FDM to Stereolithography to Real 3D: Consumer 3D Printer Trends forming

Looking at the trend on Kickstarter regarding 3D printers, it’s becoming clear to me that there is a growing tend at the level of 3D printers at the consumer level.

Tier 1: “Cheap” Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM)

The advantages of FDM are numerous, as I outlined in the blog post 3D Printer Additive Technology Overview such as abundant material supply (plastic), relatively simple technology (XYZ with a heating head) and decent durability of the finished models. Within FDM tier though, you have both “starter” 1.2K$US Cube by 3D Systems, the “intermediate” 1.7K$US 3D printers such as the Replicator by MakerBot Industries and “professional” 10K$US Mojo by Stratasys. The quality is better as you move-up leading to higher resolution models when you are done printing. Generally speaking, these affordable FDM 3D printers have a print resolution of about 200 microns (0.2 mm / 0.008″ per layer) with a build envelope of about 5 inches square.

3D System’s Cube: Real Star Trek Replicator?

MakerBot Replicator Time Lapse – Skull

See the Stratasys Mojo 3D Print Pack at Work

In a few years, I believe FDM 3D printers will be a dime a dozen like inkjets are now – you’ll get a machine for a few hundred dollars and the companies will make money of their “proprietary” FDM plastics much like current inkjet cartridges. There are major drawbacks to this technology though, the biggest in my opinion is ability to print COLOR (equivalent to an inkjet in range) and inability to make 3D moving parts without requiring any type of extra assembly. For instance, you can’t make a toy car moveable unless you make each major part independently THEN put it together. I think the issues with material warp, shrink and errors will go down dramatically – being a non-issue by then.

Tier 2: Quality Stereolithography (SLA)

There are many advantages to SLA including up to 10x better resolution than what is possible with current generation Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) machines, the ability to making moving parts and superior build quality with the major drawback being that you need to do some post-processing before you can play around with the part to remove support material. Depending on the model, you may need to do this anyways with FDM and other 3D printing technologies anyways but the advantage of SLA is that generally, that support material can be dissolved away in a vat instead of having to go in with pliers to manually remove excess material (except for very high-end FDM).

B9Creator prints the “Metratron”

The New 3D Systems Projet 1500 now available in the UK!

Objet – Polyjet

I think this technology shows the most promise for affordable 3D printers looking at build quality over cost. For instance, the B9Creator will retail for about the same as the MakerBot with material costs of 10 cents per gram while the FDM material used for the MakerBot costs (1kg = 90$US) about 9 cents per gram BUT SLA is a liquid so there is a lot less waste. On the higher-end of things, you are looking at either a 3D Systems Projet or Objet Polyjet – both start at about the same price as mid-end car and go up almost exponentially as you increase the build envelope. The one major reason why I don’t think these systems will be huge in the consumer marketplace is because although the end-material easily accepts paint… the general public doesn’t want to learn how to paint anymore than they want to learn how to build 3D models.

Tier 3: Plaster-based 3D printing (PP)

The major advantage over “Cheap” Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) and Quality Stereolithography (SLA) is that Plaster-based 3D printing (PP) allows you to print in color while the model is being made and it has material recycling capabilities, meaning anything not used on your model can be used for the next one. The resolution you get out of it is about 100 microns per layer.

Why can a system that prints twice of current generation FDM but 1/4 that of SLA based systems be able to have overhanging and moving parts? It’s all about the support material! You see, with FDM, you print and gravity pulls down on the model so if you have an overhang, it goes DOWN and with SLA you are using a liquid so again, gravity can take over (though nowhere near as severe as FDM). PP on the other hand, builds layer by layer across the entire build envelope – like placing a sheet of paper one at a time and applying resin only where you want it. So, if you have a part that’s “floating” in space, it will “fall” but only after you removed the supporting material, not during the actual printing process. You do have to spray the model with super-glue as plaster falls apart so there are some disadvantages over SLA/FDM but it’s a small price to pay in my opinion – you can just print another one!

Cost wise, a Plaster-based 3D printer (PP) starts at about the same cost of a new entry-level car and goes up from there with the most notable difference being a larger build envelope. Material wise, it’s MUCH CHEAPER than professional level SLA binding material though you can’t have transparent or translucent parts as in SLA. Generally, you have the advantages of SLA without the disadvantages of FDM regarding build options by using PP.

So, you have the resolution, speed, material (which is non-toxic by the way) and color printing capabilities all in one machine. Once I saw this machine in action at 3D Systems, I realized that this was the way to go consumer wise. I REALLY liked the texture of the model afterwards too, FDM is rough even visually while SLA is incredibly smooth but PP is just perfect in my opinion for easy grabbing and you don’t see the material layers. I call this a real 3D printer from a general consumer point of view as it most closely mimics the replicator in Star Trek!

3D Systems ZPrinter 850 3D printer