David-
Tooling shmooling, lets talk office. (I would put a little grin character here but I hate cutesy online stuff) What do you want out of an office machine? Something that looks good, is accurate, acts like your product, and is fast and cheap. My point is that both Actua and FDM have 3 out of 5 in their favor (Actua: looks good, fast, cheap; FDM/Genesys: accurate, acts like, cheap), but that Actua has more potential to get 5 out of 5.
People who are buying a machine now will have to weigh Actua's speed vs. FDM's better material properties (as I stated in my last post, accuracy comparisons are not as cut and dry as you might think). So for the present the advantage is in FDM's favor just because it's been around a year or two.
In the future, Actua will get better materials (I know they are in development) and can get more accurate as the print head is enlarged. As Actua starts getting closer to 5 out of 5 FDM will lose market share.
Why doesn't FDM do the same thing? Because FDM uses a single orifice, expanding the print head is not possible. They are limited in speed because the print head must move over every single point in the part volume (and that takes a long time). Build speed also limits the accuracy and surface finish improvements that are possible because both of those necessitate a smaller orifice, which means a longer build time.
What I have been trying to say is not that FDM is a shoddy product and that Actua is the best. I have been trying to explain why I think that the Actua technology has much more potential for real improvement than FDM.
I disagree however on your suggestion that 3D and SSYS are not competitors. I think 3D has an entry into the office modeler niche and that it won't take too much in the way of improvement in their machine before they own it. While I don't think 3D will fall if they lose this niche (they have SLA to fall back on), SSYS will fall if they lose it.
Good luck,
Brian |
