Using wireframe printing, models can be made faster and more cheaply in low-resolution before investing in hi-res prints.
A collaboration between Hasso Plattner Institute and Cornell University has produced a new step in the 3D-printing workflow. Typically, 3D models go directly from virtual space to physical space in high resolution. This takes quite a long time and requires greater expense in plastic filament, especially if the object will be refined and reprinted multiple times.
With this new workflow, multiple lo-res wireframe prints can give the designer a fast and cheap method of envisioning the object in actual space. No details on when or if the software will be available for download, but I’d love to get a copy and see what it can do.
A quick previsualization of what a deliberation map may look like as a viewer scrubs through the timeline.
One of the projects I’m most excited about is the Deliberation Mapping project. The general idea is to create a new interface and toolset for professors and students to engage in an online discussion or deliberation in a way that more closely resembles the non-linearity of in-person discussions.
Online conversation, in its currently widespread adopted form (with occasional variation) is a linear stacked-reply system. Think your average comment system. Or Facebook. Each thread is placed below the previous based solely on a time hierarchy, with little control given to the participants for shaping the discussion. Every reply is given the same weight as every previous reply. Some commenting systems allow for crowd-sourced relevancy triggers such as the Like button or Up/Downvote button. This works well in terms of allowing a participant to see what posts are most preferred by the participants, but it doesn’t necessarily allow for the original poster to determine which posts are most relevant to the original thought. Thread hijacking can occur frequently where a troll can derail the conversation just for fun.
What we’re looking to do is to give both the students and professor a time-based non-linear deliberation map of a conversation. Instead of linear threads, we use nodes. This allows for multi-dimensional replies and cross references. For example, in an in-person conversation with a group you’d listen to multiple comments then reply to all of them at once. With existing online discussion tools, you’re frequently limited to replying to one person at a time. Our system will allow multi-threaded discussion with a clean and humane interface, with additional controls given to the professor to shape the conversation, that is, highlight relevant threads, gray out dead-ends, or draw links between nodes.
We’re still in the early stages of planning the interface. My goal as the interface designer is to remove the awareness of technology from the user experience. Online brainstorming tools exist, but they’re clunky and difficult to maneuver in, they don’t allow fluid transition between micr and macro views, and worst of all they’re ugly as heck. I’ll update our progress in more posts as we move forward.
Star Trek made us think that the advent and widespread consumer adoption of 3D printers would soon have us calling out, “Tea, Earl Gray, hot” and like magic the item appears. Unfortunately, the current state of the technology is far from magic. They’re clunky, complicated to operate, difficult to calibrate, and are constantly requiring fixing or tweaking to keep them running smoothly. Occasionally, things go well, and while many manufacturers are coming closer to the holy-grail of the 3D-printer-as-appliance, more often as not you’ll end up fiddling with something on the machine when things start to go bad. You’re also limited by two other factors: material and accuracy.
While industrial machines are close to being able to print fantastic things like human organs, consumer printers are usually relegated to plastic: either ABS (think LEGO bricks) or PLA. PLA is becoming the dominant material for consumer machines because it doesn’t require a heated build platform to prevent warping (ABS suffers from temperature differentials while cooling, causing lower layers to shrink more quickly while upper layers are still warm, curling edges). It’s also biodegradable and made from plants, so it’s more eco-friendly.
3D printers work through a process called fused-deposit modeling (FDM). Plastic filament is heated and then extruded through a nozzle in little spaghetti-like threads, building up forms layer by layer. The smaller the distance between layers, the smoother the surface appears.
Example of layer heights
Accuracy isn’t much of an issue for the typical hobbyist, it doesn’t really matter if you’re only downloading open-source models from the internet and printing iPhone cases and Yoda heads. It begins to matter, however when you consider the educational uses of 3D printers.
More and more institutions are 3D scanning their artifacts and making the models available for download. Consider the Taung Child Skull. The ability to examine this artifact in all likelihood would be out of reach for the average student. However, if your school has a 3D printer, you could download the model and print it for yourself, making the unreachable tangible. The accuracy of your print, however, is limited to the accuracy and resolution of your printer. Below, you can see the result of my attempt to print the skull on a 3D printer I built from a kit. Even without looking too closely, the coarse lines are highly visible.
During my Student Innovation Fellowship, one of my long-term goals is to explore and understand the limitations and capabilities of consumer 3D printers. Through understanding, 3D printers no longer seem like magic, and instead become useful learning tools.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. – Arthur C. Clarke
