Bad prints out of brand New Form 3

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

It does help @larsenstephen!! Thank you very much for clearly and concisely presenting what you know and have discovered along the way. It is really appreciated!

I didn’t even think about that silly + sign! It is a new machine compared to the 3, and I am glad to hear that people are getting an improvement over the Form 2 with it.

2 Likes

Got a new Form 3+. After running the first test print, I see a very unsettling depression/ dent.

As you can see, after running the test print twice, there is a consistent depression in the same location, the first time, the depression is so extreme that the number is not readable. The second time, it improved a little bit, but then a second depression is visible in one of the sides that wasn’t present before.

Is this the quality I can expect from this printer? If so, this is very disappointing as even my 400 USD anicubic doesn’t suffer from this. I really hope this is a known issue and even more hopeful that it can be fixed. I have really high hopes for this printer and it is a huge investment for me, so I’m very worried about this initial result.

Thanks,


Hi @Pendas,

Thank you for sharing your print results. This does not look to be normal, and you should be able to expect better results. I would recommend getting in touch with Support for them to diagnose and take a closer look.

I’m in contact with support, I’m sad to report that it has been a very frustrating situation :frowning: They are ignoring symptoms like the printer is brand new with a brand new tray and suggesting the optical element is “very dirty” It seems like we are very far from finding the actual issue ( if at all ). Is the experience with Formlabs support usually good ?

how many mm do you noticed the lines dipped down?

Hi @Pendas,

I’m sorry to hear about the frustrating experience you’ve had so far. In general, there are certain baseline checks and steps that Support needs to run through in order to thoroughly diagnose the issue. Continuing to work with them should yield the quickest resolution.

At the lowest point is 1.77mm.