Materialise Launch Rapid Manufacturing Service Aimed at Designers
07Nov09 by Matt Sinclair
I recently received a mail from Alex Mamalyha, web community manager for i.materialise, announcing the launch of a new service from Materialise NV. i.materialise is a rapid manufacturing service aimed at designers, and the beta site gives a good idea of the way the service will work. Obviously there are many web-based rapid manufacturing services these days, and the announcement of a new one is a fairly regular occurrence which I usually just ignore. But given the extent to which Materialise have supported and encouraged designers’ use of RM technologies through their .MGX initiative, I thought this was one service that deserved further investigation.
The ‘manifesto’ of i.materialise claims the service makes “3D printing as easy as printing on paper”. Obviously such claims owe more to hyperbole than fact, but the i.materialise interface is presented in a relatively simple and obvious way. A workspace in the centre of the screen visualises the model once it is uploaded, and a number of drop-down menus to the right give the choice of materials, surface finishes etc.
To test the service, I used a model I made previously for Nina Pirhonen, a Finnish designer and creator of the PomPom character and series of books. The model was originally created in Solidworks, but in order to upload it to the i.materialise site it first needed to be converted to .stl format.

3D model of PomPom © Nina Pirhonen
It’s here that some of the limitations of the i.materialise service first begin to show. Whether it’s to simplify the operation, or because limits don’t in fact exist, there’s no information regarding maximum file sizes or number of triangles/polygons. This is fairly basic information that anyone, designer or not, with the skill to create a 3D CAD model will want to know, since it has a fundamental effect on the quality of the manufactured model, and most CAD packages allow the quality of the .stl file to be easily determined. In this instance I used a relatively coarse setting, giving a triangle count of 20,024, and a file size of 1,001,284 bytes. I also imported the file into Rhino in order to export as .3ds, .obj and .wrl formats.

Exported .stl model of PomPom © Nina Pirhonen
Uploading the file is easy – click the upload button and choose your file – and quick; a 1.5Mb .3ds file took about 20 seconds to upload, with a further 8 seconds for the i.materialise software to analyse the file. Exactly what the analysis involves isn’t clear, but I assume the model is being checked to ensure it’s a closed volume. No errors or warnings were given about the model, which suggests it isn’t being checked in terms of the feasibility of it actually being made – the ears, arms and feet/ground of this model would definitely throw up problems, particularly in some of the more fragile material options. Once the model is uploaded it appears in the workspace of the user interface, and can be viewed from different angles.
i.materialise interface © Materialise NV (click for larger image)
Another limitation of the interface is that there’s no option to change the build orientation of the model. Since most rapid manufacturing technologies have different resolutions in their horizontal plane and vertical axis, this can be an important choice, affecting which surfaces have the smoothest finish. For a service aimed at designers it’s definitely an option I would expect to see.
On the right hand side of the interface there are a choice of materials, including ABS, polycarbonate and polyamide, alumide, and multicolour composite. As different materials are chosen the price automatically updates, along with the surface finishing options. Most materials can be painted and some can be mechanically smoothed (similar to tumble polishing). There’s also an extensive ‘library’ of information about materials and manufacturing techniques.
Multicolour Composite material properties © Materialise NV (click for larger image)
Given the nature of the model I was testing the service with, I was particularly interested in the multicolour composite option. Materialise use a Z Corp Spectrum Z510 for this process, which prints at 600 x 540 dpi. The problem was that, as far as I could tell there is no way to specify the colour of the surfaces. Usually Z Corp Spectrum printers use VRML files, but when I uploaded in this format (the system accepts and recognises .wrl files, even though they are not listed as a usable file type) no colour information was retained. The same was true when I tried an .obj file. Looking around the site and through the FAQ’s didn’t give any clues as to what file formats I should be using or whether this option is functional, but obviously this is something that needs to be fixed before the service comes out of beta testing.
All in all, I’m not really sure what to make of the i.materialise site and service. It’s stated explicitly that the service is aimed at designers, though it’s not made clear whether that means just design professionals or includes consumer-designers. Either way, for those with the experience and skill to create their own 3D models it seems a bit simplistic. There’s none of the control you get setting up a model for printing yourself, particularly deciding what orientation the parts should be printed. To be fair it’s possible to contact i.materialise direct, but then the service becomes little different to using a local RP/RM shop (although admittedly, the range of materials and processes is much greater than most shops are able to offer). And of course it should be kept in mind that the site is still in beta testing, the whole point of which is to iron out the glitches. In this respect at least, i.materialise have done a good job – the UI is easy to understand and the whole process of uploading a file, choosing a material and ordering is easy to follow.
Finally, one tantalising option, which isn’t possible to review but which is suggested in the FAQ’s, is the future possibility of ordering some of the .MGX designs. Quite how this will work is unclear – will it simply be possible to choose from a catalogue and hit ‘print’, or will it be possible to modify the design? But this is obviously one area where the i.materialise service can offer something unique, over and above similar web-based services or a local RM shop.
Update: Since posting this article I have swapped a few emails with Alex Mamalyha; my questions and his answers are reproduced below:
1. Is there a maximum file size, and is there a limit to the number of triangles or polygons in a model?
2. How are colours specified when choosing the multi-colour composite option (using the Z-Corp Spectrum printer)?
3. Will you attempt to make any model, or will you advise if an uploaded model is unsuitable?
4. What is your returns policy?
Finally, I noticed that it’s possible to upload a VRML (.wrl) file and the system will recognise it, but this isn’t listed in the ‘supported formats’ list.
1. There is no limitation on the file size or number of triangles in the model.
2. Colors should be stored within the uploaded file, so if you choose Z-Corp we will print it in color (I realize it is a bit confusing since the preview generated images are in single color, but we will improve that bit shortly).
3. We did some testing with Blender users. If the uploaded file is not suitable for printing we will fix it ourselves, unless it requires severe design changes (after all we don’t want to print cube when the person is ordering sphere) in which case we will contact the designer and explain what has to be changed. We will not attempt to print something that is not printable. Additionally, we are developing plug-ins for major CAD programs that will provide designers with the info on problems with the file before they even upload it.
4. Once we print and ship the model, it cannot be return for obvious reasons (usually it’s one of a kind design)
About VRML support. We are still in a pretty early BETA and some info may not be consistent in all parts of the website, but we will do our best to provide support for a number of different file types.
Are there plans to add functionality which would allow the designer to choose the orientation of the part in the build chamber? Or maybe make it clearer which is the Z-axis so the part can be oriented in the modelling application?
We are working on functionality, so that preview window on the website will allow designers to rotate the model, rather than have screenshot generated (as it does now). It does not matter how the file is located during the upload process, we have support engineers, who check all incoming files and position them, we don’t expect people to know how the model should be oriented for printing purposes.
POSTED IN: 01 RP & RM Technologies, 04 New Design Processes, 05 Enabling End User Design, 7 Comments



12Nov09 at 11:25 pm
Thanks for that link Matt. As a Materialise customer since the 90s I’m a bit puzzled what the aim of this is though, apart from perhaps a more consumer friendly web interface? As you so rightly point out, the orientation issue is critical, and all the more puzzling as the excellent NextDay software lets you set the base plane on the part and use that as a front end to access non Next Day services.
Presumably they are attempting to leverage the Magics platform as a web service and plug in for 3D apps that are more consumer or non CAD focussed?
16Nov09 at 10:35 pm
Hi Kevin,
Thanks for your comment. I’ve updated the post since hearing back from Alex of i.materialise and one of his comments refers directly to the orientation issue. Personally I would prefer to have direct control over the way the part is oriented, even though I have no doubt the i.materialise support engineers are skilled and experienced. Having said that, it’s pretty easy to contact i.materialise directly (and if Alex’s response times are anything to go by the customer support will be fantastic), so I imagine it would be possible to give instructions, or orient the part in the CAD software and ask for it not to be changed.
I agree that i.materialise seems to be a way of presenting a rapid manufacturing service with an easy-to-use web interface. As such I’m not sure exactly how it will appeal to designers, many of whom will have experience of interacting directly with a supplier. But the interface seems pretty good to me, even in its beta state, and I could definitely see it getting business from those who wouldn’t normally have access to – or know how to get access to – a local supplier. The list of possible materials and technologies, and the ability to change material, surface finish etc and immediately see the price update, is something that I think could give confidence to someone who isn’t sure whether to go down the RM route or not.
20Nov09 at 1:24 pm
I’ve done a bit more investigation into this myself Matt and interestingly I’m finding that the iMaterialise site seems to do more substantial STL repairs than the Next Day process does.
Next Day used to run via a standalone application (Communicator Next Day) then it switched to a web application via the Materialise Online service. I’m not entirely sure when this change happened. On my 5 year old laptop I have the software app. On my 1 year old desktop I couldn’t find the same app to download and had to run it all via the website using Internet Explorer (Onsite is not very browser friendly).
The standalone NextDay app was very effective as a STL viewer and so on but has to some extent been replaced by Mini Magics. What I’ve found though in the last 12-18 months is that the Onsite service is VERY fussy about the STL files. Many fail due to bad edges or whatever.
Via Online you only then get the option to have Materialise repair the file at extra cost.
Uploading the same “bad” STL files to iMaterialsie though still flags the errors but the iMaterialise repairs the file automatically.
Ironically, this is what the original NextDay software used to do when you uploaded a bad file – you had three levels of repair when you logged into the service and this sorted out 99% of issues.
So this, in itself is progress. Over the last couple of years Materialise have lost a lot of business from me due to the increasingly fussy STL analysis that just stopped the process dead in its tracks.
Compare this to other bureau where I am sending the same files and having no error issues reported (and looking at the STLs in other viewers I am seeing no errors either so I suspect the issues are with the analysis software at the Materialise end either picking up things that others don’t, or flagging up errors when there are none).
In any case, this alone makes the iMaterialise site worthwhile….and the prices are good as well
21Nov09 at 11:57 pm
[...] We Don’t do Retro zaterdag, november 21st, 2009 3D Printing, Design & Engineering, Digital Fabrication, [...]
25Nov09 at 7:38 pm
@Kevin : let me allow you to answer some of your questions about OnSite/NextDay wrt i.materialise .
Where OnSite/NextDay aims at the professional market, let’s say, the designers@work, i.materialise is focussing more on consumers, the designers_after_work who don’t have to be professional, don’t know much about materials and have a 3d model that they want in their hands for which they want to know quickly a price range to materialise the model for the possible materialising options.
Right now the difference between the 2 sites is not that obvious because the i.materialise site is still in beta with the basic features.
We have other projects in the pipeline for i.materialise that will make the difference more clear when they are released.
An example of an obvious difference between OnSite and i.materialise is that i.materialise is able to handle more file formats than the STL file analyzer in OnSite.
Leadtime is another one. OnSite gives exact shipment dates, i.materialise gives indications.
I hope these answers give already bit of a better view on i.materialise versus NextDay/OnSite.
WiM
. The application is still downloadable in the download section of the OnSite website)
(btw : nice to hear that the NextDay standalone application is still being remembered
08Dec09 at 12:04 am
Thanks WiM, never noticed the downloads bit on the Onsite section before! More work coming your way again then by the looks of it
08Sep10 at 12:18 pm
[...] that published our news during the first days of our beta launch. Matt @ No-retro blog with his comprehensive first review of our service. Bre @ Thingiverse with our press release on his blog. We have also shared some of our models with [...]