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.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 gossipmeng wrote:
In a few years people might be using 3rd printers for bits and simple components, but I highly doubt they will threaten miniature manufacturers. They will always be "a nice thing to have", but most people wouldn't want it taking up the space in their home or be bothered to shell out some cash.

See, the thing is, people said the same thing about computers. Afterall, why would you want some big, bulky, noisy, ugly beige box sitting in your living room? And those computer games look horrible, all blocky like that. Now, people carry computers many times more powerful than the ones they claimed would never take off in their pockets. They said the same about the internet. About games consoles. About cars.

Hell, back in the mists of time, one caveman probably grunted quite an eloquent argument at his fellows about how that silly fire stuff would never get anywhere when they had sunlight and fur blankets to keep warm.

There is nothing, fundamentally, that would prevent us from constructing a super-high fidelity 3D printer that's also fairly cheap and easy to use, the ideas and concepts are all there already, now it's just a matter of waiting out the usual Dances with Patents nonsense and for economies of scale to kick in.

Hurray! Someone else that gets it! Just because your buddy's crappy RepRap can't produce a Yoda head without obvious layers of chunky strata today, doesn't mean it'll always be that way.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 sing your life wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Silence Falcon, you've never had a single finecast model, therefore you have no [deserving] opinion on the medium.

It's so much easier to "win" arguments when you can just make up stuff and pretend that it's true.

(Hint: I'm talking about your utterly stupid "you've never had a finecast model" claim, not my opinion that finecast sucks.)

*sigh*

Time to draw my meme...

I would have to say the same about an LGS that has 6 finecast Chaos Terminators...

Specifically Failcast Terminator Lords - you know, the expensive ones? Including, and most particularly, Mister Abbadon, Ruler of The Four Fails.

And you know somethin' bunny? If you Google then you too can see plenty of pictures of the Fail Lords.
Missing big chunks of the stupid banner (that would not bother me, I do not like the stupid banners).

Missing claws (Mr. A).
Big gawping gaps in cloaks and armor. (All of them Including Mr. A.)
Missing.... whatever the heck that skull on a stick poking out of Mr. A's head is supposed to be.
And, my favorite, and most recurring, weapons that are only half there. (Including, but not limited to swords, pistols, but more frequently the ammo magazines of the bolters.

And the biggest offenders were all the most expensive model - Mr. A himself.

So... yeah, I am pretty secure in calling it Failcast, chummer. Spend more for worse, the key to the GW HHHobby....

The Auld Grump

Besides Abaddon the only other Terminator model in fine cast would be Typhus. Unless it was an actual GW store I still find it hard to believe they would stock 6 of those two models. I don't doubt the poor quality of fine cast models, on the contrary I agree it is a bad material. I simply have a hard time believing the analogy given the anecdotal evidence you provided.

Can we get back to 3D printers?

I know my friends would love for me to get one, even if only so I could print their designs. If every gaming group pools resources for a single printer and designs on their own, they can probably come up with something unique to each and every group.

Oh, I know... Imagine if this happens. And granted humanoids are still a looooooooooong way away, but it might force some companies to focus more on the Games that come out of their Workshops to be tight, smart rulesets.

Who knows?

 sing your life wrote:
looks like cotton candy. But much less tastier.

Oh and I agree with squigsquasher, I don't think GW can survive a week competing against this wonderful technology [sarcasm]

 Peregrine wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
*insert obligatory"still better than finecast" joke here*

Except that would be truth, not a joke.

Silence Falcon, you've never had a single finecast model, therefore you have no [deserving] opinion on the medium.

Good point. Just like anyone who has never had polio should not have an opinion on whether it's bad or not.

 Mastiff wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
looks like cotton candy. But much less tastier.

Oh and I agree with squigsquasher, I don't think GW can survive a week competing against this wonderful technology [sarcasm]

 Peregrine wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
*insert obligatory"still better than finecast" joke here*

Except that would be truth, not a joke.

Silence Falcon, you've never had a single finecast model, therefore you have no [deserving] opinion on the medium.

Good point. Just like anyone who has never had polio should not have an opinion on whether it's bad or not.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch

 sing your life wrote:

 Mastiff wrote:

Good point. Just like anyone who has never had polio should not have an opinion on whether it's bad or not.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch

That's great, but irrelevant. Anyone can see holes or pieces missing from a miniature without actually owning it. TV shows may take time to fully appreciate, but no matter how long I watch my Finecast Rakarth, he's still missing a lotta fingers that are not growing back. And polio will still suck.

All of the pics from the link in the OP are FDM (fused deposition modelling), which extrude plastic filament through a heated nozzle... basically a glorified hot glue gun!

These are not the wave of the future... in fact, they're fast become very out of date (even though they are also getting better and better).

SLA (stereo-lithography, using a laser to cure liquid resin) and SLS (selective laser sintering, using a laser to sinter powdered material, even metal) are where the real innovation is coming. And a key patent is expiring in 2014 which will open the floodgates for it similar to how it did for FDM printers in the past.

 RiTides wrote:
All of the pics from the link in the OP are FDM (fused deposition modelling), which extrude plastic filament through a heated nozzle... basically a glorified hot glue gun!

These are not the wave of the future... in fact, they're fast become very out of date (even though they are also getting better and better).

SLA (stereo-lithography, using a laser to cure liquid resin) and SLS (selective laser sintering, using a laser to sinter powdered material, even metal) are where the real innovation is coming. And a key patent is expiring in 2014 which will open the floodgates for it similar to how it did for FDM printers in the past.

Can the resin be re-used or recycled?

 Mastiff wrote:

 sing your life wrote:

 Mastiff wrote:

Good point. Just like anyone who has never had polio should not have an opinion on whether it's bad or not.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch

That's great, but irrelevant. Anyone can see holes or pieces missing from a miniature without actually owning it. TV shows may take time to fully appreciate, but no matter how long I watch my Finecast Rakarth, he's still missing a lotta fingers that are not growing back. And polio will still suck.

No, it is 103% relevant. Just because you saw some gackasts [sic] dosen't mean that every finescat model you buy is going to be bad.

For which type of printer, Mastiff? I'm not really sure, but the uncured resin for SLA, and the unsintered powder for SLS can be used. I think it's difficult to reuse used (cured, sintered, etc) material for any of them, though.

 RiTides wrote:
For which type of printer, Mastiff? I'm not really sure, but the uncured resin for SLA, and the unsintered powder for SLS can be used. I think it's difficult to reuse used (cured, sintered, etc) material for any of them, though.

Any of them. I'd be surprised if any of them were re-useable, but I was curious if they needed heat or time to cure, and if the resin could be re-used before this step. I did a bit of reading after posting my question and it looks like that's not an option.

Thanks for the response though, this is all pretty new to me.

 sing your life wrote:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MakingUpStupid****ToWinArguments

 sing your life wrote:
No, it is 103% relevant. Just because you saw some gackasts [sic] dosen't mean that every finescat model you buy is going to be bad.

No, but the fact that finecast is an awful material means that even if it's somehow successfully cast without any major flaws the model is still worse than real resin. And the consistent pattern of failures with finecast means that the pictures in the OP are a pretty good representation of its quality.

 sing your life wrote:

No, it is 103% relevant. Just because you saw some gackasts [sic] dosen't mean that every finescat model you buy is going to be bad.

FineScat. I think you've come up with a perfect name for it.

Whether or not every finescat model is bad is irrelevant. I'm sure there's some good episodes of Celebrity Apprentice, but having only see a couple, I'm still comfortable that my time is best spent on other activities. Likewise, every single Finescat space wolf, dark eldar and dark elf models I've checked over the last two years has been missing detail. It's up to them to put out a better quality product and prove me wrong, not my responsibility to keep assuming I simply haven't seen the good ones yet.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Oh yeah, this'll really put GW out of business.

Because, as we all know, no technology ever improves from it's nascent form. That's why it will take me 20 minutes to upload this comment on my 300 baud modem, and because my computer has only 32k bytes of ram I will run out of space before I finish this po

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Besides Abaddon the only other Terminator model in fine cast would be Typhus. Unless it was an actual GW store I still find it hard to believe they would stock 6 of those two models. I don't doubt the poor quality of fine cast models, on the contrary I agree it is a bad material. I simply have a hard time believing the analogy given the anecdotal evidence you provided.

Again - Google Abbadon and finecast failure - I do not know the name of the other failcast Chaos Termie - I really didn't care, because the main point was the owner of the shop showing everybody how bad most of the sculpts were.

Yes, he got three of Abbadon - but one was for his own Chaos army. (He took the good one for his own army.... )

Pretty sure though that these were named exciting things like 'Chaos Terminator Lord', 'Chaos Lord', or 'Aspiring Champion', aside from Mr. A himself. (I do not think that Typhus was one of the figures at all. Rob had a Khorne and vanilla Chaos army, if I recall.)

Mr. A. was easily the worst.

But, for the record - I do think that getting a bunch of Finecast figures before seeing what the quality was like was a particularly bad move. They bought into the hype.

The store is out of business now, though that had more to do with the owner of the store getting caught up in a messy divorce than his poor business choices. The divorce did mean that he needed to get another job, since the steady income was from his wife.

I would love to blame the failure of his store on GW, but GW was actually kind of incidental - while they had a high percentage of fail GW was actually pretty good about replacing the defective models - though some of them needed replacing three times. There was one time that they got a run around by someone at GW who was reluctant about replacing defective models, but for the most part GW was actually very good about owning up to the faults. (For all my kvetching about GW I very seldom complain about their willingness to replace defective product. They are much better about it than many other companies in that regard.)

If only there had not been so many defective products....

Never neglect the possibility that I looked at the price tag and made the twenty meter conclusion jump that it must be a Terminator. I was not all that concerned about which over priced Chaos model was defective, only that a very expensive model - one that might have been cheaper per ounce if it were cast in silver, was defective more than half the time, and that these were not subtle flaws - that these were not little bubbles, but big gawping failures.

Aside from Abbadon all that I can say with certainty is that they were all HQ choices, that none of them looked like Nurgle marines*, and all were wearing big power armor, if not Terminator armor.... I had already given up on WH40K by that time, though I did get the plastics starter.

I do find it telling that GW seems to be limiting the number of resin releases, and to be moving closer and closer to all high impact plastics.

The last GW purchases that I made were at the going out of business sale before the store closed their doors - almost entirely terrain models. That was over a year ago now, so it would be about two years or more ago that he showed us the models.

The Auld Grump, I miss Game Geeks.

* Mind you, bubbles in a Nurgle marine would likely not need repair, just some pus....

*EDIT* One thing that I seldom complain about is their terrain kits - unlike their miniatures I find their terrain to be reasonable value for money. I was actually happy with their recent terrain sale.

 Peregrine wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MakingUpStupid****ToWinArguments

Link's broken .

And my point still stands that unless you provide pictures of the offending model, you've never had a finescat model.

 sing your life wrote:


And my point still stands that unless you provide pictures of the offending model, you've never had a finescat model.

Because looking at the damn thing in the store somehow doesn't count? Or if I buy it, does it run around my hobby table at night and repair itself? Because that totally didn't happen to my Immotek. Which by the way was the first and last Finecast model I bought.

Sure their must be reasonable, or even (gasp) perfect cast's out there, I'm just not going to play the pay customs on replacement game if that's not the case. Or spend time getting it to the best quality, all singing, all dancing level it's promoted to be. It should be like that when it arrives at the store.

Oh, and 3-D printing looks promising, can't wait for it to become an affordable luxury in the house.

 sing your life wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MakingUpStupid****ToWinArguments

Link's broken .

And my point still stands that unless you provide pictures of the offending model, you've never had a finescat model.

Why would I buy something I know is a steaming pile of gak? Your analogy is flawed. Your original statement is fallacious. You do not need to buy finecrap to know it is rubbish.


Though I'm sure this won't get through your thick skull and you'll just use it as ammo for a "witty" reply...

 sing your life wrote:
And my point still stands that unless you provide pictures of the offending model, you've never had a finescat model.

And the point still stands that it is not necessary to own a poorly-cast model to understand it is poorly-cast.

This is the additive method for 3D printing.

Isn't there a subtractive method showing high end results?

 gunslingerpro wrote:
This is the additive method for 3D printing.

Isn't there a subtractive method showing high end results?

True 'subtractive' would be CAD/CAM sculpting, right? Essentially, taking a block of material and cutting away whatever isn't the end model.

However, some higher-end systems are capable of adding a special amterial that can act as a support and allow for much easier overhangs and such.

Yes, any printer worth it's parts can add support material, that can be removed afterwards, to support overhangs. The first home FDM printers couldn't do this... but professional level printers, and many home printers, can now as well.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 sing your life wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MakingUpStupid****ToWinArguments

Link's broken .

And my point still stands that unless you provide pictures of the offending model, you've never had a finescat model.

Why would I buy something I know is a steaming pile of gak? Your analogy is flawed. Your original statement is fallacious. You do not need to buy finecrap to know it is rubbish.


Though I'm sure this won't get through your thick skull and you'll just use it as ammo for a "witty" reply...

I don't know, let us give him the benefit of the doubt and split the difference.

How does 'half witty' sound?

***

Back on topic - I find it very interesting that Caterpillar and other companies are investing in the use of similar technology for creating... buildings.

The tech is still nascent, but it is growing.

One of the first 3d 'printers' that I saw used laser scintering to make the shapes from metal. It may be possible, in the future, for the technology to be used more directly to create molds for plastics manufacture in a less expensive fashion.

At this point I believe that the molds are created by a subtractive process, but....

The Auld Grump

 Yodhrin wrote:

 gossipmeng wrote:
In a few years people might be using 3rd printers for bits and simple components, but I highly doubt they will threaten miniature manufacturers. They will always be "a nice thing to have", but most people wouldn't want it taking up the space in their home or be bothered to shell out some cash.

See, the thing is, people said the same thing about computers. Afterall, why would you want some big, bulky, noisy, ugly beige box sitting in your living room? And those computer games look horrible, all blocky like that. Now, people carry computers many times more powerful than the ones they claimed would never take off in their pockets. They said the same about the internet. About games consoles. About cars.

It's not always the case that new technology, even if the discovery itself is exciting, inevitably leads to a worldwide revolution. Sometimes it just doesn't supplant what's already there, or stays limited to practical use in a relatively small field. So I get that you're excited, but it's a tiny bit patronising to play the Luddite card.

I keep coming back to one question--what would I use a home printer for that would justify even a significantly reduced cost? And I don't really have an answer. Technology like home computers, or upgrades in data storage (cassettes, CD's, DVD's, MP3 players, digital boxes) all clearly let me do something I couldn't before. 3DP seems to let me do what I could before, trading slightly more convenience for a big up-front cost. I agree there's some really interesting possibilities in the technology, but in terms of miniatures, I can see this working for small-scale miniature or scenery producers, or maybe for going down a shop to print miniatures with the schematic I downloaded, but practical home use seems a bit harder to imagine.

 Elemental wrote:
I keep coming back to one question--what would I use a home printer for that would justify even a significantly reduced cost? And I don't really have an answer. Technology like home computers, or upgrades in data storage (cassettes, CD's, DVD's, MP3 players, digital boxes) all clearly let me do something I couldn't before. 3DP seems to let me do what I could before, trading slightly more convenience for a big up-front cost. I agree there's some really interesting possibilities in the technology, but in terms of miniatures, I can see this working for small-scale miniature or scenery producers, or maybe for going down a shop to print miniatures with the schematic I downloaded, but practical home use seems a bit harder to imagine.

That's the problem I have come up against.
I have a couple of ideas on what to use one for, but any printer I build will languish in a cupboard a month or few after being built.

 sing your life wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MakingUpStupid****ToWinArguments

Link's broken .

And my point still stands that unless you provide pictures of the offending model, you've never had a finescat model.

Unless you post pics of you having dinner/sex/a poo it NEVER HAPPENED!

If I had a nickle for every time this has happened to my prints while 3D printing I could buy a second 3D printer... It's way more of an art form to get good prints than you'd think.

I could see myself printing scenery for my games. I never can find a good set of scenery that fits the style I want, so I could finally learn to do 3D design and get a personalized table. I'd be making little gifts for my nieces and nephews all the time, I'd be the coolest uncle ever. And yes, if that title comes with such a price tag, so be it.

 Elemental wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 gossipmeng wrote:
In a few years people might be using 3rd printers for bits and simple components, but I highly doubt they will threaten miniature manufacturers. They will always be "a nice thing to have", but most people wouldn't want it taking up the space in their home or be bothered to shell out some cash.

See, the thing is, people said the same thing about computers. Afterall, why would you want some big, bulky, noisy, ugly beige box sitting in your living room? And those computer games look horrible, all blocky like that. Now, people carry computers many times more powerful than the ones they claimed would never take off in their pockets. They said the same about the internet. About games consoles. About cars.

It's not always the case that new technology, even if the discovery itself is exciting, inevitably leads to a worldwide revolution. Sometimes it just doesn't supplant what's already there, or stays limited to practical use in a relatively small field. So I get that you're excited, but it's a tiny bit patronising to play the Luddite card.

I keep coming back to one question--what would I use a home printer for that would justify even a significantly reduced cost? And I don't really have an answer. Technology like home computers, or upgrades in data storage (cassettes, CD's, DVD's, MP3 players, digital boxes) all clearly let me do something I couldn't before. 3DP seems to let me do what I could before, trading slightly more convenience for a big up-front cost. I agree there's some really interesting possibilities in the technology, but in terms of miniatures, I can see this working for small-scale miniature or scenery producers, or maybe for going down a shop to print miniatures with the schematic I downloaded, but practical home use seems a bit harder to imagine.

You may well be right, it may come to nothing for home users, but I just keep coming back to computers, because I remember people making exactly the same arguments about them. One of the first machines my family owned was an Amstrad Word Processor. Literally all it did was switch on and let you type, there was no OS to speak of, it had no permanent memory so if you turned it off you lost whatever you'd been typing, the only output was an ancient printer that shook the table it sat on like there was an earthquake happening. My mum used it for her translating work, and I recall a conversation where my grandad used almost exactly the same words about slightly more convenience for a bigger cost, except he was arguing she should have just bought an electric typewriter.

I think there are two main issues at play here which might be preventing people from seeing the potential in this technology, the first was actually brought up just a couple of weeks ago on The Infinite Monkey Cage(a BBC Radio 4 show) during a discussion between Neil deGrasse Tyson and Brian Cox at the Natural History Museum in London; people have lost their sense of wonder at technology. Remember that rash of optimistic futurism that swept the developed world during and just after the Apollo missions? We live in their imaginings now. Hell, we've got things they barely even dreamt of, but because it's just a part of life for us we don't see it, and more than that, we don't seem to look forward with the same vision either.

The second issue is the scope of the conversation. Would it be worth spending flatscreen-TV levels of cash on the 3D printer just to print out miniatures for wargaming? Probably not, no. But these devices don't just print static objects, they're capable of producing complex constructs with moving parts. They can produce tools, any component that doesn't require electronics, and as the medium matures and develops higher tolerances you could feasibly manufacture everything from furniture to car parts, wrenches to lengths of garden hose. People won't be buying a 3D printer just to make miniatures, that would be like buying a fridge and only using it to cool one bottle of milk, they'll just become another ubiquitous home appliance.

More than that though, consider the implications for the broader economy; automation of manufacturing is advancing as a technology almost as fast as computing tech does, within a decade at most it should be possible to completely automate the process of manufacturing complex electronics, and the other handful of things that 3D printers would struggle with. Automated resource extraction isn't far behind. Google's self-driving car and the various "drone delivery service" projects going on at the moment shows that automation of logistics is also within our grasp. There's some amazing work going on in the Netherlands and elsewhere developing incredibly efficient hydrofarming technology that produces several times the volume of food, in half the time, and with a 10th of the water and fertiliser of a conventional farm of the same footprint. Combine those with industrial-scale 3D printing, and it's entirely possible that in its desperate drive for efficiency at the expense of long-term sustainability, Capitalism is signing its own death warrant, and functional post-scarcity is within our grasp.

 Yodhrin wrote:

You may well be right, it may come to nothing for home users, but I just keep coming back to computers, because I remember people making exactly the same arguments about them. One of the first machines my family owned was an Amstrad Word Processor. Literally all it did was switch on and let you type, there was no OS to speak of, it had no permanent memory so if you turned it off you lost whatever you'd been typing, the only output was an ancient printer that shook the table it sat on like there was an earthquake happening. My mum used it for her translating work, and I recall a conversation where my grandad used almost exactly the same words about slightly more convenience for a bigger cost, except he was arguing she should have just bought an electric typewriter.

But here's the thing--at the time, an electric typewriter might have been a legitmately better purchase than a very early computer. I buy stuff based on what it can do now, not to support what it might be able to do in twenty years--I'm not rich enough to buy something without seeing a clear use for it. If 3DP at any point makes me think "Ooh, it'd be perfect for doing this thing so much better than how I currently do it." like, say, when I first got an MP3 player, then I'll look into it.

Take hovercrafts as a counter-example to your computer one. They're interesting pieces of technology, and they attracted a lot of attention for their novelty value, and speculation that they might be the way of the future (I remember a sci-fi novel that suggested in the 21st century, giant hovercraft would be used for trans-oceanic bulk shipping). Hovercraft are still out there, and they have their uses, but boats are still in no danger of being displaced.

 Yodhrin wrote:
I think there are two main issues at play here which might be preventing people from seeing the potential in this technology, the first was actually brought up just a couple of weeks ago on The Infinite Monkey Cage(a BBC Radio 4 show) during a discussion between Neil deGrasse Tyson and Brian Cox at the Natural History Museum in London; people have lost their sense of wonder at technology. Remember that rash of optimistic futurism that swept the developed world during and just after the Apollo missions? We live in their imaginings now. Hell, we've got things they barely even dreamt of, but because it's just a part of life for us we don't see it, and more than that, we don't seem to look forward with the same vision either.

Being jaded is part of it, but another part is that now we're also much more familiar with the fallout and hidden costs of new technologies. After all, we live in a world where to some extent, we're desperately advancing science to deal with the unforseen consequences of previous scientific advancements.

 Yodhrin wrote:
The second issue is the scope of the conversation. Would it be worth spending flatscreen-TV levels of cash on the 3D printer just to print out miniatures for wargaming? Probably not, no. But these devices don't just print static objects, they're capable of producing complex constructs with moving parts. They can produce tools, any component that doesn't require electronics, and as the medium matures and develops higher tolerances you could feasibly manufacture everything from furniture to car parts, wrenches to lengths of garden hose. People won't be buying a 3D printer just to make miniatures, that would be like buying a fridge and only using it to cool one bottle of milk, they'll just become another ubiquitous home appliance.

But then I think over my typical day, and wonder "How often do I need a typical 3DP object, and need it so urgently that I can't just nip down the shops and get it?" Again, I find it perfectly plausible that the shops themselves might use 3DP, as well as people who manufacture a lot of a given item (much like how a few people have resin casting kits in their garage now), and I can imagine hobby stores having a printer where you can rattle out your own blueprints for a fee if you want a custom item. Not to mention the store ones would likely be higher quality than the home-user affordable ones.

 Yodhrin wrote:
More than that though, consider the implications for the broader economy; automation of manufacturing is advancing as a technology almost as fast as computing tech does, within a decade at most it should be possible to completely automate the process of manufacturing complex electronics, and the other handful of things that 3D printers would struggle with. Automated resource extraction isn't far behind. Google's self-driving car and the various "drone delivery service" projects going on at the moment shows that automation of logistics is also within our grasp. There's some amazing work going on in the Netherlands and elsewhere developing incredibly efficient hydrofarming technology that produces several times the volume of food, in half the time, and with a 10th of the water and fertiliser of a conventional farm of the same footprint. Combine those with industrial-scale 3D printing, and it's entirely possible that in its desperate drive for efficiency at the expense of long-term sustainability, Capitalism is signing its own death warrant, and functional post-scarcity is within our grasp.

It'd be nice if that came to pass, but there is a certain sense of "heard this before". Remember how atomic power was going to produce limitless cheap energy?

This is making me sound like quite the cynic, isn't it? I don't mean to, I'd be very happy if I'm wrong, and there is a revolution in miniature production and / or the winder world. I certainly don't doubt 3DP will be a big advance in at least some other areas for certain. I just take some of the more wide-eyed claims with a pinch of salt, especially when they go into the unattractive terrain of accusing people of hating progress. I remember a previous thread here where someone proclaimed "You can't stop the signal." Which made me scratch my head and wonder who they thought was trying to stop it, exactly?

In time, we'll find out if it's the way of the future. So why worry?