I have a 3D printer and am involved in the industry (bld3r.com), and i look at this and it looks good but not particularly impressive. My main issues when looking at this are:
1. Size: that thing looks absolutely tiny. I don't think a 3d printer counts as viable when the largest thing you can print is a espresso cup or a shower hook. Maybe some people are in the market for this, but not me.
2. Weight: Saying you make it light is okay, but i'd be concerned that it may be light enough to wobble itself around your desk.
3. We build our own software for you!: I'm skeptical. Looks like we are going to get proprietary slicing software to attempt to lock users into the brand. Not horrible, just disappointing. An awesome open source slicing program seems better than 5 dozen mediocre proprietary ones.
All in all, good on these guys for getting out there and making something cool. I really don't want to be a negative nancy, because they are out there actually building things when others just talk a lot, but i'll wait and see it first.
Regarding point 3. It does say "Supports and uses open source software (for advanced users)." and "Advanced users can use the expert settings as well as other software such as open-source slicers."
Regarding the #1. Size. I really like how tiny it is. I think it will be a perfect gift for my girlfriend that is into 3d stuff. Maybe she can 3d print some miniature models as a hobby and for entertainment. Not necessarily for practical use.
Having a 3d printer (a Makerbot), the first thing I want to see in another one is the resolution. However, in all of these pictures the printed object is out of focus or just too far to see it clearly. (Is it on purpose?)
Then I want to see the speed. A time lapse doesn't do it.
The 15 "innovations"...
I would try to emphasize the 3-5 most important.
The other ones are... how would I put it... this is the kind of stuff I would have put in a school work just to take up some space:
8. Bold colors. Choose from Silver, Black, Blue, RedOrange, and Green.
9. New filament materials like Chameleon PLA.
10. Inspirational Micro filament spools. -----> Inspirational? Really?
11. Modernized touch-capable software.
12. Replaceable print beds for alternative materials.
13. Replaceable nozzles for experimenters.
14. Designed for fast assembly in the US for quality control.
15. An ABS-based print bed allows you to print larger ABS parts.
Another random thought: The art team is almost as big as the dev team... wtf?
A year ago, when the last sub-500 "3D Printer that Everyone can use!" made 1.5 million dollars on KickStarter [1], I predicted that the next even-more-affordable printer would be kickstarted before that one could even ship.
Well, looks like I was wrong, but only by a few months. And this new one, only $100 cheaper, is already at 1,400% of it's goal. So now the only question is, how long until the $300 "First truly TRULY consumer 3D printer" makes a million on KickStarter?
Shipping: Oh yeah, about that, it's another $50... (or another $150 if you're not from the land of the free).
After the Kickstarter: Well, now it costs $497
And shipping now?: A mere $100! ($150 to the UK)
And after the pre-orders? "Retail price of the Buccaneer will be significantly higher than the pre-retail prices when we release it in the months ahead."
Sorry, but no. That's not affordable and the marketing is reprehensible. And it's definitely not going to be sub-$500.
It's a laser-based solution, they're a small and lean team, their software is a Blender plugin and they sound competent. Also, did I mention the lasers?
I'm really excited about a low cost, quality 3D printer but:
1. How much is another spool once the kickstarter is over?
2. "In addition, when making the specification for the seamless frame of The Micro, we demanded only the best quality surface finish."
I don't understand. If the point is to be at a reasonable price point, why make a point of saying you are picky about design? I would understand print quality, but exterior design I could give a rat's ass about- a low quality printer would go into the closet or on the craft table, not proudly displayed for all.
What a good idea kickstarter was. It still amazes me to this day to see projects like this get so much funding so quickly. Very jealous of these uber-successful kickstarter campaigns that seem to be popping up everywhere (though of course, HN has a little bit of a success-bias).
Glad to see even more competition for the cheapest-3d-printer title, we all benefit in the end.
Also, I bet HP is going to start snapping up these companies to give itself a better start on it's late entry into the 3D printer market
If I may: it is great to raise money for great projects, but that might not be the best example…
Kickstart was started for actual project, that is, things that were half-done, but still had challenges: these guys seem to consider their main remaining issue is to be choosing the color of the thing… This evolution towards pre-order is a concern, mainly because pre-order was possible before Kickstarter; the platform and centralisation of projects is noce, but the real reason companies like Kickstarter have so much mature projects come at them is because of the legal void that the site contracts allows them to side-step if they don't deliver. It might be seen as a progress. I’d rather look at the numbers and wonder how individual contributors see it, especially past one who are not active anymore.
On the other side, don’t be jealous: a lot of companies are on Kickstarter's lists, but not mentioned here, or anywhere and don't raise anything. There is a reason why Kickstarter sums up money raised, not the success rate. Truth is: success rate probably should be this low, I would argue lower -- but it’s not the high-flying life all around.
One personal bias: I see home-based 3D printing as over-hyped. I won't print Espresso cups, tiny pixelated busts, and my consumption of shower-hooks and door handles is barely one in a decade and I prefer sturdier things than plastic melted with steam, especially to sustain a occasionally hot shower. That bias however is very typical of Kickstarter's successes that tend to verge on the hyped towards customers: Leap Motion was another good example of a great idea, amazing on paper that failed to do the heavy work of figuring out if, how and when it would be practical.
I recently read up quite a bit on FDM robots, and in my opinion it would be a shame to pass up the opportunity to build a robot yourself, and even design one yourself. The cartesian machines are more or less variations on a theme, and most use the same set of standard parts: nema 17 motors, acme screw shaft, linear rods, linear bearings, 608 bearings, and GT2 pulleys and belts.
Check out Misumi's catalog, and you can always roll the dice on shady-Chinese-company knock-offs (Robotdigg). Look up aluminum t extrusions for framing, or use sheet or square tube. Or buy a frame from tens of vendors who sell kits and parts for the Prusa Mendel. I don't like the swing-set Prusa, and I don't like threaded rods. But there's also the fine Makergear M2 for inspiration.
Electronics and software are also commoditized.
Good kits if you don't want to design your own:
Printrbot Simple Metal
Rigidbot (I don't know if they are using the best parts)
many other quality kits
Interesting robots:
Reprap Wally, designed by Dennis Brown & Nick Seward.
3d printers are one area where it is the Wild West, you can go as deep as you want in one week, and learn almost everything except software details. All the hardware is nearly standardized, and right out there to look at and study.
Wow. I wonder how long it will take them to fulfill 2,500 orders? And I wonder if they were expecting such demand? Their kickstarter was only for $50,000.
It looks like all of the rewards are limited, so hopefully they've planned for this much demand.
Of course, as another commenter pointed out, there's precedent for huge demand for a kickstarter project like this. A similar 3D printer was kickstarted last year and raise $1.5 million.[1]
I wonder how this particular kickstarter blew up like a firestorm? I can't remember whether even Oculus was this quick to sell. Did it make the rounds on Reddit or something?
It looks like they have a lot of potential roadblocks between now and delivering 3,000+ units. They're looking to bring on a lot of people: assembly team, testers, etc.
If it's delayed 6 months, hopefully it'll still be a success.
Incredible, they've clearly captured the public's imagination! I wonder what the tipping points were? My best guess here is consumer device, small form factor, sub $300
I didn't contribute to this (I already have a Prusa i3 reprap) but my guess would be that it is nearly all about the price.
$300 is just about my impulse purchase price for really sweet "toys", whereas $500+ feels like real money. If I weren't already "into" 3D printing already then something at this price may very well have been what convinced me to jump in just to play around with it.
I have many fears: size, definition, how they don't present the risk in the project, proprietary software have all been mentioned; auto-calibration seems a bold promise, if necessary; I am positive that ‘use other filaments’ is not going to end well for most heads.
What I do wonder is that ‘energy saving’ aspect: Yes, 3D printing is spectacularly wasteful (it's been the elephant in the room since Doctorow’s Replicators, that conveniently appears after limitless energy -- as if limitless energy wasn’t the huge industrial revolution) so improvements are probably easy to do, but… electronics-switching savings? That can only come if the main consumption, the energy spent to melt the plastic, is reduced. This means either miracles in thermodynamics (under $200), or the plastic that they are offering melts at lower temperature.
So I have this question: how likely is it that a cup of such a plastic would melt if you put boiling water in it? Not a lot of melting, destroying the cup, or even anything spilling a few carcinogenic molecules in your coffee, no: just the occasional deformation?
Been involved in 3D printers (https://cubehero.com), and one thing I was hoping for was an automatic ejection mechanism when I looked at it--as it's sometimes tough to get the print off the print bed.
Overall, 3D printers take a lot of fiddling to get right, and while they hand wave these problems away in the video. I hope that they actually fix some of those problems to make it more accessible for everyone.
Makerbot does have a patent on Automated Print Beds [1], which is probably going to be an issue for companies attempting to 'replicate' it ;). There's some discussion about the patent here [2].
How does one reliably determine 3D printer accuracy "on paper"? I have used both a Lulzbot and Makerbot Replicator 2 and the Lulzbot is not half as useful because the accuracy isn't there. With the LB I have to change my 3D models to estimate how off the printer will be. With the Makerbot I print exactly what I want.
What measurements should I look for when buying a 3D printer? Is there any way to tell how accurate it will be?
My understanding is there are a number of things that have to be right. In addition to rigidity and precision of the machine itself (bushing quality, rod runout), the speed, layer height, temperature, and filament regularity are all important to quality. There are other software settings that impact quality as well. Bed leveling in a machine that doesn't have software auto-level is another big one.
If you know the stepper motor specs you can calculate the resolution. Most motors are 1.8 degrees per step and most controllers use 16 micro steps. If the GT2 pulley is 10 mm diameter, that gives 0.01 mm per micro-step.
If the machine is not rigid and precise then you won't get full capability but 0.01 mm is very good and may be more than needed given the capabilities of the plastic, and the layering process.
This is my biggest worry as well. I am taking a robotics class and we consistently get misprints and other mishaps with the Replicator 2, and that is a wonderful piece of hardware. I worry what kind of quality the Micro provides in a real world setting.
I'm sold on the dream, but I bet I'll have to fiddle just a little tiny bit less than the makerbot. Getting the software to work and the thing to print correctly is the annoying part. It starts printing ok but halfway through it snaps and fails fabulously, due to some settings errors particular to what you're printing. That's the problem. Not sure how these guys will fix that.
Is there anything on the market to melt your printed parts or toys, to create a new spool of plastic for printing? In short, some type of recycling process you could do at home.
This isn't the one I remember seeing a few years ago, but I can't remember what that was, and this is what is coming up for me now when I search for the concept:
auto calibration and small size/quiet etc are all things that are indeed needed for a "family" printer.
i used several printers, from hobbygrade/self assembled to makerbots etc. (nothing much above 3k tho), and they all need a lot of fiddling around even thus they're probably more powerfull (and certainly bigger/make bigger pieces)
I can't see anybody who isn't really into it to spend so much time fiddling with them. So yeah.. it looks like a good printer to me.
There are many different ways in which 3d printing could save lives, probably in a more sustainable way than just donating to single person in need.
Helping kickstarter campaign like this to succeed pushes the whole 3d printing market a little bit further.
1. Size: that thing looks absolutely tiny. I don't think a 3d printer counts as viable when the largest thing you can print is a espresso cup or a shower hook. Maybe some people are in the market for this, but not me.
2. Weight: Saying you make it light is okay, but i'd be concerned that it may be light enough to wobble itself around your desk.
3. We build our own software for you!: I'm skeptical. Looks like we are going to get proprietary slicing software to attempt to lock users into the brand. Not horrible, just disappointing. An awesome open source slicing program seems better than 5 dozen mediocre proprietary ones.
All in all, good on these guys for getting out there and making something cool. I really don't want to be a negative nancy, because they are out there actually building things when others just talk a lot, but i'll wait and see it first.