@hasank the Print Settings Editor offers many settings & configuration options. What do you feel like is missing?
Please note, we do not use OMM and therefore cannot say ourselves what we are missing. I can only go by my understanding of what other users write about it. Based on what @CARobertM writes, I would recommend, for example, that functions such as camera control on the Fuse or filling level control on the Sift can be set on the devices. According to statements, it seems that functions are lost here through OMM that were not intentionally set by the user. It was purely a setting and solution idea with regard to the problems described.
Regarding the last comments and the benefits of Formlabs devices: Here I have to say that I can understand when devices or software don’t deliver what is promised, however I then have to ask the question, what was promised?
I don’t want to insinuate or accuse anyone of anything or get into heated discussions. Certain expectations have not been met and once a certain opinion has been formed about a manufacturer, it often remains so for the time being. I know this too, as we have also had bad experiences with some of them over the years.
However, I have the following subjective opinion: We use both the Fuse1+ 30W and Form3 printers from Formlabs. We were aware that both investments were closed systems. As the prices for devices, consumables and printing materials as well as the software are all available in advance, we were able to calculate different models in advance.
Accordingly, we were also able to make a comparison with competing providers who offer open systems. Nevertheless, we decided in favor of the Formlabs systems for various reasons. It was clear to us at all times that we were entering a closed ecosystem and therefore could not expect this to change.
We are a very small team of just 2 people. For cost reasons, we often started with open systems. In our experience, however, the results, properties and reliability often vary too much. It is true that the price of closed systems is predetermined in most respects. However, these (must then) make up for these arguments with quality and reliability. I think this is the case.
Yes, it’s the same basic principle as HP. The idea here is to offer the actual devices as cheaply as possible and to make a further profit margin via the consumables. But I don’t think this is fundamentally bad. Of course, this basic principle can have an extremely negative impact with correspondingly poor quality or increasing price increases, but any other business model can do this in the same way.
Specifically: As Form3 users, we don’t have the feeling that something is being deliberately taken away. We think it’s fair to support the devices until 2028. That would be about the same period of use for our printer as before.
We were aware that there is no open mode for the Form3. We knew that there was an “open cartridge” from a third-party provider, and we looked into it, but then decided against it. The price would have been lower with a different material, which is correct, but whether and how the properties can be compared is not clear.
The fact that Formlabs has now allegedly blocked this is, in my opinion, unsurprising and also somewhat understandable. After all, it was never advertised by Formlabs.
We have a paper printer from HP in the office. No, we don’t use original HP ink. If we buy cartridges from a retailer that are advertised as HP-compatible and they are then blocked by HP, I would contact the retailer for the cartridges and not complain to HP, wouldn’t I?
We know for ourselves that for some of our experiments, solutions or optimizations we do not need to expect the help of Formlabs, because we may or may not be outside the described usage relationship of Formlabs.
With the OMM, I can certainly understand dissatisfaction, fundamentally from the description that in my opinion only functions should be added here, not others blocked, removed or changed.
I know of a company here in Germany that used the OMM to be able to use a UL94V0 powder in particular. I can’t say how much work went into the development. But it seems to work.
We have no interest in an OMM. However, should we have or obtain one, I would inform myself accordingly regarding its use.
Even if this is not particularly helpful, thanks to @CARobertM for the insights so far.
And now, please don’t hit me!