Every few years a revisit this series. I really enjoy it on the whole. In the middle of season 8 atm and getting into the most difficult part to stick with it through, though. All the conflict between Sam and Dean gets pretty old.
I've been considering the Anycubic P1 Max vs the UniFormation GK3 Ultra. One thing I particularly like about the P1 Max is the build plate size format. It's closer to 4:3, while the GK3 Ultra, as is the case with most resin printers, is closer to 16:9.
It got me wondering, though. Does a build plate like the one on the P1 Max that is closer to square have an impact on the release film? Does it exert pull force more or less evenly than one than is more rectangular? I'm thinking it would be dependent on the model, where 16:9 would be more effective (less stressful release) on longer models on the x-axis, while the 4:3 format might be better on a more densely populated build plate.
Any opinions on this? Am I just over-thinking it?
Is parallel line mode capable of capturing deep recesses as effectively as single line mode, if you spend enough time to scan it thoroughly? If not, I'd like to understand why.
How would I go about designing a press-fit plug for a hole that is not perpendicular to the surface? I'm trying to make a plug that can be inserted at least 1/4" into and parallel to the hole.
Mainly functional/mechanical parts for reverse engineering and modification. I've got a budget of <$3000, and so far my top options seem to be the MetroY Ultra and the Einstar...something. Seriously, Shining3D's website is really dense with low-value, marketing speak. I actually asked them for a simple comparison chart between a few of their models, and they just sent me this snippet from their Amazon page. Not a great first impression.
Any opinions on these options or something else I may not have considered?
Two questions, actually.
The prevailing view on nerfs is that they are a bad thing and should be avoided at all costs. Instead, other aspects should be buffed to bring them more in-line with what would otherwise be nerfed.
I've never agreed with this stance for one reason - sometimes a nerf IS the appropriate solution to a particular imbalance. Sometimes buffing other things takes the game in the wrong direction. If a particular class is dealing too much damage, buffing other classes then leads to the encounters likely needing to be re-tuned, which may well involve other surrounding encounters needing to be re-tuned accordingly.
Just taking an extreme example to illustrate my point - say a new spell focus is introduced that ends up allowing wizards to enjoy double damage crits and spell success on Cazic Thule. Buffing other classes to be less inadequate by comparison suddenly makes all of the other non-trash mobs along the way trivial, so they all need to be re-tuned. The obvious correct solution is just to nerf the spell focus, bringing things back in-line with what was intended.
Sometimes a buff is rolled out with unforeseen consequences. Or, perhaps balancing of the classes in general trivializes an entire zone for its intended level range. In that case a nerf is the appropriate action to take. Nerfs shouldn't be considered a bad thing by their very definition. When the end goal is class balance, power creep shouldn't be viewed as the automatic solution.
Just my 2cp.
Resin feeding system:
General stuff:
In the absence of any new info on the Anycubic P1 Max, I'm considering picking up either the Uniformation GK3 Ultra or the Anycubic Photon Mono M7 Max. I like the QoL features on the Ultra, but if it's still a bit rough around the edges, I may just save some money and go with the M7 Max, instead.
I just watched a video from RAPID+2026 in April, where HeyGears was showing off the new Reflex 2 Max. They said it was launching in 5-months, which would put it in September. IIRC it has a 300x200x400 build volume. I would have thought we would be seeing some YouTubers showing off advance review units by now.
I'm in the market for a large format resin printer for in-house production, and the P1 Max looks like it would be perfect. I love the 4:3-ish style build plate format. There have been rumors that it's going to start shipping this month, but the radio silence since the "delayed until further notice" announcement gives me significant pause.
Considering the fact that it is for the most part a larger version of the P1, which has gotten great reviews, the only thing I can think of that could require further "testing" on the Max would be the release performance on that larger build plate. On the one hand I can see them wanting to address any apparent issues prior to release, to avoid the sort of disastrous launch we've seen from other manufacturers' products. This, I would appreciate. Their new FDM printers appear to have raised the bar on what we can expect from consumer-grade 3D printers out of China not named Bambu, and the last thing they would want to do is tarnish that.
Here are my concerns:
Up to this point I've pretty much viewed all the Chinese 3D printer companies as just enough on the sketchy side (some more than others) to keep me wary regarding their marketing claims and general reliability. The way the tend to try and manipulate their customer base just feels slimy. I very much want to see Anycubic establish itself as a company that is moving the industry forward in terms of both product quality/reliability and customer satisfaction.
I guess the tl;dr is that I just think Anycubic should do better.
I'm pretty much sold on the Formlabs ecosystem. I've had a full Form 4 kit in my cart for weeks, now. However, the small build plate continues to give me pause. I will be using it for in-house production, so it's obviously pretty limiting. Therefore, I've been seriously considering the 4L, instead, but there is no way I can justify the Wash L and Cure L. They cost more than the printer, itself, which is already stretching my development budget beyond expectations, as it would also involve an additional $1300+ for each additional resin I need ($400 vat/mixer, $350 resin pump, $700 resin - 5L bottles, of course, for the lowest cost, and I'd like enough to get me through more than a couple prints).
Therefore, I'm considering purchasing the 4L without the Wash L and Cure L. The Form Wash is a super nifty machine (L or otherwise), but a wash is a wash, really. For the cure station, I feel I can DIY a nice, large cure box with heat and apply the same process as the Cure L. I get that the end-to-end workflow Formlabs equipment provides is part of the benefit of their system, but damn.
Is anyone else using the Form 4 or 4L without the Formlabs wash/cure stations or otherwise have any thoughts on the prospect?
I will be purchasing a resin printer for business use, production of functional and mechanical parts, including tooling and injection molds. Consistent and reproduceable precision and dimensional accuracy are the most critical requirements - ease of use and a proven ecosystem, a close second.
I've settled on the Formlabs Form 4 with one concern. Doing some cost analysis with some of the parts I'm looking to produce, resin costs alone will drive costs quite high. I'm not producing products with NASA contracts or medical/dental sales price points, so margins are a concern. I'm beginning to think that, while Formlabs is perhaps the ideal solution for prototyping and tooling validation for farming the production out to injection molding, it may not be the right choice for in-house production.
Is anyone here using their Formlabs printer(s) for small scale, in-house production?
I will be purchasing a resin printer for business use, production of functional and mechanical parts, including tooling and injection molds. Consistent and reproduceable precision and dimensional accuracy are the most critical requirements - ease of use and a proven ecosystem, a close second.
I've settled on the Formlabs Form 4 with one concern. Doing some cost analysis with some of the parts I'm looking to produce, resin costs alone will drive costs quite high. I'm not producing products with NASA contracts or medical/dental sales price points, so margins are a concern. I'm beginning to think that, while Formlabs is perhaps the ideal solution for prototyping and tooling validation for farming the production out to injection molding, it may not be the right choice for in-house production.
Is anyone here using their Formlabs printer(s) for small scale, in-house production?
I used the shell command on an object I'm working on, and it worked fantastic. However it did leave me with some gaps I would like to fill to make 3D printing the part easier. I tried the loft command, but it seemed that no matter which faces I selected, it was unable to connect them. I'm still learning, so I was probably just not doing it right. Can someone please point me in the right direction? I just want to fill that cantilevered space.
I'm working on my first actual assembly project. As I was creating the first component, I created several parameters. Unfortunately, when I moved on to creating the next component, I realized those parameters aren't available outside the first component. I guess I should have created those parameters on the assembly rather than the component?
As a test, I tried deleting the parameter from the component and recreating it on the assembly, but when I went back to edit the original component, the parameter was not available. I assumed that parameters created in the assembly would be global and accessible to all components.
What is the best way of moving parameters from a component to the assembly, so they are available to all components?
