]]>Tomek
I only gave the algorithm as an analogy of what is important and what is not. That is not the reason we are disruptive. Anyone with minimal intelligence upon seeing the invention will recognize the game changing design. I am not here to convince you or anyone. When we make the product release, you will get it and you will likely recognize the conversation and your skepticism because you did not comprehend without seeing. Disruptive inventions always have that effect. Incremental inventions are usually progressive improvements and don't have the same effect
Anyway, this conversation is diverging. The goal of my post is to find a person and I think I may be better off posting it on a local board rather than one that reaches wide audience with predominantly "naysayers" who jump on board only after the disruption becomes obvious
I understand the algorithm could be just an analogy, my bad for focusing on it. I wish you the best in improving the scene.
I don't fully agree that you won't find talent here. But I would encourage you to reach out to where talent already exists (like the guy who does Slic3r, for example.) He lives somewhere in eastern europe from what I recall [unless I'm confusing him with prusa], but, hell, maybe he wants to relocate.
]]>Doesn't matter what software you use, shoving plastic through an orifice is bound by the laws of physics. So is warp due to thermal streses.
Well stated.
]]>Disruptive might be something with more than 3 axes like a robot arm, or multiple extruders moving independently and simultaneously to decrease build time without increasing speed. Both things would need completely new slicers and firmwares.
Sub-mm precision is quite expensive when you're talking serial link manipulators, like SLA/SLS printer territory. So if you're gonna spend five figures, why not SLA/SLS?
Multiple independent extruders is not a significant departure from the underlying code of slic3r. I would bet the creator would be happy make and license the necessary tweaks.
Finally, if you already have the algorithm as saba implies, then it is a job for an programmer proficient in the language you'd like on the hardware (x86/AVR/etc) that you're interested in.
]]>Btw, people aren't believing you because print speed and build volume are not software problems. Doesn't matter what software you use, shoving plastic through an orifice is bound by the laws of physics. So is warp due to thermal streses.
What is you academic/industry background?
]]>When we make the product release, you will get it and you will likely recognize the conversation and your skepticism because you did not comprehend without seeing. Disruptive inventions always have that effect. Incremental inventions are usually progressive improvements and don't have the same effect
Please post back here when you guys release. I'm curious to see it.
]]>I only gave the algorithm as an analogy of what is important and what is not. That is not the reason we are disruptive. Anyone with minimal intelligence upon seeing the invention will recognize the game changing design. I am not here to convince you or anyone. When we make the product release, you will get it and you will likely recognize the conversation and your skepticism because you did not comprehend without seeing. Disruptive inventions always have that effect. Incremental inventions are usually progressive improvements and don't have the same effect
Anyway, this conversation is diverging. The goal of my post is to find a person and I think I may be better off posting it on a local board rather than one that reaches wide audience with predominantly "naysayers" who jump on board only after the disruption becomes obvious
]]>FDM has certain qualities that can maintain a massive price advantage over the other technologies for a good period of time. High speed laser moving devices (shit I forget the name of those devices) are precision devices that cost more than an FDM printer and can't become *too* much cheaper anytime soon. stereolithic printing has some advantages, but relies on energy intense and brittle resins that aren't very durable.
But if your company revolves on having the best 3D printing algorithms, your company revolves around the person you don't yet have and who would be difficult to find. Slicing is not the same thing at all, but involves image processing know-how, and that's a reasonably in-demand skillset. Plus, the people who make KissSlicer and Slic3r are really not that bad, most 3D printers are limited first by mechanics.
Slic3r could have much better toolpaths [sometimes it seems very unfavorable], but that's maybe a 150% increase or less, and only in some circumstances.
Anyway, I don't mean to crap on your ideas. I would love more quality and innovation in the realm. Especially if it's accessible.
]]>If you could print 600% faster and build a 10 X larger volume for roughly the same cost as today for a typical printer, would that be considered disruptive?
If FDM technology were the future of 3D printing this would be disruptive. however...http://qz.com/106483/3d-printing-will-e … y-patents/
Lets be honest now, FDM printing has its limitations...
The revolution in manufacturing that was supposed to come with cheap, desktop 3D printers hasn’t materialized because, frankly, the models they produce are basically novelties, handy for giving you a feel for what something will look like in three dimensions, but not really usable for creating prototypes that can be directly translated into molds for mass production, and certainly not usable for creating finished goods.
No offense to your company but I think you need to look outside of silicon valley if you want to find some real talent. Most of what I see coming from there these days is mediocre at best. You might also invest in someone who knows what is trending and what is up and coming in the world of 3D printing.
]]>Software is important but not the be all end all. Case in point for Google it was the proprietary algorithm, not the actual code, which allowed Google to leave 16 other search engines in the dust (anyone remember Alta Vista?). In our case, we are bringing the equivalent of a new algorithm to the 3D printer world.
If you could print 600% faster and build a 10 X larger volume for roughly the same cost as today for a typical printer, would that be considered disruptive? would your position change if you are told that the conversion from STL (or whatever) to machine code needed it's own software?
]]>]]>