# Looking into my Crystal Ball: 3d Printing and GW



## Itybih2ku (Sep 1, 2010)

Its a topic that comes up time and time again. So, instead of talking about the legality. I think I'll talk about what I see as the future in GW stuff down the road AFTER home 3d printing becomes common.

The first thing I do upon getting into the hobby is buy Games-Workshop Forge. After years of piracy, GW decided it was time to adapt or die. Their models have gone to "print on demand ordering" for those without 3d home printers, and the GW Forge for those with.

The Forge is an empty shell of a program, it costs around $50-$75, But doesn't come with any thing in it. For that, you need to buy unit packs.

A unit/terrain pack is a collection of files specific to the Forge used for building and customizing your own 3d models within the Forge Software. Think of them as a digital version of your Sprue. However, as there is no longer a mold limitation, your unit pack has many more options available to it than your sprue does. You have the option of having the model print Color or Colorless for those who prefer to paint their own models.

For me, it works an awful lot like the old city of heroes and Champions online super hero creator. 


























I'm playing orks, so I have my "Ork Boyz" unit pack loaded. I look at the different torso options I have. These aren't 'ard boyz, so I load up som bandoliers, leather jackets and some other fun stuff.

I load up the head, choose its teef layout, pick a helmet. Then I choose the arms/weapons load out on the guy.

I save the figure as is. I load it up into the virtual painter. This is an optional step. I may decide to print it without color and paint it up myself, it'll generally look better, but for now I want easier. I color his skin green, jacket black, etc.

Then, I save it again and add it to my virtual tray. My virtual try has 5 other figures on it, other ork boy's I've been working on. I hit print, and Forge sends the printing file to the printer. 3 Hours later, my 6 boys have printed, all colored and ready for the table top.

This is my little peak into the future of 3d printing and its relationship with Games-Workshop.

Do you think it will turn out anything like this?


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

3d printing will never be a cost effective way to purchase models,3d printing is never going to make the main stream, outside of model makers i can see no viable use for 3d printing,its a novelty item bit of tech.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

It is a nifty tool at the moment but the cost has to come way down before it is useful to the general public.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

scscofield said:


> It is a nifty tool at the moment but the cost has to come way down before it is useful to the general public.


even if the cost did come down, what would the "general public" do with a 3d printer? im serious what items around your home or the home of another non wargamer/model maker would you want printed in resin?


----------



## Itybih2ku (Sep 1, 2010)

Never say never. 

Solidoodle has introduced the $499 (318 gbp). It uses abs plastic which is $55/kg (35 gbp). 

Consider that a space marine tactical squad box weighs about .33 kg which includes the weight of the box, sprue and all other non-essential parts. This would make (post machine) the cost of printing to be right around: 11.6 gbp compared to the GW price of 23 gbp. A savings of 12 gbp. If we assume this is average with the savings available from other units, then the printer pays for itself with only 27 units. While you may not use 27 units of space marines, it does show that its not nearly as expensive as you think it is.

That's the pricing RIGHT NOW. 5-10 years from now, I expect that will dip even lower, and the quality of print will go higher.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Just a tip?

I've recently received some Autocannon, Some Star Marines and a Sniper Rifle for my Vindicare from Shapeways.

THEY ARE AWEFUL

The look fine but the material from which they are printed is incredibly course and I got the finest stuff they offer. They are very much like they are made of sandstone.

The detail is ....ok but it is very weak, particularly on small things like a gun barrel.

So for me it was a good test but I'll not be ordering stuff again until the technology improves


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

bitsandkits said:


> even if the cost did come down, what would the "general public" do with a 3d printer? im serious what items around your home or the home of another non wargamer/model maker would you want printed in resin?


Various doodads around the house, my mother would love to have one. I figure by the time they get something like this to be cost effective and workable it will be the closest we will ever get to a Replicator from Star Trek.



Itybih2ku said:


> Never say never.
> 
> Solidoodle has introduced the $499 (318 gbp). It uses abs plastic which is $55/kg (35 gbp).
> 
> ...


It does not make quality items though, it's garbage compared to what you can get. 



Magpie_Oz said:


> Just a tip?
> 
> I've recently received some Autocannon, Some Star Marines and a Sniper Rifle for my Vindicare from Shapeways.
> 
> ...


I have seen the results first hand from them, we have one at work that does great for large turbine blade replication. When you start getting into the finer details though it just fails. The tech is getting better but it is a far cry from what the OP is suggesting.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> 3d printing will never be a cost effective way to purchase models,3d printing is never going to make the main stream, outside of model makers i can see no viable use for 3d printing,its a novelty item bit of tech.


What do you mean? You can already buy 3-4 models on Shapeways for $15-18 which is comparable in price to many of GW's models after the recent price hike. 3d printing SoB would actually be cheaper than buying them new from GW considering special weapons units are ~$15


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Arcane said:


> What do you mean? You can already buy 3-4 models on Shapeways for $15-18 which is comparable in price to many of GW's models after the recent price hike. 3d printing SoB would actually be cheaper than buying them new from GW considering special weapons units are ~$15


Cheaper =/= Better though.

More to the topic, while 3D printing will robably be more of a common thing in 10 years or so I'm not so sure how that'll pan out exactly. I'm sure it'd be a great conversion or modelling tool (much like Green Stuff or resin molds are now), but when it comes to full models I prefer to buy what I need from GW. I'm sure they'll find a way to monetize it, but I don't have the kind of set up necessary for those kind of modelling programs that would be required to run a 3D printer. Maybe in 10+ years I'll change my outlook, or invest in a new computer that can handle more but for the time being I really don't know enough about the technology, and what it's eventual limitations will be to know for sure.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Arcane said:


> What do you mean? You can already buy 3-4 models on Shapeways for $15-18 which is comparable in price to many of GW's models after the recent price hike. 3d printing SoB would actually be cheaper than buying them new from GW considering special weapons units are ~$15


But the quality would be rubbish by comparison, you'd be paying the same price for a lesser product.

You'd be better off buying one set and making your own silicon moulds


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> But the quality would be rubbish by comparison, you'd be paying the same price for a lesser product.
> 
> You'd be better off buying one set and making your own silicon moulds


I'm curious what materials you ordered from them. I haven't owned any but the photos look good. Frosted ultra detail looks like it creates some decent minis.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

I am willing to bet everything Magpie has looks amazing in a photo. The problem is when you start to try and paint them. Superfine detail isn't a strong point of 3d printers at this time.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

scscofield said:


> I am willing to bet everything Magpie has looks amazing in a photo. The problem is when you start to try and paint them. Superfine detail isn't a strong point of 3d printers at this time.


Spot on. Most of the "photos" are actually the 3D renders. The print is something else entirely. 

They also are as porous as hell so much so that you can't glue them with super glue.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Mind sharing any photos of these as they are supposed to look and how they actually look?


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

sure mate they are on the bench at the moment with a few K of Grey Knights to be done before I get to them but I will be posting some feed back of the experience.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Im not convinced 3d printing will replace mass produced minatures. The expense doesnt make sense. By the time you have brought the printer, paid for a decent PC to run the program from, bought a decent moulding plastic it would be simpler to get the real deal from the maker.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

humakt said:


> Im not convinced 3d printing will replace mass produced minatures. The expense doesnt make sense. By the time you have brought the printer, paid for a decent PC to run the program from, bought a decent moulding plastic it would be simpler to get the real deal from the maker.


exactly my point, i have the tools and materials at home to knock out some very nice and fancy carpentry items, but ultimately i will still end up buying them from a shop for convenience and to save time and effort, not to mention have you ever read these forums when it comes to asking a wargamer to spend money, unless GW gave away a 3d printer with every copy of warhammer and 40k your average gamer will just switch off to the idea.

I grant you its a great idea, but ultimately the number of people you would need to buy the tech to drive the price down but have the tech to match the quality of steel mold styrene casting make it un viable, 3d printers would need a real world application for that to happen and sadly gamers and model makers are not in every home or even every other home.


----------



## Itybih2ku (Sep 1, 2010)

scscofield said:


> It does not make quality items though, it's garbage compared to what you can get.


You are right. I'm looking down the road (Hence the title of the thread). I brought up the current pricing only to show that as of right now, its possible to get pricing below the GW price right now, not a quality comparison. This is important for two reasons. 3d printing is still new technology, that means if trends hold, it's price will continue to drop compared to today's price, and its quality will continue to increase. GW's prices seem to just increase.

So, looking at what we have now, and projecting forward from this, the argument that it will be cheaper to stay with mass produced isn't holding much weight. 

Can it compete now? Not at all. At best the Solidoodle could crank out terrain or vehicles, but nowhere near what you need for full on figures. 5-10 years from now? Its a real possibility.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Its only a real possability if there is a real world application for 3d printing otherwsie the cost of these printers will not come down and will stay high for the type quality printer you will need to do the sort of printing that will make it worth investing in one.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

The other thing is GW and other dedicated miniature companies would not let tech like this surpass their product. In the time these thngs improve you will see GW improve just as quick. Would not shock me inthe least to find out that they have their hands in the whole 3d printer development themselves.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

GW would never choose this route because it does not allow them to control how much product you can produce, the only way i see GW ever selling this stuff if to licence out its 3d renders to a 3rd party to print and sell on, you the consumer will never be sold a "digital" template to print your self because you could produce the model as many times as you like which would hurt GW in the only place it worries about, the wallet.

So even if the technology was available there , i personally dont see GW going that direction because it wouldnt make sense in a business capacity, i could see smaller indie companies taking advantage of the technology if it was priced right, but GW is a retailer with a shop footprint to be proud of and its not a good business model for a large company.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

I meant in terms of mold development and whatnot, if it every go to the level OP is suggesting it would be useful in those phases of production.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

I get eBooks that cannot be printed so it's only a small step to be able to produce a digital blueprint that can only be reproduced in the 3D printer so many times, or cost you every time you print it or something like that. SO business wise it would be doable.

Quality is the limiting factor at the moment. I guess you could use uber good materials to make a one off from which the mould is struck. Does make me wonder at the GW move towards finecast and if that is motivated by a move to CAD use for mini sculpting?


----------



## TheReverend (Dec 2, 2007)

The biggest criticism is quality, but lets compare it to traditional ink printers. 30 years ago they were bad and expensive, 20 years ago they were a bit better and just as expensive. Bubble jet, laser jet, and now you can get photo printers which are excellent quality (Tesco printed my photos using one of these the other day, and if photo shops are using them for your photos then they must be as good as they are going to get).

What I'm trying to say is, the quality will improve eventually, after lots of development.


----------



## Itybih2ku (Sep 1, 2010)

humakt said:


> Im not convinced 3d printing will replace mass produced minatures. The expense doesnt make sense. By the time you have brought the printer, paid for a decent PC to run the program from, bought a decent moulding plastic it would be simpler to get the real deal from the maker.


I would wager that you are wrong in this prediction.

As I showed to B&K, the price of printer/material as of today isn't so far out that what you say is true, if the quality was high enough.

Using solidoodle, and its material. You can print a box of space marine tactical squad for more than 12gbp cheaper than gw sells them. (Quality isn't there yet but bear with me). That would mean, if this savings was average across units and armies it would take only 27 prints to pay for itself. (Probably less for somethings since GW likes to make its special/elites more expensive for just a few miniatures.) 

As for the computer needed to handle it, I would be hesitant to calculate that as part of the cost, for three reasons: 

First, My concept as outlined in the OP would not allow you as the consumer to have to create the item youself, allowing you to virtually build it at a lower polygon count than would be needed if you were playing with the actual cad itself. I assume that many pre-generated sculpts that you could print in this future of mine would be of that same concept. So a more powerful computer isn't really necessary.

Second, since we are looking down the road 5-10 into a future where 3d printing has become common place, I would imagine that computers themselves have gotten strong enough at that point in time to handle much of the workload put on them by Cad Programs.

Finally, I would argue that even if you need to upgrade, you should not count the entire cost of the computer, since that computer would not be solely dedicated to 3d printing. It would be akin to counting the cost of the garage as part of the price of your car because you happen to park it there when not driving it.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Itybih2ku said:


> Finally, I would argue that even if you need to upgrade, you should not count the entire cost of the computer, since that computer would not be solely dedicated to 3d printing. It would be akin to counting the cost of the garage as part of the price of your car because you happen to park it there when not driving it.


I disagree. The computer may not be dedicated for using 3D printing or running CAD, but it has to be able to HANDLE those programs, and like all graphics software CAD is a processor hog and a memory muncher. I use a $300 Netbook as my dedicated computer. Currently I'd need to invest in a computer in excess of $1000 to be able to run CAD effectively. That's not only $700 more than my current computer, that's not counting in any additional costs to it (monitor(s), ect) that I don't have). And that's just to get SETUP to do this.

Now in 10 years time I -may- invest in a computer able to do these things, but I'm by no means going to drop a four digit plus sum on a PC just to make my own minis now and then.

EDIT: It's more akin to adding in the cost of the engine for the car than the garage. Without the computer the printer is a lot less useful. The computer is what gives the information to the printer to print. When I'm not printing that's all well and good, but it's not like counting in a shelf or something (which is actual storage space), but rather something that controls and operates the device in question.


----------



## Itybih2ku (Sep 1, 2010)

Zion said:


> I disagree. The computer may not be dedicated for using 3D printing or running CAD, but it has to be able to HANDLE those programs, and like all graphics software CAD is a processor hog and a memory muncher. I use a $300 Netbook as my dedicated computer. Currently I'd need to invest in a computer in excess of $1000 to be able to run CAD effectively. That's not only $700 more than my current computer, that's not counting in any additional costs to it (monitor(s), ect) that I don't have). And that's just to get SETUP to do this.
> 
> Now in 10 years time I -may- invest in a computer able to do these things, but I'm by no means going to drop a four digit plus sum on a PC just to make my own minis now and then.
> 
> EDIT: It's more akin to adding in the cost of the engine for the car than the garage. Without the computer the printer is a lot less useful. The computer is what gives the information to the printer to print. When I'm not printing that's all well and good, but it's not like counting in a shelf or something (which is actual storage space), but rather something that controls and operates the device in question.


I would again disagree with you. While such a cost increase may be part of YOUR net cost, its not part of everyones. Everyone has to purchase the engine when they get the car. Its very rare that someone has an engine lying around when they buy a car that they can slap into it. However, some people (myself included) already have a computer built for graphics because we game and such. So, while you say "It would cost me 700 to upgrade" it wouldn't cost me at all.

Does everyone own a $1200 gaming computer? No, but neither does everyone own a $300 netbook with little to no power. 

Also don't fall into the trap of looking at the situation right now and expecting stuff to be the same by the time home 3d printing is cheap enough to be common. We are looking (IMO) 5-10 years. That means much more powerful computers, even in the $300 range. Its quite possible that they are likely to have the power needed to do the consumer level 3d printing we already need.

Just keep in mind. We are talking CONSUMER LEVEL, not HOBBYIST LEVEL. Think of it like pictures. Your computer likely has Microsoft picture viewer, microsoft photo editor, etc on it. They are weak, but very user friendly. People use them to do minor edits (red eye, square crop, maybe a sepia layer for fun.) But they are not Adobe Photoshop. Adobe Photoshop allows serios photophiles to go in, and do all sorts of stuff to their pictures. Stuff that your average consumer can't/won't do. Photoshop needs much more computing power than microsoft photo editor/viewer. But, you don't need to be able to run Photoshop in order to view/tweak/print photos. By that same thread, When 3d home printing beccomes usable by the average consumer, I believe you'll have the same type of set up. And hopefully, your comparable $300 printer will be able to do "Micorosoft Object Viewer/Editor" but not need "Adobe ObjectShop".


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Itybih2ku said:


> I would again disagree with you. While such a cost increase may be part of YOUR net cost, its not part of everyones. Everyone has to purchase the engine when they get the car. Its very rare that someone has an engine lying around when they buy a car that they can slap into it. However, some people (myself included) already have a computer built for graphics because we game and such. So, while you say "It would cost me 700 to upgrade" it wouldn't cost me at all. _You're right, it's not part of -everyone's- cost, but not everyone has a computer that can handle such programs (as not everyone is into high end systems for graphical programs, mass calculations or gaming). That's something that will deter it from being accepted more openly._
> 
> Does everyone own a $1200 gaming computer? No, but neither does everyone own a $300 netbook with little to no power. _Agreed, but even on your average computer you'd be hard pressed to run a graphics editing program like CAD editors without needing to do some upgrading._
> 
> ...


Comments/interjections in _yellow_. You're making a lot of sweeping assumptions about the nature of technology and programs. Look at computers and they're operating systems. As the computer has gotten faster the OS has generally evolved to keep up and utilize it better. This in turn has required more space and more power. The same goes for just about anything. 

To view an image of a 3D object now doesn't require much memory, but to be able to open up a file and view it from any angle and in any level of magnitude does. There is a LOT of math keeping track of that object and it's properties and it only gets worse the more complicated something is. Sure computers 10 years from now will be able to do more of it more effectively, but that'll in turn lead to more detailed and exacting rendering programs that can keep track of more points and render them more effectively. It's not too unlike how much graphically better Super Mario Galaxy is over Super Mario 64. As the system got better, the graphics did too since there was more room to work. The same thing goes on in 3D editors too.

TL;DR: Better equipment leads to better tools. In terms of computers this leads to more powerful programs that require the expanded memory of the more powerful computers.


----------



## Itybih2ku (Sep 1, 2010)

While what you say is true. Keep in mind that since we are talking about consumer level, its at a much lower requirement than say CAD level.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Which would lead to less detail, which is the issue with the 3d Printer now. The reason CAD takes so much umph to do is because it can get down to the nitty gritty details of what it is rendering. To get the detail of a GW model you will need a strong rendering program, a printer able to do so, and access to a material that can hold said details. 

You keep stating how much cheaper it is to make a set of Tac marines but this statement is false and misleading. You are not creating the quality and detail that GW does at that price, hence the garbage comment I made earlier. In ten years time, yes the printers will be better, but you can not assume the material, program, and hardware required to match GW will drop in price enough to be cheaper as your stating. The stuff will be cheaper, but this does not mean it will be GW quality for cheaper.


----------



## Itybih2ku (Sep 1, 2010)

scscofield said:


> Which would lead to less detail, which is the issue with the 3d Printer now. The reason CAD takes so much umph to do is because it can get down to the nitty gritty details of what it is rendering. To get the detail of a GW model you will need a strong rendering program, a printer able to do so, and access to a material that can hold said details.


Not exactly. We go back to "GW Forge" concept. You are not really modifying the sculpt itself with this concept. Instead, you are adding/removing accessories to the model. So, you might be choosing to add a Scope to a gun, but you aren't actually going in and modifying the gun sculpt, that's already handled for you by the program. This level of design isn't for the CAD artist who wants to scratch build a Rhino, it's for the consumer who is going to do the equivalent to playing with an electronic sprue.

This means that you, as a consumer, get to see pre-rendered stuff probably with a lower poly count than the actual background file would have. You don't need an exact rendering of the GW Model at the program screen, you need enough of an accurate representation to customize the model. Once you've done that, the program deals with the background processes before printing.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

The background stuff your talking about is what makes those programs such huge hogs for resources of the computer though......


----------



## Itybih2ku (Sep 1, 2010)

scscofield said:


> The background stuff your talking about is what makes those programs such huge hogs for resources of the computer though......


Ideally, not all that much. 

Since the program won't be dealing with rendering/visualizing/rotating/etc. there won't be as much on the resource end. There will be some as the program "assembles" the various pieces behind the scenes. However, ideally these will be connected via pre-selected hot points, meaning it won't be as bad. (So, you take the torso file, connect the right arm file at point A angle XYZ, connect the left arm at point b angle xyz, head at C angle XYZ etc.) 

Then save as temp file, send to printer.

Much of the headache of these programs is in the manipulation of all the gazillions of polygons on the screen. Negate's that problem with a pre-rendered front end, and construction in the back. Little rendering needs to be done. Connect the points to form new model, save, send to printer.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

It has to do all that when it interfaces with the printer though, the biggest time sink is doing the vectoring it has to do before printing. You still have all those highly detailed factors that have to be processed with what your suggesting. Just because the User does not see it on the screen does not mean it is not being processed in the back ground. Unless they are just loading a pregen file and pushing print all the data crunching that makes those programs so resource heavy would still have to happen. The 'customization' your talking about no matter how basic on screen will still have to access and mesh some highly detailed files to print the end product.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Oh god so much wasted text. Cmon, anyone who has the ability and knowledge to model and desiign in 3d is going to have a computer capable of it. You had to learn someware. and anyways, why would you have a 3d printer iin your house? Assembly lines, injection molding, commmercial size photo printers, lathes have all revolutionized production without needing to be in people's homes. Commission 3d printing will increase in quality and reduce in price, just like I can cheaply make tshirts without having a silk screen in my home.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Arcane said:


> Oh god so much wasted text. Cmon, anyone who has the ability and knowledge to model and desiign in 3d is going to have a computer capable of it. You had to learn someware. and anyways, why would you have a 3d printer iin your house? Assembly lines, injection molding, commmercial size photo printers, lathes have all revolutionized production without needing to be in people's homes. Commission 3d printing will increase in quality and reduce in price, just like I can cheaply make tshirts without having a silk screen in my home.


We're talking about 5-10 years from now, not right now. We're also talking about general consumer products using 3D printers not artists or hobbyists who will have the sort of equipment to REALLY make this stuff work, but the Average Joe who decides to get a 3D printer because they're cheap and neat.

It's all theoretical of course, but it's a valid bit of conversation. To claim it's wasted just means you didn't really READ what was posted. TL;DR comes in force again it seems.

The debate is how feasible this stuff will be to your average consumer and if GW will see the need to capitalize on it to sell more stuff to Timmy and his friends.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

No I didn't read it all, I was busy drinking some beer lol 

But really it just seems like semantics. We arn't talking about your average general consumer, we are talking about hobbyists, who are all of us on this forum for the most part. What it really comes down to is will your average hobbyist at least be able to go on above average artists page and buy a custom model from him for reasonably more than GW with the aid of a third party 3d printer. I think the answer is yes. 

I think within 5 years you will see artists making entire armies from scratch, sending them off to a 3d printer and then reselling them to the general public. You'll see high quality models for things that GW doesn't make right now and they will start to feel the pinch, especially considering their prices are starting to approach Forgeworld and Indy prices (like Scibor etc).


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

What you are suggesting I agree with 100% Arcane, indie artists creating armies and sending them off to a dedicated 3d printing company. What the OP is suggesting, no way in hell for all the reasons already stated.


----------



## the-ad-man (Jan 22, 2010)

not read the full discussion, but maxmini just posted these to their facebook which have been printed.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Those look pretty good, better than the ones I have from Shapeways. I wonder what the unit cost of them is?


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Magpie_Oz said:


> Those look pretty good, better than the ones I have from Shapeways. I wonder what the unit cost of them is?


1 cant see me im ninja


----------



## Suijin (Aug 11, 2011)

One place to look for ideas of what can be made is: http://www.thingiverse.com/

The soliddoodle printer is not good quality prints at all. I'm going to be playing around with a printer (pretty good quality) here in a month or so, so I will have to see what quality I can get. I am a total novice, so I'll have to see.


----------



## Corporal Punishment 69 (Jul 8, 2012)

I can see no reason why the 3D printing would be so hard for the computer to run, take a look at how the whole computer thing has advanced in just 25 years. I started with a 48k spectrum - cassette programs, hour to load crap games, 5 years after that I had a commodore - cassette programs, half hour to load slightly better games, 10 years after that I had my first PC - CD programs, half hour to load games that seemed unbelievable at the time, printer that was black & white and made a noise like a bee hive on LSD, now I have a PC that runs games that look like films, a printer that can print photos with a slight whispering sound and run 5 tasks at once without slowing down in the slightest. I imagine that in 10 more years when my PC has 100X the processing power of my current PC and the 3D printers have had time to perfect the tech that such things will be more than possible, although I imagine Tamiya doing it looong before GW....

As to the people who say "what use is a 3D printer?" I would ask, 25 years ago, how many people would have thought to have printer for printing photos when there were shops for that? What use would such a thing be? Now we all have them, and digital cameras that can take amazing pics by the thousand.....


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Corporal Punishment 69 said:


> I can see no reason why the 3D printing would be so hard for the computer to run, take a look at how the whole computer thing has advanced in just 25 years.


I'm going to cut the post short there and point out that as computers advance the programs advanced. As the computers become faster and able to do more things at once, so will the programs. Programs scale as computing power does to take advantage of higher memory and processing power.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Corporal Punishment 69 said:


> I can see no reason why the 3D printing would be so hard for the computer to run, take a look at how the whole computer thing has advanced in just 25 years. I started with a 48k spectrum - cassette programs, hour to load crap games, 5 years after that I had a commodore - cassette programs, half hour to load slightly better games, 10 years after that I had my first PC - CD programs, half hour to load games that seemed unbelievable at the time, printer that was black & white and made a noise like a bee hive on LSD, now I have a PC that runs games that look like films, a printer that can print photos with a slight whispering sound and run 5 tasks at once without slowing down in the slightest. I imagine that in 10 more years when my PC has 100X the processing power of my current PC and the 3D printers have had time to perfect the tech that such things will be more than possible, although I imagine Tamiya doing it looong before GW....
> 
> As to the people who say "what use is a 3D printer?" I would ask, 25 years ago, how many people would have thought to have printer for printing photos when there were shops for that? What use would such a thing be? Now we all have them, and digital cameras that can take amazing pics by the thousand.....


The flaw in your point is everyone owned a camera and photos before digital photos and home printing took off,almost every home in the world has a pc and a digital camera,but very few of those need anything printing in 3D, name me an item in your home 
That would benefit from being printed in resin other than models


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

bitsandkits said:


> The flaw in your point is everyone owned a camera and photos before digital photos and home printing took off,almost every home in the world has a pc and a digital camera,but very few of those need anything printing in 3D, name me an item in your home
> That would benefit from being printed in resin other than models


Life-sized statues of naked ladies?

I don't know, personally I've got nothing, but I don't deal with prototyping or design fields like that.


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

If they figure out a way to conveniently print metal and electronic parts so that I can print an Ipod for example, well, then I imagine we will see 3d printers. until then, uh...

not sure that being a warhammer fan can quite justify owning one of these things.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

I'm a mechanic when I'm not fighting crime. I would use a 3d printer every day. Now, I'll concede that isn't residential use, but we only have 5 full time employees and do under 1million in revenue yearly and buying a 3d printer would be doable and profitable. I'm sure thousands, if not millions of other small biz would do the same. The thing is for parts companies to get on board, so I can print a model of a carburator jet at the shop instead of waiting a week for a 2 dollar piece. It's not about the tech, its about how our industry and biz currently oppperates. (sticky keys on my phone gah)


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Would that hold up to actual use though? Resin and fuel do not mix far as I can tell.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

scscofield said:


> Would that hold up to actual use though? Resin and fuel do not mix far as I can tell.


Depends on the resin but you can 3D print almost any material.


----------



## Corporal Punishment 69 (Jul 8, 2012)

You could use it to produce cups, plates, bowls, electric switches, sockets, buttons, vases, decorative items, pieces for games (chess etc) and a million other small household items......


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Corporal Punishment 69 said:


> You could use it to produce cups, plates, bowls, electric switches, sockets, buttons, vases, decorative items, pieces for games (chess etc) and a million other small household items......


We are a looooooooong way from being able to produce those items for the same price and quality with a digital printer.

I'm not much of a mechanic but I'd reckon a 3d printer couldn't match a precisely machined carby port.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Corporal Punishment 69 said:


> You could use it to produce cups, plates, bowls, electric switches, sockets, buttons, vases, decorative items, pieces for games (chess etc) and a million other small household items......


Well other than the chess peices none of those would be suitable for resin,whats gonna happen to the cutlery when it needs washing or you need to cut your steak ? The point is if you are gonna print an item it needs to also function as the original item and resin isnt known for taking the rigours of life. Also things like sockets and electrical items have to conform to safety standards and regulations, so if you home print them and use them your gonna burn your house down. 

3D printing is a business tool and is unlikely to see use in many homes so is unlikely to be of a low enough price to make it a viable option for war gamers


----------



## Corporal Punishment 69 (Jul 8, 2012)

I'm talking about in 5-10 years, like the original post said, when we can assume the cost will have gone down and the quality increased, not with the tech as is today. Neither did I mention cutlery, I said plates and cups , which could be made from resin today and serve their purpose. Also, switch housings are made from plastics and resins today, why would printing one off (with an authorised, licensed design) "burn your house down"?


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Corporal Punishment 69 said:


> Also, switch housings are made from plastics and resins today, why would printing one off (with an authorised, licensed design) "burn your house down"?


It is their manufacture process more than their material.

The electrical fitting in a house are made by a manufacturer who has to abide by safety regulations and quality control.

Liability is a drama too. If I make the electrical fittings in my house and one of the fails then I am responsible for that as I am the manufacturer.


----------



## Corporal Punishment 69 (Jul 8, 2012)

So, the printer-maker and the design provider would have to make sure the product can do this to the correct standards, not so hard to regulate and license...


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Corporal Punishment 69 said:


> So, the printer-maker and the design provider would have to make sure the product can do this to the correct standards, not so hard to regulate and license...


Utterly impossible actually.

Who is going to take liability for a manufacturing process over which they have no control? no one.


----------



## Corporal Punishment 69 (Jul 8, 2012)

Ok, don't agree with you, but only time will show us :wink:


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Ugh, now we are getting way off into scifi mode. Everything that was listed at the top of this page can be gotten for way cheaper than a 3d printer and supplies would ever be. The dollar store sells all the stuff listed at the top of this page and you can find it for even cheaper than that if your feel the need. Regulating a printer is a joke also, they couldn't do it with 2d printers, why think that it would be possible with a 3d printer.


----------



## normtheunsavoury (Mar 20, 2008)

Its difficult to say what the next five to ten years will bring in terms of technology, including 3d printing. Who really saw the potential of mobile phones ten or so years ago? Not Nokia or they wouldn't be in the situation they are in now. 
10+ years ago text messaging was a novelty, camera phones were barely a sparkle in someone's eye and smart phones were still only available to James T Kirk. 

3d printing will drop in price, the quality will improve and it remains a short sighted view to use today's standards to judge the possibilities of five to ten years into the future. 

Personally, I don't think that there will be a reason for 3d printers in every home, not to say it couldn't happen, I just don't currently see the applications. Printing miniatures will be a side effect of the technology though, not the main drive for advancement. I can see some companies using the technology and some degree of trickle down effect but, unlike mobile phones, this not going to be an easy technology for everyone to use.


----------



## Suijin (Aug 11, 2011)

Zion said:


> Life-sized statues of naked ladies?
> 
> I don't know, personally I've got nothing, but I don't deal with prototyping or design fields like that.


Could always print a full-sized wearable ironman suit or something, heh.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Suijin said:


> Could always print a full-sized wearable ironman suit or something, heh.


Possible, but still to specialist to claim general consumer use.


----------



## PlagueMarineXenon (Jun 30, 2012)

To all the naysayers about how useful 3d printing can become, I leave this here to show another application of 3d printing, granted, on a larger scale http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/3d-printer-could-build-house-20-hours-224156687.html


----------

