I have had entire threads about this subject…with dozens of back and forth emails to support and even a Formlabs rep here onsite…all acting like this was not “typical” and trying to help me dial this in…in the end we just gave up on larger parts that could not be orientated in a way that there was not “flat” surface on the top layer of any given part due to the excessive warping and pitting…not to mention the cost per part.
This is the same pitting we tried to get dialed in through custom settings with Formlabs and with temperature adjustments…but in the end we just gave up on it while Formlabs insisted that is was still possible to eliminate.
I have posted photos of Formlabs own sample parts, like their Nylon Tough part…that showed up with this same top layer warping and curling on all edges…
So, its just funny to see a very large expensive part…advertised on Formlabs this morning…so I just had to zoom in to check out that top surface layer!
Thank you for your feedback and for taking the time to share your experience. I’m sorry to hear that you encountered persistent challenges with shrinkage and warping effects in SLS printing, especially after extensive efforts with support and even custom parameter adjustments.
Since I printed, post-processed, and recorded yesterday the video myself, I can also provide a bit more context around the intent of the project and the evaluation criteria behind the build.
In general, my own approach to minimizing warping is to keep the sintering cross-sections as uniform as possible throughout the build in order to distribute thermal stress evenly across each layer. In the case shown in the video, the drone geometry itself creates a fairly constrained orientation scenario due to its diameter and extended flat surfaces. Regardless of orientation, there will inevitably be larger layer areas that accumulate increased thermal stress during the process.
It is also important to note that the part shown in the video was a prototype intended for engineering validation rather than a cosmetic showcase part. The primary objective of this build was to validate the overall drone mechanism, verify clearances for the print-in-place features, ensure all moving joints operated correctly, and confirm that the assembly integrated properly with the electronics and all additional components. From a functional engineering perspective, the build performed exactly as intended. All parts fit together precisely, the assemblies operated smoothly, and the surrounding components integrated successfully without requiring additional adjustments. If this design were to move into higher-volume production, there would absolutely be opportunities to further optimize the geometry specifically for thermal behavior and surface consistency.
I appreciate you sharing your observations and your own experiences with similar geometries and material behavior. Discussions like this are valuable.
I’m really trying to keep the content I create for Formlabs authentic and grounded in real engineering work. Sorry if you did not enjoy it.
And dont’ forget about orange peel… warping, pitting, and so on are considered DEFECTS as per any quality assurance system either internal or external and also as per support guidelines.
Trying to minimize them because the part is not “cosmetic” is ridiculous I bet that without extensive customization and profile tuning this part cannot be produced with stock settings showing perfect finish.
@LEADNAV have you tried adjusting speed to improve? Any chance of testing a third party powder?
Thank you for the direct feedback. I completely understand the reaction when seeing visible surface defects on parts shared by a manufacturer.
To give some context: I’m an individual content creator based in Berlin, working with a Fuse system and a lot of creative freedom from Formlabs to create content that feels honest and down-to-earth rather than overly polished.
Even across all my collaboration work, whether for marketing, sales support, or community projects, I usually share parts exactly as they come out of the machine, together with the print orientation and settings, even when imperfections occur. I intentionally avoid re-printing parts times just to present a perfect-looking result. For me, communicating and working with honest first outputs is important because it creates meaningful discussions around what should be improved.
I’ve always seen myself as closer to the user community than the traditional marketing team, which is why I try to present outcomes as transparently as possible. The part shown in the video was also shipped exactly as printed to the drone developer in Romania for real-world evaluation, transparently with settings, orientation, and first print outcome.
I appreciate the candid feedback, and I’ll make sure the points raised in this thread are passed along to both the product and marketing teams as part of the ongoing discussions around print quality and process improvements.
HAHA
