Formlabs Website Store Support

Upcoming Resin Re-formulations

In the newest PreForm release, version 2.12.2, you might have noticed new material profiles for White v4 and Clear v4 Resins. Over the next couple of months, we’ll be releasing re-formulations for many of our current resins.

Each of these materials will have the same properties as their predecessors, but we’re changing the supplier for one of the components. Updating the resin versions helps us to better track and support these materials internally.

We won’t be making product announcements for each of these re-formulations as material properties will remain the same. It is important to make sure you’re using the appropriate profile for the new materials in PreForm. More significant announcements will be made for upcoming product and re-formulations where the material properties do change.

Let us know if you have any questions regarding these minor re-formulations! I’ll also update this thread with each of the new resins that feature the component change.

Re-formulated materials: White v4, Clear v4, Durable v2, Grey v4, Tough v5, Black v4, Dental Model v2


Hi Frew, hope you come soon with a new formula for cartable, which would have the same precision as the grey V3…would be really nice for dental labs…


Splint resin for dental would be nice. Any release Date?

Did you see the DentalLT Clear Resin announcement? DentalLT Clear is a Class IIa bio-compatibility material suitable for long-term use and direct production of orthodontic devices like retainers and splits. The material will be available for purchase in October 2017.

Hi Frew… I have purchased every version of the Tough product and use it regularly. I can say the it keeps getting better and better. Ironically, I think the biggest change we’ve seen in terms of print quality was the change from V3 to V4, which involved both a color change and a print quality change (our perception). Tough V4 is great, amazing, wonderful material, but the Tough V3 material is MUCH different. (We’ve thrown all the V3 material and tanks away, they are useless) I know you’ve stated that there was only a supplier change, but our experience doesn’t conform that. Any ideas what we may be experiencing?

Here is something I don’t understand.

If the only thing that changed is “the supplier of one of the components”, and “material properties remain the same”, then why do we need to call these reformulations, and give them a whole version. Why not just announce the vendor change and use the same profiles as before?

I understand the concept of keeping track internally of the old and new batches, but it doesn’t need to get a whole new profile, unless there are differences. What are the profile differences between V3 and V4? Can one print with V4 resin using V3 profile (or vice versa?

I’d say “best practices” would mandate you roll the revision number for a supplier change even if the properties are unchanged. In the electronics industry (where I work), if I make a change to the bill of materials, like using a different capacitor supplier than I’ve used before, I have to notify my customers and I have to roll the product revision. Even though the rating of the new component is identical to the old and there is absolutely no way to tell the difference from the outside of the device. At least in my experience it comes down to “better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it”. The odds of a problem might be miniscule, but new suppliers mean a potential for new surprises.

1 Like

I also work in the electronics (computer) industry, and you’re correct we have to issue ECN’s every time a change like you describe occurs, however, if the change does not affect the functionality or behavior of the device/computer that change is internal and never makes it out to the public.

If the change affects the way the system works (like a new BIOS, or a new driver), then by all means, we provide the drivers and issue a revision update. But I will bet that the type of change you’re talking about (like a new capacitor or RAM supplier) does not get filtered down to the end user.

So my point is, if there is no change that affects the material properties, why the revision? I mean, why not announce something like " Hey guys, we have a new supplier for the resin, but since the change doesn’t affect the resin at all, you won’t have to make any changes to your daily printing routine."

This is why I’m asking the questions in the last paragraph; If there’s no change, are the profiles interchangeable?

Yes or No to that would certainly be definitive! :slight_smile:

Most likely, they don’t expect any difference, and you most likely can continue to use the previous setting, however I know from experience that even when there is 'no expected change" there can be an unexpected change.

It’s far easier to add an extra version than to untangle complaints if some difference arises.

I feel like it’s more about semantics than anything else, let me explain my view :

They made a change in the resin formulation, and want consumer reports regarding the use of Formlabs’ resins to reflect that change. The best way to do that is to change something that the consumer has easy access to, i.e. the reference number.

It just so happens that what they chose to change was the “version” number at the end of the reference number, which may imply for most people that a major change has occurred.

I believe a better way to do that would have been to include both version and revision in the reference number of the resin. Revisions are for things that don’t change the compatibility of the product with previous revisions, like a supplier change for a capacitor which has the same specs as the previous one. Version changes are indicative of a break in compatibility / interchangeability in the product.

People wouldn’t make such a mess with simple revision changes, and Formlabs would still be able to track unexpected changes / issues with a given revision number.

Glad to hear that the Tough Resin is continuing to improve for you! The switch from Tough V3 to Tough V4 Resin was a bit different from these. In that case, a component did change which influenced the mechanical and aesthetic properties. The difference between the two materials was slight which is why users were able to mix the two formulations without error. I’m a bit surprised to hear that your results are significantly better with Tough V4 Resin but certainly glad that’s been the case!

For each of these re-formulations, the components will remain the same and the only difference is a change in supplier. Mechanical and aesthetic properties will be nearly identical and these will be mixable with the previous formulation.

1 Like

I hope it improves the gray resin V3 even more so that it has an improvement in the finish of the first layer of the piece.

@Frew nothing about a cartable v3???

1 Like

@Frew I just received my form 2 yesterday and the clear that was included was clear v2. Before I open it is there any reason I should not use it?

I would just look at the bottom of the cartridge for a white sticker which will indicate the date of manufacture. IIRC the format is something like 20170927. The resin is good for one year after that date.

1 Like

Thanks, the date is ~July 2017. I was more wondering if there was a reason for 2 newer versions. Like is there something wrong with v2 or v3? It was a minor concern to see something I just purchased was from 2 generations prior.

According to @Frew’s post the diff between v3 and v4 is no difference.

IIRC (and based on this post) the difference between v2 and v3 are great (i.e. there are different profiles for a specific reason, different settings, etc.) and the two are not mixable. Hopefully someone at FL can address why u got v2 .

EDIT: nvm I found the answer here

In short v3 was recalled, so v2 is the current version of clear!

1 Like

Thanks for the question! You are correct that the only change is in the supplier for one of the components and material properties should remain identical across formulations. We’ve still found it valuable to update the version number so that we can track changes between the formulations. Material properties should be identical between the suppliers, but the change in version number will allow us to track and verify that this is the case. There may be better workflows for this similar to how minor software updates get revision numbers (ex. White V3.1) and we’ll continue to explore methods of doing this going forwards.

The change in PreForm profile also has to do with tracking and creating a simple workflow. It might be confusing for users to use the White V3 settings with a White V4 cartridge which is much of our motivation for adding new PreForm profiles. To answer @Randy_Cohen discretely, no, profiles aren’t currently interchangeable. This isn’t a physical limitation as the profiles are nearly the same, it’s moreso a matter of workflow and tracking.

Nope, no reason not to use your Clear v2 cartridge as the results will be identical to Clear v4 and the materials will be mixable. Clear was a bit of a tricky case. As @kevinduhe mentioned, Clear V3 was discontinued but it did require different material settings and some users may still have cartridges. That’s the reason for the jump from Clear V2 to Clear V4.

1 Like