IndieGoGo - Support development of an open source slicer and 3D printing software

Hi guys,

Let me announce a new IndieGoGo campaign to support development of a slicer and 3D printing software called 3DimMaker which is going to be released as open source.

Motivated by 3D printer producers needs, we started developing 3DimMaker almost 2 years ago. Our main goal was to develop a reliable 3D printing instrument for FFF printing large and complex models with thin parts and erroneous definition of the surface. Now, you can help 3DimMaker to become free of charge and open source.



Visit our IndieGoGo campaign for more details on our goals and what 3DimMaker and its slicer can do:

[igg.me]

If you like 3DimMaker, please share this email, or link to the campaign, with your friends, colleagues and followers and help us push ahead with open source 3DimMaker development.

Thank you!

Best regards

3DimMaker Development Team
[www.3dimmaker.com]

"Open source in near future" software that has paid license pro version, lets you print only 30 models on trial. And there's a "give us some money so we can make more money" indiegogo campaign. No thanks!
Seriously, what will be the license of that "open source" release? I couldn't find any mention of source code availability on your website.
Actually, this stuff is not "open source in near future" but "maybe open source IF got enough monies", according to IndieGoGo campaign. Going open source is a stretch goal. Badam-tss.
$90 for stuff that Cura and Slic3r do faster and for free.

Hi, let me reply to this comment maybe I will better explain why we run the campaign...

Quote
toxuin
"Open source in near future" software that has paid license pro version, lets you print only 30 models on trial.

In the campaign, it is mentioned that the software will become open source immediately once the campaign ends (M1) plus we will prepare new binary installers without any limitations (i.e. equivalent to the pro version) available free of charge...

Quote
toxuin
And there's a "give us some money so we can make more money" indiegogo campaign. No thanks!

We spent a lot of time developing 3DimMaker and we are willing to make all our source codes available as open source. Yes, we ask for money. This is because we need to exhange the STALGO library mentioned in the campaign story which cannot be released as OSS. Okay, we can remove the library from the code and just disable the functionality it is needed for, but we feel this would affect benefits of 3DimMaker when compare to the other slicers, e.g. robust handling of thin parts.

We would like to keep this project alive as we believe that 3DimMaker has still something to offer and we do not want to just throw all the work away... We invested a lot of effort and money in this project, and, to be honest, we do not want to put more money into this. Exchanging STALGO needs a significant effort so the money we are asking for will go into this...

Quote
toxuin
Seriously, what will be the license of that "open source" release? I couldn't find any mention of source code availability on your website.

All the codes will be released under Apache 2.0 license - this is mentioned in the campaign story...

Quote
toxuin
Actually, this stuff is not "open source in near future" but "maybe open source IF got enough monies", according to IndieGoGo campaign. Going open source is a stretch goal. Badam-tss.

Once again, it will become open source immediately after M1, but without the thin parts which are dependend on STALGO. Once STALGO is replaced, the functionality of thin parts will be available as well.

All the stretch goals are just an offer from our side. They mean we can further provide improved support to the community and ongoing development - binary releases every X months for each platform, bug fixes, implementation of new features, etc.

A like the idea of open source, and we offer some of our software as open source (see 3DimViewer [www.3dim-laboratory.cz]) but OSS still needs funding, otherwise the developers "will have nothing left to eat"...

Quote
toxuin
$90 for stuff that Cura and Slic3r do faster and for free.

Yes, you are right. Cura is really fast but does not care much of thin parts. In such cases you have the gcode in few seconds but finally you have been waiting for nothing because you cannot print it...

3DimMaker is slower due to much more complex handling of thin parts and supports... and if we reach M1, it will be free and open source...

Cheers.

How is it better that slicer ?

Well, the slicer can process models which other slicers are unable to handle properly - missing thin parts or supports, crashes when slicing the model, etc. It also introduces a new type of tree-like supports to speedup the printing and save material...

Right now, we are preparing a new video for the campaign to better explain the differences between our slicer and the others, namely Slic3r, Cura and KiSSlicer. So, please check the campaign page again.

[igg.me]

The new video should be there within 2-3 days. Thanks.

How is this better than Simplify3D? Only difference I can see is possible DLP support, but that's a pretty niche market. As well, the graphs are extremely confusing. I can't figure out if you're saying that 3DimMaker is taking more or less time to slice than the other slicers on the Stretchlet test. Do you have any physical print comparisons between Cura, S3D, Slic3r, and 3DimMaker?

I hear a lot of statements but only a real world test with a lot of users might eb able to confirm your claims.
All I can say it that every slicer has it's problems, including S3D - but most of these problems are fixable through the right settings.
To me it looks like an ad campaign but even for that I would expect to see some pics and videos.

Keeping it free is a good thing but before making such massive claims I would hand out some copies to users for testing.
And if the claims are false all this shouting will blow back....

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2015 08:10PM by Downunder35m.

Quote
solomondg
How is this better than Simplify3D?

Well, Open Source is a big plus over S3D.

For my comment on the project:

In that video I can't really see any advantages over the other slicers out there.

The ultimate slicer for me would have S3D settings and time to slice + CraftWares Gcode viewer.

If we talk options:
a) Two modes - advanced and beginner.
Beginner settings similar to the quick settings in S3D, advanced with control over everything.
So, different extrusions widths for perimeters, infill, solid infill, bridging and so on, same for the speed settings of course.
Should also be possible to use volumetric and standard extrusion settings.

b) Not just a g-code viewer but one that is capable of real live preview during the print and where one can make adjustments to the code.
Quite often you see a few little things that are not good enough in the preview, like missing infill areas, gaps between walls and such things, a slicer aiming at the best should be capable of correcting these things.

c) Infill patterns that make sense and adjust to the needs of the part in question.
Especially curved objects, like fan blades for example, can drive the operator nuts and the slicer to the limits.
So far every slicer out there has more or less problems with that!
To find the right balance between stability and infill ration / pattern is the key IMHO.
Take a centrifugal fan:
With retilinear infill some areas will see no infill at all, this is a problem if there a thin walls anyway and nothing to stabilise them.
A honeycomb pattern is useless for the same reasons although it can give better results if the infill ration is higher.
A perfect slicer would recognise those problematic areas and ajust the infill pattern to give proper stability.

d) User selective infill and perimeters.
Some parts would benefit greatly from easy to adjust slicing settings based on height or better by marking the are in a preview.
Take a statue with a good sized base:
For the base I would only need marginal infill and maybe some thicker walls.
This means I can print quite fast too.
For those delicate and fine details of the statue I want the speed in a range that allows proper layer bonding without overheating the part and in a perfect worls thinner layer heights than for the base.
So that would mean partials with little area, like the legs of the statue, would need slower speeds and maybe even a waiting loop - and in a perfect world these settings would be calculated but still be user adjustable.

e) Variable extrusion widths and layer heights.
I had to print quite a few parts that required maximum strenght in terms of holding pressure.
For such parts, and other prints too, an option to use alternating layer heights and extrusion widths would be great.
Example, the common garden hose "quick connector" (not the one with the spring in it):
To handle the daily stress it would need to be printed solid anyway.
Most slicers have no objections to set a different extrusion width for perimeters and infill, they also allow you to only infill every second or third layer (depending on the layer height and nozzle of course).
But no slicer I know allows to alter these setting between layers.
That means every line is exactly on top of the one below it.
For maximum layer strenght it would be good to have the option to alternate the line widths.
Let's say even layers numers at 80% of the standard extrusion width and odd layer numbers at 120% of the standard extrusion width.
And it would be great to be able to set the infill, support and perimeters heights independly.
Let's say I want 0.04mm layer height for the perimeter to get a really smooth finnish and all details but 0.13mm for the infill.
This way there won't be any even and matching layer height between perimeters and infill , increasing the the strength and making it more "water tight".

But I guess all this and much is already included....

I have to say that I find this interesting, and it definitely looks like a capable piece of software.
I'm definitely going to try the current free version as soon as possible. Have tried loading and slicing a model, and it seems promising.

Like some already have a couple of slicers, but I'm sure this one can bring something new to the table. I don't really understand the "we already have x and y, so we don't need z" sentiment... Diversity in software is good, I think.

I'm willing to donate for this, but I have a few questions:

1. Possible linux version?
There's no mention of a linux version. I understand that you won't spend time on the specifics, but given that it uses libraries that are available on linux already (qt, openscenegraph). Are there anything else that would make a linux port hard to do? This can of course be done by the community after the release, I just want to know how feasible this would be.

2. Open source or not?
You already mentioned in this thread that it will be released under the Apache 2 license. Sounds good to me! In fact, not being open source would be a deal breaker for me at least.
However, in the perks it seems like you won't get access to the source unless you pay at least 90 euros. This part is a bit misleading... The entire idea of open source is that everyone gets it for free once it's released, so I think you should perhaps revise the wording of the perks a bit.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/06/2015 04:33AM by teppic.

Quote
solomondg
How is this better than Simplify3D? Only difference I can see is possible DLP support, but that's a pretty niche market. As well, the graphs are extremely confusing. I can't figure out if you're saying that 3DimMaker is taking more or less time to slice than the other slicers on the Stretchlet test. Do you have any physical print comparisons between Cura, S3D, Slic3r, and 3DimMaker?

When slicing the Stretchlet model, all the slicers were very very fast but there vere many issues with the generated gcode. Please see the figures illustrating the different outputs for 3DimMaker, Cura and KiSSlicer...

Physical prints comparison is a good idea. I am quite sure we have some for Slic3r because we were comparing our results to Slic3r intensively but I am not sure about the others. I am afraid we were comparing mainly the generated gcode in those cases...

Quote
Downunder35m
I hear a lot of statements but only a real world test with a lot of users might eb able to confirm your claims.
All I can say it that every slicer has it's problems, including S3D - but most of these problems are fixable through the right settings.
To me it looks like an ad campaign but even for that I would expect to see some pics and videos.

Keeping it free is a good thing but before making such massive claims I would hand out some copies to users for testing.
And if the claims are false all this shouting will blow back....

Okay, I can understand your point. We think of the campaign as a "test" if it makes sense to continue 3DimMaker development as open source. If the propriate STALGO library were not used in the slicer we would switch to the OSS model immediately.

As mentioned before, we are preparing a new campaign video to better illustrate the differences (sorry for being late with this). Anyway, you can download 3DimMaker and test its trial version so we thought it is not necessary to prepare a lot of additional stuff...

Quote
teppic
I have to say that I find this interesting, and it definitely looks like a capable piece of software.
I'm definitely going to try the current free version as soon as possible. Have tried loading and slicing a model, and it seems promising.

Like some already have a couple of slicers, but I'm sure this one can bring something new to the table. I don't really understand the "we already have x and y, so we don't need z" sentiment... Diversity in software is good, I think.

I'm willing to donate for this, but I have a few questions:

1. Possible linux version?
There's no mention of a linux version. I understand that you won't spend time on the specifics, but given that it uses libraries that are available on linux already (qt, openscenegraph). Are there anything else that would make a linux port hard to do? This can of course be done by the community after the release, I just want to know how feasible this would be.

To my knowledge, there is no part being a barrier when porting 3DimMaker to linux. For sure there will be some minor fixes required - linking of libraries, small code fixes arising from a different compiler, etc. But we alredy have the Mac port so I belive the linux one won't be so difficult to prepare...

Quote
teppic
2. Open source or not?
You already mentioned in this thread that it will be released under the Apache 2 license. Sounds good to me! In fact, not being open source would be a deal breaker for me at least.
However, in the perks it seems like you won't get access to the source unless you pay at least 90 euros. This part is a bit misleading... The entire idea of open source is that everyone gets it for free once it's released, so I think you should perhaps revise the wording of the perks a bit.

Sorry for unclear formulation. For sure, it will be open source for everyone! I will correct the wording of the perks...

Quote
3dim
To my knowledge, there is no part being a barrier when porting 3DimMaker to linux. For sure there will be some minor fixes required - linking of libraries, small code fixes arising from a different compiler, etc. But we alredy have the Mac port so I belive the linux one won't be so difficult to prepare...

...

Sorry for unclear formulation. For sure, it will be open source for everyone! I will correct the wording of the perks...

Thanks for the clarifications, I'll definitely support this. I really hope this gets funded!

I have tried doing a couple of prints, and they came out pretty good. Could probably be improved a bit using the advanced settings in the pro version. The general workflow in the application seems good.

Quote
teppic

Quote
3dim
To my knowledge, there is no part being a barrier when porting 3DimMaker to linux. For sure there will be some minor fixes required - linking of libraries, small code fixes arising from a different compiler, etc. But we alredy have the Mac port so I belive the linux one won't be so difficult to prepare...

...

Sorry for unclear formulation. For sure, it will be open source for everyone! I will correct the wording of the perks...

Thanks for the clarifications, I'll definitely support this. I really hope this gets funded!

I have tried doing a couple of prints, and they came out pretty good. Could probably be improved a bit using the advanced settings in the pro version. The general workflow in the application seems good.

Thank you very much for the time you invested in testing 3DimMaker. Hopefully your feedback here will motivate others to give it a try...

I supported this. I like that you opted for fixed funding and not the "flexible" type.

If you get funded, it will be open source and it will be no different then having supported any other open source project, if you do not get funded then no harm done.

I believe if people payed just 1% of what they pay for materials and parts to software then we would be an entirely different place today.

Quote
LarsK
I supported this. I like that you opted for fixed funding and not the "flexible" type.

If you get funded, it will be open source and it will be no different then having supported any other open source project, if you do not get funded then no harm done.

I believe if people payed just 1% of what they pay for materials and parts to software then we would be an entirely different place today.

Thank you for writting these words and your contribution!

Can you address how 3DimMaker handles interior holes? Many, if not all, slicers have an issue slicing models to produce a dimensionally accurate hole. Invariably holes are undersized. For example: [forums.reprap.org]

Quote
MichaelBrock
Can you address how 3DimMaker handles interior holes? Many, if not all, slicers have an issue slicing models to produce a dimensionally accurate hole. Invariably holes are undersized. For example: [forums.reprap.org]

Michael, my colleague compared one of our older prints (Easy3DMaker, nozzle 0.5mm, slices 0.25mm, 3DimMaker) against the original CAD model, please see the below figures




The precision depends on the material, 3D printer parameters and its calibration. And in this case, we are not sure about the calibration because it was printed while ago...