I would love for this to exist and, in my opinion, there's absolutely no theoretical reason why this shouldn't exist, but this sends off scam vibes to me.
They've come out of left field, with, as of this writing, little to no online presence (low views and followers on Twitter and Youtube) and are promising a machine that's literally 10x cheaper than it's nearest competitor, with promises of having worked out all the reliability details of bed leveling, heating, sintering, cleaning and small feature size (0.15mm).
In addition, they talk about abandoning digital controllers because of cost and going for analog only, which makes my bullshit detector go off. They also talk about recreating slicer software (using the Unreal engine). In other words, they've claimed to recreate the whole hardware, electronic and software toolchain for the industry to offer a high quality and affordable device.
Again, its not like any of this theoretically can't be done, it's that the details are hard and tend to be underestimated by people. When someone promises to breeze past the tripping points of hardware, electronics and software that have been present for the last 20 years, I start to become suspicious.
If this were a company in China (Shenzen, say) I would be much more open to the possibility, because of embedded domain knowledge and easy access to high end manufacturing. Note that fiber lasers have dropped 10x in cost to under $2k from
$15k+ from what the were 10 years ago, so its not the price of high end technological devices isn't dropping at an exponential rate.
Maybe someone else can comment on whether this is or looks more legitimate than I'm giving it credit for?
Hey, I'm one of the creators of the printer, and I'll take your skepticism as compliment :)
Yes, there were tons and tons of design challenges, but by strategically focusing on the important parts (like the laser) to concentrate our development efforts in and coming up with some clever solutions along the way, we were able to overcome most of the challenges. Remember when formlabs came out of nowhere back in 2011 and blew up the whole SLA world? We are just doing the same for SLS!
Currently, we are working with beta testers and will be sending review units out to content creators before launch so you can get a better idea of how it all works. In the meantime, if you submit a part on https://www.micronics3d.com/quote, we can print it for you to see for yourself!
This is our first video coming out of stealth and more will come in the future, so get subscribed!
In addition, they talk about abandoning digital controllers because of cost and going for analog only, which makes my bullshit detector go off.
This is only for driving galvo motors. And analog makes a lot of sense for that. Complexity is moderate too.
They also talk about recreating slicer software (using the Unreal engine)
Back in 2017, I implemented my own (very basic - it was not generating any supports) slicer for resin printers, which would be a similar deal for SLS. It's not too hard, and the Unreal Engine actually has a lot of geometry bits implemented. So, I believe the guy on that.
I share concerns about the rest of the system. Manufacturing is hard and it's doubly so when making machines, like 3d printers. We'll see, I guess. At the very least, it would be interesting to follow this development. I subscribed to their Youtube channel.
This is only for driving galvo motors. And analog makes a lot of sense for that. Complexity is moderate too.
Yes, sorry, I was trying to highlight that with the "... digital controllers ..." bit. I'm no electrical engineer so maybe this is not a big deal.
Back in 2017, I implemented my own ... slicer for resin printers ...
I've implemented a Gerber to GCode converter. All these things are well within reach. The point I'm trying to make is that to do them well, to have the bugs worked out, to have them reliable enough for production use, etc. is much more difficult than one would think.
One of the big factors that the current gamut of slicer toolchains has going for it is that people have been using it, so its limitations are known.
This is kind of my point. The statements are crafted as if to entice people on the periphery of this space who are knowledgeable enough to know its possible, or who are frustrated with the current toolchain or machine price points, but who don't have a good enough sense for whats probable.
Again, there's no reason this shouldn't exist. I would never want to discourage someone for making an attempt at displacing the current batch of clunky software. I really hope this tool does exist at the price point they're claiming.
I would give them much more slack if they had code released or has some or all of their machine's schematics or code under a libre/free/open license. As it stands, it seems very scammy.
Anyway, thanks for the response. I agree, we'll have to see.
The point I'm trying to make is that to do them well, to have the bugs worked out, to have them reliable enough for production use, etc. is much more difficult than one would think.
Oh yeah. Even if it's not scam, it is going to be buggy for the first couple of years.
They also talk about recreating slicer software (using the Unreal engine).
It's a lot easier to write the software for an SLS machine than an FDM machine, I wouldn't count that as a concern honestly. You no longer need to worry about specific paths, number of perimeter layers, overhangs, or any of that kind of stuff. It radically simplifies the problem space, so it's not unreasonable for someone to throw together an MVP of an entirely new slicer for SLS in a few weeks.
Comments
I would love for this to exist and, in my opinion, there's absolutely no theoretical reason why this shouldn't exist, but this sends off scam vibes to me.
They've come out of left field, with, as of this writing, little to no online presence (low views and followers on Twitter and Youtube) and are promising a machine that's literally 10x cheaper than it's nearest competitor, with promises of having worked out all the reliability details of bed leveling, heating, sintering, cleaning and small feature size (0.15mm).
In addition, they talk about abandoning digital controllers because of cost and going for analog only, which makes my bullshit detector go off. They also talk about recreating slicer software (using the Unreal engine). In other words, they've claimed to recreate the whole hardware, electronic and software toolchain for the industry to offer a high quality and affordable device.
Again, its not like any of this theoretically can't be done, it's that the details are hard and tend to be underestimated by people. When someone promises to breeze past the tripping points of hardware, electronics and software that have been present for the last 20 years, I start to become suspicious.
If this were a company in China (Shenzen, say) I would be much more open to the possibility, because of embedded domain knowledge and easy access to high end manufacturing. Note that fiber lasers have dropped 10x in cost to under $2k from $15k+ from what the were 10 years ago, so its not the price of high end technological devices isn't dropping at an exponential rate.
Maybe someone else can comment on whether this is or looks more legitimate than I'm giving it credit for?
Hey, I'm one of the creators of the printer, and I'll take your skepticism as compliment :) Yes, there were tons and tons of design challenges, but by strategically focusing on the important parts (like the laser) to concentrate our development efforts in and coming up with some clever solutions along the way, we were able to overcome most of the challenges. Remember when formlabs came out of nowhere back in 2011 and blew up the whole SLA world? We are just doing the same for SLS!
Currently, we are working with beta testers and will be sending review units out to content creators before launch so you can get a better idea of how it all works. In the meantime, if you submit a part on https://www.micronics3d.com/quote, we can print it for you to see for yourself!
This is our first video coming out of stealth and more will come in the future, so get subscribed!
Consider contacting 'Makers Muse' on youtube - I suspect he'd love to review it fairly.
This is only for driving galvo motors. And analog makes a lot of sense for that. Complexity is moderate too.
Back in 2017, I implemented my own (very basic - it was not generating any supports) slicer for resin printers, which would be a similar deal for SLS. It's not too hard, and the Unreal Engine actually has a lot of geometry bits implemented. So, I believe the guy on that.
I share concerns about the rest of the system. Manufacturing is hard and it's doubly so when making machines, like 3d printers. We'll see, I guess. At the very least, it would be interesting to follow this development. I subscribed to their Youtube channel.
Yes, sorry, I was trying to highlight that with the "... digital controllers ..." bit. I'm no electrical engineer so maybe this is not a big deal.
I've implemented a Gerber to GCode converter. All these things are well within reach. The point I'm trying to make is that to do them well, to have the bugs worked out, to have them reliable enough for production use, etc. is much more difficult than one would think.
One of the big factors that the current gamut of slicer toolchains has going for it is that people have been using it, so its limitations are known.
This is kind of my point. The statements are crafted as if to entice people on the periphery of this space who are knowledgeable enough to know its possible, or who are frustrated with the current toolchain or machine price points, but who don't have a good enough sense for whats probable.
Again, there's no reason this shouldn't exist. I would never want to discourage someone for making an attempt at displacing the current batch of clunky software. I really hope this tool does exist at the price point they're claiming.
I would give them much more slack if they had code released or has some or all of their machine's schematics or code under a libre/free/open license. As it stands, it seems very scammy.
Anyway, thanks for the response. I agree, we'll have to see.
Oh yeah. Even if it's not scam, it is going to be buggy for the first couple of years.
These days I think it's hard to say, honestly.
The only thing really new here would be powder layering. It's unclear how that might be mad cheaper today. Maybe they found a solution?
It's a lot easier to write the software for an SLS machine than an FDM machine, I wouldn't count that as a concern honestly. You no longer need to worry about specific paths, number of perimeter layers, overhangs, or any of that kind of stuff. It radically simplifies the problem space, so it's not unreasonable for someone to throw together an MVP of an entirely new slicer for SLS in a few weeks.