I am currently doing some open mode testing with different 3rd party resins, namely:
Photocentric3D Firm Grey
Photocentric3D Hard Beige
FunToDo F1+ Grey
FunToDo SW Snow White (also have two dyes, yellow and black)
Autodesk Prototyping Resin Yellow (PR57-Y)
Nextdent Tray Blue
Bucktown Polymers Clear ZVE500-V420
I am slowly starting to generate a spreadsheet with different settings tried for each resin, and what the results were. Does it make sense to start a type of “Master List” so Formlabs users could refer to one sheet, instead of hunting down specific comments in specific threads?
Also, should there be a common name we use to describe the technique of utilizing empty Formlabs cartridges and manually filling the resin tank (or putting the resin back in the cartridge)? Maybe “Modified Open Mode” or “Ajar Mode” or something?
Ok so I have mocked up a google spreadsheet with all the different types of resins I currently have, and will be trying. More can definitely be added, I included a column for “Printer” so KenCitron and any other Form 1 / 1+ / 2 user can add any data they have. I’ll bet there are similarities between printers, so any information is helpful.
I have made the spreadsheet available to edit so please add any data you have. This could probably go pretty quick and save us all some time, money and frustration if we all chip in!
Preface: I have no idea if this information is helpful or not, but I have it, so I will share it.
I took a single part, and iterated through each different material setting and version (at the least resolution possible, usually 0.1mm except for DentalSG I think which had a default of 0.05mm and I couldn’t change it. Castable I forced from 0.05mm to 0.1mm) and wrote down the resin volume and the corresponding print time. I put these values into a seperate tab in the Master List spreadsheet above, and then calculated print speed (volume(mL)/time(min). I sorted it from slowest (top) to fastest (bottom):
I realize there is a lot more in play, and many more confounding variables, but maybe it gives us a very general idea of the laser power settings? I hope somebody can chime in and see how relevant this data actually is. My thought is that, in general, the slowest speeds have the highest laser power (due to the laser needing to go over the same spot more often, therefore taking more time), and the fastest speeds have the least laser power due to the opposite reasoning. You can actually re-sort the data on the google spreadsheet in case there is a more interesting correlation you might be thinking of (newer versions of resin vs older versions, possibly viscosity or color comparisons as it relates to speed or volume).
I did another set of data with the Formlabs test print (5 butterflies, but I deleted all but the middle one) kept the orientation the same for each setting, and just applied default supports. I think this one is probably more accurate since it was generated on a very simple part, that is known to print well with the Formlabs printers. Close to the same, but a little different (makes me wonder if these data sets would change for any given different type of model):
At very least there is a general correlation. I would love to hear some thoughts on why the print speeds would change for different models, and if they think my reasoning is sound. Cheers!
The laser intensity (mW) changes as well as the xy feed rate for each material and for different parts of the model being generated, ie, raft, supports, model, as well as each fill and perimeter.
Your efforts are great but I am not sure the above will give you what you are looking for. The 3rd party resin manufacturers haven’t told us (that I am aware of) what laser power output and xy feed rate is optimal for their particular resin. The peel cycle time is also different (at least it is for the Form 1) depending on the resin you are using.
For 3rd party resins, it would be best if those manufacturers jumped in and helped as for Formlabs resin, we have the provided OpenFL ini file to work with.
So in summary, even if I were to find the optimal material setting for a particular 3rd party resin (just to get it to even print), in order to make it print normally (correct dimensions, no distortions, minimal complications etc.) I would still most likely need to adjust several other settings, which is impossible to do with the Form2 at the moment?
That is pretty frustrating as other have mentioned. I guess it’s kind of both the 3rd party resin manufacturer’s fault for not being specific with their particular resin’s characteristics, and also Formlabs for not allowing OpenFL on the Form2. I understand there is something in works (ie. Form X), but it would be nice if we even had an inkling of information on what to expect. That way I can wait patiently, or just buy a Form1+ or a different SLA printer.
Thank you for your response, I really appreciate it.
In short (IMO) You are correct but I don’t think it isn’t worth the time for the Form 2 owners to work on getting quality results with 3rd party resins. For that, your spreadsheet is the way to go. I think if each resin was tested with each of the Form settings, the Form 2 owners will get pretty good results. With that being said, the Form 2 owners can not adjust the settings that can be tweaked to get optimal results. Unless someone is willing to mess around with pigmenting or adding photo inhibitors into the resin.
I personally put the fault on the 3rd party resin manufacturers. The Form 1 /1+ (with OpenFL and the API ) has been out for a while. None of them seem to be publically interested in creating a custom profile for us or working with a Form 2 owner (not sure why they wouldn’t purchase a From 2 for in-house testing) to get the absolute best results. That is what I would do if I wanted to get as many customers as possible. But I am not a chemical engineer so what do I know.
If the Form 1 / 1+ community keeps showing what can be done and with the continued interest of Form 2 owners, I don’t see why FL wouldn’t open up the Form 2. From my experience, we will not know what FL is thinking or planning. It doesn’t matter if we like it or not. It is how they are currently conducting business. I don’t blame them regardless if I like it or not.
That’s a good start. Most of the 3rd party resins that are supposed to be compatible with the Form1 usually use the gray 1 setting or at least they say so. That might be a good starting point.
I remember seeing a small print test that might be adaptable to this project. OR snag one of the butterflies.
Thinking the chart should be set up so all the blanks can be filled and as people solve the variables they can update and upload a new version that could be merged to a master list.
FunToDo F1+ White , very bad smell compare to Formlabs white V1, i cannot stand it. Move the printer outside my apartment, so i will not faint. It has lower viscosity than Formlabs resin. It has a little less detail than Formlabs. But it is also 80 Euro cheaper. It is also whiter than Formlabs white V1. Unless you can print it outdoor or room with windows opened, i strongly suggest to use Formlabs resin.
I think the spreadsheets are a good start. I’ll see if I can get some time to eliminate a few sources for variation this weekend.
The only resin we have actual power requirements for is Formlabs Clear V2 as listed in the Open FL profile. That is 44.4 mJ/CM2 for infill and 50 mJ/CM2 for the perimeters (If I got the stepover correct).
We can also see that the cure power is different for the rafts and supports. So, in order to eliminate those variables they need to be removed from the print calculations. Also, the height of the part should be tall enough that the over cured & compressed first layers are a small percentage of the calculation. So, what we need is a tall block with no supports.
The biggest problem for me on the Form 2 is the lack of V1 standard resin settings in preform. This forces us to get creative with the resins that need lower cure power. Pretty much all of the third party resins that I’ve seen would be better suited to DLP printing than SLA (except the old made solid resins but they went belly up).
There is a way to get the cure data on each Formlabs resin, but it requires Open FL on the 1+. This instructable walks you through it: Form 1+ Working Curve. I don’t have a Form 2, but I would think if you could disable the wiper you could just run the test file on the Clear setting (regardless of what the actual resin is) and measure from there. I’m using it to (slowly) baseline all their resins and to see what kind of dose the laser is actually delivering in each setting.
If you guys really take off on the crowdsourcing of this thing it might be good to have a standard test that each resin could be run with, just to see what settings would be optimum for each one.
Here in UK the only third party resin for F1+ are the Photocentric and the Fun To Do.
Feels strange that by now nobody has fully characterised other commercial resins and use them successfully, even as blends.
The spreadsheet online seems a great idea, but it seems that not much info was input in a while. Also from the Laser Power Data tabs I tried to extract exposures, but the two are not really consistent between them or with the data from @Dudemeister’s thread over here.
Anyone else tried 3rd party resin (or mix) successfully? or has completed/calculated the Form1+ Working curve?
Unfortunately, although I can get results that look ok fresh from the printer (with slight tweaking of that file for longer curing - by using slower laser feed rates) parts degrade rapidly and crack/crumble with post-curing.
I think the issue is shrinkage - in that the resin will still shrink very significantly after the print has finished when it’s in “green” state fresh from the printer.
The other thing about that resin is the smell - it’s intense and penetrating … in fact it’s very similar to the old MadeSolid resins.
Also cleaning parts is difficult, water just doesn’t work (even hot with detergent) nor does IPA, only Meths seemed to do anything.
At this point it seems like a waste of time and money - I might take another crack at it at some point, maybe crank up the power settings in the OpenFL custom file to basically “overcure” the part in the printer to try and eliminate post print shrinkage - but it would be a shot in the dark…
I’ve just ran some tests for photocentric new formula hard and firm grey on my form 2, really good results, especially the hard hard grey, very smooth even at 50 micron.
For the cleaning maybe I can give some advice. I have a LC10 which uses the Photocentric Daylight resins. I think they only changed the catalyst while the base compound is the same. I took some time to work out the technique and to clean the parts first think I soak them in soapy water (dishwasher soap and better if warm). Then I take everything to the sink and with a bit of dishwasher on a soft toothbrush, I clean it under the hot tap. Results are the best I had after trying all IPA, acetone and ultrasound cleaning.
The post-curing also, as the surface is exposed to air the oxygen prevents full cure of the most external surface, so put it in a clear container, submerged in water.
I know, it’s a lot of hassle respect to the “quick rinse in IPA” of other resins, but I suppose the idea is to avoid IPA fumes.
Anyway, I know they are developing a low shrinkage epoxy based one that cleans in IPA (they had one for the Daylight, told me soon for UV too).
I just reload fl grey cartridges and print on that setting. I print 1.5mm shell most of the time and it will crack if you put a lot of force on it, so I don’t!
I don’t think the daylight resins are comparible for cleaning - see this comment from @computerflummi in the thread I linked earlier “Daylight resin is easy to clean under water”
As for cracking - this is what I’m talking about - the parts looked ok out of the printer, but then after 10-20 mins in UV they looked like this :
