Makerbot Thing-o-Matic 3D Printer Review

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Makerbot Thing-o-Matic 3D Printer Review

Posted by timothy on Friday January 21, 2011 @12:56PM from the not-for-the-faint-of-heart dept.

rsk points out this "review of the $1200 Makerbot Thing-o-Matic 3D printer. After a 16-hour self-assembly and a few weeks of use, a blown PSU was replaced with a higher powered PSU via a mod to the Thing-o-Matic. Video of the Thing-o-Matic printing out little solar panel mounts from Google Sketch-up included in the review. Final thoughts suggest that the Thing-o-Matic is not a great gift for non-engineers: 'You need a decent understanding of robotics, hardware, software, electronics and mechanics, need a little hand dexterity and a ton of patience.'"

117 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

First Thing by AlienIntelligence · 2011-01-21 12:56 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I had to

--
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
1. Re:First Thing by fractoid · 2011-01-21 21:15 · Score: 0
  
  Where's the 'print' button?
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Cool by Dunbal · 2011-01-21 13:00 · Score: 3, Funny

I want to know what software he used to make those cats!

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
1. Re:Cool by joeyadams · 2011-01-21 14:02 · Score: 0
  
  I want to know what software he used to make those cats!
  No, I think the cats are just raw material.
2. Re:Cool by ConMotto · 2011-01-21 18:29 · Score: 1
  
  Ahaha... I used the Arizona Human Society to adopted Leonidas Snotbomb Lee at approximately four weeks old. :) HE WUVS YOU!!!
Hello by kumma · 2011-01-21 13:03 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Reprap?
1. Re:Hello by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 14:45 · Score: 0
  
  Should of linked it
  http://reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page
  Reprap wasnt designed to be sold at a profit, it was designed to benefit humanity and schools
  ironically all this makerbot thing did was copy it and double the price
2. Re:Hello by Jeremy+Erwin · 2011-01-21 16:17 · Score: 2
  
  Apparently, you have generous friends who are willing to manufacture the parts for free.
3. Re:Hello by phooky · 2011-01-21 18:10 · Score: 1
  
  It's a descendant of reprap; the gen3 electronics were designed for the reprap project. The idea of the Cupcake was to drop the self-replicating constraint and focus on kit manufacturability... which isn't to say the Cupcake can't self-replicate.
the next industrial revolution by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 13:14 · Score: 0

is starting now . Sure there things are crude but compare the first paper printers against the latest colour lasers.
1. Re:the next industrial revolution by dgatwood · 2011-01-21 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  You wouldn't steal a car. But soon you'll be able to copy one. Why do I have a feeling this is going to make piracy analogies on Slashdot a lot more interesting in the years to come.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
2. Re:the next industrial revolution by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 13:25 · Score: 1
  
  the next industrial revolution is starting now . Sure there things are crude but compare the first paper printers against the latest colour lasers.
  And where, exactly, is this DIY colour laser printer?
  See... 3D printers are far from crude - see shapeways.com / i.materialise.com / 3dmetaltec.com . It's just that the DIY 3D printers tend to be rather crude.
  If you're saying that eventually these 3D printers will work their way down to the prosumer and later consumer level, then sure.. but that 'revolution' started around the time ZCorp et al made their machines available at reasonable (for small studios/manufacturers/etc., not individuals) prices, way down from the usual rapid prototyping machines' costs, quite a few years ago.. not 'now'.
3. Re:the next industrial revolution by MachDelta · 2011-01-21 13:39 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Fuck you. I would if I could.
  PS: Anyone have a copy of Ferrari_599_Fiorano.torrent? Thanx!
4. Re:the next industrial revolution by ColdWetDog · 2011-01-21 13:54 · Score: 2
  
  You wouldn't steal a car. But soon you'll be able to copy one.
  
  I doubt GM / Ford / Ferrari will be too worried about off white lumpy 'cars' with plastic engines anytime in the foreseeable future. Wal Mart might be concerned about your ability to mimic their large selection of plastic junk, everyone else - not so much.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
5. Re:the next industrial revolution by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 14:05 · Score: 0
  
  I'm pretty confident that most Americans would steal a car worth $100,000+ that was unlocked and untracked, if they knew they wouldn't be seen or fingerprinted, and if they knew of a way to safely sell it. As usual the reluctance has nothing to do with ethics... it's all about risk vs. reward.
6. Re:the next industrial revolution by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 16:21 · Score: 0
  
  I'm pretty sure your post says more about you than about Americans.
7. Re:the next industrial revolution by westlake · 2011-01-21 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  You wouldn't steal a car. But soon you'll be able to copy one.
  Not until you can make - finish - assemble - and test - 15,000 to 20,000 parts of any arbitrary size, shape, weight, composition, and precision.
8. Re:the next industrial revolution by Sparr0 · 2011-01-21 19:09 · Score: 1
  
  I think the first major lawsuit over physical-item-IP-infringement, as relates to individual 3d printing, will be for a brand name shoe. $50k commercial 3d printers (the kind that can print in multiple materials, including plastic, polymers, rubber, etc at the same time) can almost print a commercial-quality shoe today (without laces).
9. Re:the next industrial revolution by LingNoi · 2011-01-21 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  I hope they can raise the quality of these things. I'd like to get one to print out electronic parts to fix my headphones. Things such as the tiny bits of plastic that hold the ribbon to the circuit board would be perfect for this thing to print. Unfortunately the size and quality needed makes it impossible for these things to print. :(
  Screws would be another thing. All my electronics come with tiny weird screws, if it could print new metal ones that would be awesome.
  Guess we're going to have to wait for the quality to get better though.
10. Re:the next industrial revolution by fractoid · 2011-01-21 22:40 · Score: 1
  
  Swap you a copy of Jessica_Alba_17.tar.gz for it? ;)
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
11. Re:the next industrial revolution by Smauler · 2011-01-22 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  Obligatory you wouldn't steal a car. (for some reason /. seems to be refusing to put my link in, so : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg ).
  Anything that makes piracy analogies on Slashdot more interesting is good by me.
12. Re:the next industrial revolution by d6 · 2011-01-22 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  >> I doubt GM / Ford / Ferrari will be too worried about off white lumpy 'cars' with plastic engines
  
  Given the huuuuge percentage of the cars that are built from plastic chunks that are often stupid expensive to replace, they should be worried.
  
  The last window repair I had done required buying an entire (new) actuator with all ancillary parts, because some 20 cent plastic piece gave up in the cold.
  None of the scrap yards around here had a used one because - guess what - they all break on this poorly engineered p.o.s. (less than 4 years old, just off warranty)
  If I had access to a makerbot/reprap, I woulda taken a stab at making the part myself. perhaps it'd fail, perhaps not.
  
  When these printers get a little more user-friendly and make a decent installed base, it'll be something any company ripping us for small parts will need to think about.
13. Re:the next industrial revolution by Yvan256 · 2011-01-22 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget that the Thing-O-Matic can print parts after parts without any user intervention. Let's say only four hours per part... Hey, it'll take less than seven years to print your car!
14. Re:the next industrial revolution by dgatwood · 2011-01-22 08:42 · Score: 2
  
  Similarly, when the cassette recorder came out, the music industry was saying, "Yeah, but the quality of reproduction is awful and you can't copy a whole 33 1/3 RPM record." When the first computer with sound came out, they said, "Yeah, but it can only do 1-bit mono audio. It won't ever be a threat." Looking back, it's obvious that they were missing something.
  Remember that this 3D printer is a fairly early design. Eventually we'll have robots that can do everything you describe in a few hours. This is just one step towards that, but it is a significant step.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
15. Re:the next industrial revolution by damburger · 2011-01-22 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  To the best of my knowledge, all additive manufacture techniques that work in metal need a vacuum - so, if you pardon the pun, don't hold your breath.
  
  --
  If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
And that was that site... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 13:15 · Score: 0

The slashdot-effect - every webpage nightmare...
1. Re:And that was that site... by freedumb2000 · 2011-01-21 14:04 · Score: 1
  
  They should have made a few more web servers with the Thing-o-Matic *ducks*
2. Re:And that was that site... by theMoleofProduction · 2011-01-21 17:53 · Score: 2
  
  The wiki is still up, and more informative than the store site. Wiki - MakerBot Industries
  
  --
  Chemists do it with moles.
3. Re:And that was that site... by theMoleofProduction · 2011-01-21 17:59 · Score: 2
  
  FWIW, I have a Makerbot Cupcake CNC, and it's freaking awesome. It takes a LOT of work to get it running and tuned properly, but once it's working, you can use it to make improved versions of every part. It's a self-feeding hobby. I've spent days building new parts to make things run better, just so I can use it to print even better improvements that require more precision.
  
  --
  Chemists do it with moles.
4. Re:And that was that site... by VolciMaster · 2011-01-22 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  FWIW, I have a Makerbot Cupcake CNC
  what does a CNC-made cupcake look and taste like? And really: how many parts can it take?
  
  --
  antipaucity
I would think... by camperdave · 2011-01-21 13:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Wouldn't it be more accurate to move the head around rather than moving the part? What if your plastic hasn't set yet? Jiggling it around while it is hardening is probably not good for getting an accurate part.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
1. Re:I would think... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 13:42 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Have you seen the parts this thing prints? "Accurate" is not what I would call it.
  I'm not sure why people like these so much. Yeah it's a cool idea but these are barely useable because the results are not even remotely smooth, they're brittle and only loosely resemble the model.
2. Re:I would think... by Eponymous+Coward · 2011-01-21 14:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Did you see the first personal computers? They were useless toys compared to even the minicomputers of the day. Barely any RAM and no interactive display. Entering programs was laborious and error prone.
3. Re:I would think... by Osgeld · 2011-01-21 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  well not that I have one, but have used one ...
  1) the plastic is not that wobbly, its not gel :-)
  2) everything I have seen that was made by a home made extruder requires finishing to some degree, accuracy is not the 100% goal if you pursue a machine of this type
4. Re:I would think... by Osgeld · 2011-01-21 14:58 · Score: 2
  
  and they were accurate (not counting user error) .. just sayin
5. Re:I would think... by Sir_Lewk · 2011-01-21 15:07 · Score: 0
  
  Hand over your geek card.
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
6. Re:I would think... by Sir_Lewk · 2011-01-21 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, there's no way you could use parts printed from something like RepRap to make something as complex as say, another 3d printer. ..oh wait...
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
7. Re:I would think... by sircastor · 2011-01-21 15:16 · Score: 2
  
  Previous printer designs put a lot of stress on the head moving around because it had the full extruder on it. Cupcake (and subsequently the Thingomatic) had stationary z-axis-only head. Like it was said below, they aren't jiggly. The plastic firms up quite quickly.
8. Re:I would think... by rubycodez · 2011-01-21 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  you'd better hand in your geek card if you think the Pentium is anything remotely like the processors of the first personal computers.
9. Re:I would think... by rubycodez · 2011-01-21 15:53 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  hahah, RerRap is a joke, it can't make its circuit boards, motors, sensors, not even its threaded rods for that piss-poorly "engineered" tinker toy frame. A child's toy for today's arrested development boys in men's skins. A milling machine can replicate itself, motor and all. Note I didn't even put the letters CNC in front of milling machine, replication of non-CNC milling machines by themselves was a done deal in the 1950s or perhaps even earlier.
10. Re:I would think... by theheadlessrabbit · 2011-01-21 17:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I've played around with a makerbot. It might seem like the plastic would jiggle on the moving base, but it really isn't a problem at all.
  The biggest problem I've seen with the makerbot is the z-axis, the standard bars are too flexible, causing alignment problems on taller objects.
  My verdict on the makerbot: toy, not tool.
  
  --
  -I only code in BASIC.-
11. Re:I would think... by Z34107 · 2011-01-21 17:40 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Maximum PC did an article on this thing. They managed to print a whistle (with the captive pea inside). One Cathal Garvey, a geneticist, is using it to stave off having to buy a few million worth of lab equipment; see the dremel-powered centrifuge or the microlathe.
  So, it's not perfect or self-replicating, but you can do some cool stuff with it. Non-geneticists might appreciate being able to machine replacements for all the brittle plastic shit that can break, or just get their own Master Chief statue.
  
  --
  DATABASE WOW WOW
12. Re:I would think... by fizzup · 2011-01-21 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, of course. The processors used in early personal computers didn't have any bugs at all.
13. Re:I would think... by phooky · 2011-01-21 17:54 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  We initially inverted the head/model relationship because (at least when we were getting started) the extruder was a heavy, delicate bit of equipment, and the models being printed were very small and light. Moving the model means moving less mass. If you're printing in ABS, the material is viscous and sticky enough right out of the nozzle that it isn't perturbed by the platform motion. The disadvantage of this scheme is that it reduces your build area significantly, you need good model/platform adhesion, and tall models have a bit of an inverted pendulum effect. However, you don't have to worry about the head getting jammed or shaking apart as it slams back and forth at high speed.
14. Re:I would think... by theMoleofProduction · 2011-01-21 18:06 · Score: 1
  
  The extruder assembly is much heavier than the largest plastic objects you might print. with this machine you can print a lot faster (with cheaper, smaller stepper motors) if you move the build platform rather than the extruder.
  
  --
  Chemists do it with moles.
15. Re:I would think... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-01-21 18:40 · Score: 2
  
  That's still kind of sidestepping the question.
  
  The commercial models I have seen all move the head, not the part.
16. Re:I would think... by Sparr0 · 2011-01-21 19:11 · Score: 2
  
  There are already prototypes for the next generation of reprap that can print their own circuit boards. These are all just incremental steps, and they are getting closer together. Combining an additive printer with a subtractive milling machine is coming.
17. Re:I would think... by Sparr0 · 2011-01-21 19:15 · Score: 1
  
  You need a set of wobble arrestors.
18. Re:I would think... by drinkypoo · 2011-01-21 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  I just watched a carabiner being printed on a thing-o-matic ("just" as in "and then I drove from Watsonville to Santa Cruz and drank a glass of water and began Slashdotting") and it leaves quite a bit to be desired. The machine is flimsy and has weird harmonics if you step around jaggedly, which is often quite handy to do. The stock hot head and its control board are crufty at best. The work area is 1/4 the size of the competitor and the means for controlling the amount of working material delivered is not very well designed as it has no feedback mechanism. The stock system provides no feedback about temperatures or other information while printing is in progress. And yes, practically the whole thing moves around instead of just the head, and it shakes around on its feet quite a bit during direction changes, to the point that it is notably quieter if you just hold it down.
  The problem isn't that you can't get good results with the system, the problem is that you can get better results easier and cheaper with another system.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
19. Re:I would think... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2011-01-21 20:41 · Score: 1
  
  If so, I would be interested in knowing what that system is.
20. Re:I would think... by risom · 2011-01-22 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  So, it's not perfect or self-replicating, but you can do some cool stuff with it.
  
  Quite an interesting development, indeed. If a higher level of self-replication is wanted, however, it's worth mentioning Reprap, of which Makerbot is a commercial spin-off (e.g. Makerbot is to Reprap what Ubuntu is to Debian). Reprap has an explicit design goal of maximizing the level of self-replication.
21. Re:I would think... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-22 01:59 · Score: 0
  
  People may want to know where to get a cheaper system. I received a TechZone Lasercut Mendel kit last Saturday and am in the middle of the build. Print volume will be 8"x8"x6" (200mm x 200mm x 150mm). It doesn't have a heated or automated bed, but at $799 it's a steal compared to the $1200 Thing-o-matic. I think you can build a heated bed conveyor for less than $400. If I'm wrong, the Thing-o-Matic's print volume is only (120mm x 120 mm x ??? ). The Mendel can ship within 2 weeks and Thing-o-Matic has a seven week lead time. Which is the better deal?
22. Re:I would think... by drinkypoo · 2011-01-22 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  I am indeed talking about the reprap which has four times the printing area (2d). My impression is that height is increased as well but I only know about the X and Y (or is that X and Z?) My friend with the thing-o-matic hopes to sell it quickly while someone might still buy it, and buy a reprap with the money and as much additional money as necessary. The lack of effective material feed control is something of a show-stopper.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
23. Re:I would think... by rubycodez · 2011-01-22 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  jokes on you, the 6502 was introduced as a cheap, feature-reduced alternative microprocessor for $25 for when the over $150 8080 and 6800 were too expensive. Cheap..and buggy. Kind of like the piece of shit FDM machine of this article....
24. Re:I would think... by dbc · 2011-01-22 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, wobble in the Cupcake comes from sloppy assembly. First, make sure the rods are straight. But even given straight rods, realize that you are putting imperial size threaded rods into a metric bearing -- lots of slop there. The best fix is to get some solid wire of the right gauge (#28 or so) and wrap it in the threads before putting the rods into the bearings. That keeps the rods centered as you tighten them onto the bearing. Wobble gone. Wobble arrestors are a band-aid on the symptom, not a fix for the root cause.
  And to the grandparent, the Cupcake is *capable* of very good results -- but it takes tuning. A lot of people building Makerbots have very little experience with CNC machines and wonder why it doesn't work perfectly straight out of the box and lack the skills to diagnose the issues.
25. Re:I would think... by Bigjeff5 · 2011-01-22 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  They were actually sold as hobby electronics kits. They were quite literally toys.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
26. Re:I would think... by Bigjeff5 · 2011-01-22 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  It started with earlier versions due to design considerations, and hasn't been changed.
  I don't see how that is side-stepping the question. Sounds more like directly answering it, to me.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
27. Re:I would think... by scribblej · 2011-01-22 17:53 · Score: 1
  
  The print head moves in Z. There are some problems due to moving the model, but the plastic sets immediately, and in fact most people use heated platforms to print on to keep it a bit warm and tacky, but it still isn't going to jiggle around.
  The mass of the entire model and platform moving around does mean you have to have things tuned pretty well and big models can sometimes shake things up a bit.
28. Re:I would think... by scribblej · 2011-01-22 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  This is only true on the discontinued Makerbot Cupcake. The Thing-O-Matic rods are VERY solid.
29. Re:I would think... by scribblej · 2011-01-22 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  Which other system is both easier and cheaper?
  Reprap Prusa; cheaper, not easier. Same results.
  UP!; easier, not cheaper. Better results.
  Are there any other serious contenders before you get completely out of desktop price range?
Self Assembly by JoelWink · 2011-01-21 13:24 · Score: 0

So in just sixteen hours it assembled itself? Cool!
1. Re:Self Assembly by whiteboy86 · 2011-01-21 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  T1000 self assembly was cool. "16 hours" of gooey glue spit job resulted in well... but we have to praise them for trying, enthusiasm and pioneering...
"3D Printer?" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 13:38 · Score: 1, Informative

Why not call it what it is, a consumer-oriented CNC milling machine. It is arguably in the same family of devices as the 5-axis Hermle C60s in the factory where I work. (We use those giant machines to cut some really *tiny* parts, it's pretty awesome to watch them do their thing.)
I'm not knocking the Thing-o-Matic in any way. I want one.
1. Re:"3D Printer?" by Speare · 2011-01-21 13:42 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Why not call it a milling machine?
  
  Er, because it doesn't perform any milling? It performs deposition - adding of material. Milling is carving away - subtracting the material.
  
  --
  [ .sig file not found ]
2. Re:"3D Printer?" by MrEricSir · 2011-01-21 13:42 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Why not call it what it is, a consumer-oriented CNC milling machine.
  I hope you're not looking to work in marketing.
  
  --
  There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
3. Re:"3D Printer?" by RobbieCrash · 2011-01-21 13:45 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  So, why not call it a gnillim machine?
  
  --
  Keep on knockin'
  https://robbiecrash.me
4. Re:"3D Printer?" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  Why not - he's got the terminology pat, but doesn't have a clue what it means. Sounds like a marketing pro to me.
5. Re:"3D Printer?" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 20:22 · Score: 0
  
  Why don't we call you an idiot?
6. Re:"3D Printer?" by Yeb · 2011-01-22 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  For milling type machines along the lines of a makerbot, see the Contraptor:
  http://www.contraptor.org/
7. Re:"3D Printer?" by Bigjeff5 · 2011-01-22 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Probably because it is in no way, shape, or form a CNC milling machine. How can it be a milling machine if it doesn't do any milling? Seriously, you should probably look up the word "milling". It might help. Printing is much more accurate in the sense of ink-jet printing, but extrusion would be the most correct term in most cases.
  CNC might still apply, but I'm not totally sure it uses numerical control in the CNC sense.
  I suppose you could start calling things they aren't if you really want to, but I've got to warn you, just about everybody is going to think you are an idiot. They'll be right too.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
sounds a lot like the kinect by Dan9999 · 2011-01-21 14:13 · Score: 1

What MS did with a generally non accessible device (due to price and integration with the current market) to make it 150$ is truly remarkable.
Now if only Apple will come out with the iMadeIt, or the iBuiltIt or iTem or iDontKnowWhatever.
Ethan H is a friend of mine by Goner · 2011-01-21 14:14 · Score: 1

He is mentioned in this article. He is awesome and deserves all of the adoration he will receive for his work at Makerbot.
Truly.
Hmm... by adolf · 2011-01-21 14:15 · Score: 1

I think I'd rather have the laser burn table that they used to cut out various parts of the Thing-o-Matic (such as the plywood shell), than a machine that prints stuff from plastic.
But then, I like to make big things, instead of little things. :)

--
Kid-proof tablet..
Quality control? by detritus` · 2011-01-21 14:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

I was seriously considering picking one of these up as i tend to do a lot of low level fabrication (right up to casting noble and non-noble metals) and have yet to find a reasonable and quick method to fab plastics. However looking on the website and reading the review the quality of this product seems extremely questionable, not only did this one unit have 2 major issues within the first day of running (with a complex system like this not exactly a horrid start) but the company itself has a blog post on the front page about how its favorite customer service interaction was one in which the customer decided to fix all the problems on their unit themselves. So my first two impressions are that this unit will most likely be in a state of disrepair in between quick burts of usefulness? I'd rather just submit my renderings to online stores and pay the shipping, etc. simply for the lack of frustration. Now if they got these problems under control i'd have one tomorrow.

--
drunk chemists
1. Re:Quality control? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 14:55 · Score: 1
  
  I was seriously considering picking one of these up as i tend to do a lot of low level fabrication (right up to casting noble and non-noble metals) and have yet to find a reasonable and quick method to fab plastics.
  Small, relatively cheap (about the same price as this Makerbot) CNC milling machines can carve up blocks of ABS or Teflon or whatnot like there's no tomorrow.
2. Re:Quality control? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  "Now if they got these problems under control i'd have one tomorrow."
  That's what I tried to tell people about these horseless carriages, but they didn't believe me. Still have my trusty steed. I remember a joke about GM making cars like Microsoft; look who's laughing now.
  - Mr. Ed
3. Re:Quality control? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 15:16 · Score: 0
  
  That's one of the reasons I don't own one of these. I researched the 3d printers that they make for a while and it just seemed like very few people actually had them up and working without what seemed like months of "fixing".
4. Re:Quality control? by rubycodez · 2011-01-21 15:58 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  large, real metal cutting milling machines can also be had used for that price range, and you can add CNC over time while first learning the tricks of the trade. Instead of cutting plastic or sugar, learn to make real fucking machines with a real fucking machine.
5. Re:Quality control? by jamesh · 2011-01-21 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  Have you ever actually seen a cheap (or even an expensive) milling machine in operation?
  I can see what the attraction is with a printing solution rather than a cutting solution. Milling is messy, and certainly not something you'd want to do in your lounge room.
6. Re:Quality control? by Idarubicin · 2011-01-21 16:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  large, real metal cutting milling machines can also be had used for that price range, and you can add CNC over time while first learning the tricks of the trade. Instead of cutting plastic or sugar, learn to make real fucking machines with a real fucking machine.
  Not everyone wants to commit the time and money to train to be a fully-fledged machinist. Not every job requires (or is even properly done with) metal parts. Not every designer wants to spend a week in the shop making ten identical copies of a widget for a prototype when his time would be better spent at the drafting table. Not every shop wants to hire half a dozen machinists when they can hire one to oversee a bunch of CNC mills.
  In short, don't be a condescending ass.
  
  --
  ~Idarubicin
7. Re:Quality control? by Tintivilus · 2011-01-21 17:39 · Score: 1
  
  Man, why is this concept so difficult to grasp? It's. Not. A. Milling. Machine.
  It's an FDM
  Jobs for one are rarely jobs for the other
8. Re:Quality control? by Frosty+Piss · 2011-01-21 17:42 · Score: 0
  
  In short, don't be a condescending ass.
  Perhaps you should take your own advice...
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
9. Re:Quality control? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 18:15 · Score: 0
  
  A condescending ass on slashdot? No way man, I don't believe that. Slashdot is full of follower males enraged at the alpha and too stupid/weak to do anything about it.
10. Re:Quality control? by theMoleofProduction · 2011-01-21 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  That's correct in my case. I had a lot of trouble with the extruder hot end assembly (Cupcake CNC that shipped with a MK4 extruder). I had to order some spare parts, and I had to sift through a lot of conflicting data. I knew what I was getting into when I bought it, and I enjoyed the ride. It's running beautifully now.
  
  --
  Chemists do it with moles.
11. Re:Quality control? by ConMotto · 2011-01-21 18:34 · Score: 1
  
  Hi, I'm the author of TFA. I generally agree with you. It's definitely NOT something you'd use to replace $200K of aircraft-grade machinery, but more than adaquate for computer geeks (such as myself) for the occasional project. Considering that the price of such machines is only going to come down in the next 10 years, I don't see any reason why all manner of engineers couldn't--in the forseeable future--have one at their disposal. With a bit more polish and robustness, home fabrication could eventually become more like a household applicance than something only for geeks. Kindof like computers.
12. Re:Quality control? by thunderclap · 2011-01-21 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  and then you can hire copious amounts of pseudo-porn stars to use said machine. www.fuckingmachines.com (yes, real. YES, VERY NSFW) and I do believe you cab do that on a cnc. But what about the latex? ;)
13. Re:Quality control? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 19:28 · Score: 0
  
  Um.. did you even read what he typed, or is your mind placing things there that are not there?
14. Re:Quality control? by 0100010001010011 · 2011-01-22 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  My cousin works in the industry, during the last down turn he would go to auctions and said that some milling machines were selling for scrap metal prices.
15. Re:Quality control? by GaryOlson · 2011-01-22 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Milling is only messy because the impetus of industrial machining is minimizing machine time to minimize cost and increase profits. If the depth and speed of cut is modified from maximum productivity to chip control, the mess can be effectively contained. [assuming you are not cutting 304L stainless or similarly disgustingly obstinate material]. Tooling will need to be chosen to minimize heating instead of maximizing cut volume.
  
  --
  Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
16. Re:Quality control? by rubycodez · 2011-01-22 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  but this type of FDM system just has abysmal tolerances on the parts it produces, too horribly bad for any useful "widget" it's not being a condescending ass to say "why blow large amount of money for half-assed crap when you can get something really, really good that can work in sugar or plastic or steel, that can last your whole life"
17. Re:Quality control? by rubycodez · 2011-01-22 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  And what did people do before the FDM became good enough in the 90s, for plastic housings and soft tools and molds? What do they do NOW when they need a solution with better than the hundredths of an inch sloppiness of typical FDM? Back to the milling machine.....jobs for the milling machine often can't be jobs for the FDM, you're half right.
18. Re:Quality control? by Idarubicin · 2011-01-22 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  but this type of FDM system just has abysmal tolerances on the parts it produces, too horribly bad for any useful "widget" it's not being a condescending ass to say "why blow large amount of money for half-assed crap when you can get something really, really good that can work in sugar or plastic or steel, that can last your whole life"
  Your condescending remark would have made more sense (but wouldn't have been any less gratuitously rude) had you been replying to a comment endorsing the FDM 'Thing-o-Matic' system in the article. The post to which you responded, however, was discussing small CNC milling systems designed to work in plastic and capable of generating useful parts with reasonable tolerances. There exist situations (not particularly uncommon ones, either) where having a smaller, less-capable CNC mill makes more sense as a purchase than larger, more-capable, non-CNC equipment -- even at the same price point. I recommend that you re-read my post, in case you missed or misunderstood the list of several such situations and circumstances I already provided.
  
  --
  ~Idarubicin
19. Re:Quality control? by damburger · 2011-01-22 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  TBH sounds like the same complaints people could've made about home computer kits in the late 1970's. Give this technology 20-30 years and it will be smooth, shiny and work out of the box - providing it isn't killed by the content holders.
  
  --
  If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
20. Re:Quality control? by Taxman415a · 2011-01-22 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  It does seem that the RepRap is of higher quality. I didn't do any hard core searching, but all the comments about them only seem to be unhappy with the customer service of the places selling them. The quality seems much better than the descriptions of the thing-o-matic. The RepRap version that is sold pre-assembled by Botmill is only $1400, but they get terrible reviews for their customer service. The kits are much cheaper at many places ($600), have a look at the RepRap wiki. The RepRap is the one that was on slashdot a bit back and was a bit overhyped as being able to replicated itself. Well it can make it's own plastic parts, but not the metal or circuit boards. Being able to make the plastic parts seems worth it to me though.
21. Re:Quality control? by scribblej · 2011-01-22 17:56 · Score: 1
  
  If you have more money and want something that is quality out of the box, that you don't have to build, check into the UP! printer.
22. Re:Quality control? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-23 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  Is your head up your ass, or is that Ron Jeremy's cock?
website about mods to the thing-o-matic by smellsofbikes · 2011-01-21 15:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

The Smell Of Molten Solder In The Morning blog has spent the last week and change writing about mods he's done to his thing-o-matic, with sections on reducing static buildup that can discharge and fry electronics, rewiring part of the power supply to allow separate volatile and high-power sections, and thermally characterizing and modifying the heater system on the extruder head, including a big chunk on how to calibrate thermocouples.
I'm looking forwards to seeing what he builds once he's gotten done rebuilding the machine.
Sure, it's a lot of work to put into a brand-new machine, but anyone who has bought a Chinese mill or lathe machine knows that a right-out-of-the-box rebuild sure helps the accuracy. Even with simple tools like wood chisels, the first thing you do is resharpen them because the from-the-factory job is nearly worthless, so it's hardly surprising that an amateur-designed, amateur-built, and kit-built-by-amateur 3D printer would need some work.

--
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Laser cutters are more useful by Animats · 2011-01-21 16:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think I'd rather have the laser burn table that they used to cut out various parts of the Thing-o-Matic (such as the plywood shell), than a machine that prints stuff from plastic.
The desk-sized laser cutters are the most popular machines at TechShop. They're easy to use, easy to program (all they need is line art), and will cut up to 3/8" plywood. The size limit is 18" x 24". They'll cut wood and many plastics, but not metals - that takes a much more powerful model.
Making small plastic parts by injection molding is an incredibly cheap operation in quantity. Making one-off parts with a MakerBot like device is a slow, expensive process, and the surface quality will be lower. On the other hand, cutting stuff out of sheet stock with laser cutters, plasma cutters, and water-jet cutters is fast; it's useful as a production process.
1. Re:Laser cutters are more useful by hcdejong · 2011-01-21 20:19 · Score: 1
  
  Laser cutters are useful for other types of work than 3D printers. A laser cutter is 2D. For my hobby (building scale models) a 2D cutter has limited value because most of the parts I need are in 3D.
2. Re:Laser cutters are more useful by Sparr0 · 2011-01-22 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  But what if you only need one part?
It not turnkey, it's a lifestyle choice by dbc · 2011-01-21 16:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

I've had one of the Makerbot Cupcakes for quite a while. Great fun to build and operate -- if you are a tinkerer and enjoy making things work, and tweaking them until they work, and tuning them again when they quit working. If you don't happen to have the tinkerer gene, then they are not for you. I tell anyone that asks me about it: "It's not turnkey like a laser printer, it's a lifestyle choice."
Outrageous good fun, though, if you like that sort of thing. My last few prints: a pair of wheels for a robot, a bracket to mount an Android phone on a robot, and a cookie cutter to give as a gift. In between, my daughter has been printing doll house furniture.
1. Re:It not turnkey, it's a lifestyle choice by zeroeth · 2011-01-22 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  .. In between, my daughter has been printing doll house furniture.
  I think this is one of its (and these online 3d printers that keep popping up) excel at, custom one-off small scale items. I know some grownups who are addicted to their doll house furniture. The would flip if you showed them Google sketchup's furniture shape library and said 'print out whatever you want'!
After a 16-hour self-assembly by frovingslosh · 2011-01-21 16:23 · Score: 4, Funny

After a 16-hour self-assembly
Now I'm impressed, I had no idea that it could self assemble, I expected that the guy who bought it would have to put it together.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
1. Re:After a 16-hour self-assembly by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2011-01-21 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  After a 16-hour self-assembly
  Now I'm impressed, I had no idea that it could self assemble, I expected that the guy who bought it would have to put it together.
  I can't tell if you're kidding - but it didn't self-assemble. I guess the submitter either didn't read the article, or else doesn't know that self assembly has a specific meaning in engineering parlance.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
2. Re:After a 16-hour self-assembly by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-22 00:52 · Score: 0
  
  I had no idea that it could self assemble
  Not only that, but after it is fully assembled it will print copies of its own parts which will then assemble themselves too!
3. Re:After a 16-hour self-assembly by Bigjeff5 · 2011-01-22 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'll help you:
  It was sarcasm.
  
  --
  Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Makerbot? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-21 19:15 · Score: 0

Real 3D printer enthusiasts use parts from their Darwins to make Mendels.
my favorite part by or-switch · 2011-01-21 20:17 · Score: 1

was the kitty
3 Sec by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-22 04:41 · Score: 0

I love the 3 seconds total of the machine itself and the 25+ of a monitor showing software leaving the rest for teh lolz catz.
Cupcake Photos by Yeb · 2011-01-22 06:42 · Score: 1

I just started assembly of a Makerbot Cupcake. Unboxing & some assembly photos here:
http://www.alephobjects.com/photos/printers/makerbot/cupcake/
I have some other printers as well, in various states, more photos:
http://www.alephobjects.com/photos/printers/
The Makerbot stuff is very well documented relative to the other projects.
-Jeff Moe
Owning the original makerbot cupcake... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-22 07:31 · Score: 0

This is an amazing piece of work open-source wise and education-wise.
What I seriously don't like about this project, is the attention of press and hype vs. the real world results.
Let me explain: Open source is great, needs a lot of good press and success stories, but when you end up on time magazine, "fastest growing open source business" and all... average joe thinks, wow, this must be an amazing thing to own.
it is... ...only if you know what you are getting into, and this is the part where it actually hurts:
- If you're not into mechanics/electronics (at least to an hobby level, which is enough to get it to work and ask questions for troubleshooting) you're in for a lot of frustrations.
- If you think you pay 1200$ and it's done... you'll print and never pay another 200+$ for parts and upgrade (other than plastic), you're in for a surprise.
- If you think you can just model any object and print it out, you're in for a lot of deception as an extrusion-based system is extremely limiting (even with support material recently added)
- If you think it comes with a warranty and is solid like any off the shelf products, you'll probably end up putting it in a closet or whatever's left on ebay!
So my advise: know what you are getting into, read the forums, check for alternative suppliers (makergear has been offering amazing alternative parts at decent price) and don't assume anything because this is what grows from a fun project to a lot of frustrations.
I'm not bashing it, mine is still assembled and sitting on my desktop, but I've been looking to upgrade the print head to a stepper motor for the last 3 months and all the information is scatterred and incomplete so I'm waiting until makergear has an actual packaged solution back in stock before continuing as I will never buy anything from makerbot again. Selling something "easy, for everyone, that just works" like if your mom could operate one is just plain wrong, however I give all credits to the guy for creating the movement in the first place and to close on a positive note: What an amazing hobby or student project for hacking and experimenting!
Excellent articles on related subjects. by qvatch · 2011-01-22 08:43 · Score: 1

For anyone interested in CNC milling and casting, both of which are tangentially related and informative to this, have a look at these excellent writings: http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/guerrilla_cnc1.shtml http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/guerrilla_cnc2.shtml
Fumes? by redwoodtree · 2011-01-22 17:23 · Score: 1

I find no mention of handling fumes. Burning ABS plastic is notoriously toxic, one of the main things that has been holding me back from tackling this for a home installation. Ideally one would construct a fume hood of sorts and then vent it externally to the home, but there are also issues with exactly how/where and also filtering perhaps ?

It bothers me that there's hardly any mention of fume issues during the talk about these great machines.
Thing O Matic Build Time Lapse by scribblej · 2011-01-22 17:51 · Score: 1

I just assembled one myself.... here's a video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpAw5SCR7gQ
repraps are bigger better and cheeper by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-22 21:59 · Score: 0

Seriously, the makerbots are just very expencive yet inferior knockoffs of repraps
If you are not familiar with reprap.org you are missing out on a very active community where daily improvements are common (oh, and you just print out those improvements and install them on your printer... new kind of update, eh?)
Also, what many don't realize is that there are actually quite a few vendors who sell done-deal reprap kits. My personal favorite is http://makergear.com who has a complete kit, including heated print bed, extremely reliable extruder, Arduino Mega/RAMPS electronics, and the badest stepper moters you can fit in a NEMA 17 housing for only $825 for a mixed SAE/metric version, and $850 for a purly metric version.
The build size of makerbots is either 10x10x10 or 11x11x11cm (Cupcake vs ThingO'Matic)
The build size of reprap prusa/mendel is 20x20x14cm (that is, actually big enough to build usefull objects other than blause buttons)
The makerbots use a DC motor for the extruder, which makes it harder to calibrate and control
The repraps use a geared stepper motor giving it torque and precision
The makerbots has exactly one vendor.. and we all know how well that work out for market price
The rapraps have a small mulitude of shops selling complete printer kits, parts, adons, acessories etc
I don't bother listing any more details... bottom line: MakerBots are an afterthought of a commercialization of the findings of another project