footprint and seem like they'd be prone to > making a mess of the place - more of a shop machine than a home machine. > > So... I'm not worried about FDM going away any time soon. SLA will > probably grow in popularity but I think it will be limited to smaller > machines. > > What I'd like to see from UM is some different sized machines. I thought > the UM+ was awesome - saw one last year at MF:NYC - and if they offered an > upgrade kit, I'd be the first in line. I'd also like to see a machine > capable of doing ~500mm cubes, preferrably fed by pellets instead of > filament. Even though UM is one of the bigger printers out there, I still > sometimes wish it was bigger - having a .5m build area would open it up to > a lot more applications. > > I also think they should offer a metal version. This is one of the > few things MBI did right - we've known for years that the general public > looks down on the wooden frames. Have a note on the store that says "wood > is plenty strong and cheaper but if you want metal, here's the option." I > know it's not necessarily an easy thing to actually do this but it would > look a lot better, which is sometimes important.. > > On Thursday, September 27, 2012 9:37:22 AM UTC-4, Gijs wrote: > >> The biggest step I see now is the fact that MB has opened a store where >> the average consumer is able to see and buy a working 3D printer. I'm not >> saying this is the first time that a 3D printer is available in a consumer >> store (I believe the first was a BfB at Bijenkorf in the Netherlands sold >> by Freedom Of Creation) but this is a clear sign that UM should take a >> closer look at. >> >> Because isn't this what the original Reprap project is about? to put >> personal creation in the hands of people. MB seems to be confident enough >> about their product to take that step. >> >> UM is certainly not ready for that and I wonder if they will ever be. >> Because if more accurate systems are going to become mainstream, then FDM >> machines will become the matrix printer of 3D. Right now people are still >> amazed by 3D printing, even if the resulting prints are rough and >> inaccurate. But that will change quickly. >> >> cheers, >> Gijs >> >> >> >> ------=_Part_1874_28955673.1348758572798 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The UM+ has some problems, that's why they never released an upgrade kit. T= here are 2 UM+ versions, the one from Ultimaker and the one from Protospace= . Both show Z-wobble in the final print. The lower the platform the more wo= bble you see in the final model.<br>With tall objects it also became more a= nd more difficult to get the object to stick to the bed during the whole pr= int.<br><br>I think an UM+ upgrade kit could be assembled by the community.= What you need is:<br>-Longer Z screw<br>-Longer Z guides, but maybe these = need to be thicker to remove the Z wobble.<br>-New side panels (should be p= ossible to design from the thingiverse lasercut stuff)<br>-Extension cables= for the steppers and other electronics.<br><br>It's quite easy to extend t= he Z size, unlike the X/Y size which would require stronger guides or they = would flex.<br><br>On Thursday, September 27, 2012 4:48:11 PM UTC+2, dduran= t wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0= .8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div>> ...Beca= use if more accurate systems are going to become mainstream, then FDM<= /div><div>> machines will become the matrix printer of 3D. Rig= ht now people are still amazed by </div><div>> 3D printing, even if= the resulting prints are rough and inaccurate. But that will</div><div>>= ; change quickly.</div><div> </div></div><div>It seems like SLA w= ill always be relatively small machines. Or the tub-type will be anyway - i= f somebody came up with a way to do SLA without having to have a pool of go= o, it would be easier to go bigger. Powder printers, also known for high-de= tail, are a bit of a turn off for me because they have a much bigger footpr= int and seem like they'd be prone to making a mess of the place - more of a= shop machine than a home machine.</div><div> </div><div>So... I'm not= worried about FDM going away any time soon. SLA will probably grow in popu= larity but I think it will be limited to smaller machines.</div><div> = </div><div>What I'd like to see from UM is some different sized machines. I= thought the UM+ was awesome - saw one last year at MF:NYC - and if they of= fered an upgrade kit, I'd be the first in line. I'd also like to see a mach= ine capable of doing ~500mm cubes, preferrably fed by pellets instead of fi= lament. Even though UM is one of the bigger printers out there, I still som= etimes wish it was bigger - having a .5m build area would open it up to a l= ot more applications.</div><div> </div><div>I also think they sho= uld offer a metal version. This is one of the few things MBI did right= - we've known for years that the general public looks down on the wooden f= rames. Have a note on the store that says "wood is plenty strong and cheape= r but if you want metal, here's the option." I know it's not necessarily an= easy thing to actually do this but it would look a lot better, which is so= metimes important.. </div><div> <br>On Thursday, September 27, 2012 9:= 37:22 AM UTC-4, Gijs wrote:</div><blockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.= 8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1= px;border-left-style:solid" class=3D"gmail_quote">The biggest step I see no= w is the fact that MB has opened a store where the average consumer is able= to see and buy a working 3D printer. I'm not saying this is the first time= that a 3D printer is available in a consumer store (I believe the first wa= s a BfB at Bijenkorf in the Netherlands sold by Freedom Of Creation) but th= is is a clear sign that UM should take a closer look at.<div> <br></div><div>Because isn't this what the original Reprap project is about= ? to put personal creation in the hands of people. MB seems to be confident= enough about their product to take that step.</div><div><br></div> <div>UM is certainly not ready for that and I wonder if they will ever be. = Because if more accurate systems are going to become mainstream, then FDM m= achines will become the matrix printer of 3D. Right now people are still am= azed by 3D printing, even if the resulting prints are rough and inaccurate.= But that will change quickly.</div> <div><br></div><div>cheers,</div><div>Gijs</div><div><br><br><br></div> </blockquote></blockquote> ------=_Part_1874_28955673.1348758572798-- ------=_Part_1873_19377326.1348758572798--
Message from discussion Compare the facts (Ultimaker and Replicator 2)
| Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy |
| ©2013 Google |