Comment by MBCook
17 hours ago
What’s wrong with not using the community model for their internal tests? I’m sure they have a good reason. It can’t possibly be just NIH.
Yeah they’re focusing on their filaments but that’s their product. It would be weird if they didn’t start there. Plus they’re working with the open filament database that as established to go with the open source NFC tags they cooperated with other companies on. That seems sand too.
Ok they’ve only done PLA so far, is that such a big deal? This is an announcement not a release. They’re still working on all of it.
And it seemed to me like they did a great job giving the community credit in the post. They made it clear it all came from the community, including the entire idea, and they’re building on that and giving back.
> What’s wrong with not using the community model for their internal tests? I’m sure they have a good reason. It can’t possibly be just NIH
The problem with their models is that it's a cone shape. The angle is fixed.
The community models are domed so you can see the effect at different angles.
> Plus they’re working with the open filament database that as established to go with the open source NFC tags they cooperated with other companies on.
Right, but they're steering people back their sources when the community sites have more user-submitted coverage and it's what we've all been using successfully already.
I probably shouldn't have said anything given the topic and the audience. I know they gave some credit, but there's a long history in the 3D printing world of this stuff happening.
Yeah the dome gives you more angles. That may be the problem. If you’re testing a color mixing algorithm and measuring the output a larger surface at a single angle is probably much easier to measure constantly with colorimeters. If you can’t predict one angle accurately how will you predict others?
That’s just a guess. I’m sure there’s a reason.