Cost - 3D printed enclosure vs Project box?

[kalel]

Once you do have a 3D printer (they are still a bit expensive but getting more affordable with time), how much would it cost to build an enclosure for your project?

I'm interested in the price ratio of 3D printed boxes versus purchased boxes. I know this might be a complicated comparison, since 3D printing can give you an exact fit for your project, and project boxes cannot match that.

But if there is any way to compare the costs, I would like to know.

[sleemanj]

Raw material cost only, a Kilo of filament runs, for cheap PLA from Aliexpress, about $30 USD.

A typical project box for my projects, would be maybe 100g, including support material, so you get 10 to a kilo.  30/10 = $3 USD. 

[kalel]

Raw material cost only, a Kilo of filament runs, for cheap PLA from Aliexpress, about $30 USD.

A typical project box for my projects, would be maybe 100g, including support material, so you get 10 to a kilo.  30/10 = $3 USD.

So not exactly free, but relatively cheap, especially considering it's custom. About how large in dimensions is that 100 box? When looking at plastic project boxes from China, I usually don't look at the weight.

[sleemanj]

This is 73mm deep, 60mm high, 125mm wide, and according to cura would require about 100g of PLA and take 6 and a half hours with my current settings.

[CatalinaWOW]

Don't forget that the 3D printed one can eliminate a lot of standoffs and other mounting hardware, so in terms of material will have  a large advantage.  But something somewhere has to pay the cost of the printer.  Chalk it up to learning and the cost to the box is nothing, but if you make only a few boxes a year you have dozens of dollars in printer cost.

The six hours on the machine actually doesn't compare too badly with the time required to cut square holes, drill mounting holes and other machining on a project box.

[Rerouter]

sleemanj, your screw holders should probably be more triangular, curved overhangs don't turn out well for me.

as for the op's question, If you can machine your holes and openings easily, then project box is the easiest,
If your not willing to drill and file out odd shaped holes or openings, then 3D printing can be an option.

3D printing takes some creative thinking to make, e.g. my comment about sleemanj's case. overhangs and voids are things you need to plan around, subtle changes in wall thickness can change the properties of the case dramatically, past a certain thickness it behaves like a lump of plastic and is very hard to damage, and below a certain thickness acts like the wall of a balloon with some very odd flexibility,

A final point, non black PLA in my experience is significantly transparent to IR light, if your using IR, you may need to spray paint your case.

[sleemanj]

sleemanj, your screw holders should probably be more triangular, curved overhangs don't turn out well for me.

This was printed long long ago, just took it as an example.  The overhangs were printed with support :-)

[frozenfrogz]

If your primary concern is money, then that is not really the selling point of a 3D printer. (-> FDM desktop printer such as RepRap / Ultimaker / all the other clones and derivates)
Also, compared to the industrial style boxes you can buy that are mostly injection molded from high quality plastics such as polycarbonate (PC) - often even the glass fiber reinforced stuff - you will have significantly less robustness in the (home) 3D printed part.

The unique selling point of getting a 3D printer is the ability to get the case fitted exactly to your needs, with neat features built in you would not find in any of the shelve case and you get the part you want more or less instantly (printing still takes quite some time, depending on your printer, 3D model and material).

Another thing to point out is that generating the 3D model comes with a lot of things to learn. That is a good thing if you are curious and want to really get to know your printer, its features and limitations, the features and limitations of different materials and last but not least CAD software. It’s a bad thing if you are impatient and "just want to get things done". There will be a lot of frustration along the way.

If you are not afraid to really dive into something new (don’t know your background ), then the printer will not only provide you with custom built solutions, but a whole lot of new possibilities for a variety of things.
If you want to try out some things, you could start with the CAD modeling part and send your parts out to someone that already owns a printer. There are a lot of people offering 3D printing as an affordable service via 3dhubs.com and similar sites.
I am a big fan of PETG Filament. It is not too expensive, prints very well and is pretty robust. I have never looked back at using PLA again.

[stmdude]

Another thing to point out is that generating the 3D model comes with a lot of things to learn.

That's a truth if I've ever heard one. It's a lot of work learning how to bring a design idea into something that can be printed, houses a PCB, stays together somehow and looks nice.

Actually, I think learning it has improved my professional life. I can hang with the lingo that the MCAD guys use, and I have a much greater understanding for the wierd shapes and holes they keep insisting on putting in my PCBs.

Right now, my skill-set is MCAD (poor), ECAD (medium), SW (expert). Being able to (in theory) develop every part of a product _at home_ is pretty darn cool. However, the amount of _time_ required to do it is pretty preventative.

If you think drawing up a schematic and routing a PCB takes time, designing a nice enclosure will take about the same time. You should think long and hard about if you have that amount of time to spend, and if the time/reward ratio is good enough.

That being said, decent 3D printers are really cheap now, and fun to just play around with, so if you got enough loose change, you should give it a go.

[ElektroQuark]

3D printing is all about customization. For simple standard boxes, off the sell ones win.
But for customized ones 3D printing shines.
Take a look at this video of my channel, at about minute 7:30.
The showed case would cost a bunch of money. With the 3D printer it's about 5€.

https://youtu.be/bk86r1qcdow

[tooki]

Am I the only person who, despite understanding the aforementioned advantages of custom 3D printed enclosures, just can’t stand the look of them, since the surfaces come out so terrible? (I know that professional 3D printing can achieve much better quality, but that’s not what we are discussing here.)

[Monkeh]

Am I the only person who, despite understanding the aforementioned advantages of custom 3D printed enclosures, just can’t stand the look of them, since the surfaces come out so terrible? (I know that professional 3D printing can achieve much better quality, but that’s not what we are discussing here.)

Use ABS and smooth it. Just.. please don't put mains powered stuff in regular ABS prints.

[sokoloff]

Am I the only person who, despite understanding the aforementioned advantages of custom 3D printed enclosures, just can’t stand the look of them, since the surfaces come out so terrible? (I know that professional 3D printing can achieve much better quality, but that’s not what we are discussing here.)

Look at the video above. Click to around 8m30s. The surface quality on that looks pretty damn good to me.

Use ABS and smooth it. Just.. please don't put mains powered stuff in regular ABS prints.

Why not? A quick Google search didn't turn up anything obvious.

[Monkeh]

Use ABS and smooth it. Just.. please don't put mains powered stuff in regular ABS prints.

Why not? A quick Google search didn't turn up anything obvious.

It burns. Really rather well. Normal filaments have no flame retardants added.

[tooki]

Am I the only person who, despite understanding the aforementioned advantages of custom 3D printed enclosures, just can’t stand the look of them, since the surfaces come out so terrible? (I know that professional 3D printing can achieve much better quality, but that’s not what we are discussing here.)

Look at the video above. Click to around 8m30s. The surface quality on that looks pretty damn good to me.

Only because the video compression is smoothing it out in the embedded YouTube (it’s clearer if you load it in the YT app or website). Look at around 41:37: the surface looks like shit. And even at the 8:30 you suggest, look at the edge of the main chassis: it’s totally ragged.

[NiHaoMike]

Didn't Micah Elizabeth Scott take a 3D print and coat it in epoxy to get something that looks nicer and is stronger?

[Mr. Scram]

Am I the only person who, despite understanding the aforementioned advantages of custom 3D printed enclosures, just can’t stand the look of them, since the surfaces come out so terrible? (I know that professional 3D printing can achieve much better quality, but that’s not what we are discussing here.)

Yes, I feel the same. It's okay for prototypes, but it screams hobbyist hour for anything else.

[kalel]

Am I the only person who, despite understanding the aforementioned advantages of custom 3D printed enclosures, just can’t stand the look of them, since the surfaces come out so terrible? (I know that professional 3D printing can achieve much better quality, but that’s not what we are discussing here.)

Yes, I feel the same. It's okay for prototypes, but it screams hobbyist hour for anything else.

I assume that different materials and maybe even different printers or settings give slightly different results, but I have noticed the outside texture in some videos/photos. I don't think it's a big issue personally.

The only thing still slightly high is the prices of 3D printers, but those are going down.

As for project boxes, they are also aimed at hobbyists as far as I understand.

[stmdude]

The only thing still slightly high is the prices of 3D printers, but those are going down.

No kidding. Just the other day I ordered a 3D printer for $130. I'm not expecting it to output super nice prints, but according to the reviews, it does print nicer than you'd expect for that price.

I'm going to play with it for a bit, and then it's becoming a test-mule for a controller-board I'm starting to design.

Btw. Am I the only "EE" here that gets nauseous when they look at the existing controller-boards for 3D printers?  Disregarding that they all look like mutated Arduinos, pretty much all of them look like they were designed and laid out by complete beginners? Poor thermal planning, very little to no protection, much too thin traces, etc, etc. And these are boards we're running 100+ watts through..

( So far, the only semi-decent board I've seen is the Smoothieboard v2 pro )

[Nusa]

3D printing is invaluable for prototyping or one-off projects.

For production purposes, 3D printed parts of any size are only practical for low volume or for items that are simply unobtainable by any other method. Rarely is it cheaper when there are alternatives.

[sleemanj]

Am I the only person who, despite understanding the aforementioned advantages of custom 3D printed enclosures, just can’t stand the look of them, since the surfaces come out so terrible? (I know that professional 3D printing can achieve much better quality, but that’s not what we are discussing here.)

Eh, who cares if the  layers are visible, it's funvtional apparatus, not a beauty contest.  I print at 0.3mm and i find the finish just fine.  Obviously print orientation needs to be considered, but for my functional prints i don't do cleanup other than removing support. 

For more aesthetic stuff to steal a phrase, filler and paint makes it the printer it ain't.

[Mr. Scram]

Eh, who cares if the  layers are visible, it's funvtional apparatus, not a beauty contest.  I print at 0.3mm and i find the finish just fine.  Obviously print orientation needs to be considered, but for my functional prints i don't do cleanup other than removing support. 

For more aesthetic stuff to steal a phrase, filler and paint makes it the printer it ain't.

Sorry, I just like nicely made stuff.

[PlainName]

Sorry, I just like nicely made stuff

You do realise that most 'nice' things you buy are 'finished' in some way? Surfaces will be deburred, machined, painted, all sorts of things. You could do the same with a 3D printed part if you could be arsed, but you want it to be a magical replication box where you feed in some anonymous material and out pops a fully formed and completed product. Making things just isn't like that, regardless of the medium.

[Mr. Scram]

You do realise that most 'nice' things you buy are 'finished' in some way? Surfaces will be deburred, machined, painted, all sorts of things. You could do the same with a 3D printed part if you could be arsed, but you want it to be a magical replication box where you feed in some anonymous material and out pops a fully formed and completed product. Making things just isn't like that, regardless of the medium.

I would appreciate it if you don't belittle me by lecturing me about expectations I don't actually have.

Home printed parts are structurally and often functionally inferior to traditionally manufactured parts. There are printers that do better, but you definitely don't and won't own those. FDM is a great technology, but not even the most vigorous post processing can change its nature. As you say, it's not a magical replication box. It's a printer that squirts coarse plastic approximations.

[Mjolinor]

The first two 3d printers I bought were Stratasys model 768. One BST and one SST. I quickly sold the BST and bought a broken Wabhao for £80.

I then spent several months making the Wanhao print as well as the SST and sold the SST.

The parts it makes are of course identifiable as 3d printed but they were with the Stratasys. They are good looking boxes that take no effort to make.

This is about as rough as they get with no effort put into cleaning the bed or levelling it, just draw (15 minutes using Openscad) and print (20 minutes). Control panel for my spot welder.

[ChrisLX200]

3D printers are good for making those really awkward shapes that you don't want to spend time/effort making in some other way. They can be a time saver if you're proficient with SketchUp (or similar) and also the design can be quickly modified and re-printed if required. Personally, for something I which intend to keep I prefer to machine metal, but having said that I have an awful lot of those 3D printed enclosures lying around which I couldn't be bothered upgrading to something better. The 3D printer in not my first go-to device to solve a support/enclosure problem, but more of a last resort if I can't think of anything else

Oh, and I should mention Thingiverse - a fantastic resource to trawl through, the 'awkward' enclosure you seek may already have been designed and posted by someone..
 

[brucehoult]

This is about as rough as they get with no effort put into cleaning the bed or levelling it, just draw (15 minutes using Openscad) and print (20 minutes). Control panel for my spot welder.

That's pretty rough. Home (and home made) printers can do far better than that.

Commercial services such as Shapeways produce excellent quality, and can 3D print in metals as well as plastics, and with fewer design restrictions. They do cost quite a bit more than the materials cost though.

I second the use of OpenSCAD. As a programmer -- and for the kinds of things I make --  I find it far more comfortable to use than a click-and-drag GUI design program.

You can find the source code for one of my more complex OpenSCAD designs here https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:135065

[sokoloff]

This is about as rough as they get with no effort put into cleaning the bed or levelling it, just draw (15 minutes using Openscad) and print (20 minutes). Control panel for my spot welder.

Agree with @brucehoult; that's rougher than most of my prints, though perfectly functional.

It looks like you might be over-extruding versus what your slicer is expecting/planning on. Try googling a calibration guide for your particular slicer/printer. You may be able to permanently eliminate some of the surface finish lumpiness with a couple hours of wall clock time (less human time).

[sokoloff]

Took me a little searching to find the guide I used to guide my first calibration.

It's here: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:52946

[Mjolinor]

That is printed with a 0.5 mm layer height. It was always going to be rough but it is perfectly functional and strong. The point is that it is so easy and does not take huge amounts of time. It has all the supports you need to mount the PCB and tags to screw it to the top of the welder. Such a thing done any other way is a massive cost in £ and in time. Once proven it is just a matter of levelling the bed and setting the height then doing a finished print with a smaller layer height.

[ChrisLX200]

If you print onto a glass bed you at least get one surface that is smooth (like glass ) and that can be useful sometimes if you can orient your print to suit. When using ABS you can also solvent-weld sub-structures together using acetone (or ABS/acetone slurry) which gives a very strong joint. You can use flexible filament to print seals which you can see in this example I designed for an astro all-sky camera: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1371445 (it's the white material).

[PlainName]

this example I designed for an astro all-sky camera

That's excellent.

I think trims (the white seal, which you can't normally see but..., and red whatever it is) make a big difference in aesthetics.

[tooki]

Eh, who cares if the  layers are visible, it's funvtional apparatus, not a beauty contest. I print at 0.3mm and i find the finish just fine.  Obviously print orientation needs to be considered, but for my functional prints i don't do cleanup other than removing support. 

For more aesthetic stuff to steal a phrase, filler and paint makes it the printer it ain't.

I care. I'm a perfectionist with a strong eye to the aesthetic, so I absolutely care. If I had the skills (I don't) for my projects to come out so perfect that people asked "how the heck did you make this?!?", I'd be happy! I won't choose aesthetics over functionality, but that doesn't mean I am willing to ignore aesthetics, either. (I will, though, forego some functionality and definitely aesthetics for usability, though the ideal is to not have to make much in the way of compromises with any of them. It just takes more work.)

As for post-printing finishing: of course that's an option, and a good one at that. (Indeed, I don't think many people realize how many of the plastic gadgets we buy are painted.) But that's not what you see a lot. As far as DIY 3D printed enclosures go, we see mostly raggedy things like Mjolinor posted above.

Eh, who cares if the  layers are visible, it's funvtional apparatus, not a beauty contest.  I print at 0.3mm and i find the finish just fine.  Obviously print orientation needs to be considered, but for my functional prints i don't do cleanup other than removing support. 

For more aesthetic stuff to steal a phrase, filler and paint makes it the printer it ain't.

Sorry, I just like nicely made stuff.

Don't you just hate it when people make it sound as though you have to choose between functionality and quality/aesthetics/fit-and-finish/look-and-feel, as if they were somehow mutually exclusive?

If anything, I'm kinda surprised that engineer-y folks don't have higher expectations on quality, given that engineering is all about making good designs. I would expect engineers to appreciate build quality more than the average joe. 

[Mr. Scram]

Don't you just hate it when people make it sound as though you have to choose between functionality and quality/aesthetics/fit-and-finish/look-and-feel, as if they were somehow mutually exclusive?

If anything, I'm kinda surprised that engineer-y folks don't have higher expectations on quality, given that engineering is all about making good designs. I would expect engineers to appreciate build quality more than the average joe. 

There seems to be an attitude that engineering types don't need nice things. It seems to be partly bravado, and partly the false antithesis you speak of.

Sure, technical people are often more than capable enough to deal with clunky designs, and generally wouldn't sacrifice performance for looks, but why not make something more functional and nice to use by designing and constructing it well?

[tooki]

There seems to be an attitude that engineering types don't need nice things. It seems to be partly bravado, and partly the false antithesis you speak of.

Sure, technical people are often more than capable enough to deal with clunky designs, and generally wouldn't sacrifice performance for looks, but why not make something more functional and nice to use by designing and constructing it well?

Preach!!!

My professional background is in technical writing and usability in the software world, and even there you run into people who think that professional software mustn't be too elegant. It gets dismissed as consumer-y, even if it's just as capable and much easier to use.

Every usability person understands that the usability demands of consumer products are very different from those of professional tools (in that the latter situation can tolerate a steeper learning curve in exchange for greater long-term efficiency), but often times, professional software is just needlessly complicated. It really is an attitude of "It's professional software, we don't need to make it user-friendly." Somewhere on this forum, I wrote a long rant about how maddeningly difficult and error-prone Eagle and KiCad are to learn and use, and of course many people just blamed it on me. But I feel that it's eminently possible to make professional software that is literally an order of magnitude easier to use than the incumbent, because I have literally seen it happen.*


A similar effect happens in scholarly/scientific writing: simple, clear language is actually often frowned upon!!! 

The old HP Journal, by the way, is a great example of clear scientific writing if you ask me. It makes no illusion of pretending to be for the general public, and it delves deeply technical frequently, but the editors did a great job of making it highly readable.




*1. When Apple introduced the original Final Cut Pro, after buying it from Macromedia, it was squarely targeted at pros, and was packed with features. Nonetheless, a n00b video editor could sit down at FCP and learn the basics of editing in 10 minutes. From talking to video pros back then, they said that a novice could learn in a morning or maaaybe full day on FCP what took a week to learn on Avid, the leader of the day.
2. When before-it-turned-evil Adobe introduced InDesign 1.0, it managed to be simultaneously much more powerful and yet far easier to use than Quark XPress, the leading DTP app back then. They really struck a nice balance between learning curve and ongoing efficiency.

[PlainName]

why not make something more functional and nice to use

I don't have any argument with that. My beef was the implication that one couldn't do that with 3D printing. It is possible, and it is just 'finishing' the product as you would via any other manufacturing process.

by designing and constructing it well?

Well, this is the issue, isn't it? There are a couple of simple answers:

1. You (not you personally, of course, but the 'royal' you) can't be arsed. Maybe you've milled and drilled an ally box and just can't be arsed to anodise it. Same thing.

2. You don't have the skillset. I think this is probably the more common reason - you might if you could, but not everyone knows how or has the vision. It is like drawing in that some people can bash off stunning portraits where others can barely manage a smiley emoji. You need to  be somewhat of a creative to imagine how your project box might look nice, and then have the skills to make it like that.

[ChrisLX200]

To me it's a matter of convenience, and whilst I prefer machined parts I'm more than willing to use a 3D printed part if it solves a tricky problem. Take the stepper motor bracket (below) which attaches a motor to a large focuser. To reproduce that using machined parts would have been quite a chore - and that's if I had managed to get the dimensions right first time (which I didn't quite). Using SketchUp I could calculate radii and intersection points then print the thing out, then make corrections if it wasn't quite right. The control box (green) was modded to include a step-down voltage converter (yellow version) simply by adding an extra compartment. The finish is 'acceptable' without further work - at least, I didn't feel inclined to reproduce the parts in metal.

[innkeeper]

what about diy box vs 3d printed

[CatalinaWOW]

If the objective is a mirror smooth finish, 3D printing is at a disadvantage.  Many other technologies come with a smooth finish for free, or nearly free.  While you can post process or use other techniques to improve the smoothness of the finish another approach is possible, and far easier with 3D than with other technologies.

Give the finish a deliberate texture.  Appropriate choices of texture can mask the roughness from the 3D process and enhance the beauty and functionality of the box.  Things like better grip, non slip stackability with minimal volume penalty, and so on. 

Our preferences in boxes and our definitions of quality have been shaped by the fabrication technologies we use.  They are not immutable.  Think of the hammered metal paint finishes that were popular toward the middle of the last century (partly because they hid manufacturing defects).

[Mr. Scram]

If the objective is a mirror smooth finish, 3D printing is at a disadvantage.  Many other technologies come with a smooth finish for free, or nearly free.  While you can post process or use other techniques to improve the smoothness of the finish another approach is possible, and far easier with 3D than with other technologies.

Give the finish a deliberate texture.  Appropriate choices of texture can mask the roughness from the 3D process and enhance the beauty and functionality of the box.  Things like better grip, non slip stackability with minimal volume penalty, and so on. 

Our preferences in boxes and our definitions of quality have been shaped by the fabrication technologies we use.  They are not immutable.  Think of the hammered metal paint finishes that were popular toward the middle of the last century (partly because they hid manufacturing defects).

You have to work with the qualities and shortcomings of the material, indeed, rather than ignoring or even denying them.

[ag123]

hi all,
I'm bouncing this old thread to ask a different question and to get a feel of the state of the art. It has been quite a number of years since this thread started.
Today 3d printing is a rather mature tech, many people probably have a 3d printer compared to back then.
However, my biggest peeve about 3d printing is that it can take a long time (hours) to print even rather modest enclosures.

Does anyone here routinely literally 3d print your own project boxes?

take for an example, this instructable
https://www.instructables.com/3D-Print-a-Custom-Project-Box-Without-CAD/

the author literally runs a service to do just that, generates the STL model for you to make a project box (free)
https://lightningboxes.com/
and if you don't have a printer, you can purchase it from them.
https://lightningboxes.com/product/basic-box/

you can literally download the generated STL file from the same link.
first the specs, the default selections generates a 100 mm (length) x 75 mm (width) x 50 mm  (height) box
https://lightningboxes.com/product/basic-box/

The thing is the basic model as given there, I run it through pruslicer
and for my very 'average' 'low cost' 3d printer (a Creality Ender 3 variant), it gives an estimate of 6 hours 18 minutes to print that.
This is a pretty long time considering that it isn't a 'big' box after all. I tried my own designs and the times run into roughly the same zone, 5-6 hours and more easily on average.
What could be worse is if you consider failure rates, e.g. with the 'difficult to print' ABS, that needs a heated bed and is prone to warping, 'complicated' 'large' models are particularly prone to warping.
There could be other failures, you could imagine worse situations if failure occurs.

Hence, I'd like to hear from those who literally 3d print your own boxes.

The thing about 3d printing boxes of course is, if there are a lot of custom openings and particulars, all that (windows and customizations) can go into the model. That is a big win vs conventional boxes. But the lengthy print time is still inevitable for the common FDM printers.

And there are various limits as well. One rather 'common', but I'd guess overlooked issues is, FDM 3D printing is a layered technology, with one layer stacking on top of another.
This means large vertical windows are *overhangs* and they are a problem to print. It would either need supports or that the whole model need to be redesigned to eliminate supports etc.
Possibly a multi-part print which needs to be glued together etc.

as to 'quality', 3d printing today is simply deemed *different*, some people literally likes those 3d printed 'layered' look, it is more of a preference / (personal prejudice).

[xrunner]

I've 3D printed the entire box for some of my projects. But another idea I use is to utilize an aluminum shell and just print the inside support, front, and back.

I'm showing a project I did last year which utilizes an Arduino platform to decode NMEA data from my GPSDO and display a custom time display, # of Sats, HDOP, and Alt. I used an aluminum project box and custom designed the inside support, front, and back. Turned out really well and saves a lot of time (and looks pretty professional).

[PlainName]

Neat 

[tooki]

Funny that this thread got resurrected recently. Nearly 5 years ago, I wrote:

There seems to be an attitude that engineering types don't need nice things. It seems to be partly bravado, and partly the false antithesis you speak of.

Sure, technical people are often more than capable enough to deal with clunky designs, and generally wouldn't sacrifice performance for looks, but why not make something more functional and nice to use by designing and constructing it well?

Preach!!!

My professional background is in technical writing and usability in the software world, and even there you run into people who think that professional software mustn't be too elegant. It gets dismissed as consumer-y, even if it's just as capable and much easier to use.

Every usability person understands that the usability demands of consumer products are very different from those of professional tools (in that the latter situation can tolerate a steeper learning curve in exchange for greater long-term efficiency), but often times, professional software is just needlessly complicated. It really is an attitude of "It's professional software, we don't need to make it user-friendly." Somewhere on this forum, I wrote a long rant about how maddeningly difficult and error-prone Eagle and KiCad are to learn and use, and of course many people just blamed it on me. But I feel that it's eminently possible to make professional software that is literally an order of magnitude easier to use than the incumbent, because I have literally seen it happen.*
…

Well, over the past 2 years, I’ve become quite proficient with Altium, and I think it falls into the category of “complex because it’s professional software, but still fairly easy to learn”. They clearly put a lot of effort into making it easy to use. (Still lots of room for improvement, but it’s not terrible.) I haven’t revisited Eagle since it’s not free for hobbyists anymore, KiCad still makes me homicidal, and what I’ve heard about other EDA programs (Cadence, Mentor, Eagle, Orcad, Pulsonix, etc) from fellow students and on here make it clear they’re much worse than Altium from a usability standpoint. So I feel vindicated that my gut feelings about Eagle and KiCad’s interfaces were right: they ARE more difficult than they need to be. Altium proves it.

[thm_w]

hi all,
I'm bouncing this old thread to ask a different question and to get a feel of the state of the art. It has been quite a number of years since this thread started.
Today 3d printing is a rather mature tech, many people probably have a 3d printer compared to back then.
However, my biggest peeve about 3d printing is that it can take a long time (hours) to print even rather modest enclosures.

Yes, in Cura on my settings (0.3mm layer, 0.7mm line, ~60mm/s) thats about 4.5hr print. But, its also quite a large box ~7x10x5cm.
I don't really care about time to print. Make sure your printer is fire safe, and let it run overnight if you need to.

What could be worse is if you consider failure rates, e.g. with the 'difficult to print' ABS, that needs a heated bed and is prone to warping, 'complicated' 'large' models are particularly prone to warping.
There could be other failures, you could imagine worse situations if failure occurs.

Use PLA or PETG, in place of ABS.
Use a heated bed, $200 printers come with heated beds now.

And there are various limits as well. One rather 'common', but I'd guess overlooked issues is, FDM 3D printing is a layered technology, with one layer stacking on top of another.
This means large vertical windows are *overhangs* and they are a problem to print. It would either need supports or that the whole model need to be redesigned to eliminate supports etc.
Possibly a multi-part print which needs to be glued together etc.

OK, nothing wrong with using supports in a print where necessary.

Better off designing your own box instead of using this generator, if you are interested in that.

[sleemanj]

and for my very 'average' 'low cost' 3d printer (a Creality Ender 3 variant), it gives an estimate of 6 hours 18 minutes to print that.

On my ancient printer with my current settings it would take 2h 42minutes according to Prusa Slicer, so probably about 3h in my experience on my printer.  And that's with ironing.

The difference is I use a 1mm nozzle and default to 0.65mm layer height.

That box also has pretty thick walls, if I was designing it for my printer I'd make the walls a single perimeter probably, and that would be a lot quicker to print since an entire 17m is spend on gapfill alone due to the wall dimension, not to mention the extra perimeter.

Now certainly at 0.65mm layers the layer lines are very evident but personally, I like the aesthetic and the speed gain is worth it.

[CatalinaWOW]

I design and print my own boxes.  They usually are designed to snap together and have appropriate apertures for connections, switches, displays and the like, and sometimes I design in incised or raised labels.  Cost is hard to evaluate.  They use a dollar or so of filament and a few cents electricity.  And take several hours to design, usually involving a couple of iterations to get them "perfect".  At standard engineering labor rates that makes them incredibly expensive.  But the time is usually less than I would have spent purchasing and modding a standard box.  Long print times don't matter to me.  I don't;supervise the oven, coffeemaker, clothes dryer, dish washer or furnace and see no real reason my printer is more hazardous than those devices.

The real magic is that when I need a second copy of the project the enclosure takes only a couple of minutes of my time.  I now rarely do anything other than print project boxes.

[ag123]

Thanks all !

I think xrunner's hybrid approach is a nice touch.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/cost-3d-printed-enclosure-vs-project-box/msg4184563/#msg4184563

It looked nice and 3d printing fills in for things that are flat with openings etc. in particular the panels part. And as well as the supports.

I'd also attempt a print for a full box to see how things goes, the dimensions are similar to that posted earlier, but that I've included all the windows and openings (e.g. drill holes) that i needed for my box.
long print times is inevitable with this approach, but that the openings are built into the design.
long print times and *large parts* significantly increase the risks of failed prints, hence these are concerns. This is in addition to the irritation of long print times.

There is one thing i might explore is to place more ventilation openings in my design as holes are literally 'free' with 3d printing, as compared to machining drilling etc.
It seemed with 3d printing, the more 'holes' there are in your application / box, the greater is the benefit, e.g. small support structures etc.

[mawyatt]

I think xrunner's hybrid approach is a nice touch.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/cost-3d-printed-enclosure-vs-project-box/msg4184563/#msg4184563

Agree, that's the same approach we took with the LCR Bias Adapter. We cut the Al extrusion in half (~65mm) and 3D printed the end plates with text. The supplied Al end plates were drilled for the 4 BNC connectors and mounted under the 3D printed plates. These Al plates aren't necessary but provide a higher degree of shielding for the adapter. The PCB slides on the extrusion guides and held in place by the BNC connectors.

Overall this approach provides a rigid mechanical and electrical environment for sensitive electronics

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/bias-network-for-lcr-meter/msg4170607/#msg4170607

Best,

[sokoloff]

hi all,
I'm bouncing this old thread to ask a different question and to get a feel of the state of the art. It has been quite a number of years since this thread started.
Today 3d printing is a rather mature tech, many people probably have a 3d printer compared to back then.
However, my biggest peeve about 3d printing is that it can take a long time (hours) to print even rather modest enclosures.

I don't really care about time to print. Make sure your printer is fire safe, and let it run overnight if you need to.

Same here. I regularly print project boxes, RPi enclosures, RPi DIN rail mounts, and a custom box for a low-volume tool I sell.

I've almost never worried about the print time, because my involvement in the process is around 5 minutes total and the robot (3D printer) can take as long as it needs; I can check on it from my phone if I'm really worried about when it will be done (which is almost never). Once the first layer goes down correctly (on one of my printers), I can walk away. On two other printers, they are dialed in and reliable to the point that I just take a look at the webcam pointing at them [to make sure the bed is clear], and send a print job to them without even walking downstairs. 5 or 10 minutes later, I'll look at the webcam again just to make sure everything started correctly, but it almost always does.

[SpacedCowboy]

I've been thinking about this sort of thing as well. As far as I can see there's a few options:

• FDM printer: Can look "ok" if you're very good, but these are at best for one-off or don't-care boxes IMHO. The repeatability isn't great if you're after high quality, but it does let you run off something in hours rather than days for a prototype, and you can hone the 3D model to make things fits etc.
• SLA printer. These have grown in capability over the years, I've got a People Phenom L and it's truly amazing what this thing can produce. Downsides to SLA are that the resin is toxic when liquid, and it "feels" a little weird. It's also just as finicky and runs can be just as non-repeatable , but the end product looks a lot nicer (difficult to tell it was 3D printed) and you have the same time-based advantages for prototyping
• Outsourced 3D print - I haven't tried this (I have the above Phenom) but there are many places you can send off a model and get back N copies of the model - every time I looked at it, it seemed expensive for what it was, especially if you were after SLA-levels of looking nice. It does offload the the-darn-thing-didn't-work-again to someone else, though
• Choose a standard case - possibly customizing it with some silk-screened printing. This is the bare minimum for anything you sell, IMHO, and there's a fair variety to choose from, but there's no real hiding that this is what you did. If you're after the upscale-look this isn't a viable route unless you're *very* lucky with the match between your requirements and what's on offer
• Tool-less enclosure manufacture, like these folks. The last time I spoke to Dan (which was admittedly a while ago now) the cost of a relatively simple box (8" long, w/ cooling slots, mounting bosses, cut-outs and structural supports) would be ~$500 NRE, $100 fee for silk-screen, and a run of 100 would be ~$25/box, so an all-in total of $35 or so per box.  This is my preferred option atm for small-run. There are a bunch of these companies around, I think, the above is just the one I got in touch with
• Complete custom case manufacture - [ur=https://www.protocase.coml]protocase.com[/url] and the like. This can be anything you want, but you'd better have deep pockets. You pay for the flexibility with money. Lots of money, at least that's how it's panned out for me when I've specced out a trial box.
• Chinese anodized enclosures - there's a thread here regarding how one of the members of this forum worked with a Chinese manufacturer to get custom cases made
• Injection moulded - now we're talking real scale, this is perfect for plastic enclosures if you have a run of thousands, or tens of thousands. The NRE is the expensive part, and it's all up-front, to design and create the mould. I did look into a desktop-type moulding machine, but these seem to be (a) expensive for what they are, (b) limited in the amount of plastic they can inject, and (c) not particularly high-speed or reliable

To be clear, I haven't used any of the mass-production options yet - I'm still working through the design of the project I have "cases" in mind for, and since it's not the day-job, it takes a while. I haven't even (yet, though it's on the ToDo list) mocked up a case on the Phenom yet...

But I'd be interested in hearing about other options over the above, or if anyone has experience with them

[xrunner]

I like the raised lettering you did there. I'll have to do that on my next one. 

Agree, that's the same approach we took with the LCR Bias Adapter. We cut the Al extrusion in half (~65mm) and 3D printed the end plates with text. The supplied Al end plates were drilled for the 4 BNC connectors and mounted under the 3D printed plates. These Al plates aren't necessary but provide a higher degree of shielding for the adapter. The PCB slides on the extrusion guides and held in place by the BNC connectors.

Overall this approach provides a rigid mechanical and electrical environment for sensitive electronics

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/bias-network-for-lcr-meter/msg4170607/#msg4170607

Best,

[sokoloff]

I like the raised lettering you did there. I'll have to do that on my next one. 

Consider doing a pause and filament change after one layer of the raised letters. That will give a very long-wearing, high-contrast to the lettering.

[mawyatt]

I like the raised lettering you did there. I'll have to do that on my next one. 

Consider doing a pause and filament change after one layer of the raised letters. That will give a very long-wearing, high-contrast to the lettering.

Yeah we are going to give this a try soon. Anyone doing this, any images of such?

Do you know if a "pause" can be introduced in the file so you don't have to monitor the print and manually issue the pause?


Edit: Here's a video we found.



Best,

[CatalinaWOW]

I have occasionally done filament swaps, and it usually works well.  You can insert a pause in the g-code.  One caution I would have is that I have noticed a significant correlation between filament swaps and nozzle plugs.   For this reason I don't just casually swap filament.

[brucehoult]

I don't stop the printing. I just snip the old filament a few cm from the extruder, and get it changed and the new filament butted up against the new one and pressed in by hand before the end of the old filament gets to the knurled feed roller in the extruder. It's not like it moves all that fast. Never had a problem doing it.