So you’re saying that implementing this function may be a little too complicated for the Formlabs software developers. Then perhaps they should contract out to the Chinese companies that developed the code for their competition ???
Really, I can’t believe how you keep giving them pass after pass. You’re empowering them to be complacent and dare I say “lazy”? Although I don’t think that’s the case.
I’ll tell you what I think.
I think Formlabs doesn’t really have an in-house software designer. I think they either had a software guru that has since left the company, and the devs that took over don’t really know what they’re doing, or they never had one in the first place, and the software was developed by a 3rd party, and it costs Formlabs money every time they need the software “updated”.
And by “updated” I don’t mean putting out a new update every time they add a new resin and support for it. I mean someone that knows how code a new function not just copy and existing profile and modify it.
That’s what I think is the real reason for their reluctance. Not this BS about we don’t want to “bloat out the software, or make it too complicated”. Those are just dumb excuses they seem to get away with becuase of people who give them free passes.
I have another thought on hollowing. When I created a rubber chicken model in ZBrush, I printed a small charm and cast it in silver. However, I wanted to make the chicken in a couple different sizes, and it needed to be hollow.
In order to print this as a hollow model in several different sizes, I had to create three different sizes, then hollow them out. If PreForm had the feature, I could simply resize the model in PreForm, then apply the hollow function to each, designating the thickness that I wanted the walls. This is, by the way, a setting in the Cura slicer I use with my Ender FDM printer.
You could also use a system that’s very similar to applying or editing supports for the vent holes. Once the model is oriented, the software should be smart enough to figure out a suggested placement of a vent hole (imagine something like the “minima“ feature), placing little cylinders or spheres, which could be edited similar to the method used for placing supports…
The 3D modeling and 3D printing is about quality, speed, easier research etc. Adding functionality to the software would dramatically improve our productivity.
I am absolutely and 100% sure, Formlabs will ignore this topic. They are not interested in development of the software. They are more interested in selling their equipment.
Why? When you could have created just one hollowed out model file in ZBrush (which I assume has a “hollow” function), and then resized it in Preform (or ZBrush, even) to your heart’s content.
Sorry, but this seems a lot like the old joke about “Dr., it hurts when I do this” “then don’t do that”.
“While we have no current plans to retire Meshmixer, please note that the tool is no longer in development and will not be supported by Autodesk moving forward.”
For @Randy_Cohen, @james_at_hctuk, and others who think holes, slicing, etc. are not targeted at engineers or professionals should stop kidding themselves. I’m getting tired of this baseless argument and decided to post a 3DSystems printer software that has all of these features and they are clearly systems designed for engineers and professionals so it makes your argument moot. This particular link describes all of the options and there is a section about splitting, holes, and vent drain among a lot of others.
Don’t think it moots anything. Bigger company, (much) wider product range, different business priorities, not the best comparison.
You can’t even get a price on their printers from their website, you have to submit a request for the information (which requires you agree to be on their mailing list).
Your argument is based on these features not being used or needed for a certain group of people that I just proved clearly do use and need it regardless of how big the company is or their price range. So we have cheaper solutions that have this feature and now pricier solutions that also have it. Pretty sure that makes this part of your argument invalid.
The problem is that it seems a though you are treating your opinion as fact when it’s really just your biased opinion.
I’m not saying it should or should not be in the software, but I lean more towards having some of the features a lot of the cheaper and pricier competitors all seem to have, but Formlabs is lacking. Just my 2 cents
Kat’s right. The hollowing needs to be specific to the scale of the model, otherwise, the wall will be too thick for a large model and too thin for a small one.
otherwise, the wall will be too thick for a large model and too thin for a small one.
That’s kind of an over-generalized statement. I would disagree. In my experience that has never been a problem. Sure, if you don’t choose the wall thickness of the base model correctly. Even Nature understands this paradigm. A chicken egg has a wall thickness of about 0.5mm. An Ostrich egg has a wall thickness closer to 2mm.
I just proved clearly do use and need it regardless
No, the fact that the feature is present doesn’t prove it’s “needed”. You’re confusing “Nice to have” with “Need to have”. My wife’s car has automatic headlight high beam control. That’s not proof that it’s a necessity. And my assertion is borne out by the fact that none of the 3 other cars we own have the feature (and one of them was quite a bit more expensive). The company that designed her car decided to spend some extra money and charge a bit more to include the feature. She can’t point to that as proof that it’s required, or that the other car manufacturers have somehow slacked off on the job of car design. It’s there, so she uses it. If it wasn’t there she wouldn’t be bitching about the fact that the car didn’t have the feature. Because it’s “nice to have” not required.
You’re also making an assumption about how many users use the feature. The fact that it’s there doesn’t mean it gets a lot of use. My PC has a number of features I never use.
So I’m going to say that I don’t think your rationale holds up… Hollowing is a function that some users might appreciate having in their slicer, I don’t argue with that at all. But it’s not a requirement that it be there. I’ve been printing on FL printers since 2014 (Form1+, Form2, and now Form3) and I haven’t ever once wished Preform had such a feature.
I generate my prints either in OpenSCAD or Python (or a mixture of the two). I find it’s easy to generate hollow objects using this kind of programming language approach to solid geometry.
For those that use OpenSCAD, there are some software libraries for it that will auto-generate hollow models of any solid geometry. I haven’t tried them as I usually do the hollowing myself. But that’s an option. Not certain how flexible these packages are – presumably you could just import an .stl file and run the hollowing software on it.
I don’t really get why this is such a polarizing topic. IMO if it’s something that helps in your workflow for 3D printing, it would be nice to have in Preform.
That being said, using meshmixer is pretty easy right now, just a tad inconvenient compared to if it was in Preform.
The argument is over whether or not its absence is a major shortcoming of Preform.
My thesis is that FL is spending their NRE $s on something more useful to the majority of users rather than invest in the implementation of a feature that is only of interest to a few.
Because there are a lot of tools many people already have in their workflows that do it, or tools that can easily be added to their workflow to do it. The lack of the feature in Preform doesn’t mean people can’t hollow their models, so there’s really no requirement that Preform support that kind of feature.
, yes it can be complicated thing for those who are not good in programming.