Is 3D Printing Being Overused Now?

All great points from both sides... I think the biggest issue is when the printed piece being offered up isn't a finished product. I can certainly understand doing a run of printed parts or replicas when the end result is a finished, ready to display piece. When the run is for a raw printed part that still requires clean up work, that is an issue. Especially when that piece can be cleaned up and molded, and offered at a more affordable price than the raw printed part.
 
Eh, the whole thing reeks of sour grapes. What the difference between getting a raw cast and having to clean it up and getting a printed item and having to clean it up. I don't get why OP is concerned with how someone offers up a prop? Is it because he can hit print, go about his day and come back and box it up and ship it off and you have to spend hours making molds and casting? Printing isn't cheap or fast. If some guy wants to waste money and time tying up his computer and money printing stuff, I say have fun. How does someone else spending their time or money effect you? You don't have to buy their stuff and you're still free to go about doing stuff the same way you always have. 3D printing has opened up this hobby to a lot more people and it sounds like a bunch of people are upset about it. Professionally, they've been doing both for a long time and will continue. I don't think you need to worry about prop makers being replaced with a small team of 3d modelers and room full of printers any time soon.
 
Eh, the whole thing reeks of sour grapes. What the difference between getting a raw cast and having to clean it up and getting a printed item and having to clean it up. I don't get why OP is concerned with how someone offers up a prop? Is it because he can hit print, go about his day and come back and box it up and ship it off and you have to spend hours making molds and casting? Printing isn't cheap or fast. If some guy wants to waste money and time tying up his computer and money printing stuff, I say have fun. How does someone else spending their time or money effect you? You don't have to buy their stuff and you're still free to go about doing stuff the same way you always have. 3D printing has opened up this hobby to a lot more people and it sounds like a bunch of people are upset about it. Professionally, they've been doing both for a long time and will continue. I don't think you need to worry about prop makers being replaced with a small team of 3d modelers and room full of printers any time soon.

So yeah, this guy didn't RTFT.
 
Actually I did, and the issue was covered and the TFT evolved. That's what discussions do. It started with you asking if 3d printing was over used then complain about how they could do it cheaper if they just printed the master and then mold and cast it. Did I miss something, because that was the jist of your first two comments.
 
I am saving up for a 3-d printer, mostly to design greeblie masters for molding, however, I do not understand the cost/production ratio yet and won't until I have the machine.

If it was cheap enough, I think I would be tempted to print my greeblies instead of casting them, so I can concentrate more on the main model which I would cast and de-flash/airhole fill by hand.

My opinion is that it the 3d printer can get me quality results then I have no issue with using it, it's the same as the polyurethane/polyester argument, both chemicals have their advantages and disadvantages and it's using the knowledge smartly that counts.
 
I agree, we should ban all 3D Printers.
One time I was sitting at lunch, and a Makerbot rolled up and slapped me. For no reason!
It's a good thing there was a True Craftsman at a nearby table, to fend it off with his clay rake.
 
I agree, we should ban all 3D Printers.
One time I was sitting at lunch, and a Makerbot rolled up and slapped me. For no reason!
It's a good thing there was a True Craftsman at a nearby table, to fend it off with his clay rake.

Made my day :thumbup:
 
It can easily be over-used....in the movie industry...by ill informed prop masters who underestimate the abilities of their model and prop makers. They are desperate to not be 'left behind'. You would not believe the things that I have seen grown in 5-6 hours that could have been machined, carved, fabricated or sculpted by a decent pattern maker in 2 hours, (because RP technology is the 'future' :rolleyes) Crazy!

Having said that, a descent prop making HOD will be well aware where the tool is relevant and they will employ it accordingly. They will only do it if it saves money in the long run, not because it's 'cool'. Others will think it is the answer to everything because they are clueless to the processes and skill of a model/prop maker and their materials knowledge.

It has made a very positive impact in the hobby world, for sure.

I have had scratch-built models/props scanned and grown in the past and the same applies to sculpture work. It is not only applied to 3D modelled objects.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion the 3D printer has it's place but it is over used by far. The biggest issues in my mind is some one getting a printer, coming on a site like this or even googling the file and doing a print. Then they post it or sell it with the statement of "I made this". Don't get me wrong I am a handmade guy though and though that why a started my company. And the guys with the skill to do the computer side of 3D printing are the one that do the work. But downloading someone else file, printing it and taking any form of credit for it is wrong.


Never in the same place very long.
 
The thing I see with 3d printing though is already it's giving the consumer cheap access to custom parts that would otherwise have to be injection molded (things like moving hands with lots of intricate parts with thin walls) which is something that regular slush casting cant do easily...which obviously you need a 3d printer to do so but hackerspaces are becoming more and more popular with lots of public access to the tech, tech that can replicate more restricted processes easier.
 
The areas that 3d printing shine are exactly reproducing digital art, providing a more detailed pepakura like base for projects and the ability to make plastic items in the space between the lovingly crafted one off and the mass produced
 
I'm currently working on an Iron Man VII suit and I'm hoping to order a 3D printer next week. I don't intend on making parts and selling them (at least at this point) and I would never claim to have "made" the parts even if I do. But I don't have the space etc to safely do casting etc - I wish I did. But a condo doesn't work for that kind of thing. And trying to pepakura the hands/fingers out of paper just seems like a whole lotta work that I can (and likely would) totally screw up. That's where the 3D printer comes in - printing out the small parts that are intricate enough to be problematic done by hand. So I print them instead so I can focus on the larger pieces. After I'm done the suit I have no idea what I'll move on to but I'm sure I'll find some use of it.
 
Last edited:
Lately I've been working towards a project that will use 3D printing for the basis of the replica, so this thread definitely caught my eye. I'm curious, though; what happens when a prop has a well-documented base (ie the meters from Ghostbusters built around shoe polishers) but said base is nigh-impossible to find these days?
Believe me, I would be more than happy to use styrene and cut, sand, and putty my way to a perfectly screen-accurate prop, but unfortunately sometimes it's just not feasible. Just like molds and resin, Pepakura and paper, 3D printing has its own niche in creating a replica. Should it be the go-to solution to every project? No, of course not. However, there are times where it is very useful and the judgmental tones I've seen in this thread will only serve to hamper people's approaches.
 
Well, I do have a 3D printed prop in the JY, and it's indeed a 3D print that is offered, for the simple reason that it actually was cheaper to 3D print one than to mold and cast a copy. Costs of silicone and resin are high here, it's just not worth the time and money when you can 3D print them and have a very good finish with a bit of sanding...
 
They can move atoms in a bloodstream with a laser. They can make transistors out of subatomic particles. 3D printers will be able to print replacement organs using stem cells in someone in this thread's lifetime.

I know I'm totally necroing this thread from the dead but this is really the only thing on the topic that made me feel better after reading it-
Keep in mind that when the camera was invented people thought portrait paiting would go away. It didn't, it's still a unique form people are willing to pay for.

Symmetry is overrated. A symmetrical TK Bucket doesn't work because Stormtroopers are bad guys and bad guys are expressed with asymmetry- a happy accident.
 
Symmetry is overrated. A symmetrical TK Bucket doesn't work because Stormtroopers are bad guys and bad guys are expressed with asymmetry- a happy accident.

It doesn't work because it's not what we're used to. If they had been able to make a symmetrical bucket they would, and we wouldn't have thought less of the design. I'm in full agreement that symmetrical TKs look "wrong" but I don't think symmetry is overrated at all when it comes to items that logically are supposed to be "industry fabricated" like firearms, helmets, armor and other standard-equipment type gadgets. Now, if you were talking about asymmetry in actual design- one eye-patch, the Falcon's radar dish off to the left or wearing a cloak over just one shoulder- that's one thing. But that's an esthetic design choice. The TK bucket being asymmetrical is for all intents and purposes a manufacturing error. Bad guys can just as well be portrayed with perfect symmetry.
 
It doesn't work because it's not what we're used to. If they had been able to make a symmetrical bucket they would, and we wouldn't have thought less of the design. I'm in full agreement that symmetrical TKs look "wrong" but I don't think symmetry is overrated at all when it comes to items that logically are supposed to be "industry fabricated" like firearms, helmets, armor and other standard-equipment type gadgets. Now, if you were talking about asymmetry in actual design- one eye-patch, the Falcon's radar dish off to the left or wearing a cloak over just one shoulder- that's one thing. But that's an esthetic design choice. The TK bucket being asymmetrical is for all intents and purposes a manufacturing error. Bad guys can just as well be portrayed with perfect symmetry.

Its just what Fon Davis said the other day. They went back and tried to make the symmetrical and they didn't film correctly. You can almost correlate it to the Clone buckets- the good guys. Same with Vader- the asymmetry makes him The Bad Guy, when they redid it for the prequels- it was off. Noooooooooooo!

I noticed in the 300 movie that just came out... Xerses is a symmetrical handsome man, whose gold chain costume is asymmetrical for this purpose. The battle damage on Fett- same deal.
 
I think 3d printing has its benefits. Small 100% symmetrical details are so much easier to create with a 3d printer. With all things I think 'lazy' is perhaps the wrong way to look at something like this. In my opinion you should do whatever method that gives you the best and most efficient outcome. For instance, we rarely use stop motion puppets in feature films because CG is now at a level where its more efficient and cost effective. However if still more sensible to make a master mold and cast a 3d printed piece, and in most cases there is still a lot of manual work that needs to be done to a raw print to make it perfect anyway.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
 
Just to throw a monkey into the discussion, I've been at TechShop SF many days running over the past month or two. Upstairs, the laser engravers are always hogged, with waiting lists of a week or more. Downstairs, the two lathes and two (was three) milling machines often stand unused. Except for the Tomach CNC -- that gets more love.

But tempting as it is to say, "Yeah, everyone wants the sexy computerized stuff these days," there's a good reason for this usage pattern as well. I grew up working in scene shops, often had access to a place to cut wood and weld metal, and was pretty much used to taking my work home with me. So I've always had hand tools around and a high tolerance for sawdust all over the apartment and bits of expanded foam in my soup. What things like 3d printers, laser engravers, and, yes, the old-school resin kits as well, do is allow people who don't live that kind of lifestyle a chance to build a bit, too. They can build without the infrastructure investment (the tools and work space) and the body of minor skills many of us take for granted, and of course the impact of all that dust and paint overspray and the fine sensation of slipping out of bed Monday morning and putting a bare foot down on a metal splinter that escaped your attempts to clean up from the weekend's build.

What does this have to do with the quality of a 3d print, especially pre clean-up? Nothing! But as people have said, the discussion evolves.

And I also want to chime in on the "run" problem. I recently created a scale model of a Commando V150 armored car. Made three, actually. Which is way too few to even think about injection molding, but a few too many to want to be breaking out the styrene. Actually, we thought there would be more interest. Enough that a few dozen would be printed. At the current numbers, it is about even-odds; I spent as much time wrestling with making a printable (yet affordable) model as I would have spent bending plastic. And, personally, I find 3d a lot higher in the frustration scale. I'd really rather be scraping a seam for hours with an X-acto, than hunting through a large mesh for a bad weld.

So, yeah, sometimes having the printer be the mold makes more sense -- for some projects. Small size, small runs. I don't think any customers are getting fooled that a fresh 3d print is any closer to final finish than a freshly pulled vacuuform. If there is any issue left, it might be a perception among a vanishing minority that just because it is printed, it ought to be cheaper for the same quality of finish. And the cost of a spool of SLA aside, paint cost and sanding time haven't changed. They are even a bit worse for prints. As much as we might like, the only tried-and-true way of getting a really cheap lightsabre is by going down to the toystore, or to one of those companies that can really, really leverage benefits of scale.
 
This thread is more than 9 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top