Upcoming Resin Re-formulations

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

Looking forward to the Dental LT Clear, but can’t pre-order in the store, yet? I am worried that there will be a long waiting list.
Any help getting the native language on my version of the Formlabs.com switched from French to English? I am doing OK with it, but there is the potential for me to misunderstand something. I don’t know if it was because I was teaching in Europe, and somehow that short location change got propagated across all my mac stuff. Will there be any explanations about the durable future trays?: any decreased initial resolution due to material properties, but long term resolution stability, etc? I am just ordering one or two trays at a time, being in the dark, and would prefer to save the environment by combining more in each order. Thank you.

Also, will the Dental LT not only need its own tray, etc., but tend to chew through trays faster? Based on your resolution testing, will you eventually post a graph of typical tray durability/accuracy for each resin type. I realize that the Gv3 ages the tray faster than Clrv2, but there are times I prefer the trade-off, so it will be nice to have access to testing results as a guide. Thank you.

DentalLT Clear won’t be available for pre-order, but you can sign up for updates through this page. We’ll do our best to ensure that all of those looking to purchase DentalLT Clear are able to do so.

If you navigate to the main page and scroll towards the bottom, you’ll see a dropdown to change your language. You might give that a go and let me know if it works for you.

More information about Resin Tank LT will be coming out shortly :slight_smile:

Curious why the Print Time is so much higher for Clear V4 as opposed to Clear V3 if the change was negligible. See below for example. That is a major step backwards to me, even if there are improvements to quality since I have never had quality complaints about this resin with previous formulations/print settings.

Clear Resin is a bit of a confusing case. The current version is Clear v2 rather than Clear v3. Clear v3 was available for a short while before it was discontinued.

The current jump is from Clear v2 to Clear v4. If you compare the settings for those two, you’ll notice that they’re the same.

Still a major difference. I just switched over from V2 to V4 which is why I noticed this. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated, like maybe this is just a Preform estimation error and not actual build time. If it is really this different, I would prefer the older formulation/settings.

1 Like