3 ms·

> 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

by krasin 3y ago

> 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.

bb88 3y ago
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?
abetusk 3y ago
> 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.
- krasin 3y ago
  > 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.

by krasin 3y ago

bb88 3y ago

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?

abetusk 3y ago

> 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.

krasin 3y ago
> 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.