What's Holding Back 3-D Printing

An anonymous reader writes "An article at MIT's Technology Review makes the case that the complexity of the design tools behind 3-D printing are what's holding it back from widespread adoption. Many of the devices are indeed prohibitively expensive, but the inability for your average person — or even your average tech hobbyist — to pick it up and start experimenting is an even bigger obstacle. 'That means software innovation could be more important to 3-D printing than gradual improvements in the underlying technology for shaping objects. That technology is already 30 years old and is widely used in industry to create prototypes, molds, and, in some cases, parts for airplanes. ... Although additive manufacturing allows for designs that can't be made easily in any other way — such as complex shapes with internal cavities — so far, companies have mostly used 3-D printing to create prototypes or models of familiar products.'"

Comments

Not enough publicity

[Anonymous Coward]

Tech sites like Slashdot are ignoring innovations like 3D printing, bitcoin, Raspberry Pi.

Re:Not enough publicity

[sanman2]

What rubbish - with everyone and his brother being a programmer nowadays, anything new always ends up with a call to develop more software for it. When all you have is a hammer, then every problem is made to look like a nail. Software is most certainly not the bottleneck. There are plenty of 3D modeling programs out there, and a number of them have features for solid modeling.

The real hurdle to 3D printing is in being able to produce parts that don't look like rejects from the Lego factory. High-end 3D printers that can produce high-quality objects command an astronomical price. Software is the least of the problem here.

Re:Not enough publicity

[rudy_wayne]

What rubbish - with everyone and his brother being a programmer nowadays, anything new always ends up with a call to develop more software for it. When all you have is a hammer, then every problem is made to look like a nail. Software is most certainly not the bottleneck. There are plenty of 3D modeling programs out there,

Although I agree that 3D printers that can do something really useful are still too expensive, dismissing software is just plain wrong. If you think that software isn't a big part of the problem, then you've never used 3D modeling software.

The idea that anyone can design a 3D item as easily as drawing a picture in Microsoft Paint (or GIMP) is a fantasy that may never become a reality. If you've ever actually used 3D modelling software, you understand this.

Re:Not enough publicity

[Jeremi]

The real hurdle to 3D printing is in being able to produce parts that don't look like rejects from the Lego factory.

The real issue is that most people just don't need custom parts. Most widgets that are useful are already available at a very good price at the local hardware store.

Custom part fabrication is handy for well-heeled tinkerers, but most people aren't tinkerers or well-heeled.

Come out with a 3D food printer, on the other hand, that will probably sell. ;)

Re:Not enough publicity

[marcansoft]

There's two problems with the current crop of 3D printers. First, the printers are fiddly. It is possible to print out decent objects on a good printer (personally, I'm a fan of the Ultimaker). However, it requires tuning the printer and the software and maintaining them. It's a solution for tinkerers, not for Joe Average. Companies like MakerBot are deluding themselves when they think they've got a RepRap-class printer they can sell already assembled "for the masses". They still need too much maintenance.

Second, you can't just print anything and expect it to look good. If your object doesn't require support material (overhangs are all under a reasonable angle), and the slices don't contain more than one connected surface, then it will look beautiful on a decent printer. If you need support material though, then you have to deal with removing it, which is nontrivial. If you have more than one surface per slice, then you have to deal with stringing. That's not too bad if the surfaces are far apart (you can remove it easily), but it's difficult if they are close together. These are the limitations of plastic extrusion printers today, and you need to design models taking them into account.

On decent prints: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcan42/8542507791/in/photostream/ . That's a gear, about 8cm across. You have to get up really close to be able to see those layers with the naked eye (they're 0.1mm tall). The roughness on the top and bottom surfaces is probably on the order of 50 microns. It is possible to go smaller on this printer.
On fiddling: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcan42/8543920590/in/photostream/ . Left print is before tensioning belts, right print after. Of course, one of the cool aspects is that I was able to print the belt tensioners on the printer itself.

I'm very happy with my printer, but I would never recommend it to someone who isn't already a hardware hacker.

For me... It's the cost of good printers

[Karmashock]

I don't really want a reprap or similar printer. The print quality is too low. And the cost of the high end machines is prohibitive.

Re:For me... It's the cost of good printers

[ShanghaiBill]

I don't really want a reprap or similar printer. The print quality is too low.

The quality is improving. If you haven't checked out a 3D printer in the last year, you might be surprised. But I think TFA is wrong. The design tools are not what is holding back 3D printing. My son is in third grade, and he used a CAD program to design some parts for his science project. My daughter has designed and printed furniture for her dollhouse. It is not hard.

What is keeping 3D printing from being more of a hobbyist niche, is that most people just don't have any compelling need for random plastic parts. So far there is no killer app.

Re:For me... It's the cost of good printers

[BryanL]

I thought printable guns were going to be the killer app.

Re:Nonsense

[evil_aaronm]

I hesitate to say, "You lack imagination." It's too confrontational for my tastes. However, if I had a quality 3D printer, capable of turning out durable pieces, I'd have almost no end of things I'd create: parts for robotics; automated pan-tilt assemblies; custom gears; custom servo horns; project cases for gadgets I've built; toys for my granddaughter; etc. As it is, I cut and drill pieces from stock plastic, and it's a pain in comparison to custom forming things from a CAD drawing.

use minecraft

[jcupitt65]

A friend of a friend made this:

http://www.printcraft.org/

Make something in minecraft on this (free) server and it emails you a 3D printer file of your object when you disconnect.

Acquisition of Skills Takes Time - lots of it

[BoRegardless]

Been using 3D solids for rapid prototyping new medical equipment for over 15 years.

Job shops can make your parts quickly and relatively inexpensively compared to other machining and hand working methods, so that part is OK for prototyping and functional parts that can stand being done in the limited rapid prototyping materials & processes available.

Skills need are the understanding of the design of physical parts with all the subtleties and the desire to learn to use a competant 3D solids modeling environment. You don't walk in to this expecting a familiarity with PowerPoint as enough skill to do the job.

Competent 3D solids software from the likes of SolidWorks, AutoCAD or other similar programs start at about $5,000 per seat and they don't become highly usable until you get near $10k. It easily takes 1000-2000 hours to become good at doing 3D modeling, assuming you are already familiar with design and 2D CAD.

There are 3D solids RP machines in half a dozen types and you can't afford to buy them for hobby uses. Stratysis laser sintering for Nylon, SS & Titanium type things cost more than a Ferrari, so forget it, unless you are Jay Leno.