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.

Image #7/7 from the BBC site is passable for a Mycetic Spore. Gimme, gimme, gimme.....

 Elemental wrote:

 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.

Fair enough about focusing on the present, I'm just saying it's premature to dismiss it. And as to hovercraft, the question is where was it being suggested they were the wave of the future( ...I'll get me coat)? Science journalism is...questionable, and has been for a long time, from them we got the favourite argument of climate change denialists("hurr durr you silly science types sed we wuz gunna have an ice age!" - thanks, Time magazine, thanks ), and the whole "Future = The Jetsons" nonsense aspect of that optimistic era of futurism I mentioned. What makes me take notice of 3D printing a bit more is that the predictions of its future capabilities and the timescale for getting that far are coming largely from the people working on the technology itself, and the people who want to monetise the tech - while not foolproof, the people who make it and the people who fund it with an expectation of return tend to be a bit more conservative in their speculation.

 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.

Less unforseen, more ignored until it was too late.

 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.

Well again, that "nip to the shops" proposition may well be altogether different when you can print the item in a few minutes, and there are plenty of hobbies out there that require components other than just model making.

 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?

Yes, and it does exactly that. You can't blame the technology for the greed of corporations, or the fearmongering of the more ignorant type of hippies - if nation states had the courage to put an extra half-penny on the dollar/pound/euro in taxes to build the infrastructure, we could have a nationalised hybrid nuclear/renewable energy system within a few years that would cost Joe Public next to nothing on an ongoing basis. Hell, with modern reactor technology, we can even use existing nuclear waste as fuel in a process that not only reduces the time we'd have to store waste from tens of thousands of years to decades, but results in waste that isn't weaponisable. Nuclear energy is the solution to a lot of our problems, but political cowardice, corporate corruption, and baseless panic among the general public have stopped us from using its full potential.

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?

Ugh, that quote. It certainly didn't help the debate about copyright laws when half the internet just started chanting that slogan at everyone in sight

On the whole, I agree that people shouldn't just take starry-eyed optimism at face value, and I'm usually an incurable cynic myself(I've been described as "dour" to my face before, hah), but recently enough of the scientific literature has been aligning with the normal bletherings of professional TV Futurists to give me pause.

Uuurrgghh....

The biggest problem with nuclear power is that everyone went after the breeder reactor - which has the 'advantage' of being able to enrich fissile materials for weapons production.

There are much safer, less expensive, and more stable forms of nuclear power... but the breeder reactors are what everybody made.

Nuclear power - as it is currently made - deserves its reputation. Unfortunately it drops a shadow on much safer means to the same end.

***

I do not know if the 3D printer will ever be something found in every home - they are kind of finicky to work with. (I have not, I know three people that do, tow of them professionally. The third... ... .... well, he's enjoying himself at keast, )

I kind of suspect that you may eventually find them in as many as 10% of homes, but that 10% is likely to have an enormous overlap with tabletop gamers and other hobbyists.... So it is likely to be more important to the kinds of folks that post here than it is to say scrap bookers.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

The biggest problem with nuclear power is that everyone went after the breeder reactor - which has the 'advantage' of being able to enrich fissile materials for weapons production.

There are much safer, less expensive, and more stable forms of nuclear power... but the breeder reactors are what everybody made.

Nuclear power - as it is currently made - deserves its reputation. Unfortunately it drops a shadow on much safer means to the same end.

The Auld Grump

Think you are getting terms or technology mixed up. Fukushima wasn't a breeder reactor, but a standard light water reactor. Though yes, there are much safer nuclear technologies, but none will see the light of day after what happened in Japan.

Also, even if there was a political will to use the existing waste for fuel in these new reactors. That isn't possible, in the US at least. The US is glassifying all it's nuclear was rendering useless. Though still highly radioactive.

 silent25 wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

The biggest problem with nuclear power is that everyone went after the breeder reactor - which has the 'advantage' of being able to enrich fissile materials for weapons production.

There are much safer, less expensive, and more stable forms of nuclear power... but the breeder reactors are what everybody made.

Nuclear power - as it is currently made - deserves its reputation. Unfortunately it drops a shadow on much safer means to the same end.

The Auld Grump

Think you are getting terms or technology mixed up. Fukushima wasn't a breeder reactor, but a standard light water reactor. Though yes, there are much safer nuclear technologies, but none will see the light of day after what happened in Japan. .

Not exactly getting terms or technologies mixed up - just over-generalizing. The light water reactor is very similar in operational aspects... but fails, I believe, in regards to weapons grade production.

Still a no-no in regards to safety, but not in the same ballpark, and in the end result... I am still wrong.

Like a breeder reactor light water reactor can be used to replenish depleted fuels for other types of reactors - but they need much better monitoring than has often been the case. With the exception of Fukushima nearly all the worst case failures have been caused, in large part, by human error - including TMI, where the readout for one of the most crucial sensors was hidden from easy viewing, and the other local sensor had a known problem....

Gods... I still remember that one poor idjit that was nailed to the ceiling of Fermi 1 by a control rod that he was moving by hand.... (Not the first time the rods had gotten stuck... but it was the last. We came within a gnat's whisker of losing the city.)

So, yeah, not against nuclear power, but very much against how it is being implemented.

The Auld Grump, not that we have all that many viable alternatives on the near horizon....

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 silent25 wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

The biggest problem with nuclear power is that everyone went after the breeder reactor - which has the 'advantage' of being able to enrich fissile materials for weapons production.

There are much safer, less expensive, and more stable forms of nuclear power... but the breeder reactors are what everybody made.

Nuclear power - as it is currently made - deserves its reputation. Unfortunately it drops a shadow on much safer means to the same end.

The Auld Grump

Think you are getting terms or technology mixed up. Fukushima wasn't a breeder reactor, but a standard light water reactor. Though yes, there are much safer nuclear technologies, but none will see the light of day after what happened in Japan. .

Not exactly getting terms or technologies mixed up - just over-generalizing. The light water reactor is very similar in operational aspects... but fails, I believe, in regards to weapons grade production.

Still a no-no in regards to safety, but not in the same ballpark, and in the end result... I am still wrong.

Like a breeder reactor light water reactor can be used to replenish depleted fuels for other types of reactors - but they need much better monitoring than has often been the case. With the exception of Fukushima nearly all the worst case failures have been caused, in large part, by human error - including TMI, where the readout for one of the most crucial sensors was hidden from easy viewing, and the other local sensor had a known problem....

Gods... I still remember that one poor idjit that was nailed to the ceiling of Fermi 1 by a control rod that he was moving by hand.... (Not the first time the rods had gotten stuck... but it was the last. We came within a gnat's whisker of losing the city.)

So, yeah, not against nuclear power, but very much against how it is being implemented.

The Auld Grump, not that we have all that many viable alternatives on the near horizon....

Well, we'll probably have a technologically viable fusion system up and running within the next five years, the problem, as with everything else, is the corporations will refuse to roll the technology out until it's commercially viable, and the governments will be too cowardly/ideological to just tell the corporations to sod off and build it themselves.

TheAuldGrump wrote:
Like a breeder reactor light water reactor can be used to replenish depleted fuels for other types of reactors - but they need much better monitoring than has often been the case. With the exception of Fukushima nearly all the worst case failures have been caused, in large part, by human error - including TMI, where the readout for one of the most crucial sensors was hidden from easy viewing, and the other local sensor had a known problem....

Chernobyl was exacerbated by poor design like Fukushima. A positive gain reactor, no containment dome, and the control rods were powered by the reactor. Of the three major global disasters, only 3 Mile Island was caused by human error where the operators deliberately bypassed four separate safety alarms. I use to believe in nuclear power, but after Fukushima, lost any remaining faith. Greed, incompetence, and laziness prevent nuclear power from ever being safe. I still have some hope that France's plants (state owned and operated) will never have a problem, but not optimistic. Heck, I'm having to live with the San Onfre Power Plant being shut down here in California. That is being closed after they had cooling tubes failed due to the company deciding to rely completely on computer testing and not do an actual physical test of any of the tubes to make sure the design actually worked.

Yodhrin wrote:Well, we'll probably have a technologically viable fusion system up and running within the next five years, the problem, as with everything else, is the corporations will refuse to roll the technology out until it's commercially viable, and the governments will be too cowardly/ideological to just tell the corporations to sod off and build it themselves.

There are multiple test fusion reactors around the world. Toured one back in college back in the late 90's.
People have been researching it for decades. Trying to create conditions where you get plasma based fusion aren't exactly easy (2 - 4,000,000 F). Parts don't last long due the constant neutron bombardment. Test reactors with carbon based walls need to have them replaced every two weeks. Inner magnetic coils are destroyed after several years and that is only with intermittent use. Continuous use would see them gone in less than a year. These are major components.

The largest project currently going on is the ITER project in France. That will not see completing till later this decade. Creating the parts are taking years.

Back on topic, I'll just copy this post NoseGoblin left in another thread to illustrate the current state of 3D printing:

NoseGoblin wrote:
Perhaps someday but not today.

Makerbot is an FDM model maker that creates models by melting layers of plastic and squirting them through a nozzle as the nozzle moves in the XYZ, this FDM process even on the high end FDM machines is not up to the task of making miniatures.
There are only three printers on the market today that can print a surface that does not look like you sculpted it from toothpaste or that leave extensive stepping on the models surface. Both of these printers run about $100K and require expensive materials (about $500 for a quart or so). It also takes a skilled operator to properly orient the parts for print so that the built lattus does not destroy the details. Furthermore it takes a skilled CAD designer to understand the limits of the process for the printer being used and how the model is best split to create the best results.

As of today, it costs about $200 for a 28mm scale multi part mini to be printed by a service bureau. Design will cost anywhere from $200 to $2500 depending on the person you contract with.

In ten years it may be a reality but right now you would need an extra $100K, a skilled operator and CAD sculptor as well as a clean room environment with UV shading to house your $100k investment. From a cost standpoint printing individual minis to use would be FAR too expensive. I use this service to proof my models and make masters for soft tooling and I can tell you, I would never purchase one of these machines at their current market price. It is far cheaper to use a service bureau and pay $200 per figure than it is to own the equipment.

Its fine guys. When Finecast Came out they gave us Liquid Green stuff. So we could fill any holes. So when We get our new 3d printed models, Some time after the 5th Black crusade GW will give us Something to untangle all that Resin.

Recasting will be king until they become cheaper than $1000 for a high quality printer. (eta 5-10 years)

For those of you engaged in Nuclear Debate read this and this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

This is where we are going in the Nuclear world.

Back on track....

For me this 3D Printing in the miniature industry is rapidly becoming a Reality for everyone. A friend of mine Fjodin, was making some 15mm Tanks for a producer, so they will make 4-5 of them and then use them to make a mould.

It's easier and quicker to produce variants from a CAD design, then getting a sculpter to scult 5 different ones. Plus you can bang out modifications, and multiple masters and other such advantages.





This is the future Gentlemen, rail against it, resist it if you like but it's already a reality at the small scale producer level and it will rapidly become achievable at the Household level.

By 2020 I would venture a significant numbers of Dakkanauts will have this technology on their workbench, I certainly will.

 mwnciboo wrote:
For those of you engaged in Nuclear Debate read this and this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

This is where we are going in the Nuclear world.

I hope you actually understand what you are posting and not just linking some happy sounding Wikipedia article. Plasma fusion is at the level of where they are attempting economies of scale and durability testing. There are still massive issues remaining, but they are in the attempts of making working commercial plants (ITER is on schedule to go functional in 2024).. Muon still remains in a state where the commercial feasibility remains distant. There aren't even papers yet theorizing how to overcome it's short comings.

mwnciboo wrote:
Back on track....

For me this 3D Printing in the miniature industry is rapidly becoming a Reality for everyone. A friend of mine Fjodin, was making some 15mm Tanks for a producer, so they will make 4-5 of them and then use them to make a mould.

It's easier and quicker to produce variants from a CAD design, then getting a sculpter to scult 5 different ones. Plus you can bang out modifications, and multiple masters and other such advantages.

Spoiler:

This is the future Gentlemen, rail against it, resist it if you like but it's already a reality at the small scale producer level and it will rapidly become achievable at the Household level.

By 2020 I would venture a significant numbers of Dakkanauts will have this technology on their workbench, I certainly will.

And are those printed figures playable? Did you assemble them and play with them on the table? No one is doubting that such items can be produced now for making molds. People are wondering is if the economies of scale will come down to where such printers are available at the right price to print out armies for play. All these "Great News!" posts are by people who don't think about all the factors. Will the printers for these details come down enough in price? Will the build materials be cheap? Will easily printable designs be available for cheap? Will the figures be playable even and not snap?

Best example of current printer technology I can think of popped up during a discussion with an artist friend last year. His high level printer used for producing art prints broke and replacing it will cost a significant amount of money (~$1000). Everyone is thinking cheap inkjets for $75 and we maybe should be looking at the cost of high end art printers. Yes a $100 Makerbot 2020 will be there, but will anyone feel good still having to pay out a couple thousand for a high end printer to get good looking figs?

all of those failures look like tzeench forces to me !

And are those printed figures playable? Did you assemble them and play with them on the table? No one is doubting that such items can be produced now for making molds. People are wondering is if the economies of scale will come down to where such printers are available at the right price to print out armies for play. All these "Great News!" posts are by people who don't think about all the factors. Will the printers for these details come down enough in price? Will the build materials be cheap? Will easily printable designs be available for cheap? Will the figures be playable even and not snap?

Are you Trolling me?

Yes Fjodin produced this, with Geoff from QRF miniatures, yes they are playable but more importantly they are Masters for New Metal Moulds. I would be very impressed if someone produced these models using moulds bearing in mind the "undercut".

This is 15mm Scale and printed, and they came out as you see...No cleaning, no sanding, no tinkering.

On the subject of "Muon Catalyzed Fusion" this is a mechanism to make Waste Sources with a long Half-life much more managable it's theory but it's sound the point is will some do it.

"Molten Salt Reactors" Norway is making some big leaps forward in Thorium Salt Reactors with the advantage you can potentially process waste in them too.

Plasma fusion is at the level of where they are attempting economies of scale and durability testing. There are still massive issues remaining

Plasma Fusion is beyond the Horizon....Thorium Salt Reactors are here and working, the energy Density of Thorium is fantastic.. ITER I will wait to see, because frankly it's been beset by very expensive technical problems.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10255442/Thorium-put-to-the-test-as-policymakers-rethink-nuclear.html

This is far more Mature and on the horizon than Plasma Reactors, which remain a technical pipe dream at this time.

Only selected country have an 3d printer and lots of improvement before distributing it around the world

 mwnciboo wrote:

And are those printed figures playable? Did you assemble them and play with them on the table? No one is doubting that such items can be produced now for making molds. People are wondering is if the economies of scale will come down to where such printers are available at the right price to print out armies for play. All these "Great News!" posts are by people who don't think about all the factors. Will the printers for these details come down enough in price? Will the build materials be cheap? Will easily printable designs be available for cheap? Will the figures be playable even and not snap?

Are you Trolling me?

Yes Fjodin produced this, with Geoff from QRF miniatures, yes they are playable but more importantly they are Masters for New Metal Moulds. I would be very impressed if someone produced these models using moulds bearing in mind the "undercut".

This is 15mm Scale and printed, and they came out as you see...No cleaning, no sanding, no tinkering.

No I'm not trolling you. So no those pieces weren't direct to the table top which is what I was asking. These were only for rapid prototyping and mold making. I'm not doubting that they are great pieces, but people are all talking about how we will be able to print out our armies without problem. One of the problems stated with 3D printed parts are they are fragile. That was what I was referring to. And as pointed out in the Dreamforge quote I listed, those pieces were not likely cheap. People are thinking they will be able to turn on their $75 printer and pop out an army for a few dollars. There are multiple factors that making that outcome unlikely.

And yes there is cleaning required for those parts or am I imagining all the support columns those pieces are resting on?

Should also point to a wonderful post by Andrew Rae of Statuesque Miniatures. Even for prototype production, things aren't that great yet.

http://khorosho-productions.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/digital-miniatures-manufacture-its-not.html

 mwnciboo wrote:

On the subject of "Muon Catalyzed Fusion" this is a mechanism to make Waste Sources with a long Half-life much more managable it's theory but it's sound the point is will some do it.

"Molten Salt Reactors" Norway is making some big leaps forward in Thorium Salt Reactors with the advantage you can potentially process waste in them too.

Plasma fusion is at the level of where they are attempting economies of scale and durability testing. There are still massive issues remaining

Plasma Fusion is beyond the Horizon....Thorium Salt Reactors are here and working, the energy Density of Thorium is fantastic.. ITER I will wait to see, because frankly it's been beset by very expensive technical problems.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10255442/Thorium-put-to-the-test-as-policymakers-rethink-nuclear.html

This is far more Mature and on the horizon than Plasma Reactors, which remain a technical pipe dream at this time.

I was referring the ITER project and plasma fusion against the pipe dream of Muon Fusion. The claim of "someone will do it" is massive leap. You are also leaving out the little detail that the fuel for muon fuel requires a high energy source of neutrons to be created. Currently the only know technology that can reach that is form a nuclear reactor. Kind of defeats the point. Manufacturing of ITER components are underway around the world. Yes there are technical issues and am very personally aware of some them. It is not beyond the horizon as people are actively pursing it and working systems are in use for testing and trying to perfect the technology.

As for fission. I already stated I do not trust the industry. Short cuts will be taken and problems will be overlooked. There even isn't any regulatory structures in place to allows these to be introduced. And one additional problem with your wonderful thorium reactor. The fuel requires a uranium fueled reactor to be created. It doesn't solve the danger of uranium fueled nuclear reactors when you need them to keep these going. And how can you call plasma fusion a pipe dream when it has a large number of test reactors around the world and attempts to upscale it when there isn't a single commercial molten salt reactor active? Everything being developed now is based off designs from the 1960's and none will see attempts at commercial viability till past 2020. That is assuming that there aren't any problems with up scaling the technology. It is at the same level of "wonderful technology" that fusion is at. It's in the testing stage.

Look I might have got you all wrong here. But that model is playable, with a craft knife you could have cut it off the base, glue it and done - Model is playable.

It was printed as a Master, so it could have been Playable but that's not it's purpose, it's for making moulds so he didn't want it glued.

And yes there is cleaning required for those parts or am I imagining all the support columns those pieces are resting on?

But the way you are coming across as a churlish, pedant here, this is frankly unnecessary, I would continue this nuclear debate but when you are going to this pedantic level of taking issues with supporting structure of a 3D print, which is clearly an exceptional, clean and high quality print. Well I'm dis-inclined to discuss anything with you.

 mwnciboo wrote:
Look I might have got you all wrong here. But that model is playable, with a craft knife you could have cut it off the base, glue it and done - Model is playable.

It was printed as a Master, so it could have been Playable but that's not it's purpose, it's for making moulds so he didn't want it glued.

And yes there is cleaning required for those parts or am I imagining all the support columns those pieces are resting on?

But the way you are coming across as a churlish, pedant here, this is frankly unnecessary, I would continue this nuclear debate but when you are going to this pedantic level of taking issues with supporting structure of a 3D print, which is clearly an exceptional, clean and high quality print. Well I'm dis-inclined to discuss anything with you.

What was used to print this? The quality is incredible! No extrusion/print lines or anything. It doesn't look like an extruded print, more like a photocuring resin print.

eclipseoto wrote:

 mwnciboo wrote:
Look I might have got you all wrong here. But that model is playable, with a craft knife you could have cut it off the base, glue it and done - Model is playable.

It was printed as a Master, so it could have been Playable but that's not it's purpose, it's for making moulds so he didn't want it glued.

And yes there is cleaning required for those parts or am I imagining all the support columns those pieces are resting on?

But the way you are coming across as a churlish, pedant here, this is frankly unnecessary, I would continue this nuclear debate but when you are going to this pedantic level of taking issues with supporting structure of a 3D print, which is clearly an exceptional, clean and high quality print. Well I'm dis-inclined to discuss anything with you.

What was used to print this? The quality is incredible! No extrusion/print lines or anything. It doesn't look like an extruded print, more like a photocuring resin print.

ditto

 mwnciboo wrote:

And yes there is cleaning required for those parts or am I imagining all the support columns those pieces are resting on?

But the way you are coming across as a churlish, pedant here, this is frankly unnecessary, I would continue this nuclear debate but when you are going to this pedantic level of taking issues with supporting structure of a 3D print, which is clearly an exceptional, clean and high quality print. Well I'm dis-inclined to discuss anything with you.

Apologize for coming across as a bit coarse, but been assembling a number of models right now and having to spend a fair bit of time cleaning and repairing the tab points. Had to do a fair degree of cleaning around those points to make them look good. Making the claim no cleaning was necessary made me see red a bit. Again, sorry about that.

Also friends who have gotten objects 3D printed have had to trade detail for durability. Hence my pushing on the was that for a mold or the tabletop. The point I was trying to make is that a great looking 3D printed model is not ready for the rigors of table top use.

The technology is there to make great models and prices will come down on 3D printers. I don't think that it will come down enough for what we want that it will be as accessible as people think it will be. Will the resins come down in price and increase in durability to make these work on the tabletop. And even if the do, will that still lead to a printer in every home?

Again to the inkjet/laserjet printers. We aren't printing out high detail art prints on them and still buy those in stores. Even with photo printing capabilities, may people still rely on third party photo printing services. You say every hobbyist will have one in their house and I disagree with that point. I see it will be more at the level in store production akin to graphic reproduction stores.

I'll send him an e-mail and ask how exactly this was achieved. It's on his Blog here - But I'll get you the details and post it.

http://15mmworld.blogspot.co.uk/

4th post down - Looks like he's working on other stuff now.

EDIT - It was an expensive 3d Printer at a University. The next masters will be done a slightly cheaper Frosted Ultra Detail from Shapeway.

http://www.shapeways.com/

EDIT - It was £250 for the print on a £40k machine. This is the high end, high quality stuff but it's improving all the time.

The makerbot - MakerBot Replicator™ 2X weighs in at under $3000 - It's not bad.....Given it's 2013 now....By 2020....Alot can happen, look how faster Smart Phones caught on.