Brian. To be sure, 3D's SLA machines (even their least expensive modelers) are much more accurate than Stratasys's machines. For accuracy and tooling the 3D laser-based systems steal the show. However, as you know, this accuracy has a much higher cost and the SLA machines are less suitable for those white collar office buildings where engineers usually work. Faced with the superior accuracy of 3D's SLA machines, Stratasys settled for a niche as an office based concept modeler. IMHO, not many engineers would chose Stratasys' machines to create a master copy for tooling since CNC machines and SLA machines have greater accuracy (when needed).
From what I have learned, 3D's Actua 2100 is much less accurate than even Stratasys' new Genesys basic modeler. The Actua 2100 also takes up 4 times more space than Stratasys' machine. (To me, the Actua looks like a hollow box.) I would like to emphasize the need today for durable modeling materials. Wax type models for the most part leave little to be desired and even Stratasys' sales suffered until they began offering more durable modeling materials.
Many analysts think that 3D and Stratasys are direct competitors. I believe they primarily serve separate niches in the same field, prototyping. It wasn't until 3D came out with the Actua Modeler that a competitive challenge began. Since Stratasys is probably developing modelers that will use METAL, 3D systems is now faced with maintaining R&D on three different technology platforms, laser systems, wax extruding systems, and metal extruding systems . The much higher R&D needed to support the additional platforms would likely deteriorate the profitability of 3D and would also create a loss of focus.
Just my 2 cents. Brian, I would be pleased to hear about your experience with the Actua modeler.
Regards,
David
|
