The Truth About PLA+ | Open-Source Doesn't Work | Stratasys & Nano Dimensions | 3D Printing Podcast

Explore the latest updates in the world of 3D printing in this episode of Layer by Layer. We discuss the truth about PLA+, provide an update on software, and touch on the Stratasys/Nano Dimensions merger. We also announce some upcoming content, and give our thoughts on open-source projects.
🔔 Don't forget to like and subscribe to Slant 3D for more mass production 3D printing content!
Check out our Splash Blaster Kickstarter:
www.kickstarter.com/projects/...
00:00 Shameless Shilling
00:54 The Truth About PLA+
05:15 Update on Software/POD App
08:20 Stratasys & Nano Dimensions
10:00 Upcoming Content
15:09 Open-Source Designs
22:44 Hypocrisy in the Industry
🔗 IMPORTANT LINKS 🔗
Get a Quote for Your Production Project: www.slant3d.com/
Slant 3D Etsy Plugin: www.slant3d.com/slant3d-etsy-...
Get Our STL's: www.angled.xyz/
Get Affordable High-Quality Filament: www.tangledfilament.com
Try Shapr3D (Use Code: Slant3d): www.shapr3d.com/download?utm_...
Our Favorite Products: www.amazon.com/shop/slant3d
About Slant 3D
🏭 High-Volume 3D Printing: Scalability Meets Flexibility
Slant 3D's Large-Scale 3D Print Farms utilize 1000's of FDM 3D printers working 24/7 to offer limitless scalability and unparalleled flexibility. Whether it's 100 or 100,000 parts, our system can handle it reliably, while still allowing for real-time design updates, ensuring products evolve with the times. This adaptability is key in today's fast-paced world.
🌿 Sustainable Manufacturing: Eco-Friendly Efficiency
Embrace a system that drastically reduces carbon emissions by eliminating carbon-intensive steps in the supply chain, such as global shipping and warehousing. Our approach minimizes this footprint, offering a more sustainable manufacturing option.
⚙️ Digital Warehouses: Parts On-Demand
Think of print farms as a "Digital Warehouse", meaning we can store your parts digitally on a server rather than physically on a shelf. parts are available on-demand, reducing the need for extensive physical inventory.
Produced by Slant Media
As an Amazon Associate, I earn commission from qualifying purchases.

[@DiThi]

Open source is not a methodology, it's more of a philosophy. I'm sure there will ways of making it work, but if it doesn't it's not the fault of the philosophy itself, but because of current realities. I do think it may work well in the future, among other reasons, because of tools that currently either don't exist or that are very expensive and difficult to use. Also what did you say about NFTs? I don't think they may be useful for anything at all.

[@frankbauerful]

Open source does not work for physical designs? WTF? I myself have remixed models on Thingiverse that were remixes already. Open source works great for models.

[@slant3d]

Thingiverse?

[@frankbauerful]

@@slant3d Yes, Thingiverse. What's the matter?

[@ticso24]

@@frankbauerful I think he has a different point on that. Opensource just means the source is open, it doesn’t mean it is free. As a FreeBSD person I really don’t like that Linux is mentioned as the only success in opensource, there are many other successful systems based on the opensource concept. In the BSD world it is not as much that you have to give back to the origin, Sony has famously based the Playstation on FreeBSD, and the Playstation source is not open. Opensource is not all about giving back to the origin, it is about offering a look into the design and be able to modify it. Sure in case of forced open source with Linux, or in case of FreeBSD not being forced to keep your derived code open, both projects benefit a lot by contributions and there is the point, that 3D is usually not text based code, unless maybe with OpenSCAD, which can be easily merged, plus unlike an OS a small 3D there is often no benefit in pushing changes back to the origin. Most modifications are not to make generally better, those are modifications for a different use case, so creating new objects. All in all opensource works great for 3D objects, but without a benefit for the origin and thus also not that much in a benefit for the creator itself. The creator gets fame and glory, but often the intention to opensource is to get contributions back. There is also another problem with opensource 3D objects, STL and even STEP files are not source, they are intermediate and lot of the open creations are made with commercial software. Unless the software used is open as well and the real source is published, there are massive limitations in the openness. That however doesn’t mean it never works. For example there are systems based on system tiles, like some marble systems, or print-a-block, those creators can benefit from having more published modified 3D objects for their systems without a need for merging individual objects.

[@joescalon541]

I would assume by saying open source they would mean the original cad files. Thingiverse is majority free use mesh files that are easy enough to cut and add to, but not the original bodies. When designing there is a huge difference from a mesh body and CAD files.

[@KevinLemarchand]

Yeah I agree with you there are plenty of open source project that works well. But like you said here slant3d is more speaking about the business viability of open source especially for 3d models. Most of the time with the open source model if you want to make money off it you need to capitalise on the services around it. Like Prusa, to take an open source 3d model. What they sell is not the hardware and the parts, they are selling an hassle free 3d printing experience. I'm not a PrusaOwner by the way but it's a good example ^^

[@treowayne]

You are completely wrong about open-source software. Many successful projects exist. Some examples: Debian, Arch, the Linux kernel, MariaDB, Apache, Firefox. There is tons of open source hardware in the form of PCB designs. There are also tons of open source projects like Mach/BSD that even allow someone to take the open-source code, change it (or not), and sell it. If you're using an Apple product, you're running code that started as open source and was then taken and integrated into a very closed product.

[@slant3d]

All sustained by large scale companies supporting them. In nearly every case corporate support keeps the projects alive, not community contributions. Even in the 3D Printing industry the "open source" slicers are maintained by Prusa or Ultimaker not really community development. Open source is great to start but it needs long term support.

[@treowayne]

@@slant3d An open source project can at least *potentially* continue to evolve after any backer leaves. It can be forked. If a closed-source vendor abandons its product, it is well and truly gone forever. Every project needs continued upkeep. Windows 7 is no longer a viable product because Microsoft gave up on it. Canonical gave up on its Unity desktop environment several years ago, but a few people keep plugging away at it and you can still run it if you really want to. OpenOffice stagnated under Sun and Oracle's stewardship, but someone else stepped in (the Apache Foundation and the community) and forked under the name Libre Office. If there is demand for continued development of an open-source project, that development can continue. If MS stopped work on MS Office tomorrow, someone would have to either start from scratch or buy the Office codebase (probably impossible due to licensing restrictions between MS and other companies).

[@polycrystallinecandy]

I've used regular PLA that behaved like what you'd expect from PLA+ (lower rigidity, less brittle, higher impact resistance). I think the terms PLA and PLA+ are only comparable for the same brand at best, not across brands. If you stick to known brands, just go for PLA when you need max rigidity, and PLA+ when you want more flexibility or to avoid catastrophic failure when overloaded.

[@MauritsBuijs]

Hi, I'm a new viewer here. I gave your arguments on why open source doesn't work some thought, and I would like to argue against this view. You state that it's hard to make money when you're open-sourcing your designs. I think this is a valid opinion for many open-source projects. I also don't think people should be shamed for competing in the closed-source market. Both the open and closed markets can coexist. Having said that, I do think there are two aspects you didn't mention that are important: - Open-source does not mean free, as in free beer. It means free, as in freedom of speech. Both the GPL and BSD licenses still allow you to ask for money when distributing your designs. And only the GPL license asks you to comply with requests to share the designs. I think it should be possible to make money doing this. Plenty of people don't mind paying for good products if you make it easy for them to pay and get them. The most visible demonstration of this, in my opinion, are streaming platforms like Netflix. There are plenty of websites to download free shows from. But when many shows are easily available on Netflix, plenty of people don't bother and just pay for convenience. Distribution needs to accommodate this, though. Currently, sites like Printables and Thingyverse are doing a big disservice to makers by not allowing both paid and free designs on their sites. - Complexity matters; a simple design like a mug arguably isn't very conducive to making an open-source project out of it. There is only so much variation to be had. Open-source collaboration shines (in my opinion) in situations where complexity is higher and the contributions of several people are required to succeed. A working toy excavator that kids can sit on, for example, would require more than a 3D printing expert to be designed. Because then you are dealing with electric engines that move threads, pistons that need to be actuated by some type of fluid or by electric engines, pull-wires, push rods, some type of power supply, and some way to interact with the little boy or girl controlling it. The other opinion I would like to argue against is the one that almost all open-source projects outside of Linux are second-rate. I disagree and will start by giving you examples of open-source projects that are, in my opinion, first-rate apart from Linux: - Every mainstream programming language in existence (even the Microsoft ones). C++, Java, Rust, C#, Python, PHP, etc. You name it; it's open. Closed source languages are dead on arrival. - A lot of popular web servers like the Apache web server, Apache Tomcat server, Nginx Web Server, NodeJS server, etc. The majority of the websites you visit daily run probably run on one of these. - Many popular databases like PostgreSQL Server, MongoDB, MariaDB, etc. Again; many of the websites/applications you use probably use some of these. - The BSD operating system. It's not very visible in use, but a lot of switches, routers, and other such equipment use it. - Firefox (remember when it outperformed MS Internet Explorer?) - Chromium - Blender - Krita - VLC (I know some people hate the UI). I'm probably still leaving some out, but I think I'm mostly there. In my opinion, this is quite an impressive list, and to me, it shows that open-source development can be powerful. However, I do understand where you are coming from with your second-grade remark. There is definitely a lot of open-source software out there that isn't great. There are a few good reasons for that: - Some open-source projects run out of steam. Their work gets preserved, but it's waiting for others to pick up where they left off. In the commercial market, this product wouldn't exist anymore; it would just be scrapped and deleted. Arguments can be made about whether this is good or bad; I don't have a strong opinion either way. - There are plenty of open-source projects that are run poorly (unlike Linux Torvald does, as you mentioned). I don't think this is because these projects are open-source, though. There are plenty of commercial projects that are run poorly as well. It's true that there are fewer of them visible. This is because companies are less transparent and can hide it behind marketing. Also, if they are really bad, and the market in which they operate is healthy, they go out of existence due to market forces. And after they are gone, they are really gone. Every trace of them is removed from society. Unlike dead open-source projects, which tend to linger for years in a repository somewhere with all the attached drama visible for anyone to see. I also think even the open-source projects that are considered second-tier can be powerful in their own way. LibreOffice is software that is often cited by MS Office users as second-rate. Now let's assume, for argument’s sake, that they are right. Isn't it kind of powerful that a software package most people aren't paying for and aren't contributing to is still good enough that it can do almost all the things MS Office can do? A company that is considered a tech giant, makes billions in revenue on its office products, and is olygopolic in its position in the tech market and monopolistic in its position in office software? It does seem powerful to me. Thanks for the video; it was nice food for thought.

[@robonator2945]

I have some additional stuff to add here, but first I gotta be less charitable. He made the same 'mistake' I've seen made countless times in that he just said this monolithic 'linux' was a single exception when all of the software you listed and then some (Wine, KDE, GNOME, Proton, DXVK, the new NVK Nvidia drivers, etc.) are all completely independent projects that are all insanely competent and successful, very few with any single corporate backing. Proton may have been pioneered by Valve sure, but it was built off of Wine, Proton-GE exists, and at this point the community contributes a *_ton_* to it as well. Plus, there is the obvious issue brought up with Proton as well: the Steam Deck. Specifically, the *_extremely profitable_* Steam Deck; the sold-in-the-millions Steam Deck; the "the most common SKU purchased is the most expensive one" Steam Deck and, now, even the OLED Steam Deck. Valve's investment in Proton was *_very_* profitable. Even ignoring the direct profits it enabled from the Steam Deck, (and the subsequent additional games sold on Steam) it granted them platform independence since Microsoft has routinely tried to launch game distribution platforms that would compete with Steam. Steam is dependent on Microsoft and Microsoft has the ability, and will, to crush them so, even ignoring the direct profits from the Steam Deck, Valve's investment got them invaluable platform independence. (keep in mind, Linux isn't a single entity. If Steam had got gaming on MacOS good, alright, that's two platforms, but they got gaming on *_linux_* good, which means Steam basically has *_infinite_* platforms now) If you bother to learn *_anything_* about linux, you learn very quickly it is literally *_just_* a kernel; the *_only_* thing Torvalds has any control over is the kernel. But, a desktop is waaaaaay more than just a kernel, it's dozens or even hundreds of independent individual projects that are *_all_* successful enough to be usable day to day. (and IMO be far better than the alternatives) I can't really chock this up to simply being misinformed or ignorant because the only way someone says this point is if they literally never bother to investigate a blatant contradiction with their worldview that they openly admit exists. If you know linux's success is in conflict with your world view about open source being infeasible... surely you'd at least look it up, right? Or, I don't know, do *_something?_* But, again, the only way I can imagine anyone (in good faith) writing all of that off that as a single monolithic "linux" exception that proves the rule is if they never bothered to do *_any_* research on this self-confessed contradiction with their worldview. It speaks not of a simple lack of information, but of wilful and intentional ignorance and dismissal. It's easy to be charitable at first, but this exact mistake is something I've seen be made repeatedly and the more I think about just what your attitude has to be to make it the less and less I can respect it. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, another issue with the claim open source is unprofitable is dynamic licenses. In other words licenses like "this is GPL v2 licensed, however if you pay us royalties we will allow you to use it under an MIT license if you want to keep your derivatives closed source while still supporting development" or "this is Creative Commons, until 2030, after January 1st 2030 it becomes Apache V2" In other words, licenses that are pre-configured to change under certain conditions outside of the creators control. I'm personally preferential to time-shifting licenses since they give a hard date at which the work becomes fully FOSS meaning, no matter what, it *_will_* be open in a reasonable timeframe while also ensuring you have a good few years to profit off of it or do whatever else. Plus, since people *_know_* it will be FOSS eventually, they're more likely to contribute even *_while_* you still have sole rights to commercialize it. In other words, other people are donating their hard work to line *_your_* wallet, and they're doing it willingly because they know that they *_will_* see returns from it eventually since even if you wanted to backstab them all of the work would become FOSS eventually. Yet ANOTHER factor to consider is that this is only considering single projects, which also isn't really in accordance with reality. People are far more willing and open to work with you if you have a history of helping the community; you're reputation *_will_* precede you. Even if you can't collaborate on specific 3d models, there is 100% still more general collaboration to be had. The freecad/FOSScad community (3d proonted bang bangs) for instance is pretty bloody collaborative through and through. Oh and, I touched on it previously with the Steam Deck but, another way that you can easily make FOSS profitable is by improving other things with FOSS offerings. System76 for instance makes PopOS, which they can do profitably because they also make computers which, by default, ship with PopOS; their work on their OS makes the value proposition for their computers higher. All in all there are just waaaay too many ways in which this perspective fails. Some are more obvious, some are less obvious, but through and through it's just fundamentally not in accordance with reality.

[@ddegn]

@@robonator2945 I'm curious why you think the Steam Deck has been so profitable? Has Steam stated this? I'm not saying it isn't profitable but there are plenty of examples where hardware development is unprofitable and the company making the hardware uses it to sell more software. I'm pretty sure many game consoles are sold at a loss with the intention to make the money back selling software (games).

[@BrainSlugs83]

Correction: open source hasn't worked well for 3D modeling *yet*. Part of the reason why people ask you to open source your models and contributions is so that *we* can learn from them! As a professional software engineer the biggest contribution of open source to software development (especially on smaller projects) isn't just the free software, but the free learning we get from them! Remember, this whole home 3D printing movement started from the seeds of the Reprap project.

[@laurahaaima1436]

Its the ultimaker thingyverse platform what makes the learning curve better.. People can download almost anything for free and adjust others models.. It's the step that makes it comfortable to .. take on a 3d model.

[@steveorevo]

And transparency, and security; even the author’s website is built on open source software. The vast majority of the web, publishing, and massively profitable SaaS is open source software (and I’m not referring to just Linux). Outside of software, it is curious that the author didn’t mention reprap by name. At all. :-/

[@TheJacklwilliams]

@@steveorevo To add to that, routers, switches, modems, pick an embedded os device, driven by Linux. I always said if i ever hopped on a plane and saw the Microsoft logo in the cockpit, I’d get off. Years of tuning and customizing to create highly reliable, robust, stable platforms that don’t require a reboot twice a day… All built on Open Source.

[@DKFX1]

There are quite a few filament testers out there on KZbin and they usually report a massive difference in impact resistance between regular PLA and PLA+ or PRO. Especially Esun and overture seems to have a good PLA+ formula.

[@slant3d]

Depends on the manufacturer

[@bernardtarver]

I know some manufacturers/suppliers, like Matterhackers, use the PRO buzzword to express that their filament is made in the US, versus their "standard" filament made elsewhere.

[@davidcastellanos2492]

Esun pla+ is noticeably more durable that regular pla

[@patrickrhoades480]

Esun pla+ and polymaker pla pro is what all the 3d printed gun guys swear by, petg deforms too much, abs is too brittle and high temp. If they want better than pla+ they move to nylons.

[@DKFX1]

@@patrickrhoades480 Most gun printing guys aren't using PLA, but rather Nylon-CF or other more impact resistant materials.. Hoffman sometimes uses Esun PLA+, but its not his preferred material either. Said it's the cheapest filament he uses for 3D guns.

[@GarethMcCumskey]

NFT's are misunderstood and offer no inherent tracking of digital assets. The relationship between NFT's and digital assets is actually the inverse of what most people expect; NFT is just a Non-Fungible Token and the digital asset assigned to it is just a cosmetic representation of that token and inherits no additional properties to itself by being associated with that NFT, the NFT just gets "prettier" and easier to describe

[@bonjipoo]

All the PLA+ and impact PLA I’ve used is quite different to the standard PLA I use. The PLA Pro had significantly weaker layers I noticed. But I’m sure there is a temptation for some companies promote standard PLA as a Plus version to charge a slightly higher price for it.

[@slant3d]

Depends on the manufacturer

[@i_might_be_lying]

About opensource and FreeCAD - I hope that it will become like Linux model: "We all contribute, because we want this tool to work for us".

[@slant3d]

That would be great. But it doesn't really work for the models/parts themselves

[@i_might_be_lying]

@@slant3d for models/parts I don't understand how it even could work, so no surprise there

[@MetalheadAndNerd]

Isn't the Linux model "Some poor guys contribute and big corporations use their work for free to make millions"?

[@RussellNelson]

@@MetalheadAndNerdNo. Big corporations have staff that contribute to Linux development because it creates more value for them than sitting back and waiting for somebody else to write the improvement they need.

[@RussellNelson]

@@i_might_be_lyingLook at, for example, gridfinity. It works there. Maybe it doesn't work for art projects, but for functional items, anybody who needs a slightly different function can use the source of a model so they can change it and publish it for other people to use. Probably 50% of thingiverse models are mods of other open source designs, so it's hard to see any truth in what he's claiming.

[@null2470]

There are sooo many filaments with no TDS or even disclosure of what the actual plastic mix is, let alone the proportions. It's so annoying.

[@malloot9224]

Polymaker Polymax defintly felt super different from normal PLA in my experience

[@Austinfromcorncountry]

Polymaker actually releases material technical data sheets for their filaments so I think you can trust that (at least more than any other company the sells PLA+)

[@g.4279]

Polymaker is very transparent and provides detailed technical data sheets. Their PLA+ and PLA Pro are both different specialty blends that heavily increase impact performance and ductility over standard PLA.

[@BaghaShams]

Polymaker is the most brand-name of all filament companies, so they're not going to screw around with false marketing terms. But the other brands will and do.

[@Max24871]

I thought polymax was polycarbonate (PC)?

[@peircedan]

Open source may not be for everyone but it works fine for hobbyists who are willing to make contributions and improvements. I'm only able to do any 3D modelling and printing as a result of open source. Having said that I'd not expect all companies would want to use that model. I don't envision paying money for 3D designs ever myself. I get my enjoyment from conceiving of a thing and designing it and making it. I will use open source deigns of they are freely given and can save me some time. I have no reservations regarding saving my designs but they are usually fairly simple.

[@MiddletonMade3D]

All I can say about PLA+ is there's definitly a big difference when printing things like firearms that have sharp and large impules and forces. People who stray from PLA+ and use regular PLA often have catastrophic failures.

[@slant3d]

depends on brand

[@oasntet]

Open source isn't really about whether it can be sold. It's about whether it is okay to modify the design to suit a slightly different use-case and publish the changes. You can still charge money for the files. I have several open source applications that I have paid money for. Not on the honor system, but to have use rights for the original version. Also, if your goal is to make the 3d printing ubiquitous and available to all, the open source model is a very cheap way to improve access...

[@ANDELE3025]

In most civilized countries you are perfectly free to modify anything you bought (as, despite claims in void contracts that something gets licenses or leased, most digital content is by legal definition sold goods) and share the modification with a reference to the original (e.g. cad obj, max, blend, etc file of the cuts of modified parts). Practically open source in the digital side is entirely about learning and custom for job fixes, which should be supported (same as file sharing and editing and custom forks when it comes to firmware and slicers) as with it comes improved competition and increased overall baseline quality of every users experience. I mean look at 3d sculpting tools, a small team of gigachads joining blender (and then part leaving after job is done part getting kicked by schizos refusing to fix the interface on the main branch release) made it go from worthless to amazing for simple character sculpts which in turn made Zbrush which didnt see any real changes under three managements in decades actually start updating the default workspace and tools. Plus for the free side plus for the pros.

[@cbgslinger]

Thanks for the useful information on PLA+! Your videos interesting and informative. I appreciate hearing your take on open source, a timely (and controversial) topic for sure. Bambu Lab has certainly stirred the pot in the community. I successfully gambled with a Kickstarter X1 Carbon Combo a year ago and they have delivered the goods, perfect, no, but very impressive. A lot of companies will have to up their game to remain competitive and that is a good thing. I was slow in replacing my aging 3D printer because new bedslingers weren’t really much better than my 5 year old printer at the time. That is changing quickly. Oh the difference a year makes when someone disrupts the status quo! Great channel!

[@Roobotics]

I've gathered quite a collection of filaments and types over time PLA/ABS/TPU/PC/Nylon, and I have to agree that slapping on a + is total marketing BS if there isn't any data behind it. I've never even seen a point in buying anything marketed as such, as the slight change in material properties would be completely dwarfed by the idea of moving to a new material entirely for inherently enhanced toughness. The ones that might be interesting though are the low-warp types for materials that typically are often too tricky due to continuous deformation throughout printing.

[@manningermani]

Your channel is quicly becoming my favorite. I would love to hear some success stories with some companies that are willing to share publicly that they used your services. What company used your printfarm? How many units? Why did they choose 3d printing? What was the part that was printed? What were the feedbacks? I would also be interested in hearing why and how 3d printing can be a better option for mass producing millions of identical units. Is there a scale at which injection molding is still a better option?

[@slant3d]

We have lots of client success stories. Check out the Real 3D Printed Products Series. If the part is designed and the supply chain planned out there is really no volume when 3D Printing cannot be the solution.

[@lucasthompson1650]

Open Source is not about being free as in "beer", it's about being free as in "freedom". Being able to modify/change what you want about a product, adding features, and being able to integrate changes others have contributed. This is what the 3D printing industry can't seem to get their heads around... it's not about having a zero on your price tag. Yes, Linux is Open Source, but a license for RedHat Enterprise Linux [or whatever it's called now] is freaking expensive. And as far as no great products being Open Source? Are you not on "the internet"? What about HTTP? Or the Apache web server, or NGINX, NodeJS, PHP, BIND DNS server, etc... the Internet would not exist if not for hundreds of extremely well-maintained open and free software packages and protocols. Open Source works, and, I'm sorry, but although we can explain it for you... we can't understand it for you. Maybe try again, starting with the Wikipedia page?

[@malloot9224]

opensource seems to work for 3d printing software as well, klipper, most slicers, etc etx all seem pretty healthy to me. For hardware it simply does not end up like a fair and succesfull open ecosystem in most cases, maybe Voron but calling that open source when its extremely hard to even get your designs accepted into their models without doing a ton of social engineering.

[@KevinLemarchand]

A ton of social engineering? What do you mean? To get a mod published on their GitHub? I'm not so sure that open-source software are more "healty" than hardware. Software like PrusaSlicer, Cura that are maintained by a company are fine but for the rest, their financial survival really relies on donations and partnerships with big brand. There is an interesting Meltzone podcast, the last one, on that topic with the curator of Marlin. And for the open-source hardware it's even harder if you want to commercial it. Because one side having a production line and employees costs more than making a software. And on the other side, everyone else (especially china) could potentially do it cheaper. Since Bambulab, a lot of things are moving for sure. I'm not sure that brands like Prusa can keep up in their price segmentation. They didn't release the MK4 files yet! I don't think Bambulab is even worried by Prusa printers. They are in an price war with Creality. They just release the p1s in response to the k1. Will Creality keep up? They still have to deliver the Max with the LiDAR and bambulad as already a x1s and x1e ready... And on the other hand Creality uses klipper for their k1 and didn't release the code (yet I hope so). And about the bambulab firmware, it's really original? How to know if they didn't use klipper or other open-source libraries?

[@malloot9224]

@@KevinLemarchand try to make a change to the official voron designs, that's more difficult then doing a pull request to the Linux kernel and getting it accepted. Says a lot about how "open" voron is. It's open as in they share what they make, not as in we make and we share.

[@KevinLemarchand]

@@malloot9224I do understand your point of view. I never tried to PR on their github. But I assume it's more difficult and time consuming to validate a PR on a step file than a code file. And testing them takes time depending on what's changed. Also I think they preferred to push mods than adaptations on the official release. Because they don't want to have new releases every 6 months, so the kits don't need to be updated all the time. It's a strategy of diffusion imo. But you're right, official releases are made by a handful of selected people. But that doesn't bother me at all.

[@chasedown26]

When will voxel have other filament types available?

[@ulamss5]

Sorry, how would NFTs help with preventing piracy? Unless you built some closed-sourced 3d format and software and slicer and somehow convinced a lot of people to use it? In which case the NFT wouldn't be functionally essential either. It's just traditional DRM.

[@doodle4532]

Does the api give a quote if you scale to say 10000 units on price. Im trying to prep a sales pitch and need general quote. Does the price scale linearly or should i expect a price cut per part. A video on pricing would be amazing. I could always have your pricing for quoting people that are curious.

[@slant3d]

The API is designed for print on demand only. In order to get quotes for large volumes you can send the file through our quoting form for the team to review to make sure pricing and design are as optimized as possible which is super important to large scale manufacturing

[@jabberwocktechnologies]

Yah, PLA+ is not at all standardized. My favorite filaments are all PLA+ or tough PLA. They can be superb, but figuring out which brands are good continues to be a royal pain.

[@slant3d]

Exactly

[@WRZ_450]

I was too late to join the Kickstarter :-( Is there anywhere else I can find/buy that model?

[@SianaGearz]

There are various different uses of open source. Open source software - thousands of projects - are the foundation of the Internet. Not all of them are company backed. While Linux is benevolent dictator governed who doesn't report to anyone, the vast majority of key work there is performed by thousands of businesses including a few heavyweights like Red Hat, hardware companies, hosting/cloud companies, according to their interests, and if these proposed contributions are deemed acceptable by Linus, they go in. These businesses all need a common platform, an infrastructure, that works, and they place their trust in the good judgement of the maintainer. So this is actually a good example of symbiosis between business backing and community interests. Traditionally, open source electronics doesn't quite work that way, not the same goals and outcomes, as hardware isn't quite so replaceable and has an update/iteration cost to it; however it does enable repair and modification and gives the buyers of the hardware an ultimate level of ownership, just like open source software gives the users an ultimate level of ownership. And yet all the 3D printers most of us use and you use are RepRap descendents - it wouldn't have been possible without open source. The ability to just throw together a RAMPS or have it made and not be dependent on single suppliers has kickstarted all this. In turn this leveraged Arduino, itself an open-source product which would have likely withered away like any number of beginner friendly microcontroller boards had it not been open source and allowed copying and adaptation. Does anyone even remember the BASIC Stamp, or whatever weird stuff Conrad made, C/Control or something? Open source physical/mechanical hardware is yet another can of beans. You never downloaded a SCAD file and customised it? Or modded someone else's STL? Of course you did. Again, the way you got an early 3D printer is by someone printing you the files. I have seen people pick up someone else's robot arm project or somesuch and contribute to it, don't remember examples. I think you have a slightly skewed view... in that you see a lot of open source endeavours in the physical realm go wrong or go nowhere and get abandoned. The same happens with software, most projects are abandoned. What matters is not what didn't work out, but what did and ended up contributing to the world. There are more successful community driven open source projects than you might be thinking of. Is Inkscape backed by a company? GIMP? Blender is a weird case, it's backed by a foundation and people pay the foundation to develop the software, but people trust the software that it's going to be around and they can keep using it because it's open source, the foundation does hire community members, and there are full forks which have different goals and approaches which are completely independent. Sometimes business backing of open source software goes wrong, like in case of OpenOffice, with a community of contributors splitting off to form LibreOffice instead. Granted a lot of these aren't the best software in the world, but by being accessible to everyone, it is uniquely useful, and has made the world a better place. Reprap printers like your own farm ones aren't exactly Stratasys killers either, but they matter. Granted if you don't feel like open sourcing your models makes sense, i suppose you're right. I do wish a lot of ecosystems around open source projects worked better to support the creators, there are glaring unsolved problems all over the place there. I worked on a massive open source project and it was madness and it pretty much broke me, and i never got much money from it, while there were literal hundreds of millions spent and made using that software, which is just madness that people aren't willing to divert like 0.05% of their related revenue to support their devs. Big pain, can not really encourage anyone else to walk the same path. But like democracy isn't perfect either, nor is capitalism, nor is socialism, and yet you can't just declare that these "have failed, do not work, return to mon -ke- archy". We need to see the fundamentally good in things and push and weave them into something that DOES work.

[@Austinfromcorncountry]

I really wish all filament manufacturers would at least publish tensile, impact, and heat deflection data so we could decimate the properties of one PLA or PLA+ from another.

[@monkeywrench1951]

There should be some way of automatically licensing designs for 3D printing. For example, etsy sellers should be able to print someone else’s file that is automatically licensed for a small royalty. It wouldn’t be a difference if that person has their shop connected to Slant3D and delivers the printed designa through you for example. They would be able to bundle the licensed designs with their own.

[@aware2action]

Bambu Labs Digital Design Marketplace coming soon....😊 Anyone can 3d print, sell their gcode with limited usage rights, print available designs for a small fee, or just be part of the market fulfillment for local delivery. Catch is, you need a Bambu Labs printer, and also need a rfid tagged Bambu Labs filament. Just some predictions or crazy 💭❤👍

[@typeaboutit]

I use white overture pla plus. It is way better and more durable than standard pla. I've done 100's of prints in this.

[@slant3d]

Depends on the manufactuer. Pla+ is not the same everywhere

[@nickrudd2568]

Im only a hobbyist, Ive got two rolls of PLA+ from two manufactures, Dont try printing sharp corners fast with it. I get zero problems with PLA, but add the + to it and its a pain in the butt. Its like the material separates because the retractions to high or the flows to low.... but no, Its speed, 70mms is way to high, It needs 40mms and the flow upping 5% just to get a complete corner, but forget sharp square, Or keeping a hole the right size. I think the + means more hassle.

[@GeorgeGraves]

I'm not even mad, I'm impressed. You spent the first 5 mins saying the same thing about 50 different ways. As far as open source - oh LOL - at least I got a laugh.

[@AerialWaviator]

Open-Source Design is more Collaborative Design by a community (or design by committee) with a common interest, and various design skill levels. All successful open-source projects share a common trait it they are too complex for a single designer to create, and have a design that has to evolve over time. It works for software development as tools for collaborate design exist. The design evolves where there is community interest, and dies where interest lacks, or fades. With software there is much less cost of distributing software hat has extra baggage, or weak/broken components included in the design if they are not often used. With physical products, the extra poor design baggage becomes wasted physical material, and/or potential failure point(s) to a the good parts of the design. Open-Source as a distribution channel only tends to fail, as support for continued work on design and maintenance will fade off. It's most true of simple, or single component designs. This is because there is little (or no) reward for those contributing to the design. Not to overlook human nature, as everyone is attracted to new and interesting designs, but few people like to fix poor, or bad (elements of) designs. Lack of reward for contribution leads to the open-sourced design being branched as contributors begin hoarding their branch of contributions. Longer term open source projects tend to have a conceived a mechanism of rewarding contributors that may not be obvious all those accessing the open-source design. Branches to the design also need a reward system, or they will become isolated, or die. There is also the issue of different interests wanting to drive a open source design in different directions. This becomes more an issue the bigger, or longer an design exists in the wild as open source. The tendency is to branch the design. A better approach to community design is making making projects modular, or creating a layer approach to design (like an onion, or an inverted pyramid). In software, a good example in Linux where there is a core kernel than only a few have access too and any changes are reviewed and verified before new editions published. Higher/outer layers of Linux allow increasing more public access. This greatly helps maintain the quality and reliability of the overall design. Many higher layers (open and closed) can build on top of this reliable core quality. Key to a layered design is having great interfaces, plug-in ability, or attachment points. This works well for more complex designs with many components, but fails with simpler, or single component designs. An example of shared design exists among animal lovers, where breeds of animals (birds, cats, dogs, etc) are shown, judged and recognized by characteristics of a living design. There are controls managed by a core group (breeders) that are approved to replicate particular designs. This involves certification, which adds a layer of logistics and cost. For complex designs, controls on a design can ensure reliable quality, but would add excess cost to simple design, without added value. For 3d-print designers of higher quality designs, a replication facility like Slant 3D can offer public access to a design without making the raw design (IP) public. Designers and their clients can be assured of manufacturing quality and value delivered in the produced components.

[@loicloic7018]

That mic looks very crisp.... and in focus!

[@chrishead2391]

Why KickStarter? Sell them on all the other outlets if the project is complete.

[@slant3d]

Because we will start doing larger projects that are not fully complete. Like functional collections for a house. This one is really a test of the general concept where the customers have a guarantee and we can gauge interest in the idea in general.

[@Rampamrampapapapam]

One time I bought something that might be called PLA MINUS Though it was some mix, probably containing some amount of PLA, maybe at a level that could be called "contaminated with PLA" :D. It acted more like a mixture of PLA and wax. From my rough tests, the difference between Vicat temperature and melting temperature was negligibly small. And the striiiiiiiiiinging... But the speed it could be melted and deposited by regular 40W reprap extruder, was impressive. Twice as normal without much hassle. Prototyping with this strange material was rapid.

[@riba2233]

why did your kickstarter fail?

[@davebarkerdesign]

thanks for the info...always thought it was a tougher PLA

[@lajoyalobos2009]

I kid you not, there was a PLA+ somewhere on Amazon that stated the "+" meant you get more filament for your money.

[@slant3d]

Exactly! Another example.

[@user-sx2lv2mx6t]

good point on, 'I can't eat from hearts on my print that I released'. I also am not going to switch to building shit professionally since I put food on the table from my day job. thanks for bit on pla+ as well, bit of an eye opener

[@tsstn]

THANKS FOR ALWAYS HAVING TOP NOTCH INFO AND IDEAS TO SHARE.

[@slant3d]

Thanks for watching

[@tsstn]

@slant3d This channel has become my main news feed for what I am working toward. Your ideas and goals are right in line with my own. Thanks for taking the time to put these videos out. I know it doesn't happen in a minute. Your time and efforts are very much appreciated. I look forward to buying filament as soon as it is available. And I want to look into utilizing your print farm to handle some products I am running out of time to produce with limited resources at work.

[@MavnJeff]

The question that comes to my minds whenever I see PLA+ is.... PLA+ what? Is it PLA + ABS? Is it PLA + TPU? What is added to the PLA to get to PLA+ ?

[@jeffreytackett3922]

I've been running operations for various companies on open source software for two decades. I've implemented open source phone systems, voicemail systems, monitoring systems, etc., etc. Open source has saved these organizations hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in the long run. It is a bit difficult to stomach the idea that it "doesn't work", because Captain Hoozitz the 3D printing guy decided it.

[@slant3d]

It works fine in software. Kind of failed in hardware.

[@TS_Mind_Swept]

I mean, as long as you're not paying significantly more than you would be paying for a normal pla, I don't see the problem 🤷🏿‍♀️ definitely worth keeping an eye out for if you're actually looking for a better product though

[@randomviewer896]

The other thing to keep in mind for opensource physical products is that it is basically impossible for a consumer to edit the designs for free. If you distribute the CAD files then in order to edit them as a consumer you have to install Fusion 360 or Solidworks to just get started modifying it. Contrast that with any opensource Arduino library, where (assuming it's not insanely complex) the end tinkerer can just open it up and start poking at it, provided they have the hardware to upload it to. This is all without needing to install tens of gigabytes of software and agree to really cryptic licensing terms like with CAD files.

[@SianaGearz]

This is why early 3D printers were all OpenSCAD designs. Prusa MK3 is OpenSCAD for 3D printed parts as well. Small and simple open source toolchain that is very in line with software developer's skillset and thinking. Prusa Mini is a Solidworks design instead. The toolset of FreeCAD is actually quite exciting, even though the usability of the software has massive issues, BUT they are gradually making it less terrible.

[@peircedan]

@@SianaGearz OpenSCAD works well for sharing designs and since the file format is a text file it works well with Git version control. I use OpenSCAD for all my parts.

[@gedr7664]

i wonder if you have plans to expand to the UK or if you know any similar companies like Slant here?

[@slant3d]

We do intend to have international factories in the near future.

[@punkreeperful]

Maybe a video comparing PLA to PLA"+" company to company

[@MrHeHim]

I've noticed PLA quality dropped when "PLA+" came out a few years ago 😅

[@MikeGaruccio]

Ok so I’m not saying your wrong about the viability of open source in 3d modeling,or that it’s right for you guys, but, saying that linux is some exception in open source is a bit disingenuous. First of all “Linux” is a pile of hundreds of open source projects, with the Linux kernel being just one of them and with hobbyists maintaining the majority of the other libraries and other components(the timekeeping software for the entire world is effectively maintained by one person). You’re also ignoring the work happening in places like the Apache foundation where tons of core tech is getting built. Maybe most relevantly comparable to open-source models being released by hobbyists- you’re ignoring the entire web development ecosystem, there’s millions of OSS packages maintained by a single individual or small group of part time devs that are then used by huge swathes of the internet. (Google “left-pad” for an example of this going wrong, but that only proves how commonplace it is). In most cases this is being done because they’re projects someone would be doing anyway to learn or satisfy some need they have, and by sharing them they act as a resume/career networking tool. No idea if that same dynamic can or should exist outside of the software world, but while linux is special because it’s so broadly used it’s certainly not unique and there are a number of models that make OSS work in software, both as a hobby and as a business and it’s not fair to the rest of that community to act like they don’t exist, especially in the same video where you talk about the software your building that nearly certainly uses dozens or hundreds of open source components.

[@cparrapa]

Never say never, it does exist, examples in hardware Arduino, Adafruit, Sparkfun, Makeblock, Otto DIY... It is true the lack of good contributions deflates the original creators. Agree the 3D printing industry specifically thanks to Prusa was the hope that the system could work in a sustainable high quality company but it was working and they sre adjusting it to the current statee in the world, unfortunately the war turn out very uneven for them, competing with closed source company that just fish your design. Good point on how opensource hardware is viewed as something cheap because is mainly hobbyist In the case of redhat hasn't been working fully neither.Is it a contribution too the world when you are selling it? 😅

[@glenncol]

Wonder how many times we can say UMM

[@Enjoymentboy]

The only pla+ I've used that I found was actually different than other pla I've used was duramic 3d. I really like their black pla+. I found it is stiffer and stronger but this may just be my imagination. I do really like the way it prints out and the finish is really pleasant. I use it for things like tools and brackets.

[@slant3d]

True PLA+ (Ingeo 850 and comparable materials) is a good option for functional. It was intended as a PLA abs replacement

[@MisterkeTube]

What a weird rant and mindset on open source... Whether or not something gets updated or not is totally not linked to whether it is open source or not. Just look at Prusaslicer & Cura (both open source) vs. Simplify3d (not open source and not updated for years). And others using the open source stuff is the intention, BUT those others should then also stick to the license. That said: enforcing that is as "simple' as enforcing a patent, just not as lucrative. Adding infringement cost clauses to open source licenses could make such litigation more lucrative and as such dissuade companies like Creality from ex. breaking the GPLv3 license of Klipper. Technical/functional designs could also be published under a similar open source license requiring the innovative part may only be used if the entire assembly it is used in would adhere to the same license (and again add infringement cost clauses to make litigation against companies not doing this is lucrative). Clearly documenting that innovative part similar to what you would do for a patent, would be critical to ensure any litigation would stick, but it could offer an alternative to patents without the initial cost.

[@RussellNelson]

"infringement cost clauses". Register your copyright. Then, you can sue for treble damages over and above what the law allows.

[@MisterkeTube]

@@RussellNelson But if it is open source, when an infringement would be brought to court, then you will likely win the case (copyright or not), but that same court would then likely force the infringing party to adhere to the license and best case have then pay for legal costs. As the thing is open source the assessment of the damages to be paid would end up being very low and hence any open source advocate taking a company to court will run the risk of making costs every time when a company like Creality breaks the license and has to be taken to court. If the license would clearly identify the cost for infringement of the license per day of non-compliance (and what party those should be paid to), the damages awarded in court can be much higher and hence also be more of an incentive for companies to comply from the start ... Now they don't risk much when breaking the license, so the cost of that needs to be increased.

[@creepinonthebabes]

sunlu pla+ works for me.

[@jcook6561]

Filacube pla + is the truth super strong.

[@mrfawkes9110]

More accurately not all PLA+ is anything more. If you think PLA+ is a sham I challenge you to print a firearm with eSun's PLA and PLA+ and see how many rounds you can get through both. Just do yourself a favor and fire the standard PLA with a gun vice because it WILL disassemble in your hand in use, possibly violently, in the first thousand rounds. The PLA+ print however will survive thousands of rounds, and when it eventually does fail it will likely be in a non-critical location. Some PLA+ is absolutely different, PolyMaker's PolyLite PLA Pro and eSun PLA+ are two that I can personally speak for. Some is absolutely not, I don't personally have any experience with any of these but the nature of any industry is that a certain percent of the market will lie about the product they sell. "Open source has never truly existed or ever truly been effective" Shit like this makes me think you really don't know what you're talking about, there's a successful open source physical object project in the fucking frame while you said that.

[@PatFarrellKTM]

You talk about the learning curve of running a 3D printer. Its clear that using a modeling package like Fusion 360 has a wicked steep learning curve. Linus' GIT, sigh. Its not designed to share designs/code, its the tool that Linus wrote to limit what code he has to accept into the Linux kernel. Sure, you can do collaborative projects and share source code, but it not only has a learning curve, but its philosophy is not about sharing.

[@patrickwasp]

AI will soon make model and part design nearly fully automatic. The only reason you would pay someone to make something for you is because you like them, and then only for art.

[@dsp4392]

"Open-Source Doesn't Work" says the guy who has benefitted immensely from open source. Not everything should be judged by its ability to generate money. Open source has never been about running businesses. It's about making sure that whoever wants to thinker with an end product, be it software or hardware, can. Open source puts the product above the business. The product is the end goal, not the business. And in that regard, it absolutely works. A small business might die because it releases everything it does as open source and gets all its IPs stolen, but the end goal is still met. The consumers are still free to thinker with the products. In some ways, it is a better outcome, because the products of a failed closed-source business will die with the business, never to be maintained or used ever again (outside of reverse-engineering of course).

[@marcus3d]

Yes. As a consumer I'm much more comfortable in buying open sourced things, including hardware, because even if the company makes out of business or decides to stop developing the product, there's a high chance that others will continue it, or at least make compatible parts. I don't want to lock myself into some system that's completely controlled by a single company that might go a different route than I want. I need the ability to get mods or upgrades for the path I want to take.

[@5265060]

PLA+ definitely means the difference between a successful FGC9 or macdaddy and hurting your hands. This seemed more of a rant over customers ignorance when requesting quotes

[@luke_fabis]

Desktop Metal, 3D Systems, Stratasys, and Nano Dimension control the overwhelming majority of 3D printing technologies out there. It's not all FDM. They're not all the same thing. And if they continue to merge and coalesce, you'll have an oligopoly controlling the future of advanced manufacturing across nearly every industry. There's a lot to care about here.

[@chrisdixon5241]

Love what you guys are doing and appreciate your efforts to improve the world of 3D printing! I totally agree that "open source" doesn't really make sense in the context of 3D printing. Perhaps the Creative Commons style licenses are a better fit - use, improve, remix and contribute back as a community, pay me for my work if you want to mass produce it as a business? Though it still suffers from the cost of trying to take the companies to court to enforce it. By the way, did you mention your squirt gun? I may have missed it :D

[@frankbauerful]

Last time I bought PLA+ was because it was the cheapest option.

[@slant3d]

Which is off for a + product

[@Spiderslay3r]

You can't just "depends on the manufacturer" people disagreeing. Your title says "PLA+ IS A SHAM", not "PLA+ COULD POSSIBLY BE A SHAM DEPENDING ON THE BRAND"

[@slant3d]

PLA+ is a useless term that means nothing universally. Some manufacturers actually do make it special but don't define it.

[@t.m.breuel2670]

Open source (or rather creative commons) works fine for 3d printing: with open source libraries, people reuse and adapt with attribution. Releasing models for pay in the knowing that they will be pirated deprives you of both the revenue and the reputation. Of course, someone's Fusion 360 models or STL files are not that useful. So, releasing your models may not be a successful strategy for you. But design for 3D printing will be increasingly driven by source code and AI. Knowledge of mechanical design and properties will become less and less important. Better prepare for that world.

[@rexxx927]

for that matter then EZ PC is the same boat and many others as you said TDS may only tell you so much and pc is pc as is pla nothing more with the exception of additives

[@b1tw0nder]

funny. esun clear glass PLA is truly the clearest of the line. and its not PLA+ or PLA pro!!! not yellow like you are saying.

[@JoseAguiloworkshops]

Sorry I'm not 100% with you on this one. Yes, there's a big difference, but not all pla+ are the same. Sunlu and polymaker pla+ are stronger that regular pla. I made test prints. I print more than 40 samples of the same. And yes there is difference.

[@slant3d]

Sometimes. But it is mainly a brand/marketing term that often has little technical justification

[@RussellNelson]

Yes, that's all that@@slant3d is saying -- that some pla+ is stronger. Some pla+ is weaker. You have no idea because it's not a specification, it's a marketing term.

[@542aj]

Hmm. I think polylite pla pro would disagree. You ever broken the parts next to each other, pla plus/pro nears the durability of petg. Takes 4 walls or more to have equivalent strength to one wall with pla pro/plus. There is an open playing field on additives such as polycarbonate. Most manufacturers don't want to give up their secrets, any others that don't perform may just be scamming you, sure. Buy a reputable pla pro/plus and wow, it means not always having to print petg for indoor items that won't be exposed to much sun or elements.. It is still a biodegradable base material after all. So many variations of pla these days and I'm sure many of them are beyond the scope of this single video claim. It would be nice to hear specifics, show some data. Prove it with some printed examples. Just repeating that pla plus doesn't actually have any difference to regular pla is seemingly arrogant.

[@542aj]

Straight from Google: Most PLA+ materials are to increase the strength of the standard PLA, and while many companies keep that formula confidential, it's usually a PLA and polycarbonate fortification. PLA PRO is a PLA that undergoes special tolerances to make sure the material is unilaterally 1.75 give or take. Just be aware of what you are purchasing and how that material should be utilized.

[@unity3938]

I can agree and disagree with your views on pla+. I have no idea what goes into pla to make it "+" and I know that it's likely different for each manufacturer but I do know that pla+ is more ductile than regular pla. Whether it's quality, material blends or just branding I can't really argue with the results I get.

[@slant3d]

Depends on the manufacturer

[@SeanLumly]

Open source means source that is open. Period. There are typically things people attach to it, including the personalities of people behind it, types or number of projects associated with it, the sources of funding, etc, etc, but these are an attempt at stereo-typing. It's like trying to narrow a gay person into a bucket of characteristics, or a vegan, or a capitalist. It's an attempt to oversimplify something in an attempt to understand it, often to promote another, opposing idea. Open source does work. Science is based on it (or rather its defining characteristic is based on science). The internet is based on it. The vast majority of OSs (even the closed ones) are based upon it. Literally every computer language is based on it. It further can be added that the underpinnings of modern human life is based on equivalent principles. Regardless of the source of funding, or the number of apps it has, etc, its underlying DNA has proven itself over millennia, and has shown no sign of going away in this modern era. Sorry, I full-heartedly disagree.

[@slant3d]

Open source and successful does not equal free

[@SeanLumly]

@@slant3d You've introduced a red herring, but I'll bite. What *_is_* free?! What does "free" mean? Open source defines "free" explicitly in terms of use and sharing and lack of a market cost (eg. libre and gratis), to which it contractually fulfills. But if you're attaching some measure of wealth consumed in its application, then I would say that OSS doesn't make such claims, and further it can be argued given this proposition that NOTHING is "free." There is an cost (opportunity, consequence, or transfer) in anything that is done by human or bacterium. OSS lack of freedom, under this restrictive proposition, is not a slight against OSS, but merely a commentary on existence. To derive a more useful concept of "cost" definitions of higher precision need to be established for the argument.

[@JessePike5]

+

[@Dante-420]

If the models arent free for me to study, modify, and redistribute, they're not better than something I buy off the shelf. In fact they're worse, because I can in fact study, modify, and redistribute things I buy off of shelves. Open source may not work for YOU as an individual or business owner, but you are not the center of the universe to be able to say that "open source doesnt work", especially with the multitude of evidence to the contrary (like reprap and the 3d printing community... Duh)

[@tballew]

Maybe try making something more complicated than a cup before completely writing off open source hardware.

[@TheInfoPlace]

Glad you touched lightly on the nft subject. Nft as a tracker of 3d objects is definitely the future of 3d models. Data truly attached to objects. And easier way to compensate creators automatically.

[@kurtnelle]

So it's PLA+ bullshit. I'm gonna stick to my petg forever.

[@slant3d]

Depends on the manufacturer

[@kurtnelle]

@@slant3d I used to think it was some new formula of PLA not marketing BS. I am going to be a lot more weary now.

[@CandidProle]

Swing and a miss on this one

[@slant3d]

In what regard

[@CandidProle]

​@@slant3dyour takes on open source are the same old arguments that have been repeated for decades. Open source software/hardware is always better than proprietary garbage.

[@steveorevo]

@@slant3dI wouldn’t agree with the comment “always”; but the most profitable SaaS companies are built on top of it. Even Apple’s (Darwin) and Microsoft’s (Azure data centers) great comeback is based on it. On the flip side, RedHat is in hot water for failing at FOSS as of late (see latest news). Turns out that the most successful companies actually know how to embrace and deliver SaaS on FOSS (not just Linux, we’re talking frameworks, languages, protocols, furnishing transparency, security to scratch the surface). Of coarse what gets most people up in arms is what you did NOT specifically say (riprap) or mean (?); you’re referring to 3D printing (open source *hardware* vs *software*) hasn’t proven to be as noteworthy but ripe with controversy. It might have been clearer by just citing how various companies violated GPL on the way to the bank. Funny thing, none of the violators are profiting as well as PRUSA. The violators clearly know as much about profitability as they do about open source. I guess they’re not the only ones that just don’t get it. 😂😂😂

[@RussellNelson]

@@CandidProleThat's not always true. I know people who have used Photoshop and the GIMP and they say that the GIMP is missing useful features.

[@crazydeathcar]

no one is ever done being a shill.

[@slant3d]

Gotta pay the bils

[@crazydeathcar]

@@slant3d If you're ever in Salt Lake city be sure to call TurnersAuto repair for all your auto repair needs.

[@LilApe]

Anything labeled PLA+ is less stiff and less rigid than regular PLA.

[@RussellNelson]

Maybe. Maybe not. You don't know just from the name.

[@Jkauppa]

well your business stops when none buys, so you dont work, by your own definition, rip finally

[@slant3d]

Huh?

[@Jkauppa]

@@slant3d yep economy rule of law kings money is stupid, be shamed publicly, under your own trust fund

[@Jkauppa]

@@slant3d why would anyone participate in your sin alongside with you, people owned by people, shame shame shame, by-through law, the kings that never would-should be put in place by agreement to give your power to the beast

[@Jkauppa]

@@slant3d yep gov is the beast, through the law which you rely/depend/hang-on/use

[@Jkauppa]

@@slant3d cant serve you

[@qsa6089]

The Point of open source is, that not one single company can control the market and that new companys have a chance. Marlin and Klipper are open source and the 3d community are saying open source is failing. look at your printer, without open source its simply not working. please dont copy the same stupid talks like too much other 3d printing youtuber with Clickbaiting

[@arthurdiamondhands474]

bro literally, why don't you just make 3d printer filament? like as a career,

[@slant3d]

Doing it

[@5265060]

bad take, open source is the only way,

[@1PercentPure]

you should talk a bit about generative AI and auto-generating CAD models arxiv.org/pdf/2307.03869.pdf