Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Got some other questions, I know these depend on a lot of factors, just looking for broad general ideas.

So, for the highest detail possible with the b9 and similar printers, how long does it take to print your average sized mini? Seems like most resins come in 1 liter bottles, how many average sized minis could you print from 1 bottle? And, would it be practical to use the printer to produce minis to sell, or is it really just for masters & prototypes and I’d still need to make molds and cast them separately?

I was just thinking, since I don’t really do a high volume of sales, it would be great if I could skip the whole mold making process and just print up, say 100 copies of a new mini, pack them up in clamshells and send them right out. Or would the printing be too slow and have way too much cleanup for that to be practical? Or way too much wear & tear on the printer? I’m thinking I could probably also fit several minis in the print area. Like the Ember has a print area of 64mm x 40mm x 134mm… I could probably fit a row of 5 guys or so along that 64mm width.

Loborocket wrote:

Loborocket wrote:

 Necros wrote:
The Ember looks cool, much flashier design. Are there any other miniature designers using it? Or would I be able to send some STL files to get printed on one to see how it looks? I saw that a few of the other companies out there offer that.

Not sure if other mini designers are using it? It is pretty new on the market and I think we are mostly marketing towards industrial designers, for prototyping. I have see some jewelry stuff printed to make molds for metal casting. I don't have an Ember in my office, but there is one in the Waltham/Boston office. If you PM me with e-mail contact info you can send me an STL file, I can see if I can get access to the Ember we have there and do a test print for you.

I did not forget about this. I finally got in touch with the person who is in charge of the printer in the other office. I am sending him your files for printing. He sent me back this image of a miniature he had already done on the Ember.

That is a very intriguing picture! Would he be willing to lightly spray / prime / etc the model so that the detail can be seen, as clear really makes it hard to see if the details came out?

It's awesome to see those results from a $6K printer! The 3D Systems Projet 1200 is another printer from an established company that is giving impressive results, for $5K, but the Ember might even be a bit better.

It looks like the Ember uses a projector (like the B9) rather than a laser to cure the resin, right?

Necros - I found printing minis to be a rather labor intensive process, so you would not want to commit yourself to cleaning off any supports if you were to do that for other people. I think once you start printing you'll realize that 100 minis is way too many to print, when you can print one, clean off the supports, and then have it cast . So, the cleanup is the real barrier to doing mass production on a printer, as well as wear on the printer. Print time at a very fine Z resolution can also be quite long.

 RiTides wrote:

That is a very intriguing picture! Would he be willing to lightly spray / prime / etc the model so that the detail can be seen, as clear really makes it hard to see if the details came out?

It's awesome to see those results from a $6K printer! The 3D Systems Projet 1200 is another printer from an established company that is giving impressive results, for $5K, but the Ember might even be a bit better.

It looks like the Ember uses a projector (like the B9) rather than a laser to cure the resin, right?

Necros - I found printing minis to be a rather labor intensive process, so you would not want to commit yourself to cleaning off any supports if you were to do that for other people. I think once you start printing you'll realize that 100 minis is way too many to print, when you can print one, clean off the supports, and then have it cast . So, the cleanup is the real barrier to doing mass production on a printer, as well as wear on the printer. Print time at a very fine Z resolution can also be quite long.

I will see if I can get an extra mini that I am printing for Necros and prime it so more detail can be seen.

Ember does use a projector for the curing process. It also uses a unique side to side motion as well as a movement in the "z" direction while printing which makes each cured layer separate from the uncured print resin. from what I am told this movement allows for greater detail, but i have to take the engineers word on that one.

I'd love to see that, Lobo, and this is a very helpful discussion! Several miniatures companies have gone for the B9 for printing masters (most notably Anvil Industries, shown on the first page here) and so that is a legitimate market for the Ember, and your company should thank you for following up on it! Jewelers are also a fantastic market, and one the B9 targets heavily... and jewelers' needs very closely overlap with the needs of printing miniatures masters (both are small, with very precise detail, and intended to make casts based off of the printed part).

 Necros wrote:
That looks cool.. was that for a game and if so do you know which one? It'd be cool to see the final painted version of him too if it's out there

I've also decided after my next Kickstarter is done I'm going to invest in a copy of zbrush and start doing a lot of my own sculpts, since mudbox is so cheap I'll probably grab that as well. It looked like it will be great for easily adding textures like wood grain and stuff like that.

Beware.

Mudbox is not a very good sculpting program compared to ZBrush, and you will not get nearly the same capabilities.

For a Start You cannot easily sculpt from scratch in Mudbox.

It contains no tools for creating the base-meshes needed to sculpt detail into (it has nothing comparable to Z-Spheres in ZBrush).

It lacks plane-clipping tools, extruding face tools, adding faces, splitting faces, and all manner of other simpler tools.

Mudbox is really a tool for detailing models intended for video games or movies. It's strengths are the texturing and painting tools it has (again, though, it cannot lay out UVs, so you require another program to use it).

If you are going to be creating miniatures GO WITH ZBRUSH!!

Don't be lured by the less expensive Mudbox, which is 75% non-sculpting tools that you will never use.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also... If you are looking for a tool that will have almost identical sculpting abilities to Mudbox, But ALSO the ability to create/model the base-meshes needed for sculpting, then have a look at Silo from Nevercenter:

http://www.nevercenter.com/silo/

It is even less expensive than Mudbox, but it contains NO texturing/painting tools.

It is solely modeling and vector-displacement sculpting.

Two of the Goblins I have done I did in Silo.

And, Smith Micro often has a 50%-off sale for Silo, which makes it only around $75 (It is on sale right now for about $110).

MB

I think I remember seeing Silo before. But yeah I plan to go with zbrush. The other sculptors I work with all use zbrush so I think that's the best way to go, and we can share assets like gun bits and other things.

But I do like the videos I saw for mudbox where you can "paint" textures onto stuff. So if Mudbox is good for that, it might be worth the $10 a month. I hope to make some terrain and building kits one day, and since everything's made of wood in the wild west, I figured that might be good for making lots of exposed wood grain for drybrushing fun.

 Necros wrote:
I think I remember seeing Silo before. But yeah I plan to go with zbrush. The other sculptors I work with all use zbrush so I think that's the best way to go, and we can share assets like gun bits and other things.

But I do like the videos I saw for mudbox where you can "paint" textures onto stuff. So if Mudbox is good for that, it might be worth the $10 a month. I hope to make some terrain and building kits one day, and since everything's made of wood in the wild west, I figured that might be good for making lots of exposed wood grain for drybrushing fun.

WHERE are you seeing Mudbox for $10/month????

OK. I see that is something new.

I know that they had subscriptions before, but they tended to be as a part of a Creation Suite, and tended to be about $15,000/year (but included a LOT of software).

A few points:

1) When we use the word "Textures" in the 3D/CGI world, we typically mean just color, or bmp-maps, which do not print to 3D. They need to be turned into geometry, first, which eats a LOT of RAM.

2) Sharing assets is independent of platform. ANY software package can usually import a file from another software package. I have a plug-in that allows me to import .zbr files.

But, ALL software applications will import (or open) OBJ, FBX, DXF, MA, MB, STL, or any other standard 3D format (The list of formats that Mudbox, Maya, and ZBrush will import/export is incredibly long, and includes 2D formats as well, such as PSD, and CAD)

And exporting to these formats from any of these applications is trivial.

The 3D community would have collapsed long ago without file compatibility.

Even tools from ZBrush can be imported/exported (ZTL files), and converted to Mudbox, or Mudbox tools (which I cannot recall the file types - if indeed they have a native format for actual tool-tips) into ZBrush.

MB

$15,000 a year? And I thought Adobe's creative suite was bad But I guess they can get away with it thanks to the movie companies. I remember seeing Maya on their site was super expensive. zBrush is also also more than I want to spend, I was messing around with Blender at first since it's free, but I'd rather stick to the tools other folks are using.

I do have a universal weapon file that one of my sculptors made, so we can keep adding to that over time and build a library of guns so future sculpts can use them and everything matches. I was also hoping to add other bits like hats or boots and stuff like that.

I don't really think I'd be doing any textures or painting or anything, though it would be nice to have I guess. I mostly want to focus on sculpting, and then printing. Once I invest in a printer I'm also hoping to offer printing services for other companies that need it, to help my printer can earn it's keep

There are reasons why Maya is so expensive.

You can make photorealistic images with relatively simple meshes or models with Maya, and it is used to produce the Special Effects of movies like Iron Man or The Hobbit (which is, indeed what they used to create these movies).

The Subscription Price was also from earlier in the Century, when these tools were rarer than they are now. It included updates, and personal service with any issues related to the applications included in their Creative Suites.

But, as I pointed out, really you can use any of the packages to work on any different item. The only difference will be how to use the tools within them, and what native file format they use

MB

Not to derail the thread but Maya can be purchased for $185/per month or $1,470 annually ($123 per month). The $15,000 price tag would be more like one of our Creative Suite products which has license for multiple software titles Maya being one of them. After the $15,000 investment, the subscription maintenance (year to year cost) is much lower (not sure how much.)

http://www.autodesk.com/products/maya/buy

Thanks for that, Lobo. Still pricey for a small business, but much more reasonable than as part of the suite.

Couple of test prints from the Ember. A bit hard to see detail because the resin is clear, but the guy printing them says they look good. Once I pick them up I will prime one and post so more detail can be seen.

Awesome! Can't wait to see it primed

Loborocket wrote:
Not to derail the thread but Maya can be purchased for $185/per month or $1,470 annually ($123 per month). The $15,000 price tag would be more like one of our Creative Suite products which has license for multiple software titles Maya being one of them. After the $15,000 investment, the subscription maintenance (year to year cost) is much lower (not sure how much.)

http://www.autodesk.com/products/maya/buy

I already said it was for a Creative Suite (and an older price - they have come down SIGNIFICANTLY since the mid-00s, when I first started using them).

I think the basic Entertainment Creation Suite is now around $250/month for "rental," and about $10K for purchase/subscription (and like $2K/year afterwards), and contains Mudbox, Maya, 3ds Max, XSI, AutoCAD, and a couple of programs I can't recall (I used to have that around 2007, when I was working doing modeling for a living).

I am utterly amazed at the new "Rental/Subscription" rates, though. If I did not already own Mudbox/Maya 2013, I would get a subscription to Maya, and Mudbox. Those are freakishly good ideals.


OH!!!! One other point!

If you are going to be doing a lot of digital sculpting Buy a Cintiq. I had one to use for a little while, and it is now nearly impossible to do some things without it.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Loborocket wrote:
Couple of test prints from the Ember. A bit hard to see detail because the resin is clear, but the guy printing them says they look good. Once I pick them up I will prime one and post so more detail can be seen.

If in addition to priming them you could give them a wash or highlight (depending upon if you prime light or dark), that would be helpful.

Because if Ember turns out to be producing high enough quality miniature sculpts, then I will just use it to get my Orcs, Goblins, Humans, and Elves done.

MB

A Cintiq would be cool, I haven’t had a Wacom tablet since way back when I had my beige Mac G3. Apple released the blue & white macs 2 weeks after I bought mine, I was so sad.

But my first step will be to invest in zbrush and get started. I’m probably going to be starting with terrain pieces and more inanimate objects, I doubt I’ll be able to sculpt good looking figures right off he bat and it will take a lot of time and practice.

Once I get the ember prints I plan to paint them up to compare to my original metal masters and see how they look, but from what I can see the detail does look to be about the same.

I've been considering getting a cheap 3D printer (£500ish) to print off things from places like thingaverse and paint them up. I'm primarily a builder/painting and the idea sounds really cool to me. The issue I'm having is the price point is pretty damn high when there are services out there that will 3D print for you, which may end up cheaper in the long run. If I'm just looking to print out an action figure sized creation once a month and don't mind having to clean it up do some putty work and sanding to make it look decent, what are my best options? Would I be better off using third parties to print out projects for me (Terrain, statues, just cool stuff that looks fun to paint) and then buy a 3d printer when consumer level tech is improved or should I buy now in the £500 price range?

I definitely would not buy in the £500 price range - that range of machine will not give you the detail needed at all, even if you're willing to sand and use putty. Imo, put that money towards a printing service that will give you the model in a better resolution.

Any update, Loborocket?

 RiTides wrote:
I definitely would not buy in the £500 price range - that range of machine will not give you the detail needed at all, even if you're willing to sand and use putty. Imo, put that money towards a printing service that will give you the model in a better resolution.

Any update, Loborocket?

I am going down to the other office next week, so I will have minis in hand and can post up an image of one with some paint on it.

 RiTides wrote:
I definitely would not buy in the £500 price range - that range of machine will not give you the detail needed at all, even if you're willing to sand and use putty. Imo, put that money towards a printing service that will give you the model in a better resolution.

Any update, Loborocket?

Does any one have any recommended services in the UK then?

They would also have to be friendly with unofficial things. I have no interest in printing knock offs, but if I saw a cool say pokemon figure I'd like to be able to print it even though the sculptor nor myself own the copyright license on say Pikachu, but aren't really hurting any one by doing so since it's a 1 off non-commercial object for my bookshelf..

I know of a good smaller one in the US Broken, but not in the UK... there are probably dedicated forums to search around for related to that. Just PM me if you're interested in the US one, though.

Loborocket wrote:
I am going down to the other office next week, so I will have minis in hand and can post up an image of one with some paint on it.

Excellent! Like someone had mentioned, just a light coat of primer (white or gray) and a thin black wash would help show the detail really well . Even primer without the wash would be a great step, but the wash will really seal the deal!

Yeah, the $5000 and up 3D printer seems to be the new sweet spot now in terms of things that can produce good looking miniatures. Higher end machines can still make better looking stuff, but that's only if you're going for a lot more detail than the average miniatures.

I'm concerned about the cost for materials, but this and the B9 are looking good.

Picked up the minis today. I will not get a chance to put any primer or wash on 1 until Friday. I will update once I do that. They look really good in person. I am surprised how much detail they printed with. I think they look great and would have no issue putting them down on the table.

Looking great so far, can't wait to see them with some paint

Agreed, they look nice as clear silhouettes and it will be very interesting to see some closeups after they've been primed and washed

Of particular note will be the faces, and areas where they could be more stepping (such as on a flat versus curved surface).

Not the greatest pictures, or the greatest paint job (took about an hour to do) but here you go. I am more used to painting 40k Orks rather than gunfighter girls.









Painting was pretty easy and I really did not have any issues with ridges or stepping from the 3d printing process. The face was lacking in depth and detail, but I think that was more the sculpt and less the printing process. Over all it is a decent mini. I thin the sculpting needs a bit more exaggeration to make the details pop a bit better, but again that is more about the 3d modeling and not the 3d printing.

Thank you for the effort! A bit hard to see detail, is there any chance we could see one with just a single wash, and maybe a close-up?

I am sending the rest of them to Necros. I just had the one for myself.

As for the detail of the miniatures, I would say the detail is probably not quite there on the models themselves, or it needs to be a bit more exaggerated in order to really see/be paintable. I think the Ember printer itself captured the detail that was in the model just fine, nice and smooth, paintable, etc... It is just that the 3d sculpts themselves probably need another refinement pass. Of course I am a little biased in saying I think the printer can probably do it, so take that for what it is worth. I would venture to guess if I had a 3d file directly from GW the printer could reproduce that fairly faithfully and you would be really hard pressed to know which one was which after it was painted and comparred to a GW original model.

This level of 3d printer is capable of GW levels of sculpting for creating a master. It would not be something someone would use to "mass produce" an army on the cheap, but for one offs it is at the level I think most gamers would consider good enough. $5000 is still a bit steep for the average hobbist but it is a lot closer than any 3d printer capable of this quality 3 or 4 years ago, you would be looking at $25000.

The Autodesk Ember printer is 100% open source from the software to every piece of hardware used in the printer. So someone might be using that "kit of parts" to make something better and cheaper right now. I think you will continue to see prices drop and more and more of these devices in the public domain. Once that begins to happen then you will see a big shift on these kinds of things used byb the "standard" hobbist.

Got it, thank you again Lobo. Will be looking into this more seriously next year, and this has been extremely useful.

So, I had a crazy idea, wanted to see if anyone here knows if this is possible… can you 3D print your own resin molds?

Like, you make your figure in Zbrush for instance.. duplicate it 4 or 5 times or however big of an area the printer could cover, line them up perfectly next to each other. Then you make 2 square-ish objects, smush them together over the figures so they subtract their image from the squares the same way you would if you were pouring latex over them.

Then in 3D you go back into the molds and clean them up and add channels for the resin to flow in and vents for air to get out, the same way you would if you were slicing up the latex mold with a xacto knife.

Then just print out both halves and you’re ready to start casting when the prints are all done?

Just thinking maybe that might be a more efficient way of making your minis, less risk of your mini breaking or getting lost in the mail, less work making and re-making resin molds that don’t last too long, etc? The material would obviously be hard, unlike latex that’s soft, so you probably couldn’t have undercuts. Are there softer, more rubbery printable resins that might be more suitable for a printed mold?

Necros. You can but generally it would be be abs or harder material unless you are looking at a costlier machine and material.

This is something I was looking at. I'm going to a show in October (TCT at the NEC, Birmingham) to ask such questions, maybe a tad too long for you to wait but I'll try and get some answers.