General > General Technical Chat
Cost - 3D printed enclosure vs Project box?
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:
--- Quote from: tooki on October 30, 2017, 11:46:22 pm ---
--- Quote from: Mr. Scram on October 30, 2017, 11:15:25 pm ---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?
--- End quote ---
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.*
…
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: ag123 on May 19, 2022, 06:02:32 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
Use PLA or PETG, in place of ABS.
Use a heated bed, $200 printers come with heated beds now.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version