Bad prints out of brand New Form 3

I stopped using mine. This issue is not acceptable on a $3500 printer. I bought mine for scale model parts and figures and the resin waste and bad parts have totally turned me off the printer.

Maybe a few firmware and software upgrades will sort it out a year from now.

which printer do you use now??

Form3. I haven’t replaced it yet. Going with monochrome dlp, though.

Warping also a problem with flat parts. I would have had a disaster on my hands had I shipped out a bunch parts and they warped a few weeks later.

I would have had to replace all of these and pay the shipping. It would have been a bummer.

Hi folks,

Seiko Nishino just did an absolutely fantastic deep dive into LFS at the virtual user summit. Not sure if a video will be available but if so I suggest checking it out.

I asked about the surface artifact described in this thread, referring to the May 24 photo from @monk2002uk as an example:

I figured since they’ve made improvements via software / firmware, perhaps they’d characterized it to some extent and could offer some insights on what they’ve learned.

She first mentioned a few possible causes for layer shifts or “wobble” that they sometimes see in general, such as a loose build platform or inadequate support.

Then she mentioned a distinct type of artifact they apparently call a “flow artifact”. I think that’s a great name for it, as one user reported it went away when they surrounded a part with two concentric “shields” in an effort to influence resin flow. She wasn’t prepared at this time to get into more details about flow artifacts (which makes me think they’re still working to more fully understand and eliminate it). But I think she did seem to imply that supports might play a role (which I believe makes sense, seeing as I’ve noticed it more common on surfaces where supports contact the model).

Seiko, if you’re out there, I’d like to convey tremendous thanks for fielding my question (I kind of put her on the spot with it) and sharing to the extent you were able.

3 Likes

I made the flow shields - interesting to hear that its actually being looked at.


The bulb on the right was printed without my flow shields.

I tried single shields - double shields and even artificially forcing pieces to print high up so the build platform was not disrupting the resin as much. This all helped BUT there seems to be other issues creating the lines such as over curing with different opacities of resin.


Forcing PreForm to make tall supports by adding some geo where I want ground level.

1 Like

Hi all,
I would like to extend my gratitude to the folks in this thread (you know who you are) who have been diligently working on identifying and experimenting with solutions to the two issues of layer shift or “flow artifacts” and over-curing on the support side. I think eventually this can be resolved, because there is the will to resolve it.

A while back I found this video by VOG on YouTube:-
https://youtu.be/WSHGFbB7QOw

I know his style may be an acquired taste. When you watch the video you will see there are some undeniable similarities with his print quality and the resin company he was having issues with and the issues we are having with the Form 3 and the various resins available for it.

Another interesting point is that at 3:59 the print defects look extremely similar to what we are getting on the Form 3. Ok this is not surprising, you may say, but the solution he found was to use a complimentary product called ‘Sharpenizer’. Addition of this product solved the quality issues! Let me repeat that:- solved the quality issues!

I would very much like to hear what your opinions are on the information I present here and would especially welcome FormLabs to join this discussion. We are all motivated to achieve the best possible quality and performance for this printer.

Thanks,
Ian.

2 Likes

Hey Ian,

Thanks for sharing! I took a look at the video you shared but I noticed something.
At 6:14, he shows the result with the ‘Sharpenizer’.
If you look at it closely though, one can easily tell that the part is already sanded and the host didn’t mention about that at all.
Of course I haven’t tried the additive myself, but the fact that the part is already half-way post-processed is a red flag for me.
And I would say, Form3 should work nicely without any additives in the first place.

Cheers,
Steve.

Hey Steve,
Well spotted, I had not noticed that and I agree it is a red flag. I also agree that the Form 3 should work nicely in the first place.

Cheers,

Ian.

Been reading this very long issue trying to see if I can resolve my random layer shifting, and noticed you always print with Full Rafts. Is there a benefit to using the Full rafts over the Mini Rafts other than ease of print bed removal? Cuz I’ve just been using Mini Rafts and utilize one of those “paint scraper razor blades” and all my prints just pop right off the bed with zero problems and I don’t waste extra resin just for a pry lip.
For taller models I will use Full rafts just for the added stability but anything under 60mm get Mini rafts

@BlackOpsToys, thanks for asking. I prefer full rafts for a couple reasons.

For the models I print, they are sold and shipped to customers still attached to the rafts, so full rafts are needed. This serves three important purposes: 1) the model is identified, 2) the raft and supports provide strength during shipping, and 3) less production effort required in removing rafts and surface prep keeps production times reasonable and lowers costs.

My customers frequently buy sets of very similar models, easily mistaken for one another, so having the name of the model on the raft is highly desirable.

Most of my designs are small and hollow with thin walls and fine, overhanging features and therefore are generally fragile. Their geometry is typically unsuitable for grabbing and twisting them off the raft as seen in the FL video. The models would likely be crushed or shattered if grabbed and twisted from the raft. I tried mini rafts on just a couple occasions. With mini rafts, I destroyed the models trying to get them off the build platform. Build platform adhesion is generally much higher on the Form 3 compared to the Form 2 posing more damage risk during removal.

Others may have a different experience and prefer mini rafts.

1 Like

20201129_110450|535x499!

Hey guys, been printing with the Form 3 with no big issues for 5 months now (about once every 2 weeks). My recent few prints have lines on them and they seem to be perpendicular to the build plate.

Any ideas as to what could have caused this?

If there are vertical lines on a print the first thing to look at is the optical window on the LPU. If the line persist after the optical wing is clean, then the problem will be with the film on the tray.

1 Like

Same issue here - I will look at the laser window when the current print finishes, this is an example of our issue:

Laser was clean, but the underside of the vat was pretty dirty - i’ve swapped out for Grey resin today in a brand new tank so i cant directly compare, however, no vertical imperfections, but i am now seeing some horizontal layer issues now :frowning: two steps forward… one step back.

Hi guys i have a form 3. It has wavy layer shifting. My idea is the resin tank. It must have a solid fixed resin tank. Not a wobbly flexible resin tank. My form 2 has much smoother finishing. Chinese cheap monochrome lcd printers have much better finishing than form 3. Hope they fix it

To add to what billb says, if your LPU surface is clean, one other place to look is your resin tray.

I have seen defects like this from little scratches in the build tray. One was an odd point defect. All my prints over that point had a 0.5mm hole running through them. Was difficult to miss, as the defect was just a scratched-up point on the build tray, so I had to fully drain and clean the tray to notice the defect.

The flexible resin tank is the problem. Form 2 has a solid stable fix resin tank. That’s why it has a better finishing

Man… 2 years, 8 months, and 461 replies later @DoggieDoc83 still hasn’t replied saying the problem has been fixed. BUMMER!!! Formlabs is lucky to have you all as customers, and I am lucky to have found this thread! I was considering the Form 3+, yeah nah. If I stick with a Formlabs option it will be a used Form 2 for sure, but even still it’s probably way to overkill for what I would use it for. @donnie and @larsenstephen could you fill us in as well if you’ve been having any better luck in 2022? And would anyone still recommend a Form 2, even though support is running out on it soon?

You all rock, thanks for helping each other out!

Thanks for the message.

First, I think it is important to point out that the Form 3+ was specifically designed to correct some of the problems many of us experienced with early Form 3s. In many ways, the Form 3+ is a different machine than the early Form 3. Although I do own an early Form 3, I do not own a Form 3+, so I cannot speak to Form 3+ print quality from first-hand experience. Anecdotal reports from others indicate that the Form 3+ print quality is noticeably superior to early Form 3 print quality, with print quality comparable to the Form 2. Form 3+ object surfaces are smoother and fine detail is sharper than what is achieved on the early Form 3.

When comparing the Form 2 to the Form 3 or Form 3+, it is very important to understand that the Form 3+ and Form 3 apply peeling forces on models in very different ways than the peeling forces the Form 2 places on a model. Peeling forces can distort or warp a model so orientation in the printer and support array becomes even more important than on the Form 2. Since the Form 3+ and Form 3 apply peeling forces in different ways, model orientation in a Form 2 may not work well in a Form 3 or Form 3+, and vice versa. This means that a model oriented and supported for proper Form 2 printing may have to be oriented and supported differently to print well in a Form 3 or Form 3+

My comments here are specific to the early 2019-made Form 3 I own. I do not have a Form 3+ so cannot speak to Form 3+ print quality from first-hand experience.

Although several firmware updates and PreForm updates have significantly improved early Form 3 print quality, the early Form 3 I own does not produce models as well as my Form 2s. Generally, Form 3 print lines are more noticeable, detail is softer, and the Form 3 struggles to print very small openings without filling them. However, there are certain models, small fragile models, that can be printed well in my early Form 3 that can’t be printed in either of my Form 2s. The Form 2s apply too much peeling force on the fragile models and they break up during Form 2 printing. My early Form 3 can print the models without breaking them up.

Recently, I asked Formlabs for advice to help improve the print quality of my early Form 3. My early Form 3 was struggling to print large flat objects (e.g. nameplates), boxy objects (e.g. model ship turrets) and cones (e.g. a large propeller spinner) without warping them. My early Form 3 tends to fill small holes (e.g. portholes in model ship superstructures and rope slots in deadeyes and pulleys). My two Form 2s don’t have those problems.

Below is part of a helpful response I received from Doug, a member of Formlabs’ advanced troubleshooting team:

"Expecting the Form 2 and the Form 3 to have the same supporting and orientation needs isn’t something we like to do. The differences in the peeling process from the solid bottom tank to the flexible tank, as well as many of the settings we have been working to optimize for speed and accuracy, cause there to be differences in ideal orientations from one printer to the other. There isn’t a good one-size-fits-all orientation, nor should you expect parts printed in identical settings to produce identical results. I do have some suggestions as to how to improve these parts to fix the problems you’re seeing on the Form 3 prints.

"For the nameplates, I think we’re seeing a combination of a couple of factors. First of all, printing long flat layers parallel to the build platform leads to warping on the Form 3 due to the natural weakness of the first couple of layers laid down, I’ll go into more depth on this when we get to the turrets. In addition, when curing these parts, I would suggest removing them from supports prior to post-cure. As the model cures, it will shrink, and since the large flat surface on the front will get more light it will cure more and shrink more. The area shaded by the supports won’t get as much light, and so will not post-cure at the same rate and will cause warping.

"For the conical nose section, those waves and bulges are characteristic of parts with long curved surfaces that have very few supports internally. Looking at the .form file you uploaded, I can see only 3 internal supports, and none on the larger curved surfaces where you’re seeing those bulges. As the Form 3 prints, the peeling action of the film can cause minor offsets in layer position, which are exacerbated by lack of supports. On curved surfaces like this it becomes very obvious.

"As for the bulging between supports on the turrets. This is happening because of the weakness of parallel layers I was mentioning earlier. I’ve attached a screenshot to show what we want to avoid to this email. Layers like this are very likely to fail because they’re long and thin and have very little support to build on. If the part does succeed, then you’ll likely see what you’re seeing with your parts now, small bulges extending away from the build platform in between the supports. This happens as we plunge this small soft layer into the resin, which pushes back against the cured resin and bends them away from the direction of the resistance, kind of like pushing a piece of cloth through water with your hands. where your hands are, the cloth will be accurate to where you want it to be, but in between where there’s no support you’ll have sagging. If we angle the parts slightly, then each previous layer of the part itself will help support the next few layers, giving the part much more support against that resistance. I think an aspect of this is also related to the curing on supports issue that I mentioned earlier with the nameplates.

“Finally, the holes. Our best guidance for printing fine holes is to get them as close to vertical as possible. Since we print in rectangular layers, any movement on z/x or z/y plane will have to be approximated as stair stepping, which means that what would ordinarily be a circle will end up being stepped. This causes further problems than one would expect, as these steps act as natural areas for resin to adhere to, causing the holes to drain out less effectively, and also causes natural weak points centered right on the edge of the hole. Printing them vertically means that the stair stepping isn’t a factor, and the drainage of the parts is easy and effective.”

Hope this helps.

2 Likes