That seems a bit low. I would check the exported scaling of that part. I would expect it to cost ~$40-50.
There is also the heat treat and shipping that adds to the cost.
Thanks all. I just logged back in with the intention of ordering a few just to see and after uploading the exact same step file, the price has jumped up to $32 which seems a bit more sensible. I’m not sure what the difference was, it all looks the same to me but I may have missed something or done something silly. The calculated weight is the same and the material/finishing is the same but hey-ho it is what it is. $32 is still way lower than I expected so I’m keen to see if I can work this into my process.
3 Likes
Thanks for the insight and advice, Sean!
Good call on the galleries - I created internal holes on my parts to allow for backpurging; it seems like a secondary benefit is allowing the excess powder to empty out of the internal cavities.
I did request “stone tumbling” (screenshot attached) but suspect In3Dtec used magnetic polishing instead. Here’s the response I got from their customer support:
Thanks for reaching out and let us know the issue.
We were concerned that ceramic and stone debris might get lodged inside the pipe, making it difficult to remove. To address this, we used a cardboard box as a temporary barrier during the grinding process.
However, before the shipping, our grinding team accidentally forgot to remove it.
I have already spoken with our team to ensure this oversight doesn’t happen again. Please accept our sincere apologies for the inconvenience caused, and thank you for bringing this to our attention. Your understanding means a lot to us.
Not sure how common this issue is across other customer parts/geometries, and if any process changes were implemented. I don’t think I’ll request any post-processing services for future parts aside from sandblast/beadblast.
Interesting. I dont recall seeing those options when ordering before. I will dig deeper next batch.
Sweet that’s also what I’ve been using for the designs of my parts after some research 
1 Like
I don’t know how to delete this post so as a mod, I’m writing over it. - Coco
hi John, are you a bot?
Heyo,
Since I’m in-between jobs I’m spending a bit of time looking into 3D printing.
I’m a little bit into designing a yoke and noticed jagged edges on the inside when I shelled it.
I first noticed it in section view/analysis. Wasn’t sure if it’s just a result of that so I split the body and took a look.
Is this just an artifact of the shelling? Something I need to be concerned about?
(Ignore the right angles, at the yoke/CS junction. I know those need to be addressed)
Thanks
That’s a strange artefact.
I don’t use Fusion, but if the shell function is anything like in SolidWorks, then it can be very temperamental. I’ve never seen the shell command create a jagged surface like that before.
Have you tried playing aorund with the wall thickness?
In SW, the shell command is very sensitive to the curvature of the outer surface. Sometimes it errors out if the shelling essentially eliminates a radiused corner. I.e. if the outside radius of a corner is 2mm and you’re trying to make a shell with 2mm or more wall thickness.
You’ve got a pretty flowing design there, I’m assuming they’re achieved via lofts and guide rails, and I suspect that maybe something is happening with the inner surface if the curvature of the outer surface is not ideal. Have you checked the curvature of the outside surface before shelling? The curvature combs and zebra stripes tools come in handy for that.
1 Like
Hmm I’ve seen that happen before. Is the part solid modelled or surfaced?
I saw that while doing LOFT in Fusion. Now my preferred method is to create a full solid, delete some faces to have a surface and then thicken the surface with desired thickness for 3D printing. I found it gives me more control on this specially because I also do some Fillets on the surface before in order to have more smooth.
2 Likes
there’s a thread on the Autodesk forum where someone has not-dissimilar issues and ultimately resolves them:
the issues in that case were caused by “shelling” smooth but what I’m going to call “non-uniform” surfaces on a sculpt body, and fixed on video by another user here;
if you’re struggling, sharing a file might let one of the fusion-bike-gurus here open it, and have a sniff around to find a solution for you.
1 Like
That’s a great vid @crowe-molybdenum ! I recently had the same issue but on the outside of a loft. It appeared whether I created the loft using solid modelling or surface modelling. It showed up on the section analysis as a badly damaged wall, but whenever I ran surface analysis, zebra, draft etc it disappeared! I also scaled the section up and printed on my 3D printer and it was fine. It’s now with Ram3D and they say the file is fine too! Not sure if it’s just some anomaly with the project when it’s being worked on. I also exported the part as a component as a .Step file and when I opened that exported file up, the interference was no longer visible on the section analysis! Have you tried that @ElysianBikeCo ,export the part then bring in the exported file again? Might be a way of double checking?
3 Likes
Last night I hit up a friend with SolidWorks. Sent her a STEP file with bodies that were both solid and shelled. She couldn’t find any issues with them. She also couldn’t find any issues when she recreated them from scratch.
I did exactly what you suggested and brought the STEP files into F360 for review. No jagged edges. I guess the behavior is a result of the F360 format?
Thanks for the responses ya’ll.
2 Likes
Why put a link to a painting business in your reply in this thread?
@Daniel_Y I believe we may have a bot in here.
2 Likes
Yoke is looking clean!
I think it’s always a good idea to do a standard FDM 3D printed prototype to confirm your designs before moving to metal. It’s much cheaper and very easy to do some section prints to confirm surfaces are as expected.
2 Likes