With more and more 3D model repositories coming online all the time, it seems that the basic categories included in each service are always more or less the same, built using inspiration/ctrl+c gathered from Thingiverse, Shapeways and other established platforms. One thing that remains inconsistent, however, is the quality of the offered models — free or not. Even though there have been several public discussions regarding IP/copyright and other areas of 3D printing that are relevant per se, this side of the story is less covered: beyond the inevitably upcoming file-type wars, what else could be done to guarantee that the 3D models showcased in each serious service (excluding the bogus “3D print a new sofa with your Replicator” repositories) can actually be 3D printed with an on-par quality outcome that is rightfully expected by the user – and without hours of pre-processing work with 3D modeling software?
Guido Salimbeni thinks one answer could be a service he has created, and called Watertight Mesh Certification. The basic idea is simple, yet quite novel. Users – 3D modellers and 3D designers looking to have their 3D models certified – can upload their designs to the service (for a $5 fee), which will then be tested both automatically and manually for basic flaws. They´re run through tests such as the maximum polygon count, size suitability checks, breaking tendency, overlapping and so on. As the core idea of the service is the actual certificate, Salimbeni has created specific and exact parameters for each tested attribute and quality that will need to be passed in order to receive the certificate, which can then be proven to the potential buyers with a certification number accompanied by the WMC logo. If the 3D model doesn’t pass the tests, the service gives the user feedback addressing the flaws in the design and also suggestions on how to fix them.
Wacth the RSA-animate styled introduction to the service below.
watertight mesh certification intro from Guido Salimbeni on Vimeo.
I believe that each new service regarding 3D printing that is intended to improve the user experience is a welcome one and I count the Watertight Mesh Certificate to belong to this group. Whether or not this route will become an industry standard is another issue, as in the future the HW and SW sides hopefully can communicate better with both each other and also with the user; and automate flaw-testing such as this to a basic back process. But until that day, solutions similar to this are bound to become more popular. Whether thinking about global policies, national strategies, file formats or even smaller issues such as this, one thing is for sure – 3D printing standards are slowly arriving in all sectors.
Source: Watertight Mesh
There are other things that would also be appreciated, such as an estimated print time.
It is easy for a designer to use Netfab Studio (free) to check his .STL file for problems, and even get cubic volume and surface area numbers.
Thank you for the information.
Agreed wildZBill, It would also be cool to include a small calculating app that calculated the average print times in relation to shells , resolution etc. I know not all machines print at the same speeds even on the same settings, but a rough calc that would say, ok.. Printed at 0.20mm, with 2 shells at 90ms feed and 150ms travel and at this temperature, this model should take ie approximately 30 minutes to print.
Yes. I run a library space open to the public with 3 makerbot replicator 2s. Patrons find an object on Thingiverse and want to print it, and we have to guess how long it might take.
So if the certification included some estimated print time, and I could input factors such as machine, resolution, infill, support, and raft, I would definitely use it a lot. I would even tell the patrons to only print objects with the cert.
With over 100,000 objects available, a $5 cert would make someone a lot of money.
This certification process is a great idea, but it needs to have sub categories of certification. One generic certification does not guarantee the model will print on any one particular type of printer. For example, there should be a designation for models which are watertight, but will only print correctly using sintering or photo resin processes. Others could be marked as ok for FFF printing with a support structure. There should be a higher level certification for models which are both watertight and designed specifically for FFF printing without supports. This is a big feature that would help consumers make more informed decisions about suitability for printing before they purchase. Adding this rating system is really necessary in order to make this certification service worth using.
I hope Mr. Salimbeni is reading the comments here.