We’re here to help: we continuously update this best 3D printer guide with the latest 3D printer reviews, and we’ve tested over a dozen 3D printers on this site to create this buyer’s guide.

If you’re in a rush, here’s our 3 top picks:

BUDGET OPTION

Creality Ender 3 V2

Reliable low-cost 3D printer

Easily upgradable with a wide range of printable or purchasable upgrades

Improved print bed for better adhesion

Available At Creality Here Amazon here

RESIN PICK

Anycubic Photon Mono X

High-quality mid-range resin 3D printer

Fast 60mm/h resin printing

Powerful 4K LCD screen for precise details and miniatures

Available at Anycubic here Amazon Here

PREMIUM PICK

Prusa i3 MK3S+

Gold standard in DIY FDM 3D printing

Super reliable workhorse

Upgradable to print 5 colors simultaneously

Available At Prusa here

What makes a good 3D printer?

We used the following criteria, along with our hands-on experience, to make our top picks:

• Print quality: resolutions, accuracy and consistency
• Build volume: not a problem if you just want to print miniatures, but bigger can be better
• Reliability: especially important in cheap printers, we picked durable printers that work reliably
• Versatility: from the range of materials you can print, to any extras such as a dual extruder, enclosure, and more
• Easy to use: easy assembly, simple and intuitive to set up, and straightforward slicer software

We’ve split our recommended picks into different categories to help you find the best 3D printer based on your needs.

Then, below we have our full product reviews of each printer with the full details, and where to get the best price.

Here’s the full list:

Best Under $300

For new and experienced makers alike, finding the best 3D printer without breaking the bank is important.

3DSourced is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more

Creality Ender 3 V2 — best 3D printer for the price

• Price: Check price at Creality Official Store here / Available on Amazon here
• Build volume: 220 x 220 x 250 mm

One of the leading 3D printers for $200, the Creality Ender 3 V2 is a very powerful machine for the price. It can be assembled in under an hour, and also features a heated bed.

An affordable workhorse 3D printer, the Ender 3 V2 is known for its reliability, churning out part after part without issue. The open printing area means it isn’t ideal for tougher filaments like ABS or Nylon, but as a PLA 3D printer it works well.

The Ender 3 V2 features a number of small but useful improvements on the best-selling Ender 3. The print volume is the same, but the print bed is now carborundum glass mounted on an aluminum bed, improving adhesion and making removing finished prints easier than on the previous magnetic bed. The HD screen is better than the original LCD interface, a small but pleasant quality-of-life improvement.

If you’re going to be spending $200 on a 3D printer, you can’t expect the quality to be flawless. If you want a Creality 3D printer and you have an extra $200 – upgrade to the Ender 3 S1 Pro, which also features on this ranking. I’ve also tested and reviewed the Ender 3 V2 Neo previously.

Anycubic Photon Mono 4K

• Price: Check price at Anycubic Official here / Amazon here
• Build Volume: 165 x 132 x 80 mm
• Bed Leveling: Manual
• LCD: 6.23” 4K monochrome LCD
• XY Resolution: 35 microns
• Filament Compatibility: Resin
• Connectivity: USB

The Anycubic Photon Mono 4K is a major upgrade on the standard Photon Mono, retaining the simplicity of the original while pumping up the XY resolution from 50 to 35 microns to put it in line with the pricier Mars Elegoo 3.

This major shift comes courtesy of a pivot to a 6.23″ LCD pushing 3,840 x 2,400 pixels. Although the 165 x 132 x 80 mm tails behind the Mars 3’s 143 x 90 x 165 mm, it still offers ample space for most resin-based home projects and then some.

The 1-2 second cure time remains identical to the original Mono, but you’re effectively able to produce the same prints in the same time frame but at a higher overall quality. Elsewhere, the 4K jumps to a new 15-LED matrix parallel light source that allows for more uniform light distribution, resulting in richer details.

So why opt for the Anycubic Photon Mono 4K over the Elegoo Mars 3? While the Mars 3 offers a sleeker overall printing experience, the Anycubic Photon Mono 4K just about keeps in pure specifications and print quality, all for $80 less.

If you’re after that sweet spot between spending as little as possible but still want a reliable, quality resin 3D printer, the Anycubic Photon Mono 4K hits the mark.

Elegoo Mars 2 Pro / Mars 3

BUDGET PICK

Elegoo Mars 2 Pro

Print Volume: 129 x 80 x 160 mm

Screen size: 6.08″ 2K Monochrome LCD

XY Resolution: 50 microns

Speed: 30-50 mm/h

Cleaning/Curing: Elegoo Mercury Plus/X

Available at:

Elegoo here Amazon here

PREMIUM PICK

Elegoo Mars 3

Print Volume: 143 x 90 x 175 mm

Screen resolution: 6.6″ 4K LCD

XY Resolution: 35 microns

Speed: 1.5-3 seconds per layer

Cleaning/Curing: Elegoo Mercury Plus/X

Available at:

Elegoo here Matterhackers here Amazon here

We were very impressed when we tried out the Elegoo Mars 2 Pro – especially for such a low price. It was easy to set up and get started, and the surface finish on our prints was fantastic.

However, you can upgrade from the Mars 2 Pro’s 2K screen to the Mars 3’s 4K screen if your budget can stretch that far, offering crisper details and ultra-fast 1.5-second layer curing.

The Elegoo Mars 2 Pro’s quality is great, and should be more than enough to print good-looking miniatures and models. The Mars 3 is not a necessity, but if you do want to overhaul the resolution and quality, go for the Mars 3.

The Mars 3 also has a larger build area: 143 x 90 x 165 mm, vs the Mars 2 Pro’s 129 x 90 x 150 mm. You can print 15mm taller models, and you have 14mm on the X-axis for printing more miniature models at the same time.

For XY resolution, the Mars 3 clocks in at 35 microns, an improvement on the Mars 2 Pro’s 50 microns. However, both are very well-made, with robust parts and CNC machined aluminum bodies.

So, if you’re fine with the 2K LCD screen, smaller build area and slightly slower print speed, then the Mars 2 Pro is a great budget pick. But if you want those extra upgrades, go for the Mars 3 – or even the Mars 3 Pro. The Mars 3 also comes with a year’s free ChiTuBox Pro, which usually costs $150+.

Read more: our review of the Elegoo Mars 2 Pro

Toybox: Best For Kids & Complete Beginners

• Price: $299 – Available at Toybox Official store here
• Build volume: 70 x 80 x 90 mm

The Toybox isn’t your high-tech, workhorse 3D printer to start a business with, but it is one of the simplest and most accessible 3D printers we’ve ever tested – ideal for kids and beginners. 

The build volume is small – just 70 x 80 x 90 mm, but if you have modest 3D printing goals to print miniatures and other fun characters, it’s a great choice. 

Toybox have partnered with numerous big players to bring you a huge range of free models you can 3D print too, from Batman and Wonder Woman, to fun 3D printable dragons, tanks, cars, and so much more.

For kids it’s super safe: it only prints low-temperature PLA, and any hot parts are kept well away from prying hands. You get small spools of many different color filaments to print away with – affectionately called 3D printer “food” by Toybox – and we found it to be reliable yet super accessible.

If you’re brand new and want a hassle-free run, or want to get your kids into 3D printing cheaply, the Toybox is great. You can also read our full Toybox 3D printer review, as well as our round-up of the best 3D printers for beginners.

Anycubic Kobra – best under $300

• Price: Check price at Anycubic here / Amazon here
• Build Volume: 220 x 220 x 250 mm
• Bed Leveling: Yes, LeviQ automatic bed leveling
• Build Platform: PEI-coated spring steel heated bed
• Filament Compatibility: PLA / ABS / PETG / TPU
• Connectivity: USB, SD Card

The Anycubic Kobra delivers incredible value for the asking price, with a spec sheet that reads like one for a printer twice its price. We were lucky enough to review the Anycubic Kobra, and despite some minor slicer issues, we were thoroughly impressed with Anycubic’s latest entry-level printer.

Standout features include Anycubic’s in-house developed LeviQ automatic bed leveling and homing system, a PEI-coated spring steel heated bed, a direct drive extruder, and one of the sharpest touch screen UI’s we’ve seen at the price point. It’s frankly baffling to see these types of features on a printer costing less than $300.

The Anycubic Kobra’s budget appeal also extends to the quality of the prints. With a bit of software wrangling, the Kobra is capable of fantastic prints for the price, and the bang-on average 220 x 220 x 250 mm build volume should cover all your everyday 3D printing needs. 

A layer thickness range of 50 to 300 microns and print speeds pushing up to 180 mm/s have you covered for everything from sharp, detailed prints through to quick, functional parts.

Overall, the Anycubic Kobra is an affordable printer that stands out for taking some of the more frustrating and time-consuming aspects of the hobby out of the picture so that you can concentrate on the actual printing.

If you’re a first-timer looking for a gentle introduction to 3D printing, the Anycubic Kobra is arguably the best option out there currently.

And if the build volume isn’t enough, upgrade to either the Kobra Plus or Kobra Max:

• Kobra Plus: 300 x 300 x 350 mm build area – Available here
• Kobra Max: 400 x 400 x 450 mm build area – Available here

Best Under $500

Prusa Mini – Best Premium-Budget Printer

• Price: $350 – Available at Prusa Official here
• Build Volume: 180 x 180 x 180 mm
• Bed Leveling: Yes, SuperPINDA probe
• Build Platform: Removable magnetic spring steel sheets
• Filament Compatibility: PLA, PETG, ASA, ABS, Flex
• Connectivity: USB, Ethernet

With the Prusa Mini, the company leverages all the Prusa i3 MK3S+’s usability and specs into a comparatively affordable printer. The Prusa Mini’s price is entry-level, only marginally higher than you’d pay for the ever-popular Ender 3 and Anycubic Kobra.

It’s a sophisticated 3D printer that focuses on simplicity. It features automatic mesh bed leveling courtesy of a superb SuperPINDA probe, a classy PEI-coated spring steel removable bed, and instructions that are as clear and user-friendly as they come.

The Prusa Mini also pairs well with a broader range of materials than your standard budget printer, covering PLA and ABS along with PETG, ASA, HIPS, and produces decent results with demanding exotics like PC blends and CF-PETG.

However, for all the Mini’s fantastic attributes, it’s abundantly clear where Prusa trimmed the fat, with a rather measly 180 x 180 x 180 build volume.

For the average maker, especially first-timers, the Mini’s build volume should be more than enough for most common print projects. However, if you want to print large models, or large terrain areas for miniatures, opt for an Ender 5 Plus.

Volume aside, the Prusa Mini is a solid premium-budget option for those buying a first printer and even more experienced makers looking to add to their printer line-up.

Ender 3 S1 Pro

• Price: Check latest price at Creality here / Amazon here
• Build volume: 220 x 220 x 270 mm
• Minimum layer height: 0.05mm
• Bed leveling: Automatic
• Max extruder temperature: 300°C

We highly recommend the standard Ender 3 or Ender 3 V2 for a very low-cost FDM kit, but if you want premium features for a couple hundred bucks extra, the Ender 3 S1 Pro is one of the best printers under $500.

We were really impressed with the quality when we printed out some test prints during our Ender 3 S1 3D printer review.

The build volume is mostly the same (270 mm vs 250 mm on z-height) as the standard Ender 3, but the S1 Pro has an all-metal and direct drive extruder, versus the Ender 3’s PTFE bowden extruder. This makes it much easier to print flexibles like TPU, and reduces filament jamming from the generally higher quality extruder.

The S1 Pro can also handle up to 300°C temperatures, so high-temp Nylon and other filaments are no problem – a rarity at under $500. The Ender 3 standard runs up to 255°C, and the Ender 3 S1 (not Pro) can handle 260°C.

Another major advantage is the auto-bed leveling. While you can buy a CRTouch or BLTouch for the Ender 3, it’s a hassle and a time sink, so the Ender 3 S1 and S1 Pro coming with this is a big plus.

The z-axis is also generally sturdier and of higher quality for more reliable and precise printing, and if you do intend to print fine details, the Ender 3 S1 range goes down to 0.05mm layer heights, versus the 0.1mm on the other Ender 3 printers. You can also read our full Ender 3 S1 Pro review.

Anycubic Vyper

• Price: Best price on Anycubic Store / Also Available on Amazon
• Build volume: 245 x 245 x 260 mm

We were impressed with the Anycubic Vyper when we tested it last month. The build volume is impressive, and slightly larger than you’d expect for this price range — yet the printer is compact, and fits on most desktops.

The auto leveling makes life easier and can be done via 1 click, and the Vyper also automatically adjusts your nozzle height for optimum printing. The spring steel magnetic platform makes it easy to remove prints, and its magnetism means you can remove the entire plate, remove your model in a more convenient place, and then click it back into place for your next print.

Though we kept it at the standard 50-60mm/s during our test, Anycubic highlight how the Vyper’s innovative new double fan system lets you print at up to 100mm/s without creating issues. Still, if you’re going to use your printer as a speed demon, be careful when printing very small models.

The large 4.3-inch touchscreen makes printing a breeze, and the layout is intuitive and simple to operate. It doesn’t have WiFi connectivity, but it’s very easy to move models from Cura to the SD card and print them on the Vyper. Overall, it’s a good compact 3D printer for home makers. You can read more in our full Anycubic Vyper review.

Best Large-Format Resin

Anycubic Mono X

• Price: Check price at Anycubic Official Store here / Available on Amazon here
• Build volume: 192 x 120 x 245 mm

The Mono X is a big upgrade on Anycubic’s lower priced LCD printers. This home 3D printer can print intricate tabletop or D&D models in fantastic detail, and is one of the best 3D printers for miniatures. It prints at a very respectable 60mm/h.

The 4K screen makes for incredibly precise layers for the price, and in fact you’ll barely be able to see any visible layer lines if you use more accurate print settings. Additionally, the upgraded double linear Z-axis improves stability, further improving performance.

The 3.5” touchscreen makes it easy to operated, and the Mono X works over via WiFi or USB/SD. Overall, it’s one of the best 3D printers for resin molds and models under $1,000, and a great 3D printer for resin.

Elegoo Saturn S – Best Large Resin 3D Printer

• Price: Check latest price at Elegoo here / Amazon here
• Build Volume: 196 x 122 x 210 mm
• Bed Leveling: Manual
• LCD: 9.1-inch 4K HD Monochrome
• XY Resolution: 48 microns
• Filament Compatibility: Resin
• Connectivity: USB

The Elegoo Saturn S is a new-look upgrade on the standard Saturn, bring it in line with larger resin competitors like the Anycubic Mono X series.

Compared to the standard Saturn, build volume jumps from 192 x 120 x 200 mm to 196 x 122 x 210 mm. 

This is a slight increase, but these numbers position the Saturn S as one of the larger format printers priced under $500 – ideal for printing batches of your favorite high-detail figurines.

Elsewhere, the Saturn S 4K screen refines the XY resolution to 48 microns, offering a slight jump in fine detail over the Saturn’s 50 microns. You could spend a further $200 on the Photon Mono X 6K to drop to 34 microns. Still, the differences at this scale are virtually indistinguishable to anyone but the most discerning makers.

When compared with the Anycubic Mono X (not the 6K version), they have similar 4K screens and resolutions, with the Saturn S having a 4mm larger X-axis, and the Mono X with a 35mm larger Z-height. So if you want to print taller models, go with the Mono X.

They’re of similar speeds, and have similar connectivity via USB – so it’s mostly down to what you plan to print: do you want to print wider, or taller? For wider, go with the Saturn S, for taller, the Mono X. And for a 6K screen, go for a Mono X 6K.

Best Large-Format FDM

Ender 5 Plus – Best Large-Format 3D Printer Under $1,000

• Price: Check price at Creality Official here / Amazon here
• Build Volume: 350 x 350 x 400 mm
• Bed Leveling: Yes, BLTouch auto-bed leveling probe
• Build Platform: Glass heated bed
• Filament Compatibility: PLA, ABS, TPU, Composite-Filled
• Connectivity: SD Card, Browser Interface

The real highlight of the Ender 5 Plus is the 350 x 350 x 400 mm build volume – far above the average found on sub-$1000 printers. It’s one of the best large 3D printers for the price.

So much real estate opens the door for far more ambitious hobbyist prints – cosplay items and accessories, batch printing smaller parts, large vases or household pieces, and any other projects that benefit from the extra space.

As the most premium of the entry-level Ender line-up, it also throws in a few quality-of-life improvements, notably BLTouch-powered automatic bed leveling, which blazes through normally fiddly calibration. It also features a quality removable tempered glass plate, filament runout sensor, and a sharp 4.3″ touchscreen.

Beyond these, the Ender 5 Plus is a functional printer much like the Ender 3, with few extra bells and whistles. A possible downside for some but a genuine benefit for others as the Ender 5 Plus offers a solid foundation ripe for upgrades and tinkering.

All-metal extruder, direct drive system, enclosure, mainboard, all-metal hot end, and countless 3D printed upgrades are all possible add-ons to transform a solid printer into an exceptional one capable of handling all manner of exotic and abrasive filaments.

Some mods are more daunting than others, but the Ender 5 Plus popularity means there’s an in-depth guide, tutorial, and video available for every upgrade to walk you through every step, courtesy of an engaged and active community.

Best FDM 3D Printer For $1000

Prusa i3 MK3S+

• Price: $749 as a kit — Available on the Prusa store here / $999 fully assembled — Available on the Prusa store here
• Build volume: 250 x 210 x 200 mm

Literally the gold standard of desktop FDM kits, Josef Prusa has sold over 100,000 of his 3D printers over the years. Known as the premier 3D printer to emerge from the RepRap movement, the Prusa i3 MK3S+ is packed with features that make it a great 3D printer for both makers as well as businesses.

The MK3S+, released at the tail end of 2020, features a number of small yet beneficial improvements over the MK3S. The new SuperPINDA probe allows for fully-automatic mesh bed leveling, with other improvements including easier to mount bearings on the Y-axis that provide better support.

You get there bed surface options for spring steel sheets – smooth, textured or satin – covering various different material printing and making finished prints easier to remove than ever. The Prusa can print almost anything, with an extruder temperature up to 300°C possible — so even filaments like Polycarbonate are no issue.

If you want to print multi-color parts, you can upgrade your Prusa i3 MK3S+ with Prusa’s multi-material upgrade 2.0 kit, allowing you to print five colors or materials simultaneously, for $300. Moreover, the high-quality Bondtech gears and E3D nozzle within their custom-designed extruder make for great quality prints as well as top workhorse-like reliability. It’s also a fast 3D printer, able to travel and print up to 200mm/s.

• You can purchase the Multi Material Upgrade Kit here.

You can buy your own Prusa 3D printer online for $999 for a ready-made printer, or save a couple of hundred dollars and assemble it yourself. Overall, it’s one of the top 3D printers for $1,000, and one of the best 3D printer kits around.

Best Dual Extruders Under $1000

Sovol SV04: Best Low-cost IDEX 3D Printer

• Price: $539 — Available at Sovol store here
• Build volume: 300 x 300 x 400 mm

If you want the best dual extruder 3D printer, and don’t want to pay more than a thousand bucks, then there’s only two games in town: the Sovol SV04 and the Flashforge Creator Pro 2.

The main difference is the Sovol SV04’s much larger build volume: it’s the same as the Creality CR-10, at 300 x 300 x 400 mm. This lets you print large objects with multi-colors, or even two fairly large models at the time using the IDEX dual extrusion features.

We tested the Sovol SV04 for a few days while reviewing it, and managed to print some really cool multi-colored 3D prints like the frog and cube shown below.

We also printed some great plant pots for some flowers and a cactus using the Copy Mode feature, with each extruder printing a plant pot simultaneously for double the productivity. 

To be short: if you want a dual extruder 3D printer with a large build volume that works well, go for the Sovol SV04. The IDEX is a really handy addition (the Sovol SV02 isn’t IDEX) for quickly making multiple parts.

But, if you don’t mind having the smaller build volume, and instead prefer the enclosed build chamber to better print materials like ABS and Nylon, then go for the Flashforge Creator Pro 2.

Flashforge Creator Pro 2

• Price: Check price at Flashforge Official store here / Available on Amazon here
• Build volume: 200 x 145 x 150 mm

The Flashforge Creator Pro 2 is one of the best desktop 3D printers on the market for dual extrusion. This makes the Flashforge Creator Pro ideal for low-cost multi-material or color printing.

The Creator Pro 2’s main upgrade on the original Creator Pro is it now features an IDEX 3D printer system, meaning that the two extruders can move independently on the Y-axis rather than being locked together.

This opens up possibilities for both duplication 3D printing (printing two identical parts at the same time), and mirror modes (printing mirrored parts like two opposing shoe soles), greatly improving efficiency. This comes at the cost of some X-axis size, down to 200mm.

The Creator Pro 2 is an accurate 3D printer, with a minimum layer height of 0.05mm. Its closest alternative is the Sovol SV04, a similar-priced IDEX printer, but whereas the Sovol has a larger build volume, the Creator Pro has a sturdily built enclosure for better heat control.

Overall, it’s another terrific 3D printer, and a safe and reliable printer for the price.

Best 3-in-1 3D Printer, CNC and Laser

Snapmaker 2.0 AT (A250T and A350T): Best 3-in-1 3D Printer

• Price: $1,199 to $1,799 — Best price on Snapmaker Store here / Also Available on Amazon here
• Build volumes: up to 320 x 350 x 330 mm

Snapmaker manufacture the best 3-in-1 3D printers, and you can easily switch the extruder module out and switch in the CNC carver, or the laser engraver module in just a few minutes and get working.

The 3D printer module stands on its own as high-quality – we were surprised by just how reliable, accurate, and effective it was when we tested it. It doesn’t feel like you lose anything on the 3D printing side when you add on the other options. The metal structure and linear rails are sturdy, retaining precision even on the largest A350T we tested.

You can 3D print all major hobbyist filaments like PLA, flexible filaments like TPU, and ABS. The smartphone-shaped touchscreen makes it really easy to operate, and the WiFi connectivity saves you hassle from constantly plugging in SD cards or USBs.

You get a range of premium features — auto-leveling, filament run-out detection, dynamic print speeds via the intelligent software –generally making your 3D printing experience more pleasant and productive.

By default you get the weaker 1600mW cutting module which we still managed to laser engrave with nicely, as well as cutting through thin and soft wood (though it takes a lot longer than specialized lasers).

However, you can purchase the 10W high power laser for an extra $399, which can engrave anodized aluminum (check out our wolf engraving below), and comfortably cut through acrylic and wood – we cut out an entire rhino puzzle from black acrylic in under 15 minutes.

You can carve soft and hard woods, as well as carbon fiber sheets and acrylics. We also used the 4-axis CNC module to carve chess pieces from epoxy blocks, and the bit can comfortably carve most woods and similar materials.

We cut chess pieces using the v-bit carver, and the 4-axis rotary module add-on (this costs an extra few hundred bucks though) which lets you carve into cylindrical blocks like a lathe to create detailed characters. Snapmaker Luban software handles the four axes well, and it’s a very well-designed software and slicer generally (vs buggier 3D software like Revopoint’s RevoScan).

If you want to engrave contrasting images, you can use the laser engraver. It can engrave on woods, as well as leather, fabrics and acrylic. We engraved a few cylinder-shaped blocks to test the 4-axis engraving module, as well as using the laser cutter to cut through a thin piece of wood to make this gift box.

We recommend also purchasing the enclosure to improve your printing experience and keeping you safer — and you may want to also pick up some extras for CNC. Their wide range of extras and goodies are on their site, which you can visit here.

If you’re considering the newest A250T or A350T vs the standard Snapmaker 2.0, the newer version is upgraded for a faster and quieter 3D printing experience generally, with a newly designed 3D printing module as well as more intelligent fan speed adjustments and a more powerful power module. There’s even rumors of a dual extruder module coming soon.

You can see more Snapmaker models in our article comparing Snapmaker 2.0, Snapmaker J1, and Snapmaker Artisan.

Best Professional Resin Printers

Prusa SL1S Speed

• Price: $1,999 — Available on Prusa Store here
• Build volume: 127 x 80 x 150 mm

The SL1S Speed is an upgrade on the original SL1, featuring 25% larger build volume, even more improvements to part quality, and more speed than ever.

One of the fastest resin printers around, the SL1S Speed cures layers in 1.4 seconds, and can fill the entire 150mm-high build chamber in just 3 hours. The high-resolution mono 5.96-inch LCD panel accurately cures layers of resin with the UV LED array, with even very small parts retaining their quality and intricacy.

Another major benefit is Prusa’s commitment to open source — with the SL1S being one of the only open source SLA 3D printers. It’s compatible with third-party resins, though Prusa also sell their own high-quality materials. And being a Prusa 3D printer, naturally it’s reliable and durable. 

We recommend you also pick up Prusa’s wash and cure machine for post-processing your resin models. It washes, dries and cures your prints after the printing process, and costs an additional $599.

Formlabs Form 3

• Price: $3,499 — Available on Dynamism Store here
• Build volume: 145 x 145 x 185 mm

Retailing at $3,499, Formlabs’ Form 3 has become the resin 3D printer. It’s popular in both the dental and 3D printed jewelry markets due to its tremendous accuracy and for being significantly faster than traditional methods.

The upgraded Form 3 has a number of improvements on the Form 2, including new LFS technologies and what Formlabs call a new Light Processing Unit which improves the surface finish of prints.

• The Formlabs 3B can also be purchased here / The Formlabs 3L can also be purchased here

The build volume hasn’t drastically increased in the newer Form 3 (just 10mm taller Z axis), but it now boasts incredible 25 micron accuracy. You can buy Formlabs resins, or there are a number of third-party resins compatible with the Form 3 which we’ve linked below.

• For Formlabs official resin: you can buy 1 liter here
• For third-party resins (may result in loss of quality of print): 1 liter here for significantly cheaper, or 500ml here

Best Professional FDM Printers

Ultimaker S3

• Price: $4,080 — Available on Dynamism Store here / Available on Matterhackers here
• Build volume: 230 x 190 x 200 mm

Dutch manufacturer Ultimaker have released some of the best 3D printers of the last few years. With a dual extruder and accuracy up to 20 microns, the Ultimaker S3 is a great 3D printer for rapid prototyping, and is used by small businesses, designers, and makers worldwide.

In addition, the Ultimaker S3 has a very decent 230 x 190 x 200 mm build volume, and includes a built-in camera for remotely monitoring your prints. You can connect to the printer via WiFi, USB or Ethernet very simply. Moreover, the Ultimaker S3 has an auto-leveling system for prints to make sure printing goes smoothly.

If you’re looking for the best 3D printer in terms of accuracy, ease of use, and equipment, and don’t mind spending upwards of $4,000, the Ultimaker S3 is the printer for you.

Ultimaker S5

• Price: $5,995 — Available on Dynamism Store here / Available on Matterhackers here
• Build volume: 330 x 240 x 300 mm

Compared with the excellent S3, the S5 is more expensive, moving away from the desktop 3D printer price range, but features a number of improvements and new features designed to make the Ultimaker S5 a more viable manufacturing method for prototypes and small batch production.

Featuring a larger 330 x 240 x 300 mm maximum build size, this is certainly an advantage over the Ultimaker 3. This makes it a better 3D printer for larger prototypes, shown as the Ultimaker S5 has already been used in companies such as Volkswagen. Ultimaker have earned a tremendous reputation over the years for creating great machines, and we feel the S5 is no different.

Buyer’s Guide – Things to Consider When Buying a 3D Printer

Which type of 3D printer do you want? And which materials do you want to print?

Different technologies do different things. For accurate minis for D&D, go for a resin 3D printer (MSLA / LCD) – they can print with much finer resolutions and smoother surface areas. But for a simpler setup and generally more relaxed experience (no curing, no chemicals) with stronger prints, go for an FDM printer. 

Within this, you need to decide which material – filament or resin – best suits your needs. 

For many PLA filament works just fine as it doesn’t really warp, doesn’t require a heated bed or enclosure (but is still good if you have the choice), comes in a wide variety of colors and blends (even conductive, or glow in the dark!), and it’s cheap.

ABS is tougher despite being just as cheap, and still comes in a wide range of colors – but it can warp and crack if not printed under the right conditions, and requires a heated bed and chamber. Some consider PETG to be a happy medium: it’s great for adhesion and super tough – but its stickiness makes it difficult to print overhangs and supports.

For resins, you don’t have the same range of options as you would with FDM, in materials or colors. There are a few color options, but most use standard resins – though companies like Formlabs have developed dental, jewelry casting, tough ABS-like resins, and a few other types.

What size models do you want to print?

Don’t waste your money on an enormous 3D printer if you just want to print miniatures, but also don’t skimp on a smaller machine if you want to print huge cosplay swords.

Think about what you want to print right now – and what you might want to print in the future. With good 3D printers starting in the $300 price range, it can be an expensive decision to get wrong. Also consider the size of your workspace – 3D printers are deceptively big and you need to make sure it’ll fit.

Also, resin 3D printers typically have smaller build volumes than FDM printers, so if size matters, go FDM.

What do you want to 3D print generally?

Beyond size, think about exactly what you want to 3D print for your projects. If you’re not as fussed about perfect quality, go for a printer with high top speeds (delta 3D printers are generally better for this) – especially if you’re printing cubes and similar shapes that don’t have details. 

But, if you want high-resolution, pick printers that can handle lower layer heights and take smaller nozzle sizes – or resin printers with the most precise XY resolutions. 

For high-temperature filaments, either get an enclosed 3D printer like the Creator Pro 2, or buy an enclosure for your printer – Creality sell their own enclosures, and there are popular DIY projects for the Prusa and other best-selling printers.

If you want to print PC, Nylon, carbon-fiber mixes, and other abrasive blends, you’ll need a printer with a hot end that can handle these temperatures – either go for a Prusa or higher-spec printer, or buy a hot end upgrade kit.

And if you want to print flexible filaments like TPU, opt for a 3D printer that’s either a direct drive 3D printer, or has a direct drive kit like the Ender 3 range – though while you can use a Bowden extruder, it requires a lot more oversight to prevent issues coming up.

Do you want an easy 3D printing experience?

While you shouldn’t be discouraged if you’re a beginner, we recommend you pick 3D printers with features such as auto-leveling, WiFi connectivity, filament run-out sensors and print resume functions, and easy-to-use software and touchscreens to save you hassle if you’re newer or less technical.

Self-leveling is a nice extra that saves you manually re-leveling the printer every few prints, and should guarantee you crisp prints rather than janky blemish-full messes.

WiFi connectivity saves you from taking SD cards back and forth from your laptop to your 3D printer for every print, and is generally a nice addition to have that boosts print productivity.

Filament run-out sensors and print resume features (in case of a power cut or similar) are fairly ubiquitous now – even most entry-level 3D printers have them. But they can be a lifesaver, especially if you lose power during the latter stages of a 24-hour or longer print of a large prototype or cosplay costume piece.

For easy-to-use software, Cura should have you covered for the slicer, but some 3D printers have more intuitive interfaces than others. Most now have touchscreens (though turnable knobs on printers like the Enders and Prusas are fine), and we particularly liked the Snapmaker’s easy-to-use touchscreen interface and design. 

Go for a trusted brand and model if buying on the cheap side

There are hordes of low-cost 3D printers in the $160-$300 range. Most aren’t that reliable, and we recommend sticking with FDM kits like the Ender 3 range, Anycubic entry-level printers, and Elegoo or Anycubic resin printers for lower price printers that actually work well.

The last thing you want to do is get burned and left with an expensive brick. Opt for a highly-reputed printer with large communities and active forums, in case you run into trouble – we recommend these here.

Do you want to print in multiple colors?

For fully multi-colored prints – as in, colored by the pixel (or voxel in 3D) – you’re going to struggle. XYZ made a full-color 3D printer a few years back but the colors looked washed out and it cost $3,500. 

But you can get multi-color prints from a few other ways. You can pick a dual extruder 3D printer and print with two colors, or use a filament splicer like a Palette to print with up to four different colors simultaneously.

Color options for resin LCD or MSLA printers are very limited, unfortunately. To get multi-color resin prints, you mostly need to rely on post-processing.

FAQs

If you enjoyed this article, you may also enjoy:

• Our guide to the best 3D pens
• Our ranking of the best 3D scanners
• Our ranking of the best 3D printers for beginners
• Our ranking of the best SLS 3D printers
• Our ranking of the best FDM 3D printers
• Our ranking of the best resin 3D printers
• 3D printer deals

DIY projects, especially in an area where precision is key, have an unfairly slap-dash reputation. In fact, there are some very accurate DIY 3D scanners on our list, you just need to assemble them yourself.

The best part: they’re almost free if you 3D print the parts — your only costs are the camera/parts.

However, don’t be fooled – you won’t get $20,000-quality scans from these kits.

And, it takes focus and skill to build such a technical piece of kit – hence we’ve included a couple of easy-assemble kits which cost more, but let you get right down to scanning.

Best DIY 3D Scanner Kit Under $200	Best 3D Scanner Under $1000
Description: Yes, you'll get better quality if you spend more on a scanner like the Revopoint POP range, but with this you get to build your own 3D scanner from the parts for several hundred dollars less.	Description: You'll see just how accurate this scanner is when you try it (I've tested it to confirm a 0.07mm accuracy in my hands-on review) - there's nothing better for under $1000.
HE3D Open Source Ciclop DIY 3D Systems Scanner Kit for 3D Printer	Revopoint POP 2 3D High-Precision Scanner with 0.05mm Accuracy
4.1	5.0
$159.00	$719.00
Amazon here	Revopoint here
	Amazon here

Best DIY 3D Scanner Kit Under $200

Description:

Yes, you'll get better quality if you spend more on a scanner like the Revopoint POP range, but with this you get to build your own 3D scanner from the parts for several hundred dollars less.

HE3D Open Source Ciclop DIY 3D Systems Scanner Kit for 3D Printer

4.1

$159.00

Amazon here

Best 3D Scanner Under $1000

Description:

You'll see just how accurate this scanner is when you try it (I've tested it to confirm a 0.07mm accuracy in my hands-on review) - there's nothing better for under $1000.

Revopoint POP 2 3D High-Precision Scanner with 0.05mm Accuracy

5.0

$719.00

Revopoint here

Amazon here

For the DIY kits, we’ve included download links and links to documentation to get you started.

But first, let’s cover what to look for in a good homemade 3D scanner:

What Makes a Good DIY 3D Scanner?

• Price-performance ratio: for the price, how good are scans?
• Resolution: how crisp is scan quality
• Accessibility: you may be able to print most of the 3D scanner, but are the rest of the parts easy to buy?
• Ease of assembly and use: quick and easy builds are always better. The best 3D scanner projects can be built by anyone, newbie or expert.

The Best 3D Printable 3D Scanner Kits

Ciclop DIY 3D scanners

Many of the best DIY scanner kits are based on the original Ciclop open-source files. Massive companies like BQ have created their version, as well as tweaked versions such as CowTech Engineering’s take.

We’ve included them all here, as each option are some of the most DIY accurate 3D scanner options for this price range. For a pre-assembled scanner with the same quality, you’d likely need to spend double this.

3DSourced is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more

BQ Ciclop

• Resolution: 0.3-0.5mm
• DIY 3D scanner technology: laser triangulation
• Price: around $150 — Available on Amazon worldwide here

BQ are a Spanish technology giant who are well-known across Europe for their smartphones, tablets, and 3D printers. They’ve also developed their Ciclop DIY 3D scanner, which scans a volume up to 250 x 205 mm, based on laser triangulation technology.

An important feature of the BQ Ciclop is that it’s a completely open source 3D scanner. You’re free to modify it as you wish, following the RepRap philosophy. It’s easily accessible via USB or Bluetooth, and can 3D scan with a resolution of between 0.3-0.5mm.

• We also have a ranking of the best open source 3D printers.

Another great addition to this DIY 3D scanner is that it works with Horus open source 3D scanning suite which BQ also developed. This makes scanning much easier with the compatible program. You can buy just the electronics (includes an Arduino, webcam etc) and print the parts yourself for $115, or buy the whole kit for $240. Not bad.

However, it is worthy of note that the BQ Ciclop is difficult to assemble. Other DIY 3D scanners are quicker and simpler to build, though the Ciclop is still a fantastic DIY 3D digitizer.

Best DIY 3D Scanner Kit Under $200

HE3D Open Source Ciclop DIY 3D Systems Scanner Kit for 3D Printer

$159.00

Yes, you'll get better quality if you spend more on a scanner like the Revopoint POP range, but with this you get to build your own 3D scanner from the parts for several hundred dollars less.

Amazon here

We earn a commission if you make a purchase, at no additional cost to you.

05/25/2023 05:18 am GMT

Murobo Atlas — Great Raspberry Pi 3D Scanner

• Resolution: 0.25mm
• DIY 3D scanner technology: laser triangulation technology
• Price: $200-250 — Available on Amazon worldwide here

Another homemade 3D scanner, the Atlas has the highest quality specs of any DIY 3D scanner we researched. It includes a 3D printed body made from PLA and ABS filaments, which can be purchased online. If you’re a serious DIY fanatic, you can print the parts yourself via the download link here.

Depending on if you already own a Raspberry Pi or not, you can save money on the build. This is because the Atlas DIY 3D scanner uses a Raspberry Pi camera to take detailed 3D scans with an accuracy of 0.25mm. Depending on your choice, the Atlas is likely to cost between $200 and $250, which is far less than most professional 3D scanners.

Moreover, Murobo has made considerable efforts to make sure that the Atlas DIY 3D scanner is convenient and simple to use. To achieve this, the Atlas comes with FreeLSS free 3D software which enables you to easily take 3D scans. In addition, you can access your Atlas via your computer’s browser through WiFi, as well as via SD card.

Overall, this DIY 3D scanner Raspberry Pi collaboration is a really interesting and creative way of combining several different innovative technologies to create a scanning device. If you’re an Arduino fan instead, you may be able to make it work for you too.

CowTech Ciclop

• Price: $119 – $159 (depending on whether you’re 3D printing the parts or not) — Available on Amazon here
• Resolution: 0.5 mm
• Maximum scan volume: 200 x 200 x 205 mm

BQ formed the foundations of the DIY 3D scanner kit, and remains one of the best DIY 3D scanner on tight budget options. Then back in 2015, CowTech Engineering used the foundations led by BQ, putting their unique spin on an updated model.

True to the open source movement, Cowtech started a Kickstarter campaign to raise money to put their version of the original, the CowTech Ciclop, into production. The team set the lofty goal to raise $10,000, and were met with surprise when the community rallies to raise $183,000. The CowTech Ciclop DIY 3D scanner kit was born.

So what are the differences between CowTech’s version and BQ’s DIY 3D scanner?

The CowTech Ciclop still uses the Horus 3D software program as it does a fantastic shop for 3D scanning objects. Differences however include a slightly different design, which the team spent days designing so that the parts could be 3D printed on any FDM 3D printer. Some desktop 3D printers only have a small build volume, so CowTech designed parts that can be printed on any printer with a build volume of 115 x 110 x 65 mm, which almost all 3D printers have.

Additionally, CowTech’s Ciclop has adjustable laser holders, and whereas the BQ Ciclop uses threaded rods, CowTech’s DIY 3D scanner uses laser-cut acrylic. This isn’t anything drastic and the scanners still look fairly similar, but CowTech only intended to improve the existing design, not reform it. CowTech sell the Ciclop, ready-to-scan, for $159 on their website. Overall, this is a great cheap DIY 3D scanner, and very effective for laser triangulation 3D scanning.

OpenScan Classic and OpenScan Mini

• Max Scan Volume: 180 x 180 x 180 mm / 80 x 80 x 80 mm
• Accuracy: Up to 50 microns
• DIY 3D scanner technology: Photogrammetry
• Price: Starting at $100.00 up to $200.00 for a complete kit with 3D printed parts and electronic

The Mini and Classic are two low-cost but high-quality 3D printed DIY scanner projects designed by German company OpenScan. In action, the OpenScan uses a stepper motor mounted to a 3D printed frame to rotate an object to capture images from various angles. These are then compiled into a high-quality 3D model using open-source software or OpenScanCloud, ready for 3D printing.

Where the OpenScan Classic and Mini differ from one another is max scan volume and camera/SBC options. The Mini features an 80 x 80 x 80 mm scan volume, while the Classic more than doubles the scan volume to a roomy 180 x 180 x 180 mm, perfect for scanning larger objects.

The OpenScan Mini is tied to a Raspberry Pi and only works with either a Pi Camera or Arducam IMX 519 and includes one-click easy scanning. This allows the completed scanner to rotate not just the object but also the camera for a more detailed point cloud. 

On the other hand, the OpenScan Classic is also compatible with Smartphones and DSLR cameras, which generally means better quality photos and, as a result, higher-quality models. It’s the tinkerer’s option and better suited for those that want to customize the scanner to their needs.

OpenScan offers a solution for all DIY skill levels and budgets, whichever model you decide on. You can customize kits based on your needs or order a complete kit that includes all the electronics and 3D printed parts.

The full assembly guide is here.

AAScan Open Source 3D Scanner Based on Arduino and Android

AAScan is a very recent (February 2020) DIY open source 3D scanner that’s fully automated in taking photos and moving the object around on the scan plate. All the files are on Thingiverse, which we’ve linked below. Interestingly, the creator stresses that the AAScan is intended to be a purposefully minimalist machine, able to scan but not filled with extra features beyond this primary capacity.

All the instructions for how to build, print and assemble the AAScan are on the Thingiverse page, requiring an Arduino, some electronics, and either a 3D printer to print the plastic parts or someone else to print them for you — such as from a 3D printing service.

You can view the DIY scanner on Thingiverse here.

FabScan Pi

• DIY 3D scanner technology: laser triangulation
• Price: $100-200 depending on which version

The original FabScan was a DIY 3D scanner built by Francis Engelmann as part of his Bachelor’s thesis back in 2010. Since then, there have been numerous improvements made in new iterations up to the newest model, the FabScan Pi. This new model uses a Raspberry Pi camera along with the new design to offer higher quality 3D scans.

Based on laser triangulation technology, the FabScan Pi is one of the best DIY 3D scanner options for those who are into doing it themselves. Depending on if you go for one of the older models or the latest, the price can vary between $100 and around $200 to completely create the 3D scanner. Overall, it’s a really cool kit and thesis which you can make at home.

If you want to create your own FabScan, you can follow the assembly guide here.

DIY Standalone 3D Scanner by Jun Takeda

• DIY 3D scanner technology: Photogrammetry
• Price: $200.00

The DIY Standalone 3D Scanner is an excellent option for those that want a hands-on project that results in a reasonably accurate and easy-to-use stationary 3D scanner. 

By combining a Mbed board with a camera and OpenCV libraries, the scanning process is largely automated with just a single button push. The scanner captures multiple images of an object to create a 3D model that’s then output as an STL file written to an SD Card.

To complete the project, you’ll need a GR-LYCHEE as a centerpiece sided by smaller electronic parts, plastic sheets to create the housing, and various nuts and wiring to piece it all together. 

As the name implies, it’s very much a DIY project and, as such, would best suit those happy to troubleshoot any potential hurdles with little hand-holding. Though there are instructions, you’re responsible for designing the housing, wiring the board, and calibrating the camera.

Arduino-Controlled Photogrammetry 3D Scanner by Brian Brocken

• DIY 3D scanner technology: Photogrammetry
• Price: ~$100

The Arduino-Controlled Photogrammetry 3D Scanner is a 3D printable 3D scanner DIY project that leverages the camera on any run-of-the-mill Smartphone and a cheap Arduino UNO SBC to keep costs low.

The core idea is to assemble a turntable consisting of 3D printed mechanical parts, including a print-in-place bearing. A Bluetooth-connected Smartphone does the actual scanning via the normal photogrammetry process. As for electronic components, you’ll need a servo motor, LCD screen, Arduino Uno, PCB, stepper motor, Bluetooth remote, regulator, and a small joystick module.

Once assembled, the Arduino-Controlled Photogrammetry 3D Scanner can capture anywhere from 2 to 200 photos in a single 360° rotation for reasonably detailed scans. The images are then sent to photogrammetry software such as AutoDesk Recap Photo to assemble a 3D model.

Aside from the cost of filament, expect to pay no more than $100 for all the parts and the STL files to 3D print the turntable.

Semi-assembled DIY scanners

Revopoint POP / POP 2

• Price: $500-700 — Available at Revopoint store here
• Accuracy: 0.3 mm
• Max Scan Volume: 200 x 300 x 300 mm
• Scan Speed: Up to 8 FPS
• DIY 3D scanner technology: Structured light

Though not technically a DIY scanner, we thought we’d slide in the Revopoint POP as a cheat option for those that want to save time and want largely better quality scans than you’d get with a homemade alternative.

It comes semi-assembled – you just need to attach the tripod, connect the USB and the turntable, add the sticker markers for better scan tracking, and optionally build and attach the larger turntable – so you can get started in just 5 minutes!

The catch? At around $500, the Revopoint POP is considerably pricier than a DIY scanner. Still, it may be worth paying the premium for the convenience and reliability.

The Revopoint POP offers 0.3 mm accuracy (the POP 2 offers within 0.1 mm!) and automatic alignment technology, making for more detailed and smooth full-color 3D models than DIY scanners. It can capture 360° scans of objects up to 200 x 300 x 300 mm, besting most DIY options.

The main benefit of all this is high accuracy scans that are just about ready for 3D printing with very little post-processing needed to iron out imperfections and poor surface details.

Ease of use also extends to the intuitive software, which works with Smartphones for on-the-go scanning and features exports to STL and OBJ formats. Alongside, it bundles in best-of both-worlds handheld and stationary modes. Five different scanning profiles allow you to tune the POP to each scan with face, body, feature, mark, and dark mode.

Read more: we tested and reviewed the Revopoint POP 2

Best 3D Scanner Under $1000

Revopoint POP 2 3D High-Precision Scanner with 0.05mm Accuracy

$719.00

You'll see just how accurate this scanner is when you try it (I've tested it to confirm a 0.07mm accuracy in my hands-on review) - there's nothing better for under $1000.

Revopoint here

Amazon here

We earn a commission if you make a purchase, at no additional cost to you.

FAQs

Other articles you may be interested in:

• The best 3D scanners
• The best low-cost 3D scanners
• Top 3D scanner apps for iOS and Android
• The best photogrammetry software
• Structured light 3D scanning vs laser scanning
• 3D body scanners: a guide
• Industrial 3D scanners

But which filament is best for you?

What is 3D printer filament?

Filaments come on spools, making them easy to feed into your 3D printer. Filaments are plastic materials in spaghetti-like strands that are melted and extruded onto your printer’s print bed to make your 3D model according to the specs you chose in your 3D software.

3D Printer Filament Types

There are two main types:

• 1.75mm filament: the 1.75mm size is by far the most common, and is the smaller diameter of filament available.
• 2.85mm filament: sometimes referred to as 3mm filament, 2.85mm filament appears to be going increasingly out of fashion with makers drawn to 1.75mm filament instead. However, some printers including BCN3D Sigma printers and Ultimaker’s range of 3D printers take 2.85mm filament, including the Ultimaker 3, S3 and S5.

What is the best 3D printer filament?

Well, it depends. If you’re a beginner to 3D printing, then ABS or PLA are your best bet, with PLA considered the easiest filament to 3D print with overall. PETG is considered a good middle ground between ABS and PLA, which is explained in more detail in each 3D printer filament type section below.

If you’re looking to print crazy glow-in-the-dark, clear or conductive models, there are PLA blends with all of these attributes. PLA is considered the most versatile filament, and clear PLA filament, conductive PLA filaments and others are commonly used for specialized projects.

For those looking to print flexible parts, TPU, TPE and other flexible filaments exist for these uses. These are explained in more depth in their flexible filament section within this filament guide.

For experts looking to print with the strongest 3D printer filaments, PC, Nylon, Carbon fiber-filled, or even PEEK may be more appropriate — though tougher filaments cost more.

Cheap vs expensive filaments

PLA and ABS are the cheapest 3D printer filaments, starting at around $20 per kilo. PETG is only marginally more expensive, costing around $25 per kilo, and is more durable than PLA.

Tougher materials like Nylon start to get more expensive, while the most expensive 3D printer filaments such as PEEK filament can set you back hundreds of dollars per kilo. This is due to its strength, heat resistance and industrial use, which we’ll explain further later on.

3DSourced is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more

Hobbyist 3D Printer Filaments

PLA (Polylactic Acid)

• Temperature: 180-210°C
• Heated bed: optional at 40-60°C
• Heated chamber: not required
• Glass transition temperature: 60-65°C
• Adhesion: can use glue stick, blue painter’s tape, and more

PLA or PolyLactic Acid is the ‘go-to’ 3D filament for most makers. PLA filament is an eco-friendly biodegradable material made from cornstarch.

History:

Now probably the most widely used filament for makers worldwide, PLA is a product of the RepRap movement, with co-creator Vik Olliver discovering the material’s potential for 3D printing while trying to unearth a good filament for the first RepRap machines.

15 years later, PLA is used by millions worldwide to 3D print all types of models, and is known for being a very cheap filament as well as for being the only biodegradable filament.

3D printing tips:

It’s easy to print with because it requires some of the lowest temperature settings of any 3D printer materials and generally doesn’t warp. You’ll find PLA is also non-toxic and doesn’t smell much when printing.

Whereas 3D printer filaments like ABS and ASA are made of plastic compounds, PLA is made from renewable and biodegradable crops like corn starch. This makes PLA the undisputed eco-warrior favorite, and also means that when printing there is no foul smell or toxic fumes, unlike ABS.

Due to the purity of the raw materials used, higher quality PLA also yields better results with post-print finishing, such as sanding or drilling if required.  

If you’re not sure what material to use, and just want something easy to 3D print (it’s forgiving on your slicer settings, though it can ooze and string) with respectable strength and usability – PLA is worth trying out. 

It’s worth noting that PLA is typically brittle in comparison to most other durable filaments. If you need something just like regular PLA but more durable, or with higher temperature resistance, PLA+ could be your answer.

Unlike ABS, PLA does not require a heated bed when 3D printing filament, but we still recommend using one for the best results. You don’t need a heated chamber or enclosed build area, making it a favorite of DIY 3D printer owners that typically have open print areas.

We recommend the following PLA selections:

• PLA selections on Amazon here
• PLA filament range on Matterhackers here

There are a large range of PLA filaments available, with a huge variety in quality and strengths. Generally, it’s considered weaker than ABS – but higher quality 3D printer PLA can result in a surprising amount of finished part strength.

There are a huge number of different filament blends available. Common blends include wood filaments, as well as copper PLA and carbon fiber filament — you can even get glow-in-the-dark PLA for nighttime projects.

However, PLA melts at far lower temperatures than filaments like ABS, making PLA parts far less suited to high-temperature applications. PLA is also brittle, and if enough pressure is placed on a PLA part it can snap. It can’t be acetone-smoothed like ABS, though it is very easy to paint your finished parts, and gluing multiple PLA parts together is also no problem.

Read our full guide: PLA 3D printer filament guide

Best filaments: Best PLA filaments

ABS (Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene)

• Temperature: 230-250°C
• Heated bed: required, recommended temperature 90-110°C
• Heated chamber: highly advised
• Glass transition temperature: around 105°C
• Adhesion: glue stick, blue painter’s tape and others

Perhaps the second most commonly used filament is ABS (or Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene on Sundays) – it’s a common plastic used in a lot of casings and consumer products that require a durable material. Your phone case or keyboard is likely made from, or has some components in ABS. 

Good ABS filament is stronger than good PLA (and considerably stronger than cheaper varieties) and has a higher temperature resistance (it won’t go soft in a hot car on a sunny day) but takes a little more care when printing. Cheaper ABS can be crumbly or inconsistent to print.

As well as being one of the most widely used 3D printer filaments, it’s also one of the most versatile, available in many different colors and sizes — you can even buy clear ABS to paint after printing. ABS also has good heat resistance, with a glass transition temperature of around 105C — far higher than filaments like PLA (60-65C).

It is also cheap, costing around $20 per kilo, and as a result is commonly used for rapid prototyping.

3D printing tips:

This is because it has a tendency to warp if your heated bed is not hot enough (as it contracts when cooling), and requires a hotter extruder temperature. However, once your ABS plastic filament settings are tuned in and everything is at the correct temp – printing it is no harder than any other material. 

This material can also be smoothed with acetone. This means you can make it look more like a non-3D print, but that’s usually at a cost to detail.

As with all 3D printing filaments, it’s extremely important to only print in a well-ventilated area. ABS is no different. The very process of printing can release microparticles into the air during the heating and extruding process – so always read the guidelines from your printer’s manufacturer.

ABS filament requires a heated bed, and preferably a heated chamber — so RepRap 3D printers and 3D printer kits may struggle. Without a heated chamber ABS may warp and pull upward at the corners, and the midsection may even crack if the warping pulls two areas apart. It can also smell bad when printing, with pungent odors that can cause nausea — so it is best to 3D print ABS filament in a room you don’t need to use.

Is ABS filament transparent?

Not naturally, like PLA and some other materials (see below) but we do a modified ABS that is, also it prints more translucent unless you acetone smooth. 

• We also have a full, in-depth guide dedicated to ABS filament.

We recommend the following ABS selections:

• ABS filament selection on Amazon here
• ABS filament range on Matterhackers here

However, for the price there aren’t any stronger filaments or more durable filaments than ABS. Nylon is tough but more expensive, and PEEK is more than 10x pricier. Therefore, ABS is perfect for anyone looking to create sturdy and high-quality parts without breaking the bank.

For more info on ABS:

• Best ABS filament and brands
• Best ABS 3D printers

PETG filament (Polyethylene Terephthalate with added Glycol)

• Temperature: 220-245°C
• Heated bed: optional but recommended, at 70-90°C
• Glass transition temperature: around 80°C
• Adhesion: blue painter’s tape and other options
• Density: 1270kg/m³

PETG is PET with added glycol in order to improve its 3D printing characteristics. PET is widely used to make water bottles as well as in injection molding, with glycol added to make it less brittle and improve impact resistance and durability.

It is effectively almost unbreakable – layer adhesion is excellent and it will just keep bending, rather than snapping like more brittle plastics might. 

Other benefits include hardly any warp and virtually no smells when printing. It also bridges well. When printed optimally for transparency, PET is one of the clearest.

3D printing tips:

Although easy to print with, you want to make sure your PETG filament settings are dialed in properly.

The main advantages of PETG filament are that it has good impact resistance and fantastic thermal characteristics but without the problems with warping associated with ABS or brittleness associated with PLA.

For these reasons, PETG is considered a stellar third option for those deciding between PLA and ABS, and is becoming an increasingly popular filament.

Possibly the main advantage of PETG however is how great layer adhesion is during 3D printing. It’s natural stickiness makes for fantastic layer adhesion, leading to strong and durable parts that do not warp — this makes PETG one of the best 3D printer filaments for long and thin parts that are a nightmare for ABS.

We recommend the following PETG selections:

• PETG selection on Amazon here
• PETG range on Matterhackers here

However, PETG’s softer surface makes it prone to wear and tear from general scratching, and is therefore not an ideal material for any application that involves heavy use or that needs to retain a certain surface finish.

Additionally, PETG’s great layer adhesion has some downsides. It sticks so well that it is a poor option for printing supports, bridges, and other structures. For this reason, PETG is less of an attractive option unless you have a dual extruder 3D printer and can print a better support filament such as PVA or PLA. You should also be wary of stringing, and correct your 3D slicer settings if you notice excessive oozing.

For a more in-depth guide to PETG 3D printing:

Flexible 3D printer filaments — TPU, TPE, TPC

• Recommended extruder temperature: 220-260°C depending on the flexible filament type
• Heated bed: optional, recommended temperature 40-60°C

TPE — or Thermoplastic Elastomers — blend plastics and rubber together to create this special type of flexible 3D printer filament. These filaments are flexible and elastic — far more so than other flexible 3D printer filaments like PLA.

Flexible filaments are any material that can be easily bent out of shape, and then returns to it’s original (post printed) shape once released. These are different, but share similarities to semi-flexible, extremely durable materials like PETG and Nylon. 

Flexi filaments have various vibration dampening, impact absorbing and shape restoring properties. Excellent uses involved model car tyres (or tank tracks), bouncy objects and custom printed stress balls – but the uses are limitless. 

They’re available in different hardnesses, often referred to on the Shore D hardness scale. Lower numbers are softer, and higher are firmer materials. 

It is commonly advised when 3D printing soft material to do so at half the usual speed, at around 20-30mm/s, at least to start with. You may also want to check the extruder you use is compatible with flexible materials – as some extruder designs can cause problems, especially with softer grades of flex.

• We have a specialized article focused on TPU if you want to find out more about TPU filament.
• For TPE and other flexible filaments, we have an article explaining every type of flexible filament.

There are several different types of TPE, the most popular being TPU (Thermoplastic Polyurethane). These flexible 3D printer filaments are great for absorbing shocks, as well as dampening vibrations.

They also have very good heat resistance properties, making TPU and other flexible filaments perfect for creating less rigid tools that can withstand high temperatures. When printing with TPE or TPU, you’ll notice it has fairly similar characteristics to PLA.

We recommend the following flexibles:

• Range of flexible TPU filaments on Amazon
• TPU and TPC range of filaments on Matterhackers

However, TPE can be difficult to print, and considerable care must be taken to maintain precise print settings, or the print could fail. TPU and other flexibles are also prone to small imperfections on printed models through stringing and oozing.

Additionally, extra care should be taken if using a Bowden extruder, as the longer feed lengths can cause jams.

For more info:

• The best TPU and flexible filaments
• Complete guide to TPU filament 3D printing
• Guide to flexible filaments

Nylon filament (Polyamide)

• Temperature: 240-275°C, generally around 250°C
• Heated bed temperature: 90-110°C
• Does Nylon require a heated chamber: Yes

Nylon is a form of Polyamide, with Nylon filament known for being very tough, heat and impact resistant, and difficult to scratch or wear down. As a result, not only is Nylon filament used in some maker projects, but is used heavily in industrial 3D printing situations for rapid prototyping and other uses, and Nylon PA12 powder is also used in SLS 3D printers and in MJF.

This is, hands down in our opinion the most versatile printing material currently available. It’s an amazingly strong filament. Outside the 3D printing world it’s commonly used in clothing, when printed thinly its flexible (think living hinges) and when printed thick it’s got a good level of stiffness to it.

Ultimately Nylon is very durable, has a low friction coefficient (often used in low RPM gearboxes and bushings) and in our Nylon 12 blend has an increased resistance to chemical and thermal influences than the more common grades such as Nylon 6. It is these properties that make Nylon so suitable for blending with other materials to create filament types with a range of excellent benefits.

3D printing tips:

You will absolutely need a heated bed as well as a heated chamber to 3D print Nylon filament. Without these additions, Nylon will warp and parts will be rendered useless. Therefore, use a heated bed as well as an enclosure or heated chamber to keep a steady temperature maintained, further preventing curling or warping.

Additionally, use the correct build surface for Nylon filament, such as an adhesive like glue stick, or PEI sheets or Kapton tape.

Nylon is more expensive than consumer filaments like PLA, with high-quality filaments starting at around $50 per kilo. There are several different Nylon filament types, including NylonX, which is mixed with carbon fiber, and NylonG, which is mixed with glass fibers. Both blends give Nylon added strength but cost much more than standard Nylon.

We recommend the following Nylon selections:

• Nylon filament range on Amazon
• Selection of Nylon filaments on Matterhackers

Nylon is considered tougher than even ABS, owing to its higher impact resistance from its flexibility. Unlike ABS, it also does not create bad odors during 3D printing. It is mainly used for its fantastic strength, impact resistance and flexibility.

However, Nylon’s proneness to warping and curling mean you must be very careful when 3D printing. Keep precise print settings to ensure your print doesn’t warp and fail, and do not attempt to 3D print Nylon without a good heated bed and chamber.

Nylon is also very hygroscopic and requires airtight storage in a dry place or its 3D printing characteristics will drastically worsen.

For more info on Nylon:

• Best Nylon filaments and brands
• Best Nylon 3D printers
• NylonX filament guide

Support Filaments

PVA (Polyvinyl Alcohol)

• Temperature: 190-210°C
• Bed temperature: max 45°C
• Adhesion: blue painter’s tape (and others suitable)

PVA is probably best known for its ability to be dissolved water, and it is therefore often used as a support material in geometrically complex prints alongside PLA. It’s used with PLA as the two materials share similar melting points and print characteristics.

It is perfect for these prints as its solubility means that leaving a print overnight in water completely removes the PVA supports, leaving no trace or blemishes that would otherwise affect the quality of the print.

We recommend the following PVA support filament selections:

• Matterhackers PVA filament selection
• Amazon PVA filament range

If necessary, PVA can also be used to print models, rather than just as a support filament. It is however not ideal for this, as like PC it absorbs moisture from the air, and any contact with water will spell doom for your part. It therefore requires 3D printer filament storage to retain its properties.

Moreover, PVA is liable to clog the 3D printer’s nozzle when printing if left hot without extruding any 3D printer filament. It’s also expensive, which may be a barrier considering it cannot be used for any product intended to be taken outside.

It’s worth considering though it’s extremely hygroscopic – that means you’ve got to keep it dry and sealed with desiccant to preserve it

For more information, here’s our full guide to PVA filament:

HIPS (High Impact Polystyrene)

• Temperature: 230-245°C
• Heated bed: required, recommended temperature 90-115°C
• Adhesion: blue painter’s tape, glue stick, and others also work well

HIPS is a dissolvable material mostly used as a support material when printing with ABS. The main advantage of using HIPS with your ABS 3D printer filament is that after printing, simply leave your model in Limonene to dissolve the HIPS supports.

It’s often regarded as just a support material, which it works as very well. However, it also works great as a standalone printing filament due to the fact it’s easy to print and generally regarded as quite strong and low warp.

In fact, it will actually print nicely as a higher impact alternative to PLA. 

HIPS is a copolymer combining the hardness of polystyrene with the elasticity of polybutadiene rubber to create a high-impact thermoplastic that’s pretty tough and strong – without the typical brittle properties. 

It’s for this reason alone we feel HIPS filament is a really underrated 3D printing material in its own right. 

As a support material, HIPS dissolves using Limonene solution – which is an easily obtained solvent that’s made from the skin of lemons. Once submerged for 24 hours, the HIPS will have dissolved and you’ll be left with the print with clean, crisp overhangs, and no evidence of any supports or any imperfections. 

Having similar properties to ABS, it’s perfect for use with a dual extruder 3D printer, and its light weight means it’s well suited to parts where cutting weight is the aim.

Moreover, HIPS is cheap, and though dissolvable in Limonene, it is still water-resistant. It’s stronger than standard polystyrene, and possesses good mechanical and strength characteristics, leading to its use in plastic signs and point of sale displays.

We recommend the following HIPS selections:

• Matterhackers HIPS range
• Dynamism HIPS range
• Amazon HIPS range

However, as with ABS, HIPS requires the use of a heated bed, and high temperatures are recommended along with a heated chamber with ventilation. HIPS 3D printer filament is liable to warp, so careful monitoring of temperature is required to avoid visible and rough looking layers.

Likewise, as with ABS it exudes strong fumes, and is guilty of clogging up the 3D printer nozzle which can waste time and material.

Read our full guide to HIPS filament here:

Composite Filaments

Wood filaments

• Extruder temperature: 180-220°C
• Heated bed temperature: optional 40-60°C
• Do you need a heated chamber or enclosure to 3D print wood? No.

Relatively new developments in 3D printing have made it possible to print beautifully finished wood models on even the most budget-friendly 3D printers!

These wood filaments are typically a mix of 70% PLA, and 30% wood elements, such as pine, bamboo, and other woods. These filaments give an authentic wooden sheen to your models, letting you create precise wood models that look almost identical to the real thing — only very close inspection will reveal the truth.

Beyond choosing the wood type like pine or birch, you can tailor your preferred wooden finish during printing. Higher temperatures will stain the wood a darker shade, with lower temperatures the opposite. However, don’t print too high — wood is flammable.

We recommend the following wood filament ranges:

• Amazon’s range of wood filaments
• Matterhackers premium wood filament range

Since it’s mostly PLA, wood filaments still print at low temperatures and with relative ease, so even low cost basic printers should be able to print without too much issue. After printing, you can finish, stain and polish your prints to create gorgeous wood-like aesthetics.

Read our full guide to wood filament printing here:

Metal filaments

• Extruder temperature: 190-220°C
• Heated bed: Optional, at 40-60°C

When we say metal filaments, we don’t mean 3D printing solid metal parts in the way industrial metal 3D printers do. Rather than being full solid metal, metal filaments use a percentage of metal powders mixed with standard filaments like PLA.

The most commonly used metal filled filaments include stainless steel, bronze, and copper. However, make sure before you buy that you are indeed buying a filament with metal powder in, rather than a metal color filament.

We recommend the following metal filament ranges:

• High quality metal filament range on Matterhackers here
• Selected metal filaments on Amazon here

Rarely used for things metals would be used for, metal filaments are mostly an aesthetic choice, creating metallic parts that can look like real bronze statues or metal cosplay features.

They’re easily printable on even standard desktop 3D printers, but you should upgrade to a hardened steel nozzle to avoid the composite filaments repeatedly wearing down your standard brass nozzles.

You can read more in our full guide to metal filaments:

Carbon Fiber filled 3D printer filament

• Recommended extruder temperature: depends on main material.

Carbon fiber filled 3D printer filaments are those which contain short fibers infused into the original filament – such as PLA or Nylon – to give it extra strength and hardiness.

Other carbon fiber-filled filaments exist, such as PETG, ABS, and PC. Markforged, as well as releasing their first metal 3D printer recently, have pioneered FDM 3D printers that use these filaments.

These extremely strong fibers mean 3D printed parts will be stronger, retain their shape better (as the fibers prevent shrinking), and best of all, lighter.

We recommend the following carbon fiber filaments:

• Matterhackers range of PLA and other composite carbon fiber filaments
• Dynamism range of premium carbon fiber composites
• Amazon range of carbon fiber filaments

However, the use of these carbon fibers within the 3D printer filaments can increase the chance of the printer nozzle clogging during printing.

Moreover, the filament itself is not suitable for all printers due to its enhanced properties and toughness – basic RepRap 3D printers or cheap 3D printers may struggle. Lastly, the filament becomes slightly more brittle with its enhanced strength, which may not always be ideal.

Carbon-reinforced Nylon 3D printing tips:

• Temperature: 260-275°C
• Bed temperature: 100-115°C
• Adhesion: Kapton tape

For more information, here’s our full guide to carbon fiber 3D printing:

Glass filaments

• PLA Glass temperature: 180-220C, heated bed optional at 40C+
• Glass-reinforced Nylon temperature: 255-275C, heated bed at 100-110C

Perhaps considered fragile by those who only know glass from easily shattered windows or drinking glasses that break when dropped on the floor.

In fact, glass fibers actually provide excellent strength and durability, and are added to standard filaments to notably improve their strength for prototyping and other industrial uses.

We recommend the following glass fiber filament range:

• Glass fiber filaments and NylonG range available on Matterhackers here

PLA glass composite filaments can be made 50% stronger, and 2x less flexible with glass additions. PLA is typically seen as brittle, with glass providing more flexibility without breaking.

NylonG, or Nylon glass composites, are also strengthened without losing Nylon’s trademark flexibility, and is used in industry for high-strength industrial prototyping and other applications.

The main benefits of this material, aside from those mentioned above,are its abrasion resistance. 

Need to print something that needs to take quite a bit of rough and tumble that’s low friction and hard-wearing? Like RC helicopter landing skids, or similar (OK, so we’re not thinking very inventively right now). This could be your go-to for tough stuff. 

Otherwise settings are similar to our standard Nylon 12.

For more information on glass filaments:

Professional 3D printer filaments

PC filament (Polycarbonate)

• Temperature: 300°C+
• Heated bed temperature: at least 90°C, recommended 120°C+
• Do you need a heated chamber or enclosure to 3D print polycarbonate? Yes
• Polycarbonate glass transition temperature: 150°C
• Adhesion: PEI sheets, glue stick

Polycarbonate filament is extremely strong, can take powerful impacts, and withstand very high heats. It also has a transparent finish that looks great.

PC is also lightweight, making it ideal for products that need to be clear, strong, resist heat, and light, and is a heavily used filament in engineering applications, as well as 3D printing sunglasses and riot gear – and even used with toughes glass to make it bulletproof.

• We have a full guide to PC filament in our complete Polycarbonate filament guide.

As a result of its toughness, not all 3D printers can handle PC filament, because your hot-end needs to run at around 260-300°C for it to print nicely.

One of the benefits of such a high printing temperature though is its thermo-stability – polycarbonate filament takes a bit of heat to soften it up. But that’s not to say it’s brittle when cold, far from it. This thermoplastic is also durable and takes quite a force to break it. 

Another interesting quality of Polycarbonate is that it is not strictly rigid but slightly bendy, meaning it can move flexibly without snapping or breaking with high tensile strength. This makes it useful in areas where flexibility is a necessity. Moreover, PC’s ability to retain its structure until around 150°C makes it ideal for use where high temperatures are involved.

We recommend the following PC filament selections:

• Range of PC filament on Amazon here
• Matterhackers range of PC filaments

However, as a result of these strong heat properties, very high temperatures are required to print the 3D printer filament. As it is difficult to prevent the rapid cooling of the part from these high temperatures, PC is very prone to warping – from small temperature deviations, or in the event of too much cooling – therefore requiring a specialized cooling chamber with heated bed.

Polycarbonate is also very hygroscopic and if not stored correctly will deteriorate as it absorbs moisture from the air. We explain how to store and dry affected filament in our PC filament guide below:

ASA (Acrylonitrile Styrene Acrylate)

• Temperature: 230-250°C.
• Heated bed: required, recommended temperature 90-100°C.
• Adhesion: Blue Painters Tape / Glue Stick / PEI Sheet

ASA is a 3D printer filament with good impact resistance as well as being resistant to heat and scratching. However, due to the different rubber material used to produce ASA, it is more expensive than standard 3D printer filaments.

Acrylonitrile Styrene Acrylate is a specialist material, which is new on the scene. It’s very similar to ABS, but with one key difference – it’s resistant to UV light. That means it won’t crack or yellow when left out in the sun over time. If you print practical outdoorsy things, or print for business this printing material is invaluable.

3D printing tips:

ASA filament otherwise has similar properties to ABS — it’s slightly denser, slightly more durable, and harder wearing. If you’d like to learn more about the differences between this and regular ABS filament, check out our comparison article.

Something to note when printing ASA though is that it needs to cool really slowly, or it can crack. This is easily solved by turning your cooling fans right down, to about 5% or 10%.

If you have an enclosed printing chamber, that’s even better – but otherwise, try keep the ambient temperature warm and no drafts and your prints will come out a dream. 

We recommend these ASA filament ranges:

• Matterhackers ASA filament range
• Amazon range of ASA filaments

In addition, this new material composition means it requires a high extruder temperature with recommended ventilation to counteract the fumes produced melting it. A heated bed is also highly recommended to prevent the warping that can be more unpredictable with ASA than some other filaments.

Read our full guide to ASA here:

PP (Polypropylene)

• Recommended extruder temperature: 220-250°C
• Heated bed: 85-95°C

PP is another semi flexible 3D printer filament like PC, and is very lightweight. It however lacks some of the strength of PC, and is therefore used mostly in low strength applications where its flexibility is needed, such as in making ropes, stationery, and in the automotive and textiles sectors. It is also a main material used in injection molding.

PP is useful in 3D printing as it is both impact resistant and fatigue resistant. This makes it perfect for parts that need to be able to absorb shocks, and its scratch resistance comes in handy here too.

We recommend the following PP filament ranges:

• Matterhackers range of PP filaments
• Dynamism Polypropylene filament range
• Range of Amazon Polypropylene filaments

However, PP lacks the strength necessary in many industries, ruling it out for many applications. It is also liable to warping during printing, and is also relatively expensive. Moreover, if you want to customize your model post print, PP is not a good option due to its low solubility for different colored dyes.

PEEK filament (Poly Ether Etherketone)

• PEEK 3D printing temperature: 360-450°C
• Heated bed: 120-160°C
• Do you need an enclosure or heated chamber when 3D printing PEEK? Yes.
• PEEK glass transition temperature: 143°C

PEEK is a very strong plastic that, due to its phenomenal thermal resistance (melts at 343C), requires extremely high temperatures to print. It’s a high grade, industrial material that offers the same strength by volume as steel, despite being 80% lighter. As a result, PEEK is seeing increased use in aerospace and automotive parts to save weight.

In addition to its use in the aerospace industry, PEEK has uses in high fashion 3D printed shoes, as well as wide use in the medical sector to create dental instruments, lightweight prosthetics, and implants as an alternative to standard metal implants. This is because PEEK doesn’t react to boiling water or steam, making it an ideal filament for areas where sterilization is required.

Absolutely not a consumer 3D printer filament, PEEK is reserved for high value-added industrial applications — though if in future prices come down it could see more day-to-day use. It is favored for its extremely high strength, fantastic temperature and chemical resistance, and low weight.

We recommend the following PEEK filament selections:

• Matterhackers premium PEEK range
• Dynamism PEKK and PEEK range

However, these advantages don’t come cheap, and PEEK is certainly far from inexpensive. Expect to pay around $500/kg, sometimes up to even $700. Moreover, it requires these very high temperatures to print, meaning that only industrial 3D printers can print it effectively, no cheap DIY 3D printer kit machines are likely to cut it.

Even small deviations in printing conditions can create imperfections in PEEK printed parts, so conditions must be kept very stable. Moreover, most desktop 3D printers do not come with hot ends that are able to 3D print PEEK, as they cannot handle the temperatures required.

For a more in-depth article on PEEK filament:

Other filaments

Cleaning Filament / Flushing Filament

• Temperature: 170-280°C+

Excuse us for getting personal, but you should be aware that carbon can build up in your hotend nozzle over time.

Now, if you print with the same material, at the same temperature, and your filament is always of a high quality – generally you shouldn’t need to worry about cleaning your nozzle as often. However, we would recommend it as a course of action periodically, especially if you’re a high-volume printer. 

Where you’re really going to see the benefits to nozzle cleaning filament though is when you change materials – especially if you’re going from a hotter printing material to a cooler temperature one.  

Let’s say you’re printing ABS at 250°C, and then take out the material to reload with PLA. PLA prints low, typically at around 180-210°C. That means, any ABS residue isn’t going to get hot enough to push out, and is going to cause friction. 

Not just that, but if you increase the heat of your hotend to 250°C to flush out the ABS with PLA, you risk cooking, or burning the PLA. Which can also clog your nozzle, so for best results, use Floss between 205-210°C to clean out PLA.

Therefore, cleaning filament works perfectly as a flushing filament to use between material changes (and once in a while even if you don’t change) – to keep your nozzle clear and blockage-free. 

What’s more, it only takes 30 seconds per clean making it a real time saver.

PMMA (Acrylic Filament)

• Temperature: 245-255°C
• Bed temperature: 100°C
• Adhesion: blue painter’s tape / glue stick

PMMA, or polymethyl methacrylate, is a hard, scratch-resistant, lightweight thermoplastic. Commonly known as acrylic, it’s well known for clarity and shatter resistance. 

Not as strong as Polycarbonate, but significantly more impact resistant than glass, PMMA filament is ideal when you require something easy to print yet with excellent translucency and scratch resistance. 

Think headlight lenses, aquariums and ice-rink protective glass as common uses for PMMA. 

In addition, PMMA can also be acetone smoothed, similar to ABS. It’s also used for lost-wax casting, as it cleanly burns away when using as a form for a cast mold.

Related articles:

• Filament calculator – how many meters of filament on a 1kg spool
• How much can you print with 1kg filament / PLA?
• The best filament dry boxes
• Best filament storage for 3D printing
• How to dry wet 3D printer filament
• How to smooth PLA
• How to acetone smooth ABS filament
• How to join or fuse filament
• Ender 3 filament buyer’s guide (and V2 / S1)

Or perhaps in short, what good is 3D printing doing for people in difficult situations now?

This article showcases how 3D printing is helping with humanitarian aid and disaster relief, emergency shelter and housing, prosthetics, and more.

3D Printing in Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Relief

The business of disaster relief is far more complex than it’s given credit for.

Moving massive amounts of supplies, equipment, and people both quickly and safely is an enormous logistical challenge that humanitarian professionals can literally spend their entire careers streamlining.

When any nation faces a humanitarian disaster, naturally, the immediate response will come from their own welfare and emergency services.

For wealthy nations, this level of support is usually sufficient, with floods, heatwaves, and terrorist actions usually being resolved domestically.

However, where additional aid could save lives, then international assistance is rarely turned down. For instance, the US received a massive international aid response during the wake of Hurricane Katrina, especially in New Orleans, where flaws in the city’s flood defenses caused 80% of the city to flood.

Despite the industry’s wealth of expertise, conventional deployments continue to face significant logistical challenges, leading to experiments with how 3D printing can help with humanitarian aid and other relief.

Logistical Challenges

Ideally, the level of humanitarian aid given would be determined by need. However, this is too often not the case. Instead, disaster zones that are cheaper and easier to get to are likely to receive more aid than remote ones.

Mike VanRooyen, a Director of the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, explains the issue:

“So take for example, around the same time as the [2010] Haiti earthquake there was a massive flood in Pakistan. But it was very remote and very difficult to get to… The only people that could respond in this distant area of Pakistan for this massive flood were the major organizations that had lifting capacity.”

By comparison, Haiti, which is located close to the US mainland, never experienced issues with the amount of aid it received.

However, Haiti faced its own challenges receiving aid — with how it was managed and implemented.

Aid arriving into Haiti faced an enormous backlog. The quake damaged roads, ports, and underground petrol storage, forcing all urgent and heavy cargo through a single airport. This airport itself was also damaged, with its control tower inactive until days into the relief operation.

So, How Can 3D Printing Help?

Looking to get around these logistical challenges, a new way of delivering aid using 3D printing emerged. Rather than moving supplies to the location, and having to contend with remote deployments or issues with infrastructure damage, why not just 3D print supplies on-site?

Field Ready

Field Ready is a group of NGOs and charities with a vision to use 3D printing to innovate how humanitarian aid is delivered.

In an interview with Singularity University, Field Ready co-founder Dara Dotz explained that:

“If we were to order a shipping container full of umbilical cord clamps, pay the money to get the clamps, buy a million of them so we get them at a cheaper cost, put them in the shipping container… I mean, it can take anywhere from 18 months to three years, and it costs an exponential amount of money. And so, in this case, a small clinic could never afford that.”

Their approach is to instead deploy into these disaster zones and 3D print what is needed on-site, bypassing most of the logistical issues that come with the conventional method. And their approach has seen much success.

Field Ready’s Deployments

Field Ready are active across the world and make use of a variety of desktop 3D printers and manufacturing techniques. A notable and recent example of their impact is their continued work within Syria.

Over ten years of conflict has severely degraded the nation’s healthcare systems. A 2017 World Bank Damage Assessment stated that:

“More than half of all hospitals in the assessed cities have experienced some form of damage (completely destroyed or partially damaged) as of February 2017… Total damages to transportation across the cities of Aleppo, Hama and Idlib are estimated to range between US$608 million and US$668 million.”

With the conflict dragging on, Syria has struggled to rebuild this infrastructure. With locals reporting to Field Ready that “more Syrians die because of a lack of healthcare facilities and equipment than all those killed during the years of violence.” 

With this in mind, Field Ready set up a workshop in the region with the intention of using 3D printing to support these damaged facilities.

Since 2020, Field Ready have been working towards adding 200 components and 35 new devices to their catalog. The catalog contains open-source designs ready to be downloaded and 3D printed.

In addition to their own manufacturing, they reached out to local partners to increase production and ultimately ensure that these devices can still be produced should Field Ready have to depart.

The merits of 3D printing’s ability to produce these parts on-demand and on-location have been proven here, especially with the additional logistical delays caused by Covid-19.

Eric James, Field Ready’s executive director noted that:

“by making these items locally, we bypass traditional supply chains and people won’t have to wait for 10 months before they can get a lifesaving device… By helping to establish a local market, we increase resilience against the shocks of future disasters. It’s practical, it’s efficient, and it saves lives.”  

Since 2020 Field Ready have reported that over 13,000 people have benefitted from their deployment, with 3D printing helping them to repair over 110 medical devices, including infant incubators, microscopes, and defibrillators.

Why Is 3D Printing Not Used More for Disaster Relief?

While these projects are promising, 3D printing still has its limitations. Most 3D printing tools are slow and cannot be used on a large scale. They also have limited function in the days immediately after a disaster.

Food, water, shelter, and medicines will be immediately needed by those affected. Most 3D printers cannot immediately print these products, and where they can, they can’t do so at scale.

For example, as an official evacuation point, around 10,000 people took shelter in New Orleans’s Louisiana Superdome the day before Katrina’s arrival. The national guard arrived with 40,000 military MREs (Meal, Ready-to-Eat). Even if a 3D printer could produce one meal every two minutes, it would still take over 1000 hours to print this quantity, by which time the hurricane would have long passed.

Read more: our feature story on 3D printing food.

Ultimately, 3D printing is all but guaranteed to have an expanding role within disaster relief operations, with current projects already proving its effectiveness as a logistical tool. However, with the comparatively low speed and volume of 3D printing, it’s unlikely to ever replace the need for conventional logistics.

3D Printed Emergency Shelter & Housing

3D printing has a proven ability to produce low-cost houses and building infrastructure with a fraction of the cost and speed of conventional construction, prompting continued research into the field. For example, Millebot Inc have developed a large format printer that can operate and be transported within a shipping container.

Despite this, 3D printed is rarely used to house people displaced immediately after a disaster. Instead, they are more often instead used for social programs.

This is because the 3D printers used for construction are often large, heavy, and expensive, forcing them into the same logistical challenges as conventional aid deployments. Additionally, they require constant connection to power lines to operate, something which is frequently damaged in disaster zones.

Additionally, even though 3D printed houses can now be constructed within 24 hours, this is still too slow.

105,000 homes were destroyed within 30 seconds of Haiti’s earthquake, making the most practical way of sheltering the estimated 1.5 million displaced people being the shipping of conventional emergency tents.

As if to compound this, having just seen their homes crumble around them, many Haitians refused to enter buildings being used as temporary hospitals. During an interview, Stephanie Kayden, another Director at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, explained that:

“Even though the place where we were working had buildings that were very strong… the people that we were helping were too afraid to go inside them.”

This forced the Initiative to use tents and converted trucks as operating theaters.

Despite limited use in immediate disaster responses, 3D printed housing is still used by NGOs and charities for social programs. for example, the organizations 14Trees and Thinking Huts uses 3D printing to accelerate the building of schools and homes in places where infrastructure or affordable housing is lacking.

On that note, there have been various projects aimed at 3D printing affordable housing for the homeless and vulnerable, however, few have committed to 3D printing quite as much as Austin Texas’s “Community First! Village.”

Community First! Village

Amber Fogarty, President and Chief Goodness Officer of Mobile Loaves & Fishes, the organization behind the village, explains:

“Every single neighbor that calls Community First! Village home pays rent in order to live here. We create micro-enterprise opportunities for our neighbors to earn a dignified income doing things that they love to do.”

And these enterprises are significant too. They have a car servicing business, art house, pottery operation, blacksmithing and woodworking shop, and an organic farm.

In 2018, Mobile Loaves and Fishes announced that they would be significantly expanding the village’s capacity by using 3D printing. Amber Fogerty again explains:

“We have about 230 people living in micro-homes and RVs. On Phase Two, [the 2018 announcement] we will add 300 more homes and introduce something that has never been done before: 3D printing three houses at a time.”

Working with 3D printing company ICON, the first production of houses is already complete, with six houses and a welcome center already printed.

Each home is 400 square feet, and features single bedrooms, bathrooms, living rooms, and porches with sweeping views of the Texas sunset.

Icon deployed its large-format Vulcan II 3D printers for the task and fed them a proprietary mix of concrete to build most of the structures.

Considering that Community First Village eventually aims to house 40% of Austin’s homeless population, the reduced cost and construction speed that ICON’s 3D printed homes offer could make that a reality.

3D Printed Prosthetics

3D printing is already used in the development of some modern prosthetics. However, what is perhaps being missed in these new developments, is 3D printing’s potential to make these limbs more accessible.

For example, New York’s Hospital for Special Surgery say a new prosthetic leg can cost anywhere from $5,000 to $50,000.

Within, Glenn Garrison, the hospital’s director of prosthetics and orthotics also explained that “they’re probably in line with a cost of a car. It can be a pricey thing to work with.”

Read more: our full feature story on 3D printed prosthetics.

The effect is that most of the world’s population simply cannot afford all but the most rudimentary of prosthetics. This is especially true for children, who must regularly have their prosthetics replaced as they grow.

Even nations with free or subsidized health services suffer from long prosthetics waiting lists, and restrictive options when it comes to available models.

What 3D printing offers then, is the opportunity for these individuals to affordably build their own prosthetic limbs.

E-Nable

E-Nable is perhaps the most well-known of these 3D printing prosthetic communities. The concept is that volunteers will design prosthetics that can be printed on desktop 3D printers, and then make their designs open-source and available for others to use. The result is that patients looking to print their own prosthetics can simply visit E-Nable and find detailed designs and instructions on how to 3D print their own devices, as well as access to a community of people willing to support them.

In one case, E-Nable’s Yemen-based group, the “Aden Chapter,” began treating victims of the country’s civil war. Abdulla, the Chapter’s founder, explained that:

“The team spent August 2017 printing, redesigning, assembling, and reprinting for the first case… Mossa, our first recipient, 18 years old, lost his left hand by an explosive war remnant. Doctors had to amputate the injured area of the hand rather than proceeding any further medication since the health facilities were crowded and occupied by more sophisticated and serious injuries… He loved the design and gave us valuable feedback.”

E-Nable later reported that “Mossa has been using his new arm to carry objects that are up to 5kg, holding objects and cups and opening bottles. He has also been using this device to write his name!”

Mossa is an interesting case of accessibility. His issue wasn’t the price or availability of prosthetics, but simply the overwhelming pressure of Yemen’s health services. Ultimately, without 3D printing communities like E-Nable, people like him would still likely be on waiting lists.

How key is 3D printing for bettering people’s lives overall?

While that is a difficult question to answer, 3D printing’s continuing increasing adoption in building temporary homes for the disaster-hit — the father of construction 3D printing, Dr Behrokh Khoshnevis, originally came up with the idea when thinking how to help disaster-hit populations — as well as in prosthetics, building low-cost homes, and in humanitarian aid, make it a hopeful piece of the larger puzzle in raising living standards worldwide.

Right now, 3D printing’s impact is comparatively minimal, but with great advances being made, particularly in house-building, there is a lot to be hopeful about with 3D printing’s ability to do good.

But while most 3D printers are great, picking the wrong one — or from the wrong distributor — can cause issues if anything goes wrong. And for more expensive and professional 3D printers, our top recommended sellers provide aftersales support to ensure everything goes smoothly.

So, which 3D printer should you buy online, and where are the best places to buy a 3D printer online?

We’ll first try and help you decide which type of 3D printer best suits your ambitions, the price range and level of 3D printer you need to achieve your goals, and then recommend based on those needs and which country you’re located in, the best places online to buy a 3D printer.

This article covers:

• Why you should (or shouldn’t) buy a 3D printer
• Which type of 3D printer to buy
• Which price range 3D printer you should buy
• The best places to buy a 3D printer online

Why You Should Buy a 3D Printer

3D printers are amazing. You can create almost anything, with almost any geometry (where CNC routers struggle) and from so many different materials.

But that doesn’t necessarily mean you have to buy one. Some technical knowledge is required (or a willingness to learn), especially for cheap 3D printers that don’t come with auto-leveling and that will need parts replacing or upgrading over time.

So, before you commit to buying a 3D printer, think about whether you have the skills, or the time and a moderate level of dedication required to get the most out of it. If so, then buying a 3D printer will add endless creativity and fun (and potentially profit) to your life — you just need to decide which 3D printer – or type of 3D printer – to buy.

Which Type of 3D Printer To Buy

Within the 3D printer umbrella, there’s a range of different technologies. Most, like metal 3D printing technologies, are reserved for industrial uses and we won’t be recommending them here — this article is for hobbyist and small business 3D printers rather than industrial.

These 3D printers come in two main types: resin and FDM printers.

Buying an FDM 3D printer

FDM 3D printers are considered the cheapest, most accessible, and easiest to get started with. They’re the least hassle overall — and while things can (and probably will) go wrong, parts are more easily interchangeable and replaceable, which also opens up many possibilities for upgrading them.

Cheap FDM printers start at around $200, usually come as DIY kits, so you’ll need some basic skills (they’re SO much easier to make now than 5 years ago) and up to an hour to get it going, but this shouldn’t faze most people. They’re great for 3D printing almost anything, and most of the materials you can print are durable enough to make general household items and fun projects.

You can print a variety of plastics and other more exotic filaments like PLA, PETG, ABS, and wood-filled filaments, on nearly all FDM 3D printers you can buy online. More commercial FDM printers can print tougher filaments like PC (polycarbonate), Nylon, and high-temperature printers can even 3D print PEEK.

We’ll discuss more on what you can expect within each price range further on, but generally the more you pay, the less hassle (auto-leveling, filament sensors, better touchscreens, WiFi) and the better quality prints you get, larger build volumes, and faster printing. You can also buy a dual extruder 3D printer for printing two different materials, or two colors, at the same time.

Buying a resin 3D printer

The other type of 3D printer you can buy online at a decent price are resin 3D printers. These are typically LCD printers (or MSLA) or DLP printers, using a variety of different light sources to cure and solidify liquid resin.

They’re much more accurate than FDM 3D printers, and at high resolutions, you’ll barely be able to see the layer lines on your finished model. This makes them popular for 3D printing miniatures and figurines with intricate details, as well as castings for jewelry molds.

Like FDM printers, the cheapest resin printers start at around $200, but more reliable, accurate and powerful printers like the Form 3 will set you back a few thousand.

What price range do you need?

Another factor in buying a 3D printer online is how much you’re willing to pay – and also what you can expect in terms of features and performance, for your money.

For a full rundown: how much does a 3D printer cost to buy and maintain?

For the lowest end, you can buy usable FDM kits and resin 3D printers online costing around $200. You likely won’t get any extra functionalities, such as auto-leveling or a built-in enclosure on an FDM kit, or super high resolutions and reinforced z-axis for stability on a resin 3D printer, but they’re absolutely still good enough for fun hobbyist projects, such as 3D printing keychains, small-ish cosplay props (FDM), or fun character models (best in resin).

At around $500, you can expect WiFi connectivity which generally saves you time and improves your workflow, you may get an auto-leveling 3D printer such as the Anycubic Vyper or Creality CR-10, and you can expect better accuracy and reliability. They increasingly have touchscreens for better monitoring of nozzle and bed temperature and quicker settings adjustment.

From $1,000 to $7,000, most of the extras are in larger build volumes, better setup for rapid prototyping and 3D printing in a small business (better analytics and monitoring, and more materials for tougher filament printing), and even better accuracy (such as the Formlabs Form 3 for resin, or the Ultimaker S3 or S5 for FDM).

They work like workhorses, offer large build volumes (such as the Raise3D Pro2 Plus), rarely fail prints, and can be operated remotely, as well as integrated into a larger workflow as part of a 3D printer factory, if you’re printing on many printers at once. You also typically get aftersales support with these, whereas for low-cost printers you may have to wait 24-hours for email support if something goes wrong.

The Best Places to Buy a 3D Printer Online

Now you’re better equipped to decide which type of 3D printer best suits your needs, and your budget, here’s some of the best places to buy a 3D printer.

Amazon

Amazon are everpresent, and you’ve probably got an Amazon Prime account. 3D printers are routinely available on Prime for super-fast delivery, and they’re also competitively priced (though read on for tips to save money by buying direct from manufacturers).

They have a wide selection of popular low-cost 3D printers to buy online, as well as a few more commercial 3D printers, though some prefer to buy these 3D printers from dedicated distributors for better aftersales service.

Some great 3D printers available online on Amazon include:

• Creality Ender 3
• Elegoo Mars (and other versions)
• Flashforge Adventurer 3
• Anycubic Mega S
• Anycubic Mega X
• Anycubic Photon Mono
• Anycubic Photon Mono X

Read more: we have a full list of the best 3D printers on Amazon

Creality

While most Creality 3D printers are available on Amazon, you can sometimes get a better price by going straight to the source. Creality make some of the world’s most popular 3D printers, including the Ender 3, CR-10 range, and more. 

3D printers you can buy online with Creality include:

• Ender 3
• Ender 5 Pro
• Ender 6
• Creality CR-10 Smart, CR-10 V2 and CR-10 V3
• CR-30 conveyor belt printer

Prusa — best place to buy a 3D printer kit online

Prusa are known throughout the 3D printing industry for making some of the best 3D printer kits around. The Prusa i3 range have become the most popular RepRap kits, and the newer Prusa Mini, as well as the Prusa SL1 resin 3D printer, are all considered some of the best printers in their price range.

You can either buy them as a kit and build them yourself, or pay a couple hundred dollars extra and have it sent pre-assembled.

Prusa 3D printers you can buy online include:

• Prusa i3 MK3S+
• Prusa Mini+
• Prusa SL1S Speed

Anycubic

Anycubic have come to dominate the low cost resin 3D printer market as well as the low cost FDM kit scene. Their Anycubic Mono range became instant best-sellers for high-quality, low-cost resin printing, and their Mega S and X printers offer large build volumes and good reliability at a low price point.

Anycubic 3D printers you can buy online include:

• Vyper
• Mega S
• Mega X
• Photon Mono
• Photon Mono X

Matterhackers

Matterhackers is one of the largest online 3D printer stores, mostly focusing on more commercial printers by Ultimaker, Makerbot and more, though they also have lower-cost 3D printers by brands like Monoprice, as well as CNC routers and laser engravers. They have a wide range of supporting blogs and videos for common problems like nozzle clogging to help troubleshoot common 3D printing problems, and their team are on hand to help if you need it.

As well as selling printers, they’ve already released their own printer, the Pulse XE, a Prusa clone designed specifically for printing tough filaments like NylonX and carbon fiber — but at a far lower cost than other compatible printers. 

Some great 3D printers you can buy online include:

• Ultimaker S3
• Ultimaker S5
• Peopoly Phenom
• Monoprice Voxel
• Makerbot Method
• Zmorph Fab

Dynamism

Dynamism sell some of the best-quality commercial 3D printers around, by brands such as Ultimaker, Formlabs, Makerbot, Raise3D, EnvisionTEC, and more. These range from mid-range small business and hobbyist commercial printers like the Ultimaker S3 and Dremel 3D45, to more industrial 3D printers like Desktop Metal’s metal fiber 3D printers.

Dynamism have been leaders in 3D technology since 1997, with 20 years of success and innovation in 3D printing — and have recently launched their own 3D printing service for getting parts made on-demand. They pride themselves on their service and support, and as well as 3D printers, also sell Glowforge’s range of industrial laser cutters.

You can buy 3D printers online including:

• Ultimaker S3
• Ultimaker S5
• Formlabs Form 3
• Dremel 3D45

Snapmaker — where to buy a 3D printer that can laser cut and CNC

Snapmaker made headlines when their second release, the Snapmaker 2.0, raised an incredible $8.5 million on Kickstarter to become the most-funded technology project of all time. 

Read our review: we tested the Snapmaker 2.0 3D printer

The Snapmaker 2.0 has since released, a 3-in-1 3D printer that can be easily switched out to a CNC or laser engraving module, and you can also buy the 4-axis rotary module to give yourself another dimension for the laser and CNC tools.

Snapmaker 3D printers include:

• Snapmaker 2.0
• Snapmaker Original

Toybox — best place to buy a 3D printer for kids

Toybox specialize purely in making 3D printers for kids — though they’re also great introductions to 3D printing by adults who want an easy route into the more technical parts.

They’re great; super simple to get started and use, and you have the option to print your own toys with Toybox’s partners, including Batman and Wonder Woman prints!

Toybox 3D printer: Available here

Read our review: we tested the Toybox 3D printer

3DJake – where to buy a 3D printer in UK and Europe

3DJake’s online 3D printer range include:

For any Europeans looking to buy a 3D printer, 3DJake service UK, France, Germany and the rest of Europe with a wide range of hobbyist 3D printers. 

As well as 3D printers, 3DJake also sell 3D pens, 3D scanners, laser cutters, and more.

• Elegoo Mars
• Anycubic Vyper
• Creality CR-6
• Creality Ender 3 & Ender 3 V2
• Biqu B1

In order to learn about the 3D printing industry, we have to know what 3D printing is, and we found Investopedia’s definition said it best:

“Three-dimensional (3D) printing is an additive manufacturing process that creates a physical object from a digital design. The process works by laying down thin layers of material in the form of liquid or powdered plastic, metal or cement, and then fusing the layers together.”

It’s this ability to turn a digital design into a 3D model that makes 3D printing such a tremendous discovery. The application of 3D printing has no end, with industries like fashion, construction, healthcare, and automotive using it to jumpstart innovation.

Along with supporting the statements above, the below industry facts will help you understand the financial and future market of 3D printing. We’ll look at current 3D printing market trends, how and where 3D printing is used, the leading manufacturers, and what we can expect from 3D printing in the future.

Facts & Stats on the History of 3D Printing

For its relatively short history, 3D printing has garnered some impressive feats. It seemed almost immediately in its young life it began revolutionizing the medical field, with prosthetics and organ transplants receiving the brunt of the attention.

But it wasn’t until 2009 that it started transforming into the consumer product we see today.

1. The idea of 3D printing was first conceptualized in the 1970s, but the first 3D printing experiments were not attempted until the 1980s when Dr. Hideo Kodama developed a rapid prototyping technique, that involved a photosensitive resin that was polymerized by a UV light.

2. In 1990, EOS GmbH was founded and created the EOS “stereos” system, which is now globally recognized as SLS technology (selective laser sintering).

3. 3D printers have been used in the medical field for over two decades, with the first successful bladder printed in 1999 and the first kidney printed in 2002.

4. In the last half of the 2010s, ZCorp launched the Spectrum Z510 in 2005, which was the first high-definition color 3D printer, and the first 3D printed prosthetic limb was created in 2008.

5. In 2009, the FDM patent fell into the public domain, which led to a wave of innovation in FDM 3D printers, increased accessibility to desktop 3D printers, and growing popularity amongst individual consumers.

Current 3D Printing Market Trends & Stats

Analyzing 3D printing market trends is a complex market to tackle because of how many components there are.

On the most basic level, we have the market divided into hardware, software, and services. Hardware represents the actual product or machine, software is the technology and digital design used by 3D printers and users, and services are what the 3D printed products can do.

These sectors are then broken down even further into segments like types of software, materials, and verticals. To avoid spiraling though, we’ve structured the current market into the overall trends, hardware, software and services, and leading manufacturers.

6. The AM market is projected to double in size and reach a valuation of $37.2 billion by 2026, according to the HUBS trend report.

7. The 3D printing industry expanded 7.5% in 2020 despite the pandemic to nearly $12.8 billion. This is compared to the past average growth of 27.4% over the last 10 years.

8. When divided into software, hardware, and services, hardware leads the market by a majority of over 63%, followed by software, then services. Hardware is made up of applications, materials, and verticals. (Grand View Research 3D Printing Market Report 2021-2028)

9. The stereolithography segment of the 3D printer market accounted for over 10% of the market’s global revenue in 2020, holding the largest share as one of the most established and conventional printing technologies.

10. The 3D printing market value is predicted to reach $9.4 billion by 2022 in the medical industry alone.

11. Industrial printers account for more than 76% of the global revenue for printer types, with the remaining being desktop 3D printers, which are primarily made up of hobbyists and small businesses.

12. FDM 3D printers make up 48% of all 3D printers in use.

Note: You’ll find a lot of analysis reporting on the 3D printing market as additive manufacturing, or AM. This is a broader market that includes 3D printing.

3D Printing Hardware Industry Facts & Stats

Hardware is the biggest sector of the 3D printing market, not just in revenue but in segments.

Based on the Grand View Research report, hardware is divided into applications, verticals, and materials. Applications include uses like prototyping and functional parts, verticals represent industries like fashion and dental, and materials revolve around the substance used for printing like ceramics and plastics.

Compared to other markets – like the drone market – 3D printing boasts relatively high CAGR percentages and has expected revenue operating in the billions over the next few years.

13. For application, prototyping leads this market segment by more than 55% of the revenue worldwide in 2020 due to the rise in industries adopting 3D printing for prototyping. (Grand View Research 3D Printing Market Report 2021-2028)

14. Functional parts, another segment of the application market, is expected to grow at a CAGR of 21.5% from 2021 to 2028, along with an increased demand for designing and building functional parts. (Grand View Research 3D Printing Market Report 2021-2028)

15. When looking at verticals, automotive holds the largest share of the industrial 3D printing market accounting for over 23% of the segment’s global revenue. Aerospace and defense and healthcare are anticipated to contribute to future growth. (Grand View Research 3D Printing Market Report 2021-2028)

16. The dental, fashion, jewelry, and food industries are expected to grow the desktop 3D printing segment, with dental taking the lead in 2020. (Grand View Research 3D Printing Market Report 2021-2028)

17. As far as materials used in 3D printing, metal led the market with more than 48% of the global revenue and is anticipated to expand at a CAGR of 23.3% over the next six years. Polymer has the second-largest share of the revenue. (Grand View Research 3D Printing Market Report 2021-2028)

18. The ceramic segment, while fairly new, is expected to grow at a CAGR of 23.3% over the forecasted period. (Grand View Research 3D Printing Market Report 2021-2028)

19. Between 2018 and 2026, the 3D printing materials market is predicted to grow by 12% annually, reaching just under $4 billion by 2026.

Software and Services Stats and Facts

Software and services together make up less than half of the 3D printing market, but we argue there’s increasing potential for that to change.

Software’s largest segment is design or CAD software, but it’s also made up of scanning software and other application-specific tools. The focus seems to be on end-user experience, as desktop 3D printers grow and more casual users begin employing these machines.

Moving forward, streamlining user-friendliness and ready-made part designs will be paramount to the growth of these sectors.

20. 3D printing software should grow from $787.5 million in 2018 to $2.1 billion by 2023 at a CAGR of 22.2%. (BCC Research 3D Printing Software: Global Market to 2023)

21. Design software was responsible for more than 36% of global revenue for the 3D printing market in 2020 and is expected to continue dominating the 3D printing software market. (Grand View Research 3D Printing Market Report 2021-2028)

22. Scanning software is expected to grow rapidly and generate increased revenue with a projected CAGR of 21.4% from 2021 to 2028.

23. Hardware is predicted to continue holding the largest revenue share, but software is expected to have the fastest CAGR over the forecasted period. (Grand View Research 3D Printing Market Report 2021-2028)

24. The market for on-demand parts services and CAD software is expected to triple by 2026.

Stats For The Top 3D Printer Manufacturers

As with many industries, it’s hard for new businesses to get their foot in the door when competing against established multi-million (and billion) dollar companies, but luckily for independent manufacturers, the 3D printing field results show differently.  

What’s also unique about manufacturing 3D printers is the potential use for the machine is endless. From healthcare to food and industrial to personal use, there’s a wide variety of niches to cater to.

25. The top 5 leading 3D printing companies are AutoDesk, HP Inc., 3D Systems, Desktop Metal, and Proto Labs.

26. The world’s largest 3D printer manufacturer is AutoDesk, with a market capitalization of $68.22 billion.

27. After going public in December 2020, Desktop Metal’s market capitalization exceeded $7.5 billion in 2021, and received $575 million as part of a merger with special acquisitions company Trine Acquisition Corp.

28. Throughout 2020, established 3D printer manufacturers saw a decline in sales while independent service providers saw a 7.1% increase in sales worldwide, resulting in a $5.3 billion revenue for the group. (Wohlers Report 2021)

Facts About How & Where 3D Printing Is Being Used

By now, you already know about how versatile 3D printing is, but how are these industries using it?

3D printing seems to breed innovation and production, with industrial companies relying on it for end-use parts and global brands like Adidas using it to develop new shoe technology. Companies are even claiming to save millions in costs by switching to 3D printing rather than using traditional methods to purchase parts.

All in all, the ingenuity of companies coupled with additive manufacturing promises to be a positive venture.

29. 65% of engineering businesses used 3D printing more in 2020 whilst traditional manufacturing technologies were limited.

30. 54% of engineering businesses increased their 3D-oriented usage for functional end-use parts in 2020. (HUBS Trend Report 2021)

31. 73% of engineering businesses believe they will manufacture or source more 3D printed parts in 2021. (HUBS Trend Report 2021)

32. Prototyping is the leading application of 3D printing in industries like aerospace and automotive.

33. The aircraft company Boeing expects to save $3 million by adopting 3D printed titanium parts and will produce the first commercial airplane to fly with FAA-approved AM parts.

34. General Electric expects to save between $3-5 billion over a period of 10 years by switching to 3D printed parts. They also have the largest number of 3D printing patents in the US, with 342 published patents.

35. Adidas has used data-based analysis to develop 3D printed midsoles for the new 4DFWD shoes. Over the last four years, they’ve developed 4D footwear and their signature 4D lattice midsoles, which are made of 40% bio-based material.

36. Healthcare’s 3D printing market size was valued at $1,036.58 million in 2020 and is predicted to reach $5,846.74 million by 2030 at a registered CAGR of 20.10%.  

37. According to a SmartTech Analysis, the 3D printed prosthetics, orthotics, and audiology market will accrue $509 million in revenue by 2026 and grow to $996 million by 2030.

Future Outlook of the 3D Printing Industry Stats

According to Forbes, the future of 3D printing lies heavily in prototyping for both desktop and industrial printers. Creators being able to design and print their own original creations are expected to boost innovation, and companies being able to replace rare parts and rapidly prototype products, like new car models, will help streamline production.

It seems 3D printers are on the last stretch of the home run as the industry works towards developing this technology to satisfy the needs of the many.

38. Over the next decade, we can expect the majority of manufacturing spend to shift to functional end-use parts as the technology becomes more affordable and more markets adopt it.  

39. We expect to see additive manufacturing playing a bigger role in sustainability and conservation efforts as 3D printing has proven to reduce waste and energy consumption.

40. More specialized materials will be adapted for 3D printing in order to meet the criteria demanded in specialized fields.

41. The next frontier of 3D printing will be to move from small models and fixtures to functional end-use parts in mass production.  

Exploring the 3D Printing Market

Since the beginning, additive manufacturing has pushed the limits on creativity and production, and now it promises to do the same on a larger scale.

With things like houses and airplanes already thriving with the adoption of 3D printing, the next big step has shown to be mass production and understanding the implications this will have that rival that of the next industrial revolution. We can’t speak in absolutes, but for 3D printing to achieve the monumental tasks ahead, speed and design capabilities need to be at the forefront of manufacturers’ goals to accommodate the growing need for this technology.

But, with so many materials it can be difficult to know when to use which: which is best for prototyping, and which is best for fun home 3D printer projects?

Our 3D printer material encyclopedia covers:

• Filaments used for FDM
• Resins used for SLA, DLP, LCD
• Powders used for SLS
• Metal powders used in DMLS, EBM

FDM 3D printing materials: filaments

Fused deposition modeling (FDM) is the most accessible, and most used technology by hobbyists — and it also has uses in rapid prototyping in industry.

FDM uses filaments to print the object, melting and extruding the plastic onto a print bed using an extruder. Different filaments have widely different print settings, requirements and heats, so here’s the low-down on some of the most used filament materials:

Resin 3D printing materials

3D printing materials are not limited to filaments. 

While FDM is ideal for low cost 3D printing and can create tough parts, it is constrained by its lack of accuracy and rougher surface finish. 

Resin 3D printing methods like Stereolithography can achieve far smoother surface finishes, resembling injection molded parts with fine details and intricacies possible.

There are a variety of different resins that you’d use for different situations, so we’ll go through them here.

SLS 3D printing materials

SLS is another major 3D printing technology, using a laser to melt polymer powders into the final part. It’s less accessible than FDM and resin 3D printing, but is used heavily in prototyping as the final SLS parts are tough, durable, and do not require supports.

Metal 3D Printing Materials

Although less accessible and still very expensive, 3D printing has seen huge growth in the printing of metal powders via methods like Direct Metal Laser Sintering, Electron Beam Melting, and Directed Energy Deposition. Here are some of the commonly used metal 3D printing materials:

You may be surprised to know that despite its appearance as a new, innovative technology, 3D printing has been around since the mid-1980s. What used to be just industrial 3D printers the size of small cranes transformed into potentially the solution to organ shortages, the housing crisis, and the democratization of manufacturing, in just 30 years.

The history of 3D printing is a long story, and we felt it was important to include everything relevant to the last 30 years of progress. We split the history of 3D printing into four main parts:

• We also keep an up-to-date ranking of the 15 most valuable 3D printer companies.

Who invented 3D Printing?

In May 1981, Dr Hideo Kodama at the Nagoya Municipal Industrial Research Institute published details concerning a ‘rapid prototyping‘ technique. This research was the first piece of literature to describe the layer-by-layer approach so intrinsic to 3D printing. His research involved printing photopolymers using a method which preceded stereolithography, and also spoke about cross-sectional slices of layers which lay on top of each other to form the 3D object.

However, Dr Kodama didn’t fulfil the patent application before his deadline and was never granted the patent.

Before this however, there were rumblings and references made to a stereolithography-like process in earlier research paper dating back to the 60s and 70s, and in a 1974 New Scientist column, David Jones, writing under the name Daedalus, actually published a satirical piece that jokingly described the SLA process.

“He basically invented stereolithography with a laser, and invented it as a joke. A joke invention, but this one turned out to work!”

— Dr Adrian Bowyer, Founder of the RepRap movement, which will become important further on in 3D printing’s history.

Instead, we had to wait several more years for the birth of 3D printing. But who invented 3D printing?

1984 – 87: Early History of 3D printing & invention of Stereolithography

Three years later in 1984, three French engineers named Alain Le Méhauté, Olivier de Witte, and Jean Claude André filed a patent for the Stereolithography process. They were to pioneer a new manufacturing process that was to revolutionize manufacturing!

But it wasn’t to be. The three men abandoned the patent soon after they filed it, citing ‘lack of business perspective.’ In hindsight, I’m sure they’re gutted.

Just three weeks after the French engineers, Charles ‘Chuck’ Hull filed his patent for Stereolithography, with new features such as the STL file format and digital slicing. His process used ultraviolet light to cure photopolymers. Since filing and obtaining the patents by 1986, Chuck Hull formed 3D Systems and released the first ever 3D printer, the SLA-1, in 1987. 3D printing was born.

It is therefore arguable that either Chuck Hull or Dr Kodama invented 3D printing, though Chuck Hull is credited far more and rightfully so. Ideas are easy, executing them is the hard part.

1988 – 92: Stratasys, EOS, and FDM and SLS to rival SLA

Stereolithography had competition in the 3D printing space however, with rival processes in development. In 1988, Carl Deckard at the University of Texas filed a patent for Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) technology. Instead of using a UV light, SLS used a laser to trace and solidify layers of powder polymers. This innovative new technology was then leased to DTM Inc to use.

Then it became a three-horse race. Scott Crump co-founded Stratasys in 1989 and filed the patent for Fused Deposition Modeling, probably the most well-known 3D printing technology today. 3D Systems and Chuck Hull may have had a head start, but competitors were hot on his heels.

This competition was further exacerbated by the founding of EOS in 1989 in Germany by Dr Hans Langer. The German juggernaut would go on to dominate the SLS 3D printer market, as well as pioneer Direct Metal Laser Sintering in the mid-90s.

After the release of the SLA-1 a few years prior, Stratasys released their first FDM 3D printer in 1991. This was the first real competition for 3D Systems, as each had the patent rights to two very different 3D printing technologies. FDM parts were stronger and more chemically resistant, but SLA parts could be created quicker, and more accurately. Who would come out on top?

• For an up-to-date comparison of the two technologies as they are today, check out our comparison of FDM vs SLA.

The next year in 1992, DTM Inc brought out their first SLS 3D printer. It is however worth remembering that these machines were behemoths, not the compact and inexpensive desktop machines of today. They competed for industrial prototyping contracts, not to be your Christmas present. Nevertheless, the game was afoot. The three 3D printing technologies, which are still the three main plastic 3D printing technologies, were alive and kicking.

1993 – 95: ZCorp, Color Jet 3D printing, and maturation

Though less known in the modern day, ZCorp were another major 3D printing company back in the early 90s. In 1993, MIT developed a 3D printing technique based on inkjet printers – the ones we use to print in our offices on paper. Adapting this 2D technology for 3D, ZCorp released their first 3D printer, the Z Corp Z402. The technology was originally called Zprinting, though the range are now called Color Jet printers, but the technology is known as Binder Jetting. The first model used starch and plaster-based powder materials and a water-based binder to print objects.

In the same year, another novel 3D printing solution was brought closer to the market. In 1993, Royden Sanders founded Solidscape (originally called Sanders Prototype Inc.), which created wax 3D printers. These didn’t create the conventional prototypes that other technologies sought to, but instead made wax molds. These molds were then used in investment casting to create objects out of other, more solid, materials. Solidscape released the Model Maker in 1994, their first wax 3D printer, establishing itself as a favorite among jewelers creating 3D printed jewelry.

In less than ten years, 3D printing had gone from being a fanciful idea on a piece of paper to  an effective niche option in small-scale manufacturing. The machines might have been big and slow, but that was the norm in 1995. Even desktop computers were expensive then. Much more was to occur however, as we will find out.

The beginning of house 3D printing

Dr Behrokh Khoshnevis, an academic based in California, first envisioned 3D printing larger layers on huge, industrial-scale printers in the mid-1990s. His focus was on creating enormous parts for airplane propellors or sand molds.

However, in the face of a number of natural disasters, he realized the potential of the technology to create shelters in record time, and for far lower costs.

“In 1994 I started thinking about large-scale fabrication with 3D printing. I wasn’t happy with the speed of fabrication of the early 3D printers, and still they haven’t changed much as far as speed is concerned. I knew there was no other way to increase the speed of 3D printing than increase the layer height, but if you increase layer height then surface quality will suffer.

“So then I came up with the idea that I call Contour Crafting, in 1994. My first patent on it was issued in 1996, a couple years after.”

• You can read our full interview with Dr Khoshnevis here.

This was just the start of what is now one of 3D printing’s most promising applications.

The first ten years of the history of 3D printing led to the birth of future giants such as 3D Systems, Stratasys, and EOS. Still, in the mid-1990s, they were relative minnows compared to the billion-dollar valuations they now possess.

1996 – 98: Arcam, Objet, and the first 3D printing medical breakthrough

The late 1990s was another important time for newly established 3D printing companies. 1997 saw the creation of Arcam, who specialize in metal 3D printer machines and who are the only manufacturer of Electron Beam Melting (EBM) 3D printers. Additionally, the following year saw Objet Geometries established in 1998 in Israel, who would introduce their PolyJet 3D printing technology to the world.

Stepping away from the purely commercial side of 3D printing, 1999 saw the first extraordinary achievement by 3D printing in the medical industry. Scientists at the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine managed to 3D bioprint synthetic scaffolds of a human bladder. They then coated these scaffolds with cells from the patient’s tissue before this newly generated tissue was implanted into the patient. Since this tissue was made from the patient’s own cells, there was a low-to-zero risk of the body rejecting it, marking an important win for 3D printing in medical.

• For more information on 3D printed organs, check out our feature story on 3D bioprinting
• We also have a feature story on 3D printing in medicine

1999 – 2002: 3D printing goes multi-colored, 3D Systems take over SLS

The turn of the millennium brought another set of milestones for 3D printing. ZCorp revealed the first multi color 3D printer, whilst Objet Geometries released their first inkjet 3D printer, both in 2000. Though Stratasys and 3D Systems were still two of the biggest names in the industry, churning out a variety of industrial machines, these hard-working understudies were growing in size and stature.

In a huge move at the time, 3D Systems took control of the Selective Laser Sintering market by acquiring DTM in April 2001. The move was worth $45M and saw 3D Systems become market leaders in two different 3D printing technologies: SLA and SLS.

2002: 3D printed bladders, and EnvisionTEC

The 3D printed bladder was merely the start for bioprinting and 3D printing’s ongoing usefulness in medical treatments. In 2002, a 3D printed miniature human kidney was created, again at the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine. Though not full size, this represented a key advancement in bioprinting, exciting many that 3D printed organs could solve the shortage of organs available for transplant, and even 3D print hearts.

EnvisionTEC were also established in 2002, who have grown to become a major 3D printing company, selling over 40 printers which are widely used across the jewelry, bioprinting and dental industries.

2004 – 05: Beginnings of RepRap, and 3D Printing goes HD

During the years 2004 and 2005, the beginnings of what is arguably the single most important event in 3D printing history occurred. A senior lecturer at the University of Bath, Dr. Adrian Bowyer, had been inspired by 3D printing and had ideas for 3D printers that could self-replicate — building more versions of themselves.

“I’d been interested in self-reproducing machines since I was a child, I don’t really know where that originated — nearly 70 years ago. That was a constant background interest. Though it wasn’t a research activity, I had not done any research into self-replicating machines.

“They [3D printers] were fabulously expensive: the cheapest one when I started the RepRap project cost around £40,000, and in fact that was one of the ones we bought at the university. When I looked at how it worked, it seemed it would be possible to make such a machine at a considerably reduced price, but my primary aim was to produce a machine that could produce most of its parts. And so, that was the way the project went.” — Dr Bowyer, in an interview with 3DSourced.

The movement, named RepRap (short for ‘replicating rapid prototyper’), started off as an initiative within the University of Bath, but later gained popularity worldwide. The project was open source and focused on the spreading of low-cost 3D printing worldwide, leading to its democratization. Interest in these low cost 3D printers skyrocketed as people edited and tinkered with his designs.

• We’ve also ranked the best RepRap 3D printers.

ZCorp were intent on making 2005 their year too however, announcing their Spectrum Z510 3D printer. This wasn’t your average yearly upgrade with marginally improved specs, but a voyage into the unknown which shattered perceived limitations of 3D printing. The Z510 could not only print in color, but was the first 3D printer that could print in color in HD.

2005 – 08: Binder Jetting, RepRap becomes viable

Also in 2005, ExOne was established as a standalone company from the Extrude Hone Corporation. ExOne would go on to become a leader in Binder Jetting 3D printing, capable of 3D printing objects in metal as well as sandstone. Binder Jetting can create full-color sandstone objects, as well as metal parts with very complex geometries.

Whilst corporations were breaking records, Dr. Adrian Bowyer and his RepRap movement were also hard at work with more wholesome goals. The 2008 release of the ‘Darwin’ RepRap 3D printer was huge – the printer could self-replicate, and people could now easily and cheaply 3D print at home if they had moderate technological and technical knowledge.

Dr Bowyer talking about Vik Olliver using the first RepRap to ever print a part of itself:

“It wasn’t very reliable then! And I didn’t know beforehand because that was actually done by Vik Olliver on the other side of the world! In fact, I didn’t know he was going to try and do that before he did, he did and then put up a blog post and that’s how I learned about it. I thought wa-heyyyy! It worked!”

Darwin wasn’t pretty, but it was functional. What used to be an industry dominated by room-sized industrial machines could now be rivaled by machines that fit on top of a washing machine.

Anyone could easily obtain the parts to create their own Darwin, the only rule being that if you received the parts, you were under obligation to 3D print the parts for more Darwins for other enthusiasts. DIY 3D printer kits would go on to have an incredible impact.

2008: Thingiverse, and the begininng of 3D printed prosthetics

Although now widely known, a small website called Thingiverse, owned by a fledgling company called Makerbot launched in 2008. Thingiverse allowed designers to upload their 3D printer models built on various 3D software for others to download for free and print at home. Since everybody loves free stuff, Thingiverse soon took off. It is now in the top 700 most popular websites in the USA, and just outside the top 1,000 websites in the world. Thingiverse now hosts over a million STL files that anyone can download and tinker with.

• We also have a list of 15 of the best sites to download 3D printer files.

Another major event in 2008 was the first 3D printed prosthetic. This extraordinary achievement was compounded by the fact that this prosthetic leg did not need to be assembled, it was 3D printed to function immediately. This opened many people’s eyes to how 3D printing could save time and labor, as fully-assembled objects could be printed from scratch.

The one-off nature of 3D printing also suggested that it would be the perfect method to create customized prosthetics and medical implants based on individual patients’ needs. Instead of the usual several-month lead times for prosthetics, 3D scanners could scan a patients’ arm or leg, and almost immediately begin to create a prosthetic that fit them perfectly.

Now in the present day, thousands of volunteers work to create 3D printed prosthetic hands and arms for children born without them. The project, called E-Nable, encourages people to print their own prosthetic hands to give away, and to develop and improve existing prosthetic models.

• We also have a full feature story on how millions of lives can be improved by 3D printed prosthetics.

Finally in 2008, Stratasys released a new material compatible with their FDM 3D printers. This wasn’t any material however, but a material that was bio-compatible. This opened the door for 3D bioprinting to become far more widely available in the near future.

The years up to the start of 2009 were an adolescence for 3D printing. New technologies became available such as Electron Beam Melting and Binder Jetting, medical advances were made, and the RepRap movement became viable.

In 2009 however, US patent law meant that within a few years 3D printers would become cheap enough for everybody to have one in their home if they wished.

House printing moves forward, and into space

Dr Khoshnevis refined and improved his house 3D printing technology — called Contour Crafting.

“We [managed to first accurately extrude concrete] around 2003. And in 2004 my work became very famous, in the New York Times… and that’s when the world learned about [Contour Crafting], and it inspired a lot of others to go after it.”

However, facing economic disaster after the crash of 2008, the housing market bombed, along with Dr Khoshnevis’ investment from the industry.

“So I had to also chase the money. In 2008, 2009, real estate went down… and with it went construction, and the support I was getting from industry disappeared. So that’s when I started thinking about space.”

Without funding or support, yet fully confident Contour Crafting could change the world, Dr Khoshnevis embarked on his multi-planetary construction 3D printing vision.

The idea was deceptively simple: if we could print concrete on a 3D printer on Earth, an adapted version could be made that could print with locally-sourced lunar regolith to create Moon (or Mars) bases for permanent settlements in the near future. 

A patent expired between end tail end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009. Big deal, patents expire all the time right? This patent was owned by a now-very-large company called Stratasys, for Fused Deposition Modeling technology.

FDM is the simplest 3D printing technology; it  involves heating up a plastic filament until it melts, and then extrudes it out layer-by-layer. Since the technology could be replicated the most cheaply, business-minded hobbyists and small businesses watched on eagerly for the patent to fall into public domain so they could create their own versions.

The two biggest events in the history of 3D printing, for every day fans, was firstly the development of the RepRap 3D printer. This showed that low cost 3D printers could be done, and that most of the 3D printer parts could be 3D printed by another printer.

The second event was the expiration of the FDM patent. This meant that anyone could not build these cheap 3D printers with no legal issues, and set the tone for incredible advances in the industry.

2009: The first affordable FDM 3D printers

The first affordable FDM 3D printer kit was released in January 2009. It was called the BfB RapMan printer and although it was first, it wasn’t ugly or terrible. Future iterations were made, and perhaps it would have made a bigger impact if the fledgling company we mentioned earlier hadn’t appeared three months later.

The first Makerbot DIY 3D printer kit released in April 2009. Makerbot were supporters of the open source community, and their first printer, called Cupcake CNC, could be built entirely from parts downloadable from Thingiverse. Demand exploded, and Makerbot had to ask their customers for help to create parts for their backlog of orders. Makerbot were becoming the early kings of affordable desktop 3D printers.

2009 wasn’t just a year for FDM printers however. Organovo, a 3D bioprinting firm, managed to create the first 3D printed blood vessel. This was managed on a new 3D bioprinter which showed significant promise for the future creation of whole organs such as kidneys and hearts.

• We also have a feature story on how close we are to functioning 3D printed hearts.

2009 – 11: Cars, gold jewelry, and the rise of Ultimaker

In recent years, online 3D printing service companies had sprung up to capitalize on the growing demand for 3D printed parts. These services work by allowing users to upload models they have either designed or downloaded, and pay for them to be 3D printed and mailed to their door. Some even allow users to sell their designs on an online marketplace and get paid for their designs.

Companies like Shapeways, Sculpteo, i.materialise, and later 3D Hubs, grew to print hundreds of thousands of parts on demand by the early 2010s. i.materialise then made headlines in 2011 when they were the first to offer 14k gold and sterling silver as 3D printable materials. Anyone who had designed something on their computers at home could (if they had deep enough pockets) have their model 3D printed in gold. The possibilities for custom and high fashion 3D printed jewelry expanded.

Also in 2011, Kor Ecologic produced the first 3D printed car. The car, called Urbee, uses electric motors and gets 200 miles to the gallon.

• Check out our ranking of the most exciting 3D printed car projects.

Though Makerbot had dominated the open source, desktop 3D printer market, competition was about to toughen up. Ultimaker was established in 2011 in Geldermalsen, Netherlands, and released the first Ultimaker 3D printer in March 2011. The Ultimaker Original was made from laser-cut plywood and proved an enormous success, launching them into the spotlight.

2012 – 14: The democratization of Stereolithography

Though the original patents for Stereolithography had expired over five years before, nobody had yet been able to create an affordable SLA 3D printer. This changed in June 2012 when the B9Creator released after raising over $500,000 on Kickstarter. The B9Creator utilized a similar technology to Stereolithography called Digital Light Processing (DLP), and could be pre-ordered for $2,375.

6 months later, the affordable resin 3D printer game was changed again, when a new and then unknown startup called Formlabs launched their Kickstarter campaign for a 3D printer called the Form 1. You could pre-order a Form 1 starting at $2,299, and unlike the B9Creator it utilized Stereolithography. The project was an instant hit, raising an almost unprecedented $2.95 million in 30 days. Formlabs have since gone on to release SLS 3D printers, an upgraded SLA 3D printer in the Form 3, and grow to a billoin-dollar valuation.

2012 – 13: Stratasys & Objet merge, Stratasys buys Makerbot

Objet Geometries had gone from strength to strength since the early 2000s, improving their PolyJet technology that could print in full-color. This eventually led to possibly the biggest acquisition in the history of the 3D printing industry. On April 16th 2012, Stratasys announced that it had merged with Objet in an all-stock transaction, with Stratasys being the surviving company. Stratasys would own 55% of this new company, with Objet owning 45%. This gargantuan deal meant the new Stratasys was worth $3 billion at the time.

Stratasys didn’t stop there however. Despite competition from Ultimaker, and open source fans Aleph Objects (who produce Lulzbot 3D printers), Makerbot were still doing very well. On June 23rd 2013, Stratasys announced that Makerbot was the newest item on its shopping list, acquiring the FDM 3D printer giant in a $604M deal, with $403M paid upfront in stock. The founders of Makerbot have all since departed, and their newest machines are no longer open source.

Cody Wilson and the 3D printed gun

Later in 2013, Cody Wilson became a viral sensation after his company Defense Distributed posted an STL file on its site for 3D printing a working 3D printed gun. The US Government ordered Defense Distributed to remove the designs three days later, but the gun had already been downloaded over 100,000 times.

Metal 3D printing has recently become big talk, but before 2015 when tens of startups appeared, the industry was dominated by a few large players like EOS, Arcam and SLM Solutions. 3D Systems’ intent in getting involved in the metal 3D printing sector led to them acquiring French company Phenix Systems in July 2013. 3D Systems paid $15.1M for 81% of the shares and integrated Phenix’s metal 3D printers into their product range.

2014: 3D Printing in space, and SLS and SLA patents expire

A few years after turning his attention to space, Dr Khoshnevis won NASA grand prizes, winning key prize money to further the research.

“We demonstrated at least two technologies that are viable. Technologies for building vertical structures such as hangars, shade walls, radiation protection walls, blast protection walls, and horizontal structures most particularly the landing pads, roads, we demonstrated the feasibility of those entirely to be made with in situ material.

“We actually built… and demonstrated it, that’s why we got Grand Prizes from NASA. My hope and expectation is that those technologies will eventually be used for planetary missions.”

The following year, a more wholesome achievement in 3D printing was realized. NASA announced they had used a 3D printer in space and created the first 3D printed object in space in 2014. This opened the door for future space manufacturing and the ability of future astronauts to create tools on-demand in space. If the team in space needed a particular item, they could be ‘beamed’ the design from Earth at light speed, and 3D print the tool out in space.

2014 was another big year for patents related to 3D printing expiring. First, the major SLS patent expired in 2014, meaning that cheaper alternatives could start being designed by individuals so inclined. Companies like Sintratec and Formlabs worked to create less expensive SLS 3D printers that were still viable. Up until then, most SLS machines were industrial, room-sized behemoths which started at $250,000. This new wave of SLS printers started at $5,000, helping to democratize Selective Laser Sintering.

Moreover, on March 11th 2014 another major 3D printing patent expired. Though Chuck Hull’s original patent had expired a decade earlier, this new patent expiry meant a much more innovative SLA 3D printing process was now in the public domain. Companies such as Formlabs had launched SLA 3D printers a couple of years previously, which patent-holder 3D Systems did not take a shining to. In fact, 3D Systems sued Formlabs in 2012 after they raised their $2.9M from Kickstarter. The case was eventually settled, with Formlabs agreeing to pay an 8% royalty on all sales to 3D Systems.

Though 3D printing had always previously been an industry dominated by a few large firms, this period was especially significant. The two original companies, 3D Systems and Stratasys, solidified their hold on the market by acquiring competitors like Phenix, Makerbot, DTM, Objet, and more.

The industry was far from a monopoly, however. Huge numbers of new competitors offered affordable machines that rivaled industrial 3D printers. Examples include Ultimaker, Lulzbot, and Prusa 3D printers in the desktop and DIY 3D printer kit markets, and Desktop Metal, Markforged, and Carbon 3D in the industrial sector. We will speak more on these newly-mentioned companies in the next part.

Carbon 3D and Desktop Metal: 0 to $1 billion in 3 years

Carbon 3D was formed on July 11th 2014 in California by Joseph and Philip DeSimone. The main tech behind the company was inspired by Terminator 2, and was named CLIP (Continuous Liquid Interface Production). By the end of 2017 the company had raised over $360 million and had a valuation of $1.7 billion – more than Stratasys and 3D Systems (both companies fell sharply in value after the 2013-14 3D printing hysteria died down from valuations in excess of $3 billion previously).

But how did they manage this?

In March 2015, Joseph DeSimone gave the now-viral TED Talk about 3D printing 100x faster. This announced very clearly to the world that Carbon 3D were ones to watch if they could make their CLIP technology feasible. A major grievance of 3D printing was that it was too slow to ever be relied upon as a medium-volume manufacturing option. If Carbon 3D could really print so much faster, it would rival injection molding and other processes for large-volume plastic parts.

They were not the only new 3D printing startup to reach astronomical valuations and receive hundreds of millions of dollars in investment however. Another example is Desktop Metal, who at the same time released their Studio and Production System metal 3D printers.

Since being founded in October 2015, Desktop Metal have received over $200M in investment and the company is now valued at over $1bn. Interestingly, Desktop Metal’s technology, Bound Metal Deposition, is very similar to FDM, just that it works with metal instead. There’s a reason that Silicon Valley investors (as well as Ford, Google, BMW, GE, and more) clamored to invest – their metal 3D printers can print metal 10x cheaper than alternative printers!

Desktop Metal’s Production System metal 3D printer, their more expensive and premium printer, uses a new type of binder jetting technology called Single Pass Jetting. This technology allows for the building of metal parts in minutes, rather than hours as with Direct Metal Laser Sintering. It truly is revolutionary, promising to change metal manufacturing in the near future.

• For more info on recent 3D printing success stories, check out our 15 most valuable 3D printer companies ranking.

Though they may both be innovative, companies like Carbon 3D and Desktop Metal are valued very high compared to their current sales and profits. This is because investors are confident that they will grow to be far bigger and more profitable in the future. This trend occurs in most markets, not just 3D printing.

Take Tesla for example – their revenues are dwarfed by some of the larger carmakers, yet Tesla’s market cap is larger than Ford. This is based on belief that Tesla will become the largest carmaker in the world in the future. We will have to see whether companies such as Carbon and Desktop Metal, as well as others like Markforged, Formlabs and Xact Metal can fulfill their investors’ hopes in the same way.

3D Systems enter the Hall of Fame

30 years after 3D Systems had kickstarted the industry, their first ever 3D printer, the SLA-1, was declared a Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. This formal recognition of the machine that started it all showed how far 3D printing had come since the 80s.

At around the same time, two very big technology companies entered the market. Household name big.

GE and HP enter

The first was HP, leaders in inkjet 2D printing, who in 2016 announced that they would sell printers featuring their patented Multi Jet Fusion (MJF) technology. HP have since gone on to refine this technology, and in 2018 announced full-color 3D printers, industrial 3D printers at a much lower price range of $50,000, and a move into the metal 3D printing market.

The second household name was GE. Following the incorporation of a new company called GE Additive, the multinational giant acquired metal 3D printing companies Arcam and Concept Laser in late 2016 as part of a $1.4bn move into the additive manufacturing industry. GE Additive also tried to acquire SLM Solutions, but were ultimately unable to.

The incumbents now had HP and GE to worry about too. These deep-pocketed giants could invest billions in gaining a crucial technological advantage, and were now forced to innovate harder than ever. Competition is usually only a good thing for consumers however, as each company worked harder and harder to optimize their technologies to be as effective as possible.

The Ultimaker 3

Regarding the desktop 3D printer market, Ultimaker’s October 2016 release of the Ultimaker 3 was another landmark. It was an instant hit, earning boatloads of Best 3D Printer awards and cementing Ultimaker as a key player in the industry, while remaining committed to the open source philosophy. Ultimaker have since released the S3 and S5, which have received positive reviews.

3D printing in construction: a very exciting prospect

But while all these companies were concentrating on 3D printing for manufacturing, others saw it as the solution to the growing housing crisis. 3D printing in construction was a $70M industry in 2017, but reports project it to be worth $40bn by 2027.

Companies such as Apis Cor and WinSun were started, creating huge concrete 3D printers that could build skeletons of houses far quicker and cheaper than any human. This advance was immortalized by Apis Cor 3D printing a whole house in just 24 hours. Other construction and architectural projects involving 3D printing were completed throughout the 2016-2018 period include 3D printed bridges, houses, and even plans for skyscrapers in Dubai.

Ultimaker S5 vs Makerbot Method: The Prosumer 3D Printer Battle 2018/19

Both Ultimaker and Makerbot grew extraordinarily throughout the mid-2010s, and were flying high off their Ultimaker 3 and Makerbot Replicator ranges respectively. By mid-2018 this battle was to move into the prosumer 3D printer range with the release of the Ultimaker S5 in May 2018, and the Makerbot Method in December. Both represented a step up in price, from around $3,000 up to over $5,000.

This was a change from both companies’ roots. They started building small FDM printers — remember the original kits made of wood? — and were previously more aligned with the RepRap philosophy. This move upmarket is an interesting one, though it is worth noting that Makerbot offer a Replicator+ model catered especially to 3D printing in education, retailing at around $2,000.

The Low Cost LCD 3D Printing Revolution

Resin 3D printers used to cost thousands, and that would only afford you a basic SLA printer. Then Digital Light Processing came along a number of years ago, offering a more scalable and modern alternative.

Then it was the turn of LCD 3D printing — more similar in process to DLP than SLA — to usher in the new era of low cost resin printing. Suddenly low cost resin printers like the ELEGOO Mars and AnyCubic Photon offered reasonably accurate resin prints at a printer cost of less than $500. When the first Formlabs printers came out, people found it astonishing that you could print accurate resin objects for $3,500 — oh how things have changed.

• We have a ranking of 5 of the best cheap LCD 3D printers.

World’s Biggest 3D Printed Building: Apis Cor One-Ups Itself

Apis Cor already made headlines when they built a house in 24 hours. Then in October 2019 they went further, building a huge 3D printed building in Dubai. Dubai has been known for its openness to innovative new technologies, especially 3D printing, with this huge structure earmarked for administrative staffing.

Carl Deckard, inventor of SLS, dies at 58

One of the four original 3D printing company founders, Carl Deckard passed away on December 23rd 2019, at the age of just 59. The genius inventor of Selective Laser Sintering had since founded a number of other companies and held 27 patents, and was the most major figure in the history of 3D printing to pass away.

The founders of SLA and FDM, Chuck Hull and S. Scott Crump respectively, are still part of their companies, that are now both public and boast valuations of just under $1 billion dollars. It is unknown how much equity they hold.

EOS’ founder Dr Hans Langer, is 3D printing’s first and currently only billionaire, with an estimated net worth of $3.1bn as of August 2020 according to Forbes. The German company never went public, and is still successful 30 years on in the SLS and DMLS 3D printer markets.

Using CAD software and a 3D printer, new prototypes can be printed, reviewed and improved on multiple times per day. 3D printing offers very flexible, accurate, fast and low-cost prototyping.

With the ability to evaluate and improve prototypes repeatedly until you’re completely satisfied, rapid prototyping lowers the chance of errors in the part before starting an expensive production run.

Rapid prototyping can even be done with biomaterials to create 3D bioprinted tissues that imitate real organs and structures for drug testing and other important treatments.

What is Rapid Prototyping?

The definition of rapid prototyping is using CAD programs and a machine like a 3D printer or CNC mill to quickly produce prototypes, test them for shape or function, and tweak or iterate based on the feedback, so you can then print the next prototype and test it.

Rapid prototyping is the name that encompasses all the technologies and techniques involved in creating viable prototypes in record time, to review and refine designs.

Rapid prototyping means that you can quickly get a physical product in your hand, which is far better and easier to analyze than a CAD design on a computer screen.

High fidelity vs low fidelity rapid prototypes

There are two main forms of prototyping:

1. High fidelity prototype – one that is close in appearance and function to the final design. With the additional testing you can conduct on a physical prototype you can find all flaws before investing in a full manufacturing run. It is much easier to verify a high fidelity prototype’s design, fit, and function before either buying the prototyping machines or outsourcing production.
2. Low fidelity prototype (concept models) — focused on helping designers validate their ideas, and for testing aesthetics. Concept models are also useful for showing the concept to stakeholders, decision-makers and customers, getting feedback on the design and communicating the design far better than if they were just shown a CAD design.

If you’re looking to purchase a 3D printer for rapid prototyping, we may be able to help:

*One of our trusted partners will be in touch following a quote request.

The Rapid Prototyping Process

The process can be divided into three main phases: printing, reviewing and refining.

Before you can 3D print your final prototype, you need a design. The 3D CAD design file of a scale model of your final product can then be imported into a 3D slicer to be sliced into layers before printing it. Sometimes 3D scanning is also used to create a model of the part to be iterated on, such as a 3D printed car part.

Read more: best product design software tools

Typically new product development engineers and designers will:

CNC milling is also occasionally used, but for individual, custom pieces, 3D printing holds several key advantages. 3D printing is an additive manufacturing technology, so only the materials needed for the design are used. On the other hand, CNC milling is subtractive, removing excess material until you reach a final design. This uses up additional materials and requires more cleaning up afterwards.

The functionality of the part printed depends on your needs. If you only need to evaluate the design, you may not need the part to be able to perform any part of its functions – so may not need to print it in metal but in plastic instead.

Some high quality, industrial-standard filaments we recommend for FDM rapid prototyping:

• MH PRO Series Nylon Filament
• MH PRO Series PETG Filament
• MH PRO Series ABS Filament

Once the part has been printed, you can decide if the prototype is fit for purpose and whether it is good enough to go ahead and start manufacturing. If not, tweaks can be made based on the findings to create the next iteration, and the next prototype can be quickly 3D printed.

Rapid prototyping machines and options: 3D printers & CNC

SLA prototyping

SLA, or stereolithography, is ideal for concept models, cosmetic prototypes and designs with complex geometries, and concept models for presenting clients and decision-makers. SLA is one of the most accurate rapid prototyping technologies, capable of smooth surface finishes with barely visible layer lines. Coupled with its affordable cost, SLA rapid prototyping makes great aesthetic prototypes to test shape, design and size — and they’re great for showing clients or upper management.

However, the resin parts created are weak to UV and so cannot be left or used outside, and SLA parts are weaker in general than parts made using other rapid prototyping technologies and methods. SLA prototyping also has a niche use in creating masters to be used for vacuum casting, and is often used in the jewelry industry for wax investment casting, as well as in 3D printing hearing aids in the audiology industry.

• We have a full buyer’s guide for SLA 3D printers.

SLS prototyping (powder based rapid prototyping)

SLS, or selective laser sintering, prints prototypes from Nylon, though it is also used with TPU, and even PEEK powders have been recently developed. A powder based rapid prototyping method, plastic powders are sintered selectively to create the solid part.

No supports are required for SLS 3D printing prototyping as the part lies on the remaining unsintered powder, reducing the need for post-processing and leaving good surface finishes on parts. Complex geometries are possible, and SLS parts are far more resistant to wear-and-tear than SLA prototypes and therefore better suited to functional prototype testing.

It’s also great for movable components and parts with hinges or snap-fits, and parts are used in sectors such as prosthetics as they can also be biocompatible. SLS is also used to 3D print sunglasses frames, brackets, ducting, and works well as a substitute for injection molding and creating strong, functional parts.

However, SLS produces parts with a slightly grainy texture which may make it less suited to aesthetic prototypes.

• We have a full buyer’s guide for SLS 3D printers.

FDM rapid prototyping

FDM rapid prototyping, or fused deposition modeling, is by far the most affordable rapid prototyping 3D printing method, and can create relatively strong prototypes from ABS, Nylon, and various other materials for good functional testing. This mostly includes jigs / fixtures, tooling masters, prototypes for heat resistance testing and other functional testing for parts made from ABS, ASA, and sometimes even Ultem and PEEK.

Some FDM printers are dual extruder 3D printers, meaning they can print two different materials or colors of filament simultaneously, opening up a range of new design and prototyping options. They can also print supports in a soluble filament material like HIPS or PVA, so when dissolved away afterwards, you’re left with just your model and none of the imperfections that can occur during support removal.

However, most FDM 3D printers are relatively slow, parts have clear layer lines, and generally cannot match the surface finishes of SLA or SLS.

• We have a full buyer’s guide for commercial 3D printers.
• Also, we have a buyer’s guide for dual extruder 3D printers.

MJF

MJF, or Multi Jet Fusion rapid prototyping, is fast, prints tough Nylon parts suitable for functional testing and even end-use production parts, and creates some of the best surface finishes and precision of any 3D printing rapid prototyping technique.

MJF parts are considered to have better surface finishes than SLS, and it is considered the faster 3D printing process. MJF prototyping is used to create durable jigs / fixtures, brackets, vessels within the oil and gas industry, fan housings and vents, electric component housings, mechanical assemblies, and enclosures.

However, it’s expensive, and you’re limited to mostly just PA12 Nylon prototypes.

Polyjet

PolyJet rapid prototyping offers fantastic accuracy, with up to 16-micron precision as well as the versatility to 3D print multiple different materials within one part, and multiple different colors for multi-color or full color prototypes. For example, if you needed a part featuring both flexible and rigid materials in separate areas, PolyJet would be the best rapid prototyping method for you.

PolyJet is used across the automotive and aerospace industries, as well as in consumer goods and electronics, with niche applications in the medical industry creating very accurate, multi-material or color parts.

However, it suffers in a similar way to SLA in that parts are not strong enough for functional testing.

DMLS

For metal rapid prototyping, DMLS, or direct metal laser sintering, is often used to create dense, strong metal prototypes from materials including stainless steel, inconel, aluminum, cobalt chrome, titanium, and more.

A major advantage of metal prototyping 3D printing is DMLS can create internal features that CNC machining cannot, as additive manufacturing allows for these features to be created during the printing of the part, and generally DMLS is ideal for prototyping small, complex and precise metal parts, such as those with interlinking chains, and complex internal geometries. DMLS is also used to create metal aircraft parts that save weight, thereby saving fuel and keeping costs down while lowering pollution and helping save the planet.

DMLS, and generally metal 3D printing, has been adopted more for its ability to print parts that previously would have required several separate parts, to print in one single part with no welding. This makes for stronger and more reliable parts, such as in rocket engines, with space rocket companies including Relativity Space using DMLS in their prototyping. DMLS is also sometimes used in jewelry with precious metals, and for testing high temperature resistant prototypes.

However, DMLS is expensive and moderately slow, and post-processing is necessary for a finished part.

• We also have a buyer’s guide for metal 3D printers

CNC

Whereas 3D printing rapid prototyping is ideal for visual testing and aesthetics, CNC prototyping creates stronger parts that have better surface finishes than 3D printing generally. This is because whereas 3D printing uses a percentage infill for the part, for example 20%, CNC parts are solid — and therefore heavier and stronger. For functional testing, 3D printing cannot compete with solid CNC machined parts.

CNC milling is the most well-rounded and commonly used rapid prototyping machine within CNC, but grinding and turning are also used, with other CNC machines like laser cutters, plasma cutters and water jet cutters far less frequently used. Each machine has a number of interchangeable rapid prototyping tools for different uses. CNC parts are made from metals like stainless steel or aluminum, as well as industrial plastics like PLA, PC and PP, and sometimes even wood or foam.

A main reason to use CNC as a rapid prototyping machine is for the fantastic accuracy available. Though very precise prototypes cost more as the time required for these tight tolerances is higher, some machines offer incredible 0.005” or better precision. You can also rapidly iterate with materials that you can’t 3D print like wood (though wood-like filaments are available), as well as a wide variety of metals.

However, CNC prototyping is generally more expensive (especially if requiring a 5 axis CNC machine), creates more waste as it is subtractive rather than additive, and cannot create some of the geometries possible in 3D printing.

Rapid Prototyping Case Studies

Unilever Nozzles

As documented in Matthew Syed’s excellent book Black Box Thinking, Unilever had a laundry detergent production problem back in the 1970s in their factory near Liverpool, UK. The process to create washing powder involved boiling hot chemicals and forcing them through a nozzle at high pressures before separating what was to become the detergent sold in stores.

But the nozzles often clogged, blocked, and were inefficient. Production was slower, and the resulting detergent grains were of different sizes. Unilever had both efficiency problems and quality issues.

A team of biologists were let loose on the problem after a prior team of mathematicians failed to come up with a solution. They created ten new nozzles, each iteration with small differences — slightly longer, shorter, with a smaller hole or with tiny grooves. One iteration improved slightly on the original, just by 1-2%.

The team then took this slightly improved iteration and created another 10 iterations of this nozzle, making another series of small changes and testing them for effectiveness. This continued and continued as more and more prototypes were created to find marginal gains, again and again, before an ‘outstanding’ nozzle was developed after 449 failures. Whereas evolution takes tens of thousands of years, the same principles could be augmented using cutting edge technologies and new iterations can be produced every hour now with 3D printing.

3D printing wasn’t commercially available in the 1970s when this occurred, but if it were to happen in the present day, 3D printing and rapid prototyping could create the ideal nozzle in record time. Rapid prototyping allows for extremely accurate prototypes and slightly different iterations to be quickly tested, reviewed and documented. With larger parts, 3D printing ten iterations could take several days, but with small parts such as a pen lid-sized object, ten iterations could easily be produced in one print run on an SLS 3D printer. This allows for extremely quick innovation.

Rapid Prototyping Services

A number of rapid prototyping companies offer 3D printing services to meet the growing demand for 3D printed prototype parts. This offers businesses the opportunity to access 3D printing without having to pay the upfront cost of a 3D printer.

Though industrial 3D printers capable of rapid prototyping 3D printing have become far cheaper in the last few years, companies who only need to produce a few parts per year will save money by using these rapid prototyping services instead.

• View our guide to the best 3D printing services.

3D printer manufacturers such as Desktop Metal have tried to solve the issue of upfront costs with rapid prototyping machines by offering yearly rental fees. For example, their Fiber 3D printer can be rented for $3,495 per year, on a three-year contract. Some businesses may find that favorable to a large upfront cost or the continuous payments to services without ever owning a 3D printer.

Best 3D printers for rapid prototyping

There is no single best 3D printer, this all depends on the materials, size of prototype and a variety of other factors. If you need a metal 3D printed prototype, then you’ll need to choose between metal 3D printing technologies, whereas if you need a plastic part made, you have choices between FDM, SLA, SLS and others depending on the strength of part and other characteristics you are looking for.

If you want extremely smooth surface area, you may want a resin 3D printer or a part created using Multi Jet Fusion. For low cost parts and low cost 3D printers, you may prefer an FDM printer.

• We have released a free 3D printing ebook about the technologies available.

Some printers are more suited to industrial demands than others, and have become well known for their ability to create accurate parts that can be tested as functional prototypes, and do it quickly and consistently. The link below features a buyer’s guide to the best industrial printers that cost under $10,000 that provide excellent reliability, accuracy and are simple to operate.

• We recommend our guide to the best industrial 3D printers.

Rapid Prototyping Software

To create a prototype to print you’ll first need to design it on a 3D CAD software modeling tool. Depending on how complex and intricate your part is, you may be able to design it on a consumer software tool, but usually in rapid prototyping a more complete software modeling tool is required. You’ll also need a 3D slicer to slice your model before you can print it.

Sometimes a 3D scanner is used to scan an existing part that can then be 3D printed and tested. Usually however a 3D CAD design is used instead.

Rapid prototyping is also sometimes used as a term in the software industry for creating a design of a prototype of an eventual app or program, and using that early prototype to get early feedback and gauge demand, before committing to developing a full product.

We recommend reading the following guides for choosing a rapid prototyping 3D software tool:

• We list our 10 recommended professional 3D modeling software tools.
• Our guide to the best free 3D modeling software.

Advantages and disadvantages of rapid prototyping

Rapid Prototyping Advantages

• Very accurate: very intricate and precise models can be created that accurately reflect the final part. This makes it easy to evaluate the part’s shape and design.
• Reduce time to market: can test multiple iterations very quickly, and even multiple iterations concurrently. You can test multiple iterations at the same time by printing multiple, slightly different parts and evaluating which performs the task best or looks best, and further iterate on the best one. Getting to the perfect design faster can save companies huge amounts of R&D investment.
• Better design feedback: visual prototypes are better for examining than designs within a 3D software tool. You can gain a better idea of how a product will look and perform in use, and make changes based on any areas that need work. Additionally, real-life prototypes are easier to explain to upper management and to customers so they can provide their feedback.
• Instantly incorporate changes: once problems have been identified, they can be instantly changed and improved on the 3D CAD file and reprinted.
• Additive manufacturing uses less materials: especially valuable in metal part prototyping as these parts can cost hundreds of dollars each in materials alone.
• Minimize risk: rapid prototyping means you can explore and test ever potential flaw, cheaply, before starting on a large production run. You can inexpensively minimize any risks leading to any product recalls by extensively testing these prototypes.

Rapid Prototyping Disadvantages

• May require a skilled operator: metal 3D printers especially often require trained operators to ensure printing is safe and optimum. This is dependent on how complex the 3D printing technology is, as for example FDM 3D printers are far simpler and require far less skill to operate. If outsourcing to a rapid prototyping service, this will add to costs.
• Time lags and costs if not done in-house: if you have a rapid prototyping service print the part for you, this may add 2-3 days to the process as the part needs to be mailed to you. The costs may also add up over time if you print many parts, so it is important to estimate how often you will be 3D printing parts to ascertain whether it is better value to outsource rapid prototyping or have it done in-house.
• Some limitations in materials that can be used: wood, for example, cannot be properly 3D printed. You cannot 3D print rubber either.
• Expensive: especially if the entire rapid prototyping process requires dozens of iterations, and you’re using DMLS or another metal 3D printing process.

We were fortunate to spend over an hour speaking with Dr Bowyer and hear his thoughts on how the RepRap movement came to be, the struggles and obstacles the group overcame along the way, his thoughts on the future of open source 3D printers, how they invented a lot of the technology we take for granted in our 3D printer kits today, and much more.

Our questions are in bold, Dr Bowyer’s answers in quotes.

Before your first declaration of the RepRap movement in February 2004, how long had you had the idea for RepRap?

“I’d been interested in self-reproducing machines since I was a child, I don’t really know where that originated — nearly 70 years ago. That was a constant background interest. Though it wasn’t a research activity, I had not done any research into self-replicating machines.

“But, the real genesis of RepRap was when the British government gave my university a very large equipment grant, and rather foolishly perhaps the university gave it to me to spend! And I decided to buy a couple of 3D printers. 

“I had known about the tech for decades but had never worked in it or done anything with it. The machines arrived, and suddenly I realised that for the first time really, we had a machine that was sufficiently versatile, in the geometry that it could manufacture, that it stood a significant chance of making a good fraction of its own parts, if not all of them.”

And in 2004, in your eyes what was the state of 3D printing?

“It was a mature technology that had been going for 20, 25 years. The idea first appeared as a joke in 1974 by the New Scientist column by David Jones who used to write a column under the name Daedalus.

“He basically invented stereolithography with a laser, and invented it as a joke. A joke invention, but this one turned out to work!

“They [3D printers] were fabulously expensive: the cheapest one when I started the RepRap project cost around £40,000, and in fact that was one of the ones we bought at the university. When I looked at how it worked, it seemed it would be possible to make such a machine at a considerably reduced price, but my primary aim was to produce a machine that could produce most of its parts. And so, that was the way the project went. 

“Some of the machines we used cost a quarter of a million pounds, and I felt that some of them didn’t need to cost that much. And more importantly — they didn’t copy themselves; so I decided to make one that did.”

Everything points back to a Bath University £20,000 grant to kickstart the project. What did it require to get that, and did the people you pitched it to understand the RepRap idea at first?

“I was in a very happy position through no effort of my own, that the EPSRC had given Bath University a block grant that they could then divide up between [the university’s] researchers. 

“So I didn’t have to pitch it to anyone outside of the university. I basically had to put together a proposal for a group of academic colleagues in the uni itself. It was the smallest grant I’d ever asked for.

“I’d spent decades doing fairly large projects, costing a quarter of a million or half a million pounds. Those projects had almost all been successful, and so the fact I was asking for 20 grand didn’t raise too many eyebrows because I had had done things in the past for much more money, and I hadn’t lost the money! 

“But, I wanted to pitch it at a price that was half the cost of the single cheapest machine you could buy at the time, because I wanted to show you could do the whole project for less than the cost of the machine. 

“And I worked out that would be roughly what it would take to buy equipment and materials and so on. A slight cheat is that I also had a research assistant working on the project [Ed Sells, a key part of early-stage RepRap progress], and his living expenses were paid for.”

Did the people you pitched RepRap to understand it instantly, or did they not see the vision immediately?

“They got the hang of it. I had been working for some years on the overlap between engineering and biology, the idea of biomimetics — which is taking things out of natural systems and putting them into engineering — and had done quite a bit of work in that area anyway, and the obvious parallels to RepRap is that it’s a self-producing machine, and biology is the study of thing that copy themselves. 

“So, it was an area in which I was working, so I didn’t have very much work to do to persuade my colleagues that it might be a good idea. And when I explained it, everybody pretty much thought it would work — in principle. They couldn’t see any major impediments. But, in fact that’s not quite how it happened! It was they who persuaded me to do it!

“I mentioned that I wrote this paper on the idea, and I also mentioned that I was busy doing other projects, some of them for significantly more funds than I asked for for RepRap, so when I wrote [the paper] I didn’t actually think I would do it myself — I thought well, I’ll put this out there and if someone takes it up it might be interesting if they get it to work. 

“And as soon as I’d done that, several of my colleagues came and knocked on my door and said well why don’t you do it. So, it was actually at their prompting that I applied for the money, not my desire to do what turned out to be my own project.”

And without the money, was the project dead in the water?

“It would have been slower without the money. If I hadn’t got the money, and hadn’t got the research student, then I would have probably run it as a project for undergraduate students, which basically as an academic one has almost complete freedom, so it would have been developed in dribs and drabs. 

“It would have slowed it down, it wouldn’t have stopped it completely. The money let us devote one person full time and me part time to doing the thing.”

“He [Ed Sells] basically designed the first machine. He would design a bit, and we would have a meeting once a week and go through the current stage of the design, and change bits, try bits out, try things out, build parts of it, build parts of it experimentally, and that sort of thing. 

“By this point, around 2005/6, not only had the project been funded but I also put out a press release saying what the project intended to do, because it seemed potentially at least, it seemed a pretty game-changing project, for all sorts of industries and people, and I had a certain moral duty to tell people what I intended to do. It got picked up by the NY Times, BBC, CBC, and that publicity brought new people on board, and they saw an open source project they thought was interesting. So people in New Zealand [Vik Olliver], and the United States, were trying bits out for the machine, of those only Ed and I were being paid.”

[Ed Sells later became achieved a PhD for his work on the project.]

“[Vik Olliver, from New Zealand] was involved long before I met him, in that for years we only communicated electronically, had never seen or held a voice conversation — no Zoom at the time — so it was a bunch of people from all over the world talking by email. I subsequently met Vik, he has family over here.”

In early posts in the RepRap diary, Vik posts about a circular turnstile that would rotate when printing — a Polar 3D printer. What happened to this?

“In principle it worked, but the difficulty is when you get to the outside of the circle, the angular resolution you need in order to get an accurate print is very fine indeed, and we didn’t at the time have the ability to turn the turntable sufficiently precisely that we could make the exterior rim of it rotate by less than a millimetre. In principle it was a good idea and we could probably have printed well in the middle of the turntable, but couldn’t use the whole area given the electronics and the stepper motors we had at the time — and were developing the Cartesian machine in parallel anyway. 

“It was completely disorganised [their organization style], I didn’t particularly want to direct it in any orientation at all, we just said if someone has an idea, go away and try it out and see if it works. Ed and I were a little more directedfew because beyond the project my concern was that he had a good research project for his PhD. So when we discussed things it wasn’t only with the aim with RepRap in mind, but also making sure he had a decent bit of research. Someone would come up with an idea and we’d say yeah! Why not! And see if it worked.”

As patent holders at the time, what did Stratasys think about what you were doing?

“As far as the state of the machines is concerned, I’ve subsequently seen what goes on inside one and it’s pretty much the same as the way most RepRaps work, unsurprisingly. 

“We deliberately never took it [the Stratasys 3D printer they bought at the university] apart for two reasons: one, so we couldn’t be accused of copying it — and nobody ever did from Stratasys or anyone else — and two, because we didn’t want to constrain ourselves with what they had established. 

“For example, the Stratasys machine printed on a bed made of rigid foam, because then it could actually inject the first layer of plastic into the foam and form a very solid base. We decided not to do that, we decided just to try and print on a flat plate instead. You could see that as soon as you used it, without taking it apart. 

“We never had any problem with Stratasys complaining about what we were doing, there was only one thing that happened: we got a letter, very nice and very polite, very conciliatory, from one of their legal people saying they had a trademark on the term FDM and could we please not use it, so immediately I invented an equivalent term, which was FFF and we just edited everything on the site to that instead. That’s the only time they tried to interfere or anything else with the project. They never complained we were infringing upon their patent, which we weren’t of course [research projects in Europe can research a patented technology for the purpose of improving it without any kind of patent infringement], and we weren’t selling any machines.

“Once the patent expired in 2009, of course the project was free to do whatever it liked. Coincidentally, that was just a few months after we got the first printer working. It all came together fairly nicely in that regard.”

So you purposefully didn’t look inside or take the machine apart because you didn’t want to influence your own research, to see whether you could come up with an independently better answer?

“Yes. We wanted to make something people could make in their garage, where neither [injection molding or machining] were available. We wanted to make sure it gained its accuracy by virtue of clever design, rather than precision in the making of the components.”

Before you saw any results, did you feel like the work you were doing at the time was important, groundbreaking, or culturally important?

“I was rather more detached than that. It has always been the case that the primary reason I ran the project was to see whether it would be made to work, not trying to drive or force it forward or to work — I’m more driven by curiosity than ambition [Dr Bowyer laughs]. Well, completely.

“I honestly didn’t know if it was going to succeed. I was fairly sure we could make it work and that it would succeed technically. But I had no idea if it would make a big influence on the world or not. And so given that I had no idea, i just awarded the two possibilities 50%, either it would sink without trace, or it would take over the world, it was simply a coin toss. 

“Until people started making machines, that was my position. When others making companies based on it, I realised perhaps it was going to do something.”

What did it feel like when the first RepRap (in September 2006) printed a part of itself? Did you think before it worked it was likely to work, and how reliable was it then?

“It wasn’t very reliable then! And I didn’t know beforehand because that was actually done by Vik Olliver on the other side of the world! In fact, I didn’t know he was going to try and do that before he did, he did and then put up a blog post and that’s how I learned about it. 

“I thought waheyy, it worked!” [We joke Vik jumped the gun on him.] “No, because there’s no reason why we should have done it any more quickly than anyone else involved!” 

What did you feel when that happened? 

“It was the first indication physically that what had then had just been in my mind — it turned a hypothesis into a theory if you like. It was something with some substance behind it, and that substance was a literal physical object.”

And do you think now it’s the most important project of your career?

“To me, possibly. Though much earlier in my career I completed an algorithm for computing Voronoi diagrams that’s probably more widely used than even RepRap machines.

“But of all the research I did — and I enjoyed all the projects I ever did — RepRap was certainly the most fun to me. It was interesting because it was so social, it involved so many people interacting — and arguing! — though largely in amicable terms with each other in how to proceed. 

“But that aspect of it was something that made it really quite enjoyable. And once we could see it was going to work and that it was going out into the world, of course there’s some satisfaction in that, and now pretty much every FFF 3D printer in the world, with one or two exceptions, is to a certain extent based on what we did.”

And when you were in the design stage, did you envision something that would be in everyone’s house? What was your idea or dream realization at the time?

“I thought that ultimately the number of machines in private hands would probably be the same as the number of paper printers people have now, whatever percentage that is. That’s the sort of order I’d expect. There had been a number of research projects that showed it makes economic sense to have one of these machines, even if the number of machines you have is quite small.

“The analogy I draw is with a washing machine; everyone in the developed world has one, and 95% of the time it sits there doing absolutely nothing, the other 5% it washes your clothes doing very useful things, and I suspect 3D printers will be like that: you have it in the corner, and only use it when something breaks or you need something new.”

Studies have shown that 3D printers already represent a good return on investment, yet over 90% of these households don’t own a 3D printer. I think it’s an intimidation, information problem. How, as the inventor of these, would you get past this?

“Non-technical people criticise paper printers because they jam and break, and these barriers are not a problem for engineers because they know how to fix things and so on. 

“The real barrier I think is that, fortunately perhaps, because it would be unfortunate perhaps if the reverse were true, is that not everyone is an engineer, and you do need some technical ability and grasp for it. They’re getting simpler with the user interfaces all the time and better in that regard, but nonetheless you can’t use them without some understanding of what’s going on. It’s not like getting into a car and driving away without knowing anything about how an internal combustion engine or electricp motor works.”

There’s a gap of around two years between the first 3D printed part, and the RepRap 1.0 Darwin printing 50% of its parts. What happened in between that time was most noteworthy?

“Mostly, time was taking up designing once we got the hang of the technology. Those two years were basically writing software and doing mechanical design. There weren’t that many milestones: it was climbing a shallow hill as opposed to suddenly jumping up a big step. We got the tech sort of working, the first printed part, and then we did a lot more basic engineering creation and that was a continuous process.”

What were the biggest difficulties and hurdles to jump over that causes the most drama and difficulty at the time?

“The Cartesian movement of the machine was not difficult to organise, it worked almost from the beginning, and we had extrusion heads that worked. But we initially started by trying to make them as simple as possible which meant driving them with DC motors rather than stepper motors. So they were never wonderfully accurate because the speed they extruded tended to vary slightly even if you were precise, so there we made a decision to try to construct a part of the machine using tech that was going to be very cheap, which ended up being the wrong decision. 

“When we came back to making new designs for the extruder heads, we used stepper motors which then worked much better as we could meter the amount coming out of the nozzle. This helped us make the machines work a lot better than the first ones did.”

“[The software] had teething problems, but of the sort you always get when you write software. But three or four of us were working on it and it came together, obviously with bugs but those got fixed.

“And previous research on CAD systems meant I had good idea of how to deal with an STL file.”

So you were pretty well placed based on previous experience to make this work?

“Pretty well, but not uniquely. Thousands of engineers could have done it, they just needed to be good at computing, mechanics and engineering.”

Was there ever a conflict about whether to make it open source, or closed?

“I made the decision before I told anyone else about the project, literally within some minutes of having the idea. It was two-stage decision: I had the idea and then felt it was powerful to release this to the world, and how to make sure this doesn’t cause a great gap in inequity in people who have it and who don’t — and the only way to do that was to give it to everybody. 

“This was perhaps an uncharacteristically noble thought on my part! [Dr Bowyer laughs]”

“But if it copies itself, you’ve got to make it open source anyway, as if you don’t, you’ll be forever trying to stop people doing what it was designed to do, and I’ve got better things to do with my time! The whole idea of self-copying forces you to make it open source. 

“Some people do things like patenting seeds, which are also self reproducing machines, but they spend an awful lot on things like lawyers — which is a dull and uninteresting thing to do.”

Do you ever wonder what would have happened if you had made it closed source and monetized it?

“No, I never really thought about that. I suspect it would have made a lot of legal trouble for the [Bath] University. One of the things I did when I decided to make it open source was go to the University’s IP department and said I had the research project, and they looked at me a bit wistfully and thought, oh can’t we make money out of it? — but given the thing about academic freedom is that every academic is free to publish their own work in any way they choose, and open source is a way of publication, there wasn’t much they could do.

“They didn’t try to stop it either — they were more amused than anything else — but they couldn’t have done anything anyway.

“My wife and I were some of the financial founders of Makerbot. When Makerbot started, one of the founding members was Zach Smith, one of the founders of the RepRap project. He invited other guys in New York, and my wife and me to put up the original funds. 

“We chipped in some money, and of course when they sold the company that had quite grown. We did well out of that — it’s always nice to get a big cheque!”

What’s your opinions on the companies that rather than being completely open source, switched over to closed source, like Makerbot?

“I wasn’t too bothered about it. I wrote a little article at the time saying that I personally disapproved of what they’d done, but I’m not going to do anything about it. 

“But of course it comes back to self replication. If you have a closed source self-replicating machine, all things being equal versus open source, it’s obvious which is going to be most successful in Darwinian terms. In biological terms what you’re basically saying is that you’re going to make this sterile. And so it didn’t bother me unduly. 

On 23rd September 2008, 100 copies had been produced—

“—I didn’t know that! It doesn’t surprise me, but that’s not a fact I had to hand.”

How did it feel reaching 100 copies in 2008, and did it feel like a success then?

“It did feel like a success then because it worked technically, and the criteria was success was the criteria of a university engineering research project — proving the tech works. The success we felt occurred when we made a complete copy of the machine. That was the point we knew it was going to work: it’s physically here, it works — you can’t argue with that. So that was from my perspective the most significant milestone in the project.”

How did your machines end up differing from the existing Stratasys machines?

“The original Stratasys machines used a closed heated chamber, and we thought we would try and get away without having to have one. One of the first RepRap inventions was the heated bed, and in turned out that just by having the heated bed when printing, you could achieve results that were almost as good as the whole heated oven chamber that the Stratasys machines used.”

And how did you create the filaments?

“Stratasys filaments were made from commercial extrusion machines with dies; we didn’t have these. But what you could buy was plastic 3mm welding filament used for car body repairs, and use a hot air gun on these, like welding metal. That was our initial idea for source of filament. 3m

“That was where the 3mm came from, that was the standard diameter. Subsequently we decided to go down in diameter because the 3mm filaments were not try very flexible, and we also needed to pass the filament though a flexible tube for some of the designs of the machine we were coming up with. 

“In particular, one of the [projects] we did which we think was a RepRap innovation — we don’t know if any of the Stratasys machines before used this — which was to have the drive for the extrusion physically separate from the head which actually deposits the material, and connect them with a PTFE tube. 

“That has a great advantage in that you can keep the head very light, and keep the motor and drive very cool away from the heated head. The internal diameter of the tube we wanted to use was 2mm diameter, so we settled on 1.75mm diameter filament to fit through the tube.

“It was Vik Olliver who had the idea of using PLA in the machines. Until then, all the Stratasys machines had been using ABS. I mentioned [earlier in the interview] the foam bed that Stratasys used, the problem with ABS is it doesn’t adhere well the to bed and tends to curl upwards when printing. PLA doesn’t suffer nearly as much from that problem, and is also biologically sourced, so not using up oil resources as it’s plant-based. 

“So pretty early on, as soon as we discovered PLA worked well, we switched over almost everything we did to using PLA. HDPE [milk bottle plastic] mainly interested us as we had the idea of a recycler that would generate filament to go inside the machine, and milk bottles were the obvious thing to recycle as they were so ubiquitous, but again it was overtaken by PLA because it was so successful.

“The Recyclebots are a brilliant idea, particularly if you can make one from parts made in a RepRap, it’s an obvious thing to do…the more versatile the machine is, in the types of plastic you can accept for re-extruding, the better. There are a number of filament extruders now being sold, and there are some open source designs out there.”

Do you find it interesting that something that ended up being very well known arose from people who started the project without ever talking or meeting?

“It depended on the technology of the time. We had enough, for example Vik Olliver could design something in New Zealand, attach it as an STL file in an email, send it to us, and we would print it and put it in a cardboard box and send back to him in New Zealand, and he would have it in 4 or 5 day’s time. 

“That allowed us to do things fairly easily without any personal contact at all. And it was entirely electronic. We had the ability to store databases of designs online so anybody could download them, for the mechanical parts and the electronics, basically the whole thing is a bunch of computer files in the same way you and I are strands of DNA. The ease with which things can be transmitted made the project very easy.

In your 15 minutes of work talk, you offer a defence against RepRap printers only being able to print around 65% of their parts, saying humans only built 60% of themselves with amino acids, etc. Does that suggest a contentment with the current levels of progress, rather than pushing for a fully self replicating machine?

“I’ve never been all that interested in producing a fully self-replicating machine, because it’s an idea with two tiny exceptions that biology has completely abandoned. Any organism is entirely dependent on an ecosystem of other living organisms in order to reproduce, and I don’t think that RepRap should be any different. 

“RepRap is a self-reproducing thing. It lives in a world with of biology, principally the world of human beings, who are biological machines, so I don’t have a problem with the fact that most RepRap designs are 70% self-producing and 30% from outside. When the number of materials the machine processes get larger, and once we start printing electrical conductors that really will conduct electricity as much as metals, with ease, then the proportion of bits it can produce itself will increase. It’s bound to happen.”

So your belief is based on that there are so few things that completely self replicate, informs your opinion that we don’t need to push for it wildly — AKA a 100% self-replicating RepRap machine?

“Yes, it’s something that will happen when it’s easy to do, but it’s not something where I think we need to devote an enormous amount of effort to get an extra 3% — it’s probably more interesting to solve other problems.”

For me, I’d want to just do it all. I find it interesting that you use biological principles to say when you think enough is enough. For me I’d always want to do something more — I don’t keep myself to for example that biological example, where I’d go oh that’s fine or fall back on biology, so it’s interesting, I guess as a selfish human where I want to see it all happen and I’m impatient for it all.

“It’s not just natural self-reproducing systems and coming to the conclusion that none of them work well in isolation, it’s a little bit stronger than that, in that when we look at natural selection systems, that may well not be optimal. 

“If there was a Darwinian organism being able to live completely independently of all other organisms, we’d see more examples of it. I can see no reasons why the machine should try and struggle against the equilibrium which Darwinian selection seems to have settled upon.”w

And you don’t think the rules change when things cease to be made from cells and become made from electronics instead? You believe those rules still apply?

“It seems that that would be the null hypothesis. You’ve got to have some exceptionalism argument to say why that would not be the case and I don’t see that exceptionalism argument really.”

How did it feel to be awarded to be awarded an MBE by The Queen for your services to 3D printing?

“Oh, that was very gratifying — I got this envelope with all sorts of crests and things all over it. I originally thought it was some kind of tax demand and then I opened it and realised what it was. It was a New Year’s Honour [a recognition system in the United Kingdom for remarkable achievements in different sectors] and you get to hear about it around November time. 

“It’s very nice to be recognised by one’s academic colleagues and students, and people such as yourselves [us, 3DSourced, in the 3D printing industry], to receive this recognition by the nation into which one happens to have been born in and lived by geographical accident, is actually a very gratifying thing indeed.”

What do you think will be the end archetype — the final form — that will be the end design of FDM 3D printers?

“They address different problems. The latest things are these Infinite Z printers that have been made by Naomi Wu’s Creality colleagues and so on, from the original idea of White Knight by NAK3D Designs. That seems to be a very clever geometry because it allows infinitely large parts in a single dimension.

“It might well be that the final form is some sort of combination of belt printer and delta printer. If you imagine a delta assembly suspended over a moving belt axis then you can see that this would perhaps [combine] the advantages of both of those two approaches: delta moves much faster than a cartesian [3D printer] because the bits and pieces are lighter and so the forces involved when they are accelerated are much lower, and of course speed is important because you can print more quickly, so that might be the next version to come along.

You discuss the term Darwinian Marxism—

“—Yes, but that was me trying to wind people up.”

But many companies have made millions from it. Is this a bastardization of the original concept: Darwinian Capitalism?

“Yes, probably. It doesn’t bother me though — the world does what it does. And because the design’s open source and even if people close it off, the open source is still there so other people can adopt it if they want, and even if people close it off, the closed source people can copy it and justify it by the original RepRap license, so that’s quite an amusing thing. No court cases yet, but that might be quite an interesting thing. 

“The phrase you’ve just quoted [Darwinian Marxism] was a bit of tongue-in-cheek really from me trying to wind people up. And I don’t know if it succeeded or not. I don’t take these things too seriously I’m afraid.

You’ve been a proponent of UBI (universal basic income) in the past. Could a self-replicating machine encourage UBI?

“To an extent in that it separates you from the need to buy things. We’ve already talked about how a 3D printer saves you money because you can print things that would cost you more to buy, so imagine a more versatile machine being able to give you a wider range of goods, particularly if it copies itself, then you can let your neighbour have one for the cost for the raw materials. 

“The amount of money you’d need to start distributing to people to allow them to live without the necessity of being fully employed would reduce the more material goods they could obtain by other means, so yes it would help in that regard. 

“But we’re up against a problem: if you look at the way which productivity has increased since the introduction of the microprocessor in the middle of 1970s, the amount of wealth produced has increased enormously, but wages haven’t kept pace. They kept pace before because we were needed to make things, but now we can make wealth without people. We’ve separated out the necessity for people in the creation of wealth, and the inevitable capitalist consequence of that is that people become less valuable, and that’s why wages haven’t matched productivity. The only way to counteract that is to take the wealth that productivity represents and start redistributing that, and UBI is probably the fairest way of doing that.”