Monger and justin have right. Your printer look great but for me it’s really too expensive. Because 3d printing is a new tech that is making new things and improvements every days. The community are looking each time for a better printer AND cheaper ! I think you miss this point, maybe if you printer was 2times cheaper it will be interesting. But without that the solidator look cool !
@Gilles-alexandre deschaud – The trend of cheaper is better has made a huge positive impact on 3d printing. However, the race to the bottom on price has also produced a lot of crappy difficult to use 3d printers, which has in turn produced a ‘prosumer’ class of higher priced and much more reliable machines (form1 for example).
I don’t think the Solidator is too expensive, its still very affordable. At its offered resolution and platform size, what other options are cheaper? – The question is (as always) is it right for your specific use case. If its features aren’t important to someone, then another option may be a much better fit for performance and price.
Thanks for posting Tim, I hope your project is a success and I look forward to seeing some details on your patented process in the future.
Thanks for the lengthy response Tim. Can you provide any more detail on how you’ve overcome the bonding issue of the cured resin to the tank, without using a peel motion? [I realize you’re going through the patent process, so technical details will be sparse] I like the idea of a bigger build area, while I don’t need anything as large as your platform, I find myself wishing the one on the Form1 was a bit bigger.
@Mark Loit: Solidator uses a layer of teflon instead of PDMS.
Teflon is the stuff that makes your frying pan non stick.
while prints do stick to the PDMS, it can somewhat fairly easy be peeled off by the peeling process / tilting resin tray,
whereas the prints do not stick at all to teflon.
Solidator’s patent is here: https://www.google.com/patents/DE202013103446U1?cl=en&dq=“tangible+engineering”&ei=w9XBUv3DC8TsoATKnoDgCA
I think they have yet to proove that it does also work smoothly “in production” not only on a prototype in the laboratory under perfect conditions.
Etienne Renaud
I wanted to chime in and post a slightly different perspective, to clarify the minimum detail point. The Form1 has a 300 micron min. detail due to it’s laser point size. The Solidator actually has pixels. The difference is, the Form1 can overlap its “spot” and make a smoother edge, while the Solidator can’t overlap. This means the end result of the Solidator will have sharp edges when looked at closely. I’ve attached a simple graphic to show this. Also, you can look at closeups of both prints and see what I’m saying.
So how does the Form 2 compare to the latest B9 regarding print detail and finish quality?
The stat sheet on the B9 website is incorrect in the X/Y resolution–they are using the laser size which only determines how thin a part can be printed in X/Y resolution, which 140 microns is a little thicker than a piece of paper and you’re not going to print things that thin. For the Form1/2 the resolution is controlled by the galvos and how small of movements they can make which is smaller than 140 microns.
The main difference is that the Form1/2 can utilize the full build volume no matter what resolution you set. With the B9 to get better X/Y resolution you have to move the projector closer which makes the image/pixels smaller and means that you have a smaller build space if you want better quality.
This is my first post on the Formlabs forum but this thread really caught my eye, the title ‘How does the Form 1 compare to the Solidator’… well, let me tell you of my personal experience with the Solidator.
Currently as I write this my Solidator is sitting in its crate in the garage ready to be shipped back to Germany, not to be fixed but returned for refund (I have already been reimbursed, thanks Solidator). I’m not going to bad mouth Solidator as they did offer me an ok service with a replacement VAT and projector to try and solve the issues I had with the printer, unfortunately I found after 4 months and 4.5 litres of used resin on failed prints the problem ultimately was a software issue, or at least the last straw for me as a consumer.
I am sure Formlabs will whole heartedly agree that software is everything to a 3D printer, if it doesn’t have a good support generator it is sure to fail, basic models like vases and well designed unsupported models will print on nearly anything but once you need support there is a reason you pay big money for software and why I am sure you pay a premium for a Formlabs printer, good software, not perfect but close to perfect costs $10k plus for the likes of Magics, so a good compromise.
I mention software because the Solidator support generator was without doubt the worst part of the machine, Solidator studio was cumbersome to use but adequate for basic models or models without support, that wasn’t the worst bit though, it somehow caused something to go wrong in the first few layers which inevitably caused the print to fail. The only way I knew there was a problem was from trying the support generator in Meshmixer, I would apply support to the part in Meshmixer and export it as an STL, then load it into Solidator studio where it was sliced. I had no failed prints due to the part not sticking to the table using Meshmixers support generator, in fact the prints were 100% better, keep in mind that 100% better than really bad is not actually that much better.
What was better was the support itself, that generated well, the problem was the low resolution of the projector for the build volume and the amount of distortion undoubtedly caused by there VAT design, nice design, just doesn’t produce accurate prints for many reasons, if any one cares I’ll explain more of how it works and why its ultimately doomed to fail (in my opinion). Unless we can invent a film that is clear, as stiff as glass with a non stick surface that allows air to flow… even writing this I understand how hard it must be to design a VAT that works well and doesn’t breach a patent, damn you 3D Systems and your arse patents!
I really could go on forever about the small details that stunned me with both the machine and creators of the Solidator, namely Tim, he certainly has a way with words but unfortunately a flimsy grasp on 3D printing, I have gone on enough I think. Buy your large volume DLP printer with caution and an understanding that there is a reason the big commercial machines cost 150K plus, and even they are far from perfect.
In conclusion the Form2 looks extremely good, might just buy one and get over my want for a large build volume… for now anyway.
OK. This is my second post of recent but when I saw that it was software to build support I was kinda taken back. I have used the Titan1 for years and always was able to make prints that form 1 + couldn’t but it wasn’t software, I made my own supports. Software is helpful to get you most of the way but it does take some craftsmanship to build a true support system for harder sla prints. Just my two cents but realize I’m coming from an open sla printer and know little about the form but will soon.
Cheers,
Jason
Nothing is preventing you to build your own supports,import the model in Preform and only use is at a simple slicer. The Form 2 is also able to receive files from netfabb. I don’t know about the Form 1 or 3.
Thanks, good to know!