Hacker News Reader

Comment by kiba | Hacker News Reader

I do not know why makerbots keep getting more expensive than the next. I thought with advances in tech, they would get cheaper and eventually I would be able to afford one.

What the heck are they thinking?

View on HN

With Cupcake -> Replicator -> Replicator 2 the devices are getting physically larger and more capable. Larger machines are more expensive to manufacture and assemble, and this is still a small-volume, mostly hand-assembled (in Manhattan! {edit: sorry, Brooklyn. I misremembered.}) industry.

If you want a 3D printer and cash is an issue, look to building your own Reprap. Assuming you get it right the first time and don't need to buy tools, a total cost of under $500 for a Prusa Mendel is achievable. Obviously you have to build it, but given the target market that's often not a problem. Most people who want to build 3D printed stuff are generally happy to assemble robots too.

> If you want a 3D printer and cash is an issue, look to building your own Reprap.

Or you can just buy a Solidoodle. I did.

http://store.solidoodle.com/index.php?route=product/product&...

Great link, thanks. My reprap-fu is a year stale and I hadn't noticed these guys. Seems like it's the printer the Cupcake should have been.

I can firmly recommend the Solidoodle 2 - it came fully assembled about a month ago for just about what my housemate's RepRap Prusa Mendel cost him to build last year, and is only slightly less capable (mostly in that the build area is a bit smaller).

Me too. My Solidoodle 2 arrived last week and I've kept it busy. So far I'm very pleased.

The Makerbot 2 does look very nice and I like the high resolution and larger build area - but I'm holding out for one with dual extruders.

I like the photos of the solidoodle2 and the price tag. How is the end product? Some dudes in a local hackerspace built a reprap a while ago but that thing is nothing but disappointment... Head drift, ooze problems, constant maintenance. What's the most complex thing you've printed, if you don't mind me asking?

Over the last two months, it's been decent. I had ooze issues, but they were cured by removing water from my filament using an oven and a lot of desiccant.

As for head drift and maintenance, no head drift and almost no maintenance required. I had to level the bed as it wasn't quite right when I got it (UPS clearly smashed the package as always, though, so it was probably right when it was shipped).

I think the manufactured steel-frame approach that Solidoodle and MakerBot have taken is superior in many ways to the cobbled-together threaded rods/hardware approach that RepRap designs take - you pay more for a large build area, but it's easier to get decent strength and much less fiddly in terms of setup (no adjusting bolts to make rods line up and the like). Sure, you can't make a copy with just a hardware store and a 3D printer, but for the price and functionality difference, I'll deal with that drawback.

I've printed a couple of decently complex models and what I've found is that settings and filament matter a -lot- more than anything else. The print head goes where I want it to and the extruder pushes the amount of plastic I request through the nozzle - beyond that, it's all about making sure the filament isn't expanding too much in the hot end via high quality filament and making sure there is -no- water in it, and getting the slicer to request the correct amount of plastic at the right rate.

All very interesting, thanks for the detailed response. I'm pretty interested in setting up a fully-automated custom brewery/distillery so I've been looking into making a lot of custom fittings for piping and heat-exchanging. Thanks again

Looks like the Solidoodle is .3mm resolution vs .1mm resolution of the R2, and at roughly 25% cost.

EDIT: I originally said .3 vs .2 - but it is actually .3 vs .1 - so the R2 is much more fine. Still - $500 is a good price for this at all.

Can they both use the same filament?

> Can they both use the same filament?

If you get the heated bed option, yes.

I have seen on the Solidoodle forums that the Solidoodle has a .1 "mode" but I don't have the specifics. The Solidoodle website says, "It's possible to print hi-resolution parts at a layer height of .1mm, which gives top-notch looking prints".

The "resolution" numbers you're seeing are a red herring. The quoted number is the height of a layer that the settings shipped with the printer are good for, not the precision or accuracy of the print head. The X, Y, and Z resolution, as well as the extruder step size on a Solidoodle (and almost any other printer these days) is plenty good to print .1mm layers. The challenge in printing .1mm layers is that you're depositing a very tiny amount of plastic onto each layer, so variation like filament quality and moisture, temperature, and speed matters a lot more.

Check out RichRap trying out different "resolutions" (layer heights) on his MendelMax printer with a Wade's extruder here to learn more about how layer heights work:

http://richrap.blogspot.com/2012/01/slic3r-is-nicer-part-3-h...

They seem to offer 3 models Base, Pro(+$50), Expert($+100) but no description I can find anywhere on the site.

That's because their website sucks. Store doesn't link to the main site. Try http://www.solidoodle.com/ for videos, blog, etc.

Actually it looks like I simply missed it description was below(I didn't scroll)

Base Model $499:

    Everything you need to print - just add a computer!
    Acrylic Build Plaform - good for doing small prints
    70W power supply
    Open design (no outer cover/door)

Pro Model $549:

    Heated Build Platform - allows you to build large prints up to 6x6x6" without bottom warping. 1/8" aluminum plate.
    Upgraded power supply
    Spool holder to hold filament (makes unattended printing much easier)
    Interior lighting
    Open design (no outer cover/door)

Expert Model $599:

    All the features of the Pro model plus an outer cover & front acrylic door to give your printer a finished look with clean lines

I like that the parts for assembling the Prusa Mendel are included as their own printable files.

http://reprap.org/wiki/Prusa_Mendel_(iteration_2)

I'm just happy to see they've moved away from a hacked-together plywood and screws case and have switched to metal. They've finally discovered that some things are better made if you get away from the limitations of low-end laser cutters.

That said, I think it was stupid of them to drop the kit versions of their printers, which more people could actually afford, although this is coming from someone in a "fly-over" state, where a mortgage payment on a nice house in the 'burbs is less than half the replicator2 cost. I suppose if you live someplace where the cost of living is much higher (New York City, for example), then spending $2k+ on a toy isn't really a big deal.

Take a look at a "Type A" - $1200 fully assembled.

http://typeamachines.com/details

Disclosure - don't work for them, but I've met them at Noisebridge and perused the design. I've also built my own 3D printer, so I know a little about these things. The Type A design is a very good design! It's built for low moving head mass, thus high printing speed, but without the disadvantages of a Bowden cable.

+1 for specs, price, design, originality -1 for closed source

Actually, when I met him at Noisebridge, Andrew gave me permission to do a knock-off machine designed to be cut on smaller bed laser cutters. I think the design is open, but not on the website.

Not a bad machine, still uses the laser-cut-plywood and screws approach that I don't particularly like.

I also went the build-my-own route because about the time my "buy silly toys" fund was up to where I could buy one, anything with a useable build envelope had a price increase pushing it beyond what I wanted to spend, and I wasn't really happy with the designs -- I really don't like that plywood & screw style construction. Using my own design allowed me to get away from those issues.

I saw Adam Mayer speak at a meetup and he said they dropped the kit versions because they were a huge customer support burden. A lot of things can go wrong putting one of these together.

When I saw this announcement my instant hope was, "Maybe it's one in my price range!" My excitement was sapped fairly quickly.

I think it's neat they're offering more advanced machines, but I'd also like to see them release a budget model.

This is a budget model. Think about it: you're getting absolutely amazing machinery, the stuff of science fiction not all that long ago for a little more than $2000. It is incredible.

I understand that your price range is lower than this but this is a tool not a toy, and as a tool with this kind of capability it is absolutely dirt cheap.

From what other people have said in this thread, there are more affordable options for hobbyists. This comes of as being more of a semi-professional grade.

I actually agree. While I wish it was more accessible to someone like me, I do feel like - for those who can afford it - it's an amazing purchase and well worth it. It's like when I was much younger and CD burners were released. I didn't have a job then, I was a kid, but had I had that kind of money I would have gladly purchased the CD burner and felt like I was paying a fair price for an amazing piece of technology. But, I still hoped they would make affordable models sooner than later.

I think after reading about the Kickstarter, where the gentleman was being praised by some and chastised by others for deliberately trying to undercut makerbots, and reading about some of the other less expensive options, that maybe Makerbot would be trying to start lowering costs with new models. It's great that instead they've scaled up quality and performance, but still disappointing to the kid in me waiting for a CD burner.

So maybe "budget model," is poor terminology? Perhaps what I'm hoping and waiting for is it to reach the diffusion point in technological change? It seems to have already begun, as there are less expensive options, but eventually I'd like to a reputable name like Makerbot putting out sturdy models most people can afford.

Are regular consumers the target market or businesses?

If I bought one I'd think about how I could make money off it - a high-quality, reliable $2k machine would be more desirable than a less powerful $500 product.

I think what's truly revolutionary is that it helps blur the line between those categories.

I've wondered the same thing. If you bought one - what sorts of things do you think people would be willing to pay you to print?

That's not expensive for what it does. It really isn't. I'd buy one in a snap if I had an application. It's beyond amazingly cheap for a tool of that power.

This is comparatively expensive for what it does: http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC975LL/A

That's certainly an expensive laptop, but you really can't say it's comparatively expensive, since it's got more than twice the resolution of any other laptop. There is no direct comparison to be made as yet.

It's got more pixels yes, but that doesn't make it N orders of magnitude more useful.

"It's got more pixels yes, but that doesn't make it N orders of magnitude more useful."

FOR YOU!!. People use to believe they really are the center of the Universe, so if they don't find something useful, NOBODY does!!

I know some professions in witch it certainly makes it 10*N times more useful.

Such as?

The only thing I can think of is medical imaging and they use windows.

I've noticed an increase in immature sounding posts on HN lately. Isn't school back in session yet? What (or witch?) profession finds it 10x more useful to have a laptop with a higher pixel count but still a standard, unimpressive effective resolution?

There's a similar problem with vehicles, which was especially apparent when the financial crisis hit: many manufacturers use efficiency improvements to add features rather than lower costs. It makes perfect sense for a company that sees itself as a supplier to small manufacturing businesses, but it's counter-productive if one's goal is to reach consumers or expand market (rather than just market share).

Much more detailed printing, more efficient, faster, I would assume.

All of which doesn't necessary mean that their 3D printer they're selling have to be expensive.

They could have keep the spec of their first generation and try to figure out how to make it cheaper over time without losing quality.

Ask yourself what their incentive is to make it cheaper. The market probably won't increase by much with a slightly lower cost, but it increases considerably when you improve the capability. For many people, a e.g., 30% larger work envelope along with a smaller feature size can be worth 200% higher cost.

Then again, I'm comparing it to milling machines and lathes; perhaps the market for low end 3D printing is sufficiently different that what I know doesn't apply.

I'm guessing they are using more precision parts each time, which are a major step forward, but definitely still not cheaper.

You can make your RepRap for $400. I know because I did it.

Very useful, but the material cost is too high. The main change in the recent future are not the printers, but the "personal filamnet extruders" that are appearing now that will make material cost drop 10X when they are improved.

3D printers are still several years away from regular consumers.

Really? Remember how much most computers used to cost?

They took several years to become affordable, too. What exactly are you disputing?

Personal computers were thousands of dollars in the '80s, and didn't drop below $1k until after they were mainstream. If you account for inflation, this MakerBot is cheaper than desktop computers were in the early to mid '90s. If it's perceived as a useful tool, then the current price is already low enough to not prevent widespread adoption.

What I meant above is that currently it's perceived as a hobbyist device. It's not a necessity, or even something that improves one's efficiency and quality of life (like the computer is/was).

I might become interested once I'm able to pay for and download the new iPhone model and print myself one, instead of ordering one online or waiting in line for it. :)

I was thinking the same thing, you need to define "regular consumer" of course. My Mom could have bought an Altair 8800 for $1,000 but there really wasn't any reason too, and she didn't buy a PC when it was $3,000 either because she didn't need one. These days though she can't live without her $1,000 laptop.

I've got a Replicator, helped build a Cupcake when Bre and company were just starting their kit business, and used the Z machine a bit at Google as well. The "reality" of 3D printing is a lot less impressive than the hype. Sure like computers before them, 3D printing will change everything. But until recently (and maybe this changes with the Rep2) you would be lucky if you could make a full set of chess pieces in one go, and if they had been made in a factory in China they would have been discarded as too inferior to send to the customer. Current 3D printing enthusiasts (and I'm one of them) see "through" the obvious defects of the current systems to the systems they can be.

No 'regular' consumer would put up with a 10 hour print where the extruder head clogs in hour 9 and screws it up. But someone like me can say "I wonder what this wheel would look like on a robot, lets print one out" and having something tactile to work with.

3D printing is becoming 'real' at a relatively rapid pace, unlike some other technologies (looking at YOU OLED TVs)

3D printers are at the "Apple I" stage.

They're getting cheaper and better, and great for hobbyists/tinkerers, but they're not really useful to the average consumer yet.

The biggest cost with the current crop of < $10,000 3D printers is time. Figuring out how to calibrate them and tweak settings to get perfect prints takes a lot of effort.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com