3D printing

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.

**Charlemagne**

I would like to pursue a 3D printer for printing miniatures. Has anyone has success with doing this themselves, and what how did you achieve the desired level of detail? I am also concerned with the seeming inability of printers to print smooth surfaces. I am not sure which units are better for printing small objects.

**underfire wargaming**

Their are printers that can absolutely print in smooth detail equal too any traditional sculpt 28mm miniature on the market, I would recommend checking out Moddler , they have one of the best top of the line printers. However that probably costed several grand at least.

So you may very well want a lower cost one and as they saying goes , your print quality will be judged by the price their are some on the market for 700 - 800 bucks that can print a table top quality miniature however they are not just yet out in the common market place as far as I know. I would see what you can learn from printing companies for more information in that area.

The smaller the units the better the print quality 25 is viewed as a very good print quality level of detail.

hope that helps some

**Trasvi**

Printer accuracy is measured in Microns - 1/1000ths of a millimetre.
You definitely want less than 100 microns to get anything that is remotely paintable. I would recommend looking for <50 microns if you want to produce good quality miniatures.

One 3D printer which looks interesting is the Form 1, which can get very high levels of detail by stereolithography instead of additive deposits. I believe this printer costs around $3000 USD.

**Wolfstan**

These guyshttp://www.mold3d.com/" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://www.mold3d.com/ posted on TGN site, might be of interest.

**RiTides**

Trasvi wrote:
One 3D printer which looks interesting is the Form 1, which can get very high levels of detail by stereolithography instead of additive deposits. I believe this printer costs around $3000 USD.

I have this printer, and it is really great for some things. I have done some ships which I think could work in a game like X-wing.

The problem, though, is the need to remove support material. So, for a miniature, you really need a side where the detail isn't as important... like the underside of a ship, where it is smooth and can be sanded flat.

I printed a small piece of terrain last week which looks great, and plan to print some vehicle accessories (different heads for my Dreamforge 15mm Mortis walkers, when they arrive!). But it is a LOT of work! So, just keep that in mind... things look really promising but right now you're going to want to have other users for a printer before you invest that amount. Trying it out on miniatures is just a fun diversion for me atm.

**Necros**

Printer prices are coming down, but for me personally I'd still rather outsource. I have a guy I've been working with for a while who has a printer capable of super high res prints and his prices are good. He also does all of the cleanup for me, any sanding or filing and removes the supports and all, so he sends me the final mini all ready for the molds.

but those high res prints are too expensive if you're looking to just print & paint, you should go with your own printer then. But if you're looking to print and make molds for metal or resin figs, you'll probably get a much nicer result if you find a company that isn't shapeways

**Aqvila Invictis**

Is there a generally agreed-upon file format for 3D objects that someone should look for when shopping models or is it just proprietary hell all the way down?

**Necros**

I've always used .obj or .stl files, I think stl is the more common one for 3d prints.

But you can't really just go download a 3D model off of a stock 3d site and hope to get minis out of it. your 3D model really has to be made for 3D printing, or else you could end up with the same issues Torn Armor had recently with great looking sculpts that can't be made into minis.

**Aqvila Invictis**

Necros wrote:
I've always used .obj or .stl files, I think stl is the more common one for 3d prints.

But you can't really just go download a 3D model off of a stock 3d site and hope to get minis out of it. your 3D model really has to be made for 3D printing, or else you could end up with the same issues Torn Armor had recently with great looking sculpts that can't be made into minis.

Well, that and trusting to Defiance games' honor.

I was mostly wondering if there was a .doc or .pdf equivelant (something so ubiquitous that it's a de facto standard even if it isn't technically a standard), it sounds like there are two. Thanks!

**RiTides**

STL is definitely the most common format for 3D printing, from what I've seen.

There are a lot of stock files at these sites that you can download and print, but not a lot of wargaming models yet:

http://www.thingiverse.com/
http://grabcad.com/

**easysauce**

still takes me less time to hand mould a model, then cast it, then it does to 3d design the model, print it, then cast it.

just my 2c...

+1 for outsourcing too, lots of people out there can take your 3d design and print off a much better quality on their expensive printer, and you save more $ this way as unless you intend to make a business out of selling the models, the good 3d printers will take a LOOONNNNG time to pay for themselves.

**Necros**

Yeah a greenstuff sculpt is usually quicker but for me, I switched to all 3D just because of customs and international shipping. It was becoming a real pain since most of my sculptors were in other countries and it would take weeks for them to mail the sculpts to me, half the time was just because the package had to collect dust in the customs office. Now I have a 3D guy who does the sculpt, I download them off his dropbox, then upload them to my dropbox for the printer who's here in the US, then they print and mail the mini right to me

That and I also like the efficiency.. like, if I were making sci fi solders in the same power armor, I could have 1 3D sculpt in 20 different poses, rather than having to sculpt / convert all 20 separately. For the mechs I'm doing now, it's really great for making sure everything lines up perfectly and all of the weapons can be shared among other models. And I like having the 3D model for rendering different diagrams and scenes for the rulebook too.

**Antenociti**

Aqvila Invictis wrote:

I was mostly wondering if there was a .doc or .pdf equivelant (something so ubiquitous that it's a de facto standard even if it isn't technically a standard), it sounds like there are two. Thanks!

the issue is not the format but the viability of the file itself.... pretty much any 3d model can be converted into a .stl file.... and most printers will be able to print a .stl.... RATHER - they can print a VIABLE .stl file.

the issue is that unless you run that .stl through a checker such as netFabb - and know what you are looking for (and how to fix it) then you wont know if it is a viable .stl for print until the print studio send it back to you and say "gak!"

Some people, no names, think that any old 3d model can be printed "by the wave of a hand" - they cant.

viable .stl (manifold, water-tight etc etc etc)

**silent25**

One question have to ask, do you have pets or small children? If you do, you will need a place you can isolate the printer (garage or basement). Otherwise you risk a print getting ruined when they run by. The printers are vulnerable to vibrations. You don't want a 2 hour print to finish and find the print shifted a bit during the laydown.

**underfire wargaming**

easysauce wrote:
still takes me less time to hand mould a model, then cast it, then it does to 3d design the model, print it, then cast it.

just my 2c...

+1 for outsourcing too, lots of people out there can take your 3d design and print off a much better quality on their expensive printer, and you save more $ this way as unless you intend to make a business out of selling the models, the good 3d printers will take a LOOONNNNG time to pay for themselves.

Well you have to yet consider pricing, if I want to make a range of similar miniatures the costs of getting the dollies casted and sent back too the green sculptor costs more and takes much more time than it does to have reposing done in 3D and just have them all printed at once. So it is a system that you have to try both and see which one suits what your planning to make. Going for each sculpt as an individual sculpt , depending on what your looking for in quality green sculpting may be the way too go, however that said I have a great sculptor whos sculpts are very nice indeed and the whole process has saved me much $$$ than if I had gone too a green sculptor capable of the same or less level of detail and quality ( not to mention properly proportioned miniatures

).

Like what Necros said, if your doing one sculpt in a whole series of different poses with or without some additional sculpts added on to them creating whole new units, 3D printing really begins to out class Green sculpting. This is no offense to green sculptors however, it takes a lot of talent too do both mediums and as I said before their is still a style of miniature ranges that Green sculpting defiantly takes a strong case in , however Digital sculpting is still a good option as well.

**solkan**

The question you have to ask is, "Am I going to produce $3000 worth of masters, or just the $500 that I should hire a printer for?"

**jorny**

To print minatures you should wait until stereolithographic printers goes down in price. I have access to a makerbot, and while it is precise and you can do a lot of cool stuff with it, 100 microns isn't enough for miniatures. You should also decide if spending that amount of money for just printing miniatures is worth it. See the 3d-printing as a hobby in itself.

**Charlemagne**

Thanks everyone for your replies and assistance.

**wuestenfux**

Well, I think the power consumption is the current problem with those printers. Our store owner was toying with a printer for terrain. He said that it would take 9 hours for printing a smaller hill. Cannot confirm this.

**lucasbuffalo**

I think I speak more than myself when I say a list of "Good places that aren't shapeways" would be loved by all.

**Vertrucio**

http://visionproto.com/

http://www.Moddler.com/

http://www.Ownage.com/ (ignore the website being down and contact through email. They don't take all submissions though, since they're busy)

Three places I've used for my own game with very good results.

These are very high quality print places though, so you'll pay a premium even for small miniatures.

I think they all do have cheaper, fast prototype print services as well.

**petergrant702**

I also tried 3D printing miniatures at home. I created several battleships in different sizes. Your first investment of course is a good 3D printer to attain good printing results. Don’t forget also good quality 3D printing materials. Your 3D printers should support enough different filaments, and not limited to ABS and PLA. I have no issues with my 3D printer so far; in fact, I was surprised when its compatible with my recent purchased rubber-like filament- http://www.3d2print.net/shop/product/rubber-crystal-clear-1-75mm/.

**Wolfstan**

$299. Not sure of the quality, but could this be a game changer?

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/m3d/the-micro-the-first-truly-consumer-3d-printer/

**Necros**

That Micro printer looks kinda cool, too bad I missed the KS :( It says it's resolution is 50 micron layers.. so that's like half a mm? is that gonna be good enough for miniatures? I'd love to be able to do my own prints, but I need to be able to have uber detail

**Zygrot24**

50 microns = .05 mm. =D
That seems like it'd be good resolution for minis but will likely still have noticeable texture and require some finishing. The 100 mm micron prints on the Form1 are still a bit bumpy, but clean up nice.

**underfire wargaming**

easysauce wrote:
still takes me less time to hand mould a model, then cast it, then it does to 3d design the model, print it, then cast it.

just my 2c...

+1 for outsourcing too, lots of people out there can take your 3d design and print off a much better quality on their expensive printer, and you save more $ this way as unless you intend to make a business out of selling the models, the good 3d printers will take a LOOONNNNG time to pay for themselves.

Hmm not really , it is much more time efficient sculpting wise to do it digitally than green sculpts, also if their is a part you don't like or is a bit off you can get it edited and changed pretty darn easy compared to having a green sculpt cut up or much worse have to be redone. Shipping too is a great example say the masters get damaged during shipping or just disappear some how, well you can get the reprints they do cost some but its much less than paying for a full new green sculpt

.

The overall cost if you doing a pack of units like what we have done with our first miniatures digital sculpting is truly a cheaper way to do things than green sculpting, if your going for individual different miniatures each individual one than yes green sculpting would be cheaper for that. Over all if I am doing a few different posed units 3D printing saves me quite a bit so many will end up breaking even much quicker than they would before.

**mbussi**

I have a 3D printer, a Velleman K8200 (a relatively cheap model that comes in a kit). With a little patience, decent results can be achieved:

- images removed by insaniak. Please note that Dakka does not and can not endorse copyright enfringement. Please limit images and discussion to your own creations, not those copied from someone else's Intellectual Property. -

**Taarnak**

underfire wargaming wrote:

Hmm not really , it is much more time efficient sculpting wise to do it digitally than green sculpts, also if their is a part you don't like or is a bit off you can get it edited and changed pretty darn easy compared to having a green sculpt cut up or much worse have to be redone. Shipping too is a great example say the masters get damaged during shipping or just disappear some how, well you can get the reprints they do cost some but its much less than paying for a full new green sculpt .

The overall cost if you doing a pack of units like what we have done with our first miniatures digital sculpting is truly a cheaper way to do things than green sculpting, if your going for individual different miniatures each individual one than yes green sculpting would be cheaper for that. Over all if I am doing a few different posed units 3D printing saves me quite a bit so many will end up breaking even much quicker than they would before.

This is all heavily dependent upon the sculptor. You are presenting it like it is straight 100% fact and it's not.

There are fast analog sculptors, and slow digital ones. There are cheap analog sculptors, and expensive digital ones. Etc., etc...

As far as getting a uniform unit made, digital makes it easier on the sculptor, and potentially cheaper for the commissioner, but that is not a guaranteed fact. Same with changes, and repairs for broken masters.

In short, one way is not better than the other. Just different.

~Eric

**Wolfstan**

Another interesting development: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27412849

Autodesk - the leading 3D modelling software-maker - is going into hardware with its own 3D printer.
Chief executive Carl Bass revealed the news ahead of an appearance at the MakerCon conference in California.
In addition to selling the machine, Autodesk will also allow other manufacturers to make their own versions of the printer or power their own models off its software at no cost.
Mr Bass likened the move to the way Google had driven adoption of Android.
One analyst said the effort should encourage adoption of the technology.
"The printer is a bona fide attempt to prove the interoperability and open source nature of Autodesk's platform," said Pete Basiliere, research director at the Gartner tech agency.
"And by sharing its design we could see a second wave of small start-ups creating stereolithography machines just as the makers did when the early material extrusion patents expired."
Stereolithography 3D printers create objects by using a laser to harden liquid plastic.
The ultraviolet light traces a cross-section of the desired design over a thin exposed layer of plastic resin, turning it solid, before the unused material is disposed of. This process is repeated layer-by-layer until the object is complete.
This differs from the extrusion technique most commonly used by existing budget printers, which involves building an object by squeezing melted plastic out of a tiny nozzle.
The Stereolithographic process is more complicated to achieve, but can deliver smoother, more complex and more detailed objects.
Only about 56,500 3D-printers priced under $100,000 (£59,576) were sold last year, according to Gartner.
However, it predicts that number will grow to about 200,000 units next year and then continue to experience "explosive growth" with business purchases initially accounting for most of the demand.
Android ambition
Mr Bass compares the new printer to Google's first Nexus smartphone, a product meant to inspire other manufacturers to install Android on their handsets rather than become a bestseller itself.
In Autodesk's case the idea is to drive the adoption of its new Spark software, a product it likens to being an "operating system for 3D-printing".
Mr Bass told the BBC that he hoped others would take advantage of this to improve the 3D tech.
"One of the limitations right now is on the material sciences side - the kind of chemistry," he said.
"We're making a printer that, rather than just being able to load in proprietary materials, you can load in any material you want. You can formulate your own polymers and experiment with those.
"That's an important next step because we think material science is a breakthrough that has to happen to make [the industry] go from low-volume 3D-printed stuff to where it really starts changing manufacturing."
He added that although he was giving away both Spark and the printer's design, Autodesk should still profit because the move would drive demand for the firm's other products
"If 3D printing succeeds we succeed, because the only way you can print is if you have a 3D model, and our customers are the largest makers of 3D models in the world," he said.
"My feeling is that 3D printing has been over-hyped for home use but under-appreciated for its industrial possibilities.
"I think we're really at the beginning of a new way of making stuff and we're just trying to kickstart it."
Autodesk has yet to announce the price and launch date for its printer.

**PsychoticStorm**

Interesting indeed.