Belgian Amnovis has just set foot on the American market - and in a very strategic location.

Amnovis - a contract manufacturer specializing in metal 3D printing for regulated industries - has acquired the additive manufacturing operations of Westconn Precision Technologies and opened a new production facility in North Webster, Indiana.

This is no random location. North Webster sits right next to Warsaw - a town known in the medical world as the Silicon Valley of orthopedics.

Amnovis was founded in mid-2020 by Ruben Wauthle - a man who has spent years immersed in metal 3D printing for medical applications. Between 2010 and 2015, he worked at the legendary Belgian company LayerWise, a pioneer in metal 3D printing for implants, which was later acquired by 3D Systems. He then served for several years as Business Development Director for Healthcare.

When he founded Amnovis, he knew exactly what he was doing - and for whom. From the outset, the company has focused on regulated sectors, primarily orthopedics and implants, offering contract metal 3D printing services using LPBF, along with CNC machining and post-processing.

Westconn Precision Technologies is a family-owned company from Connecticut specializing in precision CNC machining and EDM. Its additive business will now be absorbed into Amnovis’ new Indiana operation.

In practice, this means that metal 3D printing, traditional machining, and electrical discharge machining will come together in one place - a complete package for customers whose components require multiple production stages.

A key element of the entire strategy is mirroring.

The new facility in Indiana is designed to operate as a twin of the Belgian headquarters - with identical quality management systems, procedures, digital workflows, validation frameworks, and hardware strategy.

For customers, this means something very tangible: they can split production across two continents without needing to requalify a supplier twice. One quality system, two production locations - in the EU and the U.S. simultaneously.

This is far from a minor detail. FDA and MDR requirements represent two different regulatory worlds, and most contract manufacturers operate in only one of them. Amnovis is positioning itself to serve customers in both jurisdictions with a single partner.

Considering that Warsaw, Indiana is literally home to Zimmer Biomet and DePuy - a place where global orthopedic purchasing decisions are made — it’s hard to imagine a better neighborhood.

The U.S. medical device market accounts for roughly one-third of global demand.

Companies like 3D Systems and Lincotek have been building bridges between Europe and the U.S. for years, precisely because physical proximity to customers is no longer a competitive advantage - it has become a requirement for market entry.

Amnovis enters this game with a very specific strength: it offers not just manufacturing capacity, but a unified operational system across two continents - one that can genuinely simplify life for customers developing applications in both markets simultaneously.

Atomic Layer from the Past:

9 years ago, Mosaic Manufacturing released the beta version of CANVAS, the first cloud-based platform dedicated to multi-material FFF 3D printing. Integrated with Palette devices, CANVAS solved major infrastructure gaps: existing slicers couldn’t handle complex multi-filament prints, forcing users into inefficient manual workflows.

CANVAS introduced automatic alignment, drag-and-drop color assignment, cloud slicing, and Chroma post-processing. Running entirely in a browser, it removed the need for powerful computers. It also popularized adding color to single-color STL files.

Through intelligent slicing and continuous updates, CANVAS transformed a cumbersome technical process into a user-friendly tool, shaping education and semi-professional 3D printing.

Read all:

News & Gossip:

#1

Eplus3D, Rosswag Engineering, and Qualloy have partnered to build a validated metal AM ecosystem. Rosswag will install an Eplus3D EP-M550 eight-laser system, operational by June 2026. Qualloy powders will be qualified at Rosswag’s German innovation center and then made available online. The project will be presented at Rapid.Tech3D in May.

#2

3D Systems has received EU Class IIa MDR certification for its NextDent Jet Base and Jet Teeth materials, enabling immediate commercialization of the complete NextDent Jetted Denture Solution across Europe.

#3

Scrap Labs has debuted the Scrap 1, a compact metal LPBF 3D printer priced around $9,600 as a kit or $17,990 fully assembled. The 100×100×100 mm system features a 200W laser, open-source Klipper firmware, and 99% part density in steels, copper, nickel alloys, and cobalt chrome. Aimed at small shops and labs, it offers an affordable alternative to six-figure industrial machines. Still in development, the printer is expected to begin shipping in June 2027 if validation progresses as planned.

#4

Modix has launched the MAMA-1000, a large-format 3D printer with a 1,000 x 1,000 x 1,000 mm build volume. A more compact version of the MAMA-1700, it supports both pellet and filament feedstock via interchangeable print heads - filament for finer details, pellets for lower cost and higher throughput.

#5

Farsoon Technologies reported 2025 revenue of 715 million yuan (~$104.5 million). Cumulative global system sales exceeded 1,400 units, including over 800 metal LPBF machines. Those are quite interesting numbers given the fact, the company’s valuation on stock exchange is $4,67 billion.

#6

This is quite interesting… JD.com is one of China’s largest e-commerce platforms, often compared to Amazon. Founded in 1998, it specializes in direct sales - unlike purely marketplace-based competitors, JD controls the entire logistics chain.

Now, the company is accelerating 3D printing’s move from a niche tool into ordinary homes. After seeing 176% GMV growth during June 2024’s “618” festival, JD launched direct sales for brands like Anycubic, Bambu Lab, and Creality.

By 2025, JD began organizing printing farms, offering on-site installation in 31 cities, and opening offline experience centers at JD Home locations. In March 2026, JD unveiled a 3D & UV printing customization platform integrating design, production, and delivery.

Users can upload ideas or IP and turn them into physical products.

This shift from pure e-commerce toward distributed manufacturing positions JD as bridge connecting consumers with production on demand.

Read more: www.3dzyk.com

Anthropic has announced a series of new connectors for Claude, linking the language model directly with design tools.

For the 3D modeling and printing community, two integrations are particularly noteworthy: Autodesk Fusion and Blender.

Both are intended to enable control over typical modeling tasks using natural language and to accelerate parts of the workflow.

The integration with Autodesk Fusion is aimed at designers and engineers who have a Fusion subscription. In practice, this means the ability to create and modify 3D models through direct interaction with Claude - for example, by arranging components or generating exploded views.

Design steps that previously required manual execution within a CAD system can now be described in words. For those producing models additively, this allows for earlier organization of geometry and assemblies already at the design stage.

In the case of Blender, Anthropic has opted for deep integration with the software’s open-source Python API. Claude effectively gains a language interface to Blender’s scripting layer, allowing it to analyze entire scenes and detect errors.

Possible applications include bulk material assignment, selective object removal, and writing custom scripts that then appear as tools directly within the Blender interface.

The integration is based on the MCP protocol, making it open to other language models - consistent with the project’s open-source philosophy.

Anthropic has also joined the Blender Development Fund as a patron, supporting the continued development of the Python API.

Beyond these two 3D tools, Anthropic is also launching connectors for Adobe Creative Cloud, Ableton, Splice, Affinity, SketchUp, and Resolume.

SketchUp, for example, allows users to turn a conversation with Claude into a starting point for modeling - the user describes a room, a piece of furniture, or a location concept, and a ready-made sketch opens in SketchUp for further refinement.

What does this mean more broadly?

Claude can now act as a tutor for complex software, explaining modifier stacks or demonstrating unfamiliar functions on demand.

Using Claude Code, users can write scripts, plugins, and generative systems for the tools they already use - a custom shader, a scripted procedural animation, or a parametric model with full documentation ready for further modification.

The connectors are already available. As always with announcements of this kind, things become more interesting once we see what can actually be achieved with them in real work enviroment.

The 3D printing market still has a long way to go. A few months ago, in an interview with Nicolas Mathian from Sculpteo, I said that if I had to rate the maturity of the 3D printing market today on a scale from 1 to 10, I would say it’s still below 5.

This isn’t a deep market analysis - more of a gut feeling. But even when flipping through reports from most reputable market research firms, one thing remains constant: we’re only at the beginning of something much bigger.

The market is growing and will continue to grow.

Take the desktop FFF 3D printer market. Between the third and fourth quarters of last year, something breakthrough happened. There was an unprecedented surge in demand, resulting in record sales.

The market has crossed a threshold. 3D printers are no longer being purchased exclusively by hobbyists, makers, designers, or semi- and fully professional users. They are now being bought by ordinary people - for fun, experimentation, or simply the desire to own one.

For years, consumer 3D printing belonged to a specific type of user: the enthusiast, the tinkerer, the kind of person willing to read technical documentation and spend a weekend calibrating hardware. In certain cases, even pick up a soldering iron - something most people don’t own and are reluctant to use.

The maker movement carried this market on its shoulders and did so effectively - but it also defined its natural limits. Growth was only possible where DIY culture could reach.

Today, the market is driven by people who have never heard of the maker movement, have no idea what G-code is, and have no intention of learning. They buy a 3D printer the same way they buy a coffee machine or a kitchen appliance.

They want the result, not the process.

The best comparison for what’s happening is the Thermomix. This German cooking device has dominated European kitchens for years not because it turned users into chefs, but because it removed the need to be one.

All you need is an app, a recipe, a few clicks, and the right ingredients. You follow instructions - add food in the right order, maybe finish it in the oven or on a pan - and the rest happens automatically.

The quality of meals produced is out of reach for someone with basic cooking skills without this kind of technological support.

Suddenly, everyone becomes a cook. Suddenly, we can create at home dishes that previously could only be ordered in restaurants (obviously whether they match restaurant quality depends on the restaurants we compare them to).

The exact same mechanism is starting to work in 3D printing.

App ecosystems and model platforms have matured to the point where the user doesn’t need to make any technical decisions.

The model is optimized for specific hardware, supports are generated automatically, print settings are preconfigured by the manufacturer, and filament colors are assigned to specific parts. You just load the material and press a button. The printer does the rest.

This leads to the question: what caused this transition? How did 3D printers start reaching ordinary people?

The key shift was moving from “we make 3D printers” to “we make consumer electronics in the form of 3D printers.”

This isn’t just semantics - it’s a deep, fundamental change in approach.

Historically, 3D printing is an industrial technology, created as an alternative to prototyping. It proved so effective that it eventually dominated prototyping entirely, becoming the default manufacturing method in that space.

Over time, it expanded into more advanced applications: production of specialized end-use parts, hearing aids, medical implants, surgical and dental tools.

But regardless of its evolution - technological or application-based - one thing remained unchanged: it was an industrial technology. And industrial technologies are used by trained professionals.

And if specialists use it, you can expect more from them. Which means expecting less from yourself.

For years, both expensive professional AM systems and cheaper, theoretically consumer-grade 3D printers were difficult and demanding because their creators assumed users would invest time to figure them out.

Not just operation - almost everything:

• configuration

• materials

• software.

I remember an anecdote from the early Polish market in 2013. One of the first resellers received a DIY 3D printer from what was then a leading Polish manufacturer. When asked why some metal parts didn’t fit because they were too large, the manufacturer replied: “just cut them down; with a hacksaw”.

And that’s how it went for years…

Industrial machines ran on outdated software with UI logic from the 1990s, while amateur devices relied on open-source ecosystems.

This changed in 2022, began becoming a new standard in 2023, and started delivering measurable results in 2025. You know who I’m talking about.

The shift came from a different mindset. A 3D printer was no longer meant to be a 3D printer with all its limitations - it was meant to be a consumer device in the form of a 3D printer.

The new user was supposed to be technologically inexperienced. Someone who had never held an Allen key. Their software knowledge limited to Word and Excel.

How do you onboard such a user into 3D printing? With simplified hardware, highly intuitive software, and a library of ready-to-print 3D models.

And importantly - these are not Thingiverse-style STL files that require manual setup, support generation, and slicing decisions. These are 3MF files where everything is preconfigured, with optional editing for advanced users.

Everything is simple, easy, and enjoyable - as much as the fundamentals of FFF technology allow. Some things can’t be simplified to the level of a kitchen appliance. But compared to likes of XYZPrinting, Robo3D, or Micro, which 10 years ago were promising similar outcomes - we are in a completely different place today.

The consequences are significant. A market that grew alongside a niche community suddenly gained access to an entirely different scale.

Hundreds of millions of people who never identified with maker culture are becoming potential users of 3D printers.

Not because they learned something new - but because the technology no longer requires them to.

This doesn’t mean the market is mature though...

Quite the opposite. What we are seeing now is just the beginning of a new growth curve.

Ecosystem infrastructure, model libraries, e-commerce integration, on-demand personalization, print-to-home services - all of these elements are still taking shape.

Most future 3D printer users haven’t even encountered the technology yet.

Eplus3D has unveiled a metal 3D printer that measures 3 meters by 3 meters by 3 meters - and that’s just the standard version. Optionally, it can be expanded to 5 by 10 by 5 meters.

In other words, the size of a small house 😳

On top of that, it’s equipped with 100 lasers, with the option to scale up to 256. The machine is capable of producing 670 kilograms of metal per day. No other system of this kind comes close to these parameters.

And yet, the same company has just withdrawn its IPO application 🤨

Eplus3D had filed for a listing on Shanghai’s STAR Market, aiming to raise around $177 million. The plans were concrete: expanding production capacity in Beijing, building an R&D center in Hangzhou, and developing a global service network.

All of that has now been pulled - without explanation. The exchange formally terminated the process. Case closed.

How is it possible that a company building record-breaking machines struggles to go public?

To understand that, you first need to appreciate what Eplus3D has actually achieved from an engineering standpoint. The EP-M3050 is not just a slightly larger 3D printer.

It represents solutions to several fundamental engineering challenges that have long limited large-format LPBF metal printing.

The first issue is galvanometer mirrors, which scan the laser beam across the powder bed. On small machines, they work well. But as the build area increases, so does the angle of reflection, which distorts the laser spot at the edges.

One solution is to mount the mirrors higher - but that makes the machine impractically tall. Eplus3D bypassed this by distributing the workload across hundreds of lasers operating in parallel.

The second issue is gas flow. During LPBF, the laser melts metal powder, generating smoke and fumes. If the laser passes through that cloud, it loses power - and the result is a defect.

Maintaining uniform gas flow in a small machine is manageable. In a machine the size of a house, it becomes comparable to designing an industrial ventilation system - but with laboratory-level precision. Eplus3D claims to have solved this as well.

And the numbers support that claim. The material deposition rate reaches 3,500 cubic centimeters per hour - roughly equivalent to the volume output of about 150,000 desktop printers.

The system can print in rectangular, cylindrical, or even ring-shaped volumes — the latter because many large metal components have that geometry, so there’s no need to print empty space.

It’s an impressive achievement. No one else has built anything like it.

And this is where the paradox begins…

Eplus3D is growing. Revenue increased from 247 million yuan in 2022 to 471 million in 2024 - over +38% annual growth. Hardware margins reach 46%, and international sales - through subsidiaries in Germany and the U.S. — go as high as 58%.

Net profit rose from 68 to 99 million yuan year-over-year. The company holds 123 patents. Its machines are pioneering not just in China, but globally.

An IPO seemed like a natural next step. Yet Eplus3D unexpectedly withdrew its application.

IPO processes in China are not abandoned without reason. The prospectus, filed in June 2025, revealed several areas that regulators tend to scrutinize closely.

First, receivables. They grew faster than revenue - from 82 million yuan in 2022 to 217 million in 2024, reaching 46% of annual revenue. More than one-third of those receivables were overdue by more than a year.

In simple terms: the company is selling, but it takes a long time to get paid. That’s not a healthy signal for investors.

Second, key machine components - lasers and galvanometers - are sourced from foreign suppliers. According to the prospectus, there are no domestic alternatives yet.

In a context of tightening export controls, especially between the U.S. and China, that’s a major risk. The company builds machines whose core technology could, in theory, be cut off.

Did these factors halt the IPO? It’s unclear. But connecting the dots, it’s hard not to conclude that the capital market looked at Eplus3D and thought: too early, too complex, too many uncertainties.

And that brings us to the core issue.

Metal 3D printing remains a niche. LPBF systems are complex to operate, expensive to purchase and maintain, and require specialized knowledge and infrastructure. They have very real applications — aerospace, space, medical, energy - but these are limited-scale markets with long purchasing cycles and strict certification requirements.

Innovation in this space - even as spectacular as the EP-M3050 - is difficult to commercialize.

Not because it’s flawed. But because the market doesn’t yet know what to do with it.

A public market investor looking at 256 lasers and a house-sized printer doesn’t think about engineering elegance. They think about how many customers will buy it, when they will pay, and whether the company will end up producing ever-larger parts for an ever-smaller customer base.

Eplus3D can print 670 kilograms of metal per day. The question every analyst asks is not “is it possible?”, but “who needs this, and how much are they willing to pay?”

And that’s a question the prospectus did not answer convincingly.

Maybe the company will return in a year with a revised application. Maybe it will seek private capital. Maybe the market will eventually catch up.

Or perhaps the EP-M3050 will remain what it is today - a record-breaking machine discussed at industry conferences, installed in a handful of facilities worldwide, doing things no one else can do.

But that’s not a business model that convinces the stock market.

Atomic Layer from the Past:

37 years ago, Hans J. Langer and Dr. Hans Steinbichler founded EOS, Germany’s first rapid prototyping company.

Initially focused on stereolithography, EOS shifted in the 1990s to laser-based powder bed fusion (SLS and DMLS), becoming a global leader in additive manufacturing. Its first customer was BMW.

Steinbichler left the company in 1990, and sadly passed away in 2005.

EOS pioneered key systems, including Europe’s first SLS machine and an early commercial metal AM platform. By 1997, it focused entirely on laser sintering. The company later expanded globally, developed advanced materials, and launched Additive Minds.

Leadership transitioned from Langer to his daughter Marie, reflecting EOS’s evolution into a mature industrial AM powerhouse.

Read all:

News & Gossip:

#1

And since we’re on the subject of Chinese companies and market debuts, Creality has filed for a Hong Kong IPO - its third attempt to go public and a potentially historic listing for the consumer 3D printing segment.

The company remains the global leader by cumulative shipments, but is losing ground to Bambu Lab, which a while ago overtook it in annual sales.

According to documents Creality’s revenues are growing, but unit sales are declining and profitability has turned negative. Yes, the company is running on loss, despite being profitable in following years…

#2

Last week, I wrote about HP’s new 3D printer, suggesting the company had effectively ended speculation about a potential exit from the AM industry. This week, the market reacted. Shares of HP Inc. jumped more than 7% in a single day - the strongest performance in over a year!

#3

Elegoo has secured over RMB 500 million in a Series B+ funding round led by Meituan, with participation from other investment funds. This follows a previous Series B round in November 2025 backed by DJI. The company reported over RMB 2.3 billion (~EUR 290 million) in revenue for 2025, with more than 90% generated overseas.

#4

BIWI SA, a Swiss manufacturer of elastomers and composites, has acquired the assets of bankrupt startup 9T Labs, including its intellectual property and 40 machines. The Zurich-based company had previously raised $21.5 million before entering bankruptcy in November 2025.

BIWI has rebranded the acquired composite additive manufacturing technology as Neocarb and plans to integrate it into its operations.

#5

Velo3D announced they will sponsor Andretti Performance and provide AM technology for two 2026 IMSA Michelin Pilot Challenge events at Laguna Seca and Indianapolis. Its branding will appear on the No. 43 Andretti Performance Porsche.

Velo3D has already produced an aluminium CP1 radio control mounting bracket for the car, improving rigidity and reducing weight using Constellium’s Aheadd CP1 alloy.

#6

And finally, I regret to inform you that Michael Molitch-Hou’s book “Impossible Works: The Book of 3D Printed Art” didn’t reach its funding goal on Kickstarter. The book was described by me here:

Mike himself, however, hasn’t lost his vigor and still intends to publish it through traditional publishing! 💪

In the industrial metal 3D printing sector, a clear consensus has already emerged: LPBF technology has crossed a certain threshold. It is no longer an experiment or a rapid prototyping tool. It has entered the realm of production.

Machines have matured. Materials have been characterized. Geometries are becoming increasingly complex.

But software is still trying to catch up.

This is a conversation that representatives of the metal LPBF sector rarely have openly - not because the problem is invisible, but because for a long time there was no alternative framework to turn to.

You used whatever the machine manufacturer provided, qualified the machine as a whole, and moved on. But this model is starting to show its limits.

Qualification tied to a serial number is not a strategy

The standard approach to qualifying additively manufactured parts in aerospace and defense ties qualification to a specific machine - its serial number, parameter set, and the OEM-defined workflow.

This made sense when LPBF meant one machine, one operator, one facility. It makes no sense when the goal is production at scale.

The moment an organization needs to print the same component across multiple systems - to increase throughput, hedge against machine failure, or distribute production across sites - the serial-number-based model becomes a bottleneck.

Every new machine effectively becomes a new qualification event. Every material change resets the cycle.

This is not a theoretical problem. It is precisely why LPBF has remained a niche technology in regulated industries, despite being capable of much more.

The alternative - process-window-based qualification, linked to characterized machines and validated, machine-independent build files - has been theorized for years. What’s new is that the software infrastructure required to actually implement it is starting to emerge.

Traditional build preparation software was designed to shield users from complexity: locked scanning strategies, fixed parameter sets, abstracted toolpaths.

The machine becomes an appliance: you input geometry, you receive a part.

While this approach worked for prototyping, it is inadequate for industrial qualification.

Qualification requires transparency. An engineer qualifying a safety-critical component needs to know not just the nominal parameters, but what the machine actually executed.

An engineer qualifying a process window instead of a serial number can transfer production between machines, scale capacity, or recover production after a failure without starting from scratch.

Qualification travels with the software, not the hardware.

Achieving this requires several things to happen simultaneously. Machine manufacturers must open sufficient interfaces for external software to characterize and control their systems at the vector level.

Algorithms must exist that generate scanning strategies accounting for local thermal conditions - overhangs, thin walls, internal channels - instead of applying uniform parameter sets to an entire build.

And validation methods must rely on in-situ sensor data rather than destructive testing after the fact.

The fact that such infrastructure is beginning to be adopted by manufacturers producing the most demanding aerospace and defense components is a meaningful signal about where the industry is heading.

What this requires from engineers

There is an implication here that should be stated explicitly.

If LPBF process control is increasingly becoming a software problem, then the teams operating these systems must look different than they do today.

The dominant profile of an AM process engineer is someone with deep expertise in materials science, laser physics, and metallurgy. That knowledge remains essential. But it must be complemented by the ability to express it in code - to write scanning strategies, build validation workflows, and create algorithms that can be systematically applied across machines and geometries.

The AM industry has spent a great deal of energy debating hardware: laser count, build volume, powder handling, recoater design.

The next frontier is the software layer that turns that hardware into a controllable, repeatable, and auditable production system.

In last week’s article about Nano Dimension selling its proprietary technology for next to nothing to Inspira Technologies, I didn’t mention one fairly important detail: Inspira’s CEO is Dagi Ben-Noon, who was a Nano Dimension co-founder and former COO of the company.

So after years, the technology is returning to the hands of the very people who originally created it.

(and who, in the meantime, left the company where it was developed and founded its original counterpart)

I have to admit that this story led me to some broader thoughts and reflections - specifically on how founders build AM companies, and then, as those companies grow and evolve, either drive them toward failure or hand them over to “experienced managers” who do it for them.

But before we go any further - an important clarification: this article is not about Nano Dimension, and certainly not about Mr. Ben-Noon, whom I do not know. These are general reflections on the broader issue of leadership in AM companies.

Secondly, despite the obvious temptation, I will not mention any other company names either. But the article is universal enough that you should have no trouble coming up with your own examples.

The pattern is always the same

A founder develops an AM technology. Sometimes it is unique in every possible way; sometimes it differs from existing solutions by just a parameter or a single distinctive feature - it doesn’t matter. What matters is that the solution gains recognition and traction.

To develop and commercialize the technology, the founder needs funding. They obtain it either from seed investment funds or through bootstrapping. At this stage, it still doesn’t matter, because everything is small, growing, and the founder maintains full control.

The founder establishes a company and hires people - mostly friends or referrals. The founder is not an HR specialist but an inventor, so obvious shortcuts are taken in this area.

A young team works intensely to develop an innovative product. The atmosphere is great. Early sales successes appear, along with industry recognition, perhaps even a startup award at a conference or event.

The company grows.

A real organizational structure begins to form. Departments emerge. There is an internal finance team, legal team, HR. It becomes a proper enterprise.

Naturally, more funding follows - grants, subsidies, or investment rounds. Or simply revenue from product sales. Contrary to popular belief, it does happen that an AM company is profitable.

The founder spends less and less time in R&D and more and more at the CEO’s desk - which they occupy.

This may or may not be satisfying. In any case, their professional life gradually changes - more responsibilities appear, not necessarily in areas they understand. They must make numerous decisions regarding sales, marketing, hiring, and overall communication.

They have never done this before. Mistakes happen - whether independently or by following advice from others who are equally inexperienced.

Eventually, the company reaches a point where its operational scale no longer allows it to be managed this way.

The founder must make one of two decisions:

1. abandon R&D and focus exclusively on running the business

2. hire an experienced manager who takes over operations while the founder returns to R&D.

There is also a third option where the founder sells the company and leaves, but let’s set that aside for now.

At this stage, the company faces four possible scenarios:

1. the founder focuses on management and succeeds

2. the founder focuses on management and fails

3. a new CEO takes over and succeeds

4. a new CEO takes over and fails.

The first scenario has only worked a handful of times - and usually involved the founder surrounding themselves with truly exceptional specialists who genuinely wanted to help rather than take control.

The second scenario is so common that it applies to the majority of startups. It can be considered the classic reason behind the failure of many young, promising AM companies.

The third scenario has also succeeded only a few times. The best example is a company that flourished under a general manager and fell apart after their departure.

The fourth scenario is also standard. Many large and well-known companies are now run by such professionals, but their future is far from bright. That doesn’t mean they will collapse - it means they will gradually stagnate.

From a simplified, mathematical perspective, a growing AM company has only a 50% chance of success (either the founder succeeds or not, or the external manager succeeds or not). In reality, historical data is far harsher - after leadership transitions, far fewer companies have succeeded than failed.

I won’t get into percentages - let’s just say “trust me on this,” and you’ll likely agree.

Why is that?

This brings us to the founder’s paradox in the AM sector. By nature, a founder is a maker, an inventor, an innovator, or a scientist – but not a businessperson. When a company reaches the stage where operational management becomes more important than technological development, the founder often lacks the skills to handle it.

Hiring an experienced external manager seems like the perfect solution - provided that the manager understands the specifics of the AM sector. Most simply do not. Not because they are incapable, but because truly successful executives rarely build their careers in AM.

I’ve described the brutal realities of the AM market in countless articles. Two of them are absolutely fundamental:

Typically, external managers, instead of respecting the rules of the AM market (including my three laws of the AM market), try to run the company against them by implementing solutions from other industries. This usually ends in failure.

Otherwise, failure is inevitable, regardless of how good the technology, products, or market visibility may be.

As I mentioned at the beginning, I’m convinced you can easily match this pattern to numerous companies, past and present.

Success in this industry ultimately comes down to two things:

1. you must live and breathe 3D printing every day

2. you must be an exceptional talent across multiple domains; technology alone is not enough, just as business alone is not enough; one does not work without the other.

Without these two conditions, failure is inevitable.

The RAPID+TCT 2026 trade show in Boston brought one of the more interesting hardware launches of the year - HP unveiled the new Multi Jet Fusion 1200 printer. At the same time, the company also celebrated ten years of presence in the additive manufacturing market.

The MJF 1200 is the first compact printer in the Multi Jet Fusion family in years and represents a fairly clear shift in strategy.

Instead of targeting only large manufacturing facilities with dedicated AM production floors, HP has decided to move down in both price and size.

The new machine is priced below $60,000, whereas previous MJF systems started at around $100,000 and above. The build volume is 12 liters, print time is under 12 hours, and the entire workflow - from build preparation to part unpacking - has been largely automated.

Each unit comes bundled with Magics Print for HP software, developed by Materialise. Commercial availability is planned for early 2027.

From a technical standpoint, the key argument HP consistently emphasizes is that the MJF 1200 uses exactly the same technology as the flagship systems in the 4200 and 5600 series.

So this is not a stripped-down version but - at least according to the manufacturer - a fully capable production tool in a smaller footprint.

This distinction is important, as the compact polymer printer market is already heavily occupied by SLS solutions from Formlabs, and HP will need to genuinely deliver on quality to justify entering this segment.

In addition to the MJF 1200, the company also announced a range of updates to its existing portfolio.

The Jet Fusion 5600 series received a new High Productivity mode, increasing throughput by 20%, as well as support for PA12 Glass Beads material. Another addition is Dual Tone technology - the ability to print in two shades, white and gray - allowing QR codes, markings, and textures to be directly integrated into the surface of parts.

On the Metal Jet platform, new materials are being introduced: copper for electrification applications, tungsten carbide with cobalt for tooling, and nickel-based superalloys for aerospace. HP has also entered into a partnership with Volkmann GmbH for metal powder handling.

The impact of these announcements on the AM market will depend primarily on whether HP can effectively reach small and medium-sized companies, as well as R&D departments within larger corporations - this is precisely where the MJF 1200 makes the most sense.

If part quality truly matches that of higher-end machines and the workflow proves to be as simple as promised, this could become a compelling argument for companies that have so far relied on outsourcing MJF production.

As a side note, it is worth mentioning that all these launches quietly put an end to rumors that have been circulating in the industry for several years.

There has long been talk that HP has been looking for a buyer for its AM division - either unable to find one or facing expectations that are too high.

Meanwhile, the current reality looks quite different: in the fall at Formnext 2025, HP presented the HP IF 600HT FFF printer for high-temperature materials (developed by 3DGence), and now in Boston it is showcasing a new generation of MJF systems.

This is difficult to interpret as the strategy of a company preparing to exit. It looks much more like HP intends to stay.

Atomic Layer from the Past:

2 years ago, Formlabs introduced its next-generation Form 4 and Form 4B 3D printers. This marked the company’s first major launch in several years, shifting away from traditional laser technology to a masked SLA system.

The new Low Force Display (LFD) engine, featuring 60 high-power LEDs and a custom LCD screen, enabled print speeds two to five times faster than previous generations. A flexible resin tank with Release Texture reduced peel forces, improving reliability.

Compatible with over 23 resins, the Form 4 series targeted rapid prototyping and dental production, offering 50-micron resolution and up to 40% lower cost per print.

Read all:

News & Gossip:

#1

The new HP printer was a significant event, but mainly within the industrial AM sector. In the broader 3D printing space (of all kinds), the real highlight was the new 3D printer from Bambu Lab - the X2D.

The new generation of the X series features two print heads and a very unusual extruder configuration - a primary direct-drive extruder on the toolhead and an auxiliary Bowden extruder mounted at the back of the enclosure. While it allows for printing with two equivalent materials or colors, the setup is primarily designed for combining model materials (direct) with support materials (Bowden), which can be standard PLA or PETG (depending on the model material).

However, it’s not the dual-head system that caused such a stir in the industry - it’s once again the best-in-class price-to-performance ratio. The X2D incorporates a wide range of solutions from the H series, while being priced at the level of the older X1 Carbon (or only slightly above the P2S).

I’ve written three articles on the topic:

• Xcellence made simple - Bambu Lab presents the X2D

• Two extruders, one purpose: what is X2D Direct Drive Extrusion and Auxiliary Extrusion?

• The Bambu Experience - an ecosystem that redefines 3D printing

#2

Elegoo decided to come back to its roots and has announced the massive Jupiter 2 resin 3D printer, featuring a 302 x 162 x 300 mm build volume and a 14” 16K LCD panel. It uses a COB light source with Fresnel collimating lenses for uniform exposure. Layer thickness can be as low as 0.01mm, with XY pixels at 0.020 x 0.026 mm.

Key innovations include multi-point automated leveling, a heated tank (up to 30°C), onboard webcam for monitoring, and modular design for fast LCD replacement. The smart resin management system automatically refills or recycles resin. Printing speed reaches 70mm/hour.

#3

On the other hand, Raise3D debuted the B520, an industrial automated blasting system for SLS post-processing. Priced at $9,999, it automates depowdering with a sealed chamber and programmable parameters, requiring under five minutes of manual handling per cycle.

Raise3D also launched two new powders: PA Next (high toughness) and PA Next GB (glass-bead reinforced for stiffness). Priced at $650 per 10 kg, they expand the SLS portfolio to seven grades, completing a full workflow from material to post-processing.

#4

Authentise has introduced Whispers, an AI platform that captures engineering intent across the idea-to-part lifecycle. Described as an “agentic backbone,” it connects fragmented knowledge from emails, meetings, and chats into existing systems, enabling real-time action.

Whispers automates compliance monitoring, project health alerts, technical documentation, and IP leakage detection. It integrates with ERP, PLM, and QMS systems.

#5

Stratasys unveiled new software, materials, and platform enhancements. The J850 Core printer offers lower-cost PolyJet performance for functional prototyping. P3 MED Silicone 25A, a biocompatible material for medical devices, is available exclusively on Origin printers. The GrabCAD Additive App Suite, developed with trinckle, launches with 10 apps for automated tooling design. SAF PA12, powered by Evonik, delivers 14% lower total cost of ownership.

The J850 Core is available from late April, while the App Suite arrives this summer.

#6

And finally, EOS has acquired 100% of Metalpine GmbH, a Austrian specialist in metal powders for additive manufacturing, transitioning from minority shareholder to full owner. The deal gives EOS direct control over a titanium powder supply chain built around Metalpine’s patented atomization process, ensuring consistency for serial production.

Metalpine will continue selling powders to the broader market under its own brand.

Yesterday, Bambu Lab announced the launch of the X2D - the second generation of its flagship X series. The printer introduces a dual-nozzle extrusion system with mechanical switching, active thermal chamber management with heating up to 65°C, and dynamic flow calibration performed automatically before each print.

So far, reactions from media, KOLs, and regular users have been overwhelmingly enthusiastic. Maybe it’s the brand, maybe the technical specifications, maybe the price… I don’t know. But one thing is certain: the X2D is a big deal.

At the same time, somewhat quietly, Bambu Lab released an update to BambuStudio, bringing it to version 2.5.3. While the main purpose of the update is to support the X2D, the software also received several additional features worth mentioning.

The biggest addition is Color Mixing - the ability to mix colors directly in the slicer, without any external tools or complicated workarounds.

The concept is simple: at the bottom of the filament list, a new button appears - “Add Mixed Filament” - which opens a configuration window. There, you select two or three filaments of the same type and define the proportions in which they should be mixed.

Color Mixing offers two operating modes. The first is Normal mode, where the user sets color proportions using a color bar (for two filaments) or a color triangle (for three). You can also click directly on one of the recommended colors.

Bambu Lab promotes this feature alongside its CMYK filament set - and indeed, using four base colors, it is possible to achieve a very wide range of shades.

The second mode is Gradient - instead of a uniform mixed color, the transition between two colors is gradually distributed along the height of the model.

The result is exactly what you would expect: a smooth, multi-layer color transition that previously required manual layer-by-layer color assignment or external scripts.

There are, however, important caveats that Bambu Lab openly acknowledges.

Color Mixing works best on near-vertical walls - on sloped surfaces and top or bottom layers, the effect can be unpredictable.

Single-nozzle printers technically support the feature, but frequent color changes and high filament consumption during purging make it an expensive option.

The full potential of Color Mixing is unlocked on multi-nozzle printers - such as the newly introduced X2D or H2C. With a 0.4 mm nozzle, a base layer height of 0.12 mm and a mixed layer height of 0.2 mm are recommended - values that are too low may cause melt instability and degrade print quality.

Color preview in the slicer is not yet fully accurate, so Bambu Lab recommends printing a test sample before committing to a full print.

In addition to Color Mixing, the update introduces support for Filament Track Switch - a mechanism that allows filament from the AMS to be routed to both nozzles in multi-extruder printers (H2C and X2D). In practice, this means a single filament can be printed through different nozzles depending on slicer needs, reducing unnecessary purging and significantly improving multi-color printing efficiency.

Another addition is Linear Fan Speed Transition - the cooling and auxiliary fan speeds now change gradually, layer by layer, instead of switching abruptly. It’s a subtle change, but important for first layers, where sudden cooling can lead to warping or poor bed adhesion.

Fuzzy Skin has also been expanded, which will please users who like textured surfaces. In addition to the classic mode, four new noise types are now available: Perlin, Billow, Ridged Multifractal, and Voronoi. New generator modes have also been added - Displacement (sideways nozzle movement relative to the path), Extrusion (variation in material flow along a straight path), and Combined (a mix of both).

A separate note should be made of one small but meaningful change for H2C printers. Bambu Studio 2.5.3 now displays cumulative print time for the H2C nozzle. This means the nozzle information panel shows total usage time - not just the current print, but the entire lifetime.

For users who operate H2C machines intensively and want better control over hardware wear, this is a practical and valuable addition.

BambuStudio 2.5.3 is now available for download on macOS and Windows. The Linux version, however, is not yet ready.

Read all: wiki.bambulab.com

Nano Dimension - a company that developed its own proprietary 3D electronics printing technology - has sold that very technology. It’s a bit like Microsoft selling Windows, or META selling Facebook.

Alright, let’s be serious. That comparison is as ridiculous as it is pathetic.

Nano Dimension’s technology is indeed highly unique and fascinating - but also so niche that, at any given moment, perhaps only a few dozen people worldwide are actually using it.

And yet, for a time, Nano Dimension was one of the wealthiest companies in the AM sector and one of its key players.

During its heyday in 2020–2021, Nano Dimension raised $1.5 billion in capital, briefly reaching a staggering valuation of around $3 billion.

Its impact on the industry was so significant that one could argue it initiated and accelerated the AM industry crisis of 2024-2025.

Although, to be fair, saying Nano Dimension did it is somewhat misleading. It was Yoav Stern - the company’s CEO at the time - who fully earned the title of the most polarizing figure in the AM industry.

• It was Stern who decided to acquire a 15% stake in Stratasys, and then attempted a full takeover.

• It was Stern who torpedoed Stratasys’ acquisition of Desktop Metal.

• It was Stern who later acquired that same heavily criticized Desktop Metal, and then added Markforged - a direct competitor with which it had been in conflict.

• It was Stern who drew the attention of serious financial analysts to the AM industry. Intrigued by this chaos, they began analyzing it closely - only to discover that the entire industrial AM sector was essentially a massive speculative bubble.

This resulted in a shift in sentiment and a retreat of investors from the AM sector. Consequently, the money faucet was turned off, and companies began to collapse like a house of cards.

Just as Ric Fulop, Benny Buller, and Phil DeSimone helped ignite the great hype around industrial 3D printing (what I called the Third Era of AM - Mass Additive Manufacturing), Yoav Stern was the one who took it to the next level.

Unfortunately, at the same time, he created a completely disorganized corporate monster - one that even Avi Reichental in his 3D Systems days circa 2014 wouldn’t have been ashamed of.

Stern’s story ended abruptly on December 26, 2024. He was replaced by interim CEO Julien Lederman, then by Ofir Baharav, and finally by the current CEO - Dave Stehlin.

I described this carousel of CEOs here:

During this period of executive turmoil, most of Desktop Metal’s assets were sold off (ExOne went to Anzu Partners, which merged it with voxeljet, while the remnants of EnvisionTEC were acquired by SprintRay), and unprofitable companies with no prospects for recovery were shut down (Admatec, DeepCube, Fabrica, and Formatec).

Nano Dimension decided to focus on developing its proprietary AME (Additively Manufactured Electronics) product line and on Markforged - the only company in its portfolio whose products were still actively used.

This didn’t make much sense either, as it’s hard to imagine two more different technologies. And apparently someone finally realized this, because AME (bundled with the remnants of the defunct Fabrica) was sold for next to nothing to Inspira Technologies.

I wrote about it here:

From a day-to-day business perspective, this move is difficult to justify. The company is shedding its technological identity for a laughable $2 million (with an additional $10.5 million contingent on the product line generating expected revenue within a year).

Setting aside the entire AME legacy developed over more than a decade - Fabrica alone was acquired in 2021 for $54 million.

What remains is a stagnating Markforged, along with Digital Metal - acquired as part of the same deal and largely forgotten. There’s also Global Inkjet Systems, which doesn’t fit the current structure at all.

At first glance, this almost looks like acting against the company’s own interests.

Unless, of course, something else is going on. Joris Peels published a very interesting analysis on 3DPrint.com, which I recommend reading. Without repeating his arguments, in short, this move could mean:

1. Nano Dimension wants to sell Markforged, settle with shareholders, and call it a day.

2. Nano Dimension wants to sell itself entirely, and this is simply pre-acquisition cleanup.

A third scenario is also possible: Nano Dimension continues operating as Markforged and attempts to regain its former market position. But this seems the least likely, given how easily the company disposed of its core business. If there were a real strategic plan behind it, the sale price would certainly have been higher.

$2 million is a symbolic price. If someone were serious about operations, they wouldn’t sell at all - they’d wait for a better opportunity. So I would go for first or second scenario.

But all these considerations about Nano Dimension lead to a broader, more fundamental question: what was this all about from the very beginning?

I’ll be the one to say it out loud - even though everyone in the industry knows it:

This was never about 3D printing. It was always about money.

And not healthy money generated from operations - no. Just money. Any money. From anywhere. Free money.

Not from work - but from investors, institutions, governments.

Dude, it doesn’t matter. Just take it!

The industrial AM crisis has two sources - two dimensions:

1. The first is the niche nature of the solutions. A founder creates a unique manufacturing method unlike anything seen before. It has applications in very specific conditions and is used for highly specialized cases. It’s interesting - even exciting - but there’s little demand for it. On top of that, it’s expensive (since it involves producing individual machines), requires specialist knowledge to operate, and is ultimately unscalable.

2. The second is the pursuit of free money. A founder promises technological revolutions their company cannot deliver. In the early stages, they raise funds to develop that promise. Then, once the capital grows large enough, they use it to acquire other companies - essentially buying “growth” and “revenue.” Their original business cannot generate enough income to justify the investment, so they build a patchwork organization whose combined revenues are meant to do so.

This second scenario describes Nano Dimension - but also Desktop Metal (and earlier, 3D Systems under Reichental).

Now, one might think that the first case is about 3D printing, while the second is only about money. Not true.

In both cases, it’s about the same thing - just approached differently. In the first, through originality no one wants. In the second, through promises of world-changing impact that are impossible to achieve.

Those who achieve real market success focus on something else entirely: user value.

As long as a product meets user needs, it will be bought. Users don’t buy technology because it’s cool, unique, or never seen before. They certainly don’t buy it to increase shareholder value.

They buy it because:

• they need it

• it’s affordable to buy and operate

• it’s easy to use

• it’s reliable and repeatable

• it’s scalable if needed.

So tell me - how many of these criteria did Nano Dimension meet?

For 3D printing to be viable, it must be accessible and approachable.

A company developing a product line must focus first and foremost on the end user. It must solve their problems and meet their expectations.

It must make its customers better. A better human being. I wrote about this here:

At Nano Dimension and other industrial AM companies, it was always about something else. Either technological self-indulgence, or increasing shareholder value. The end user was merely a slide in an investor presentation.

That’s why - and only why - these companies have failed or are in crisis. Because they refuse to understand that 3D printing is not about machines, materials, or software.

It’s about the user - and how they feel when using a 3D printer.

Some time ago, on 3DP War Journal series, I wrote about Nano Dimension’s ongoing troubles - four CEOs in 257 days, Yoav Stern’s chaotic acquisition strategy, Desktop Metal’s bankruptcy, the uncertain future of Markforged, and the looming threat from FibreSeeker:

That article raised more questions than answers. Now, at least some of those answers are emerging - and they are far from reassuring.

What happened? Nano Dimension has sold its AME (Additively Manufactured Electronics) product line, along with the already discontinued Fabrica line, to Inspira Technologies OXY B.H.N. Ltd.

The deal is worth up to $12.5 million - $2 million upfront, with the remainder tied to the performance of the acquired businesses over the next twelve months. Operational control has already been transferred to Inspira, although the transaction still awaits formal regulatory approvals.

To put this into perspective: AME business was the very core of Nano Dimension.

DragonFly systems, conductive inks, polymer materials, software - this entire stack has now been sold for less than $13 million. Fabrica, for its part, was acquired in 2021 for $54 million.

Now both lines combined have been offloaded for a fraction of that value 😳

CEO David Stehlin, of course, speaks of “maximizing shareholder value” and calls it “the first in a series of steps” - phrasing that sounds familiar and not particularly reassuring.

After this transaction, Nano Dimension is essentially reduced to: Essemtec, Global Inkjet Systems, stakes in Markforged, and Digital Metal.

In other words, what remains after selling off what once defined the company.

Joris Peels of 3DPrint.com has published a detailed analysis of the situation, and it’s worth paying attention to.

His key points:

• for Inspira, this could be an excellent deal, as its CEO - Dagi Ben-Noon-is a former co-founder and COO of Nano Dimension; he understands the technology inside out and knew exactly what he was buying - and at what price

• for Nano, this appears to be a sale at an almost absurdly low valuation

• Peels also suggests that Markforged and Digital Metal are now effectively up for sale, even if no one is saying it outright.

He raises a fundamental question: what exactly does Nano Dimension want to be after this transaction? And does its leadership even have a clear plan?

I’ll return to this topic soon with my own analysis and a few observations. This is just an introduction to a longer piece I’m already working on.

Atomic Layer from the Past:

37 years ago, on April 10, 1989, 3D Systems hosted the first-ever user meeting dedicated to stereolithography. The “3D Systems North American Stereolithography Users Group” took place in Irvine, California, attracting Pratt & Whitney, Ford, GM, IBM, DuPont, Kodak, and Carnegie Mellon.

For 12 years, it focused only on 3D Systems’ tech. In 2011, it became AMUG – the largest additive manufacturing user group, operating on the “For Users, By Users” principle.

Read all:

News & Gossip:

#1

Next week, an interesting reveal is coming… 😉

#2

At the same time, Sovol also decided to tease a new product… which looks like something we’ve already seen a couple of times.

#3

I don’t know if you even noticed, but when you try to visit 3D Printing Industry, you see this:

This situation has been going on for at least a week (at least that’s when I first noticed it).

#4

Reinforce3D has partnered with 3Dees Industries to bring continuous fiber reinforcement to Central and Eastern Europe. 3Dees will serve as sales partner for the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, and Ukraine. Target industries include automotive, robotics, electronics, and industrial tools. You can read more about Reinforce3D technology here:

#5

Boston Micro Fabrication has launched BMF Clear, an optically transparent photopolymer resin for micro-scale 3D printing. Offering over 90% light transmittance, it targets microfluidics, photonics, and biomedical devices. BMF Clear is available now through direct and European distribution channels.

#6

BigRep introduced the ONE.5X large-format 3D printer with new automation features including XYZ auto-calibration, adaptive bed leveling, and relay mode for material changeover. The company also partnered with Massive Dimension to integrate the MDX pellet extruder into the ONE platform, enabling lower-cost, higher-throughput production. The combined system is targeted for commercial release by the end of 2026.

A lot has been happening lately. Every major tech player wants a slice of the pie called “AI-assisted design.” The number of tools is growing.

Take a look:

• Autodesk is integrating Wonder3D into its tools

• Meta is releasing SAM 3D.

And somewhere in between all this, Prompt2CAD appears - a tool that aims to do one specific thing: generate furniture from text.

Prompt2CAD is a browser-based application. You enter a description of a piece of furniture in natural language: “a standing desk with cable management” or “a Japanese-style japandi screen”and the system generates a parametric 3D model.

Under the hood runs Claude Sonnet by Anthropic, specialized for furniture design and parametric modeling.

The AI generates geometry code, renders it live in the browser, and then takes screenshots from multiple angles - verifying the result itself. If it detects an error, it fixes it. Then it verifies again.

It’s a kind of quality control loop built directly into the generation process.

You can also upload a reference image: the system analyzes proportions, style, and details, and attempts to incorporate them into the design.

The model is parametric - and that’s where the real value lies.

Width, height, number of shelves, door style - everything can be adjusted with sliders or another text command. All dimensions are in millimeters.

Export is available in six formats: STEP for CNC machining, DXF for CAD software, OBJ as a universal mesh, STL for 3D printing, GLB for web and AR applications, and PNG for view snapshots.

For the 3D printing community, STL export is the obvious gateway. In theory: you describe an object, get a file, and print it. In practice - before we get excited about the possibility, it’s worth questioning the quality of the output.

And this is where the sober part of the conversation begins.

Tests show that Prompt2CAD handles simple, obvious geometries reasonably well. A shelving unit. A coffee table. A cabinet. Objects that can be described in a single sentence and don’t require complex geometry. But with more advanced requests, the system starts to struggle.

Ask for an armchair with a control console and built-in panels - you get a swivel seat made of five primitives and a slider for something that doesn’t exist in the model. STEP export works. The geometry - not always.

A file is generated. But a file is not a design.

In the long run, do tools like this make sense? Is “text-to-CAD” really the direction the industry is heading in - or just another promise that looks good on a slide?

The answer is complex. For an interior designer who wants to quickly show a client an initial concept for a TV stand - yes, this tool makes sense. For an amateur woodworker who wants to quickly visualize cabinet dimensions before cutting - maybe as well.

But for someone expecting a precise, production-ready 3D model for printing, without any additional processing – definitely not yet.

The core issue with the entire AI-to-CAD category is this: the gap between “something that looks like an object” and “something that is manufacturable” is enormous. And most tools pretend that gap doesn’t exist.

Prompt2CAD, at least, is honest about its ambitions. It doesn’t promise an industrial revolution. It says: we’re for interior designers, hobbyists, and architects without CAD experience.

The tool works, its pricing is reasonable, and it doesn’t require a monthly subscription just to try it. One hundred free credits to start (however I used over 80 to generate those two random models above).

A niche curiosity, but one that might prove useful to some.

Easter does not begin with joy. It begins with darkness, with a tomb, with the silence that fills the space after something has ended. Only later - and not immediately - does renewal come.

That sequence matters.

The world right now is in that first phase. There is no point pretending otherwise.

Wars with no prospect of a quick or easy resolution. Millions of people on the move, with no clear destination. Inflation eroding the savings of those who have played by the rules their entire lives.

And above it all - the artificial intelligence sector, which promised the future, raised trillions of dollars for it, and is now beginning to falter. OpenAI and others have built sandcastles, financed by enthusiasm and the fear of missing out on something big.

When that structure begins to crumble - and there are serious indications that it might - all of us will feel it.

This is not a cinematic apocalypse scenario. This is the normal course of things.

And this is precisely where the logic of Easter begins.

Take something as trivial and obvious as an Easter egg. A hard shell, an unseen interior, and within it something that is only just becoming itself. We don’t know when it will crack. We cannot speed up the process. We can only know that if there is life inside - it will crack.

History knows no case of a night that lasted forever. It knows many cases, however, in which people - exhausted, frightened, stripped of illusions - endured until dawn and discovered that life could go on. Often differently than they had planned. But it could go on.

This is not a promise that it will be easy. Nor is it comfort for those who have already lost something irretrievable. It is simply an observation: crises have a structure. They have a beginning, a middle, and an end. The one we are in is no exception.

After the storm, the sun shines - it sounds banal until you are standing in the middle of the storm. Then it is the only sentence that makes sense.

Things will be different from before. Some of what we have grown used to will not return. But what is meant to endure - will endure. And what has been destroyed to make room for something new - will make that room.

The second day of Easter is the quietest one. The gravity of Friday is gone, the drama of Sunday has passed. There is only the day after. A bit of fatigue, a bit of relief, and a lingering question - what now?

That is the right question. And the right moment to ask it.

Happy Easter.

The featured image is “Resurrection” by Otto Dix from 1949. Dix, a veteran of the trenches of the First World War, painted without anesthesia throughout his life: mutilated soldiers, corpses on battlefields, the Germany of the Weimar Republic in all its brutality.

His resurrected Christ is not a triumphant icon, but a figure emerging from chaos and wounds, marked by what it has endured. It is a resurrection for someone who knows what hell means - and precisely for that reason, it is credible.

In the background I used fragments of another painting: “Trench Warfare”.

This week I finally managed to cross the symbolic milestone of 1,000 subscribers. As of now, it’s at 1,009 (and still growing).

Huge thanks to all of you - I really appreciate it ☺️

I know it’s not a massive number, especially compared to random online stores that have bigger mailing lists (that mostly go straight to spam anyway), but on Substack, this is actually a very solid result.

Especially in such a niche space as 3D printing × market analysis and news. If I pivoted to something like “how to make €10k a month with a 3D printer,” I’d probably lose most of you - but I’d gain 5x more people lured in by the promise of easy money (because running a 3D printing business must be simple, right?).

But for me, that 1,000 really matters. So once again - thank you!

And while we’re at it, here’s a funny story. I actually hit 999 subscribers a week ago, but I tried to get clever. In my previous article about Michael Molitch-Hou’s book, I wrote:

“And if you don’t even know who that is, please do yourself a favor - unsubscribe from this thing and stop the embarrassment already…”

And… five people unsubscribed the very same day 😂

But I quickly picked up five new ones, and now it’s smooth sailing again… Next target: 2,500! I hope we will get there together.

Atomic Layer from the Past:

8 years ago, Xact Metal launched two compact 3D printers, the XM200C and XM200S. Their Xact Core system used fast-moving mirrors instead of traditional galvanometers, cutting costs and boosting efficiency. The XM200C cost $80,000, while the XM200S was $130,000 and printed titanium.

Xact Metal was co-founded by Matt Woods, a Penn State engineering graduate, who developed an affordable metal printing technology. He left in 2021. Today, the company operates globally across 48 countries.

Read all:

News & Gossip:

#1

On March 31 (one day before April Fools’), Bambu Lab officially announced the EOL of three 3D printers from its iconic X1 series: X1, X1 Carbon, and X1E.

I put together a nice, timely article on the topic, covering the impact these machines had on the 3D printing industry. I highly recommend taking a walk down memory lane with it.

And as usual - if I’d known how often my header graphic would be picked up by other outlets (which I threw together pretty quickly), I would’ve put more effort into framing the printers properly (the X1C is a bit too centered) 🤭

Read more: www.blog.bambulab.com

#2

OPPO launched the K15 Pro and K15 Pro+ smarthones with DIY magnetic lens covers, letting users customize the camera module’s look. OPPO open-sourced the related 3D files on Bambu Lab’s MakerWorld. Launch prices for the first seven days are RMB 2,464.15 and RMB 2,634.15. Pre-orders are open, with official sales starting April 3.

It is the second project of that kind provided by a smartphone manufacturer - last year similar concept was presented by Realme.

#3

Formlabs’ CRO - Nick Graham, shared on LinkedIn that the company achieved another quarter of growth following a record-breaking Q4. Key drivers include a booming dental business with open Form 4B/4BL systems and over 50 validated materials. Engineering customers rely on Form 4 and 4L for accuracy and uptime.

According to Graham, The Fuse 1+ became the SLS standard, with accelerating unit sales growth.

#4

Formlabs’ results are quite an achievement, since the market is dominated by Chinese manufacturers.

According to Vanesa Listek and 3DPrint.com: in 2025, China exported 5.03 million 3D printers, a 33% year-over-year increase. Export value reached 11.36 billion RMB ($1.6 billion), up 39.1%. In 2017, exports were approximately 535,000 units. Exports surged in 2020 and 2021, fell back in 2022, then rebounded in 2023, rising through 2025.

The United States was the top destination with close to 2 million units (approximately 1.95 million). Germany followed with roughly 1 million (just under 1 million). Other leading markets included Brazil, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Poland, the Netherlands, Japan, and India.

Guangdong province (where Shenzhen is located) accounted for roughly 85% of export volume, exporting about 4.08 million units in 2025.

#5

This trend is being leveraged by Creality, which is approaching its IPO. The company filed an IPO application with Hong Kong Exchanges. As usual some interesting data was revealed…

• the four founders still control 82% of the company

• Creality holds over 900 patents

• production area exceeds 260,000 sq m after Huizhou facility opened, plus an 80,000 sq m Wuhan facility that began trial production in 2023; in 2025, Huizhou operated at 88.8% capacity, Wuhan at 89.8%, and Shenzhen at 86.5%.

• revenue (converted to USD):

  • 2023: $272M revenue, $19M profit (6.9% margin)

  • 2024: $331M revenue, $13M profit (3.9% margin)

  • 2025: $453M revenue, $26M profit (5.7% margin)

• printer revenue fell from 75% to 57% of total sales, replaced by consumables and scanners.

Creality positions itself as the second company on the market, with revenues over 3 times lower than market’s leader (guess who that is…)

#6

On a completely different note, EPlus3D withdrew its IPO filing from the Shanghai Stock Exchange. The company, known for large-format metal 3D printers used in aerospace, submitted a withdrawal request along with sponsor CITIC Securities. The exchange formally accepted the application on June 30, 2025, but has now terminated the review.

#7

And finally… Prusa Research announced a price increase for the Core One L model.

I don’t know - maybe it has something to do with the recently leaked message from Ondřej Průša describing the company’s profitability issues and the need for job cuts? The same message that no industry media outlet has written about?

A few days ago, the community around OrcaSlicer - one of the most popular open-source slicers - celebrated a new release. The changelog was long, the fixes solid.

But in that list, somewhere between interface improvements and new material profiles, there was an entry that should inspire more concern than excitement.

A security patch. A serious one. Related to how the software handles project files.

OrcaSlicer contained a vulnerability enabling a so-called “zip-slip” attack via 3MF files.

3MF project files are essentially compressed archives. The slicer extracts them in the background, invisibly to the user. And that’s where the problem lay: a carefully crafted file could write data outside the intended system directory, into arbitrary locations on the disk.

From there, it’s only a small step to executing malicious code.

In other words: simply opening a file from an untrusted source could infect a computer. Such a file could sit quietly in a model repository, appearing perfectly normal and ready to print.

The vulnerability existed until one user - “Zekun Shen” - reported it.

The latest update fixes it. That’s good.

But wait - is that really enough to close the case?

Before I go further, let me be clear: I’m not writing this to attack the open-source community. Quite the opposite. The people developing this software do it out of passion, for free or close to it, often after hours.

The results are often impressive. Their commitment is real and deserves respect.

But precisely because of that, I need to say something difficult…

A community is not a company

It doesn’t sign service-level agreements. It doesn’t bear legal responsibility. It doesn’t have a security department tracking CVEs, testing releases before deployment, and responding to incidents within 72 hours. It reacts when someone finds something and chooses to report it.

In open source, the gap between discovery and disclosure can be a week, a month - or a year. Or never.

Someone will always say: “But Linux is open source and it’s secure.” Or: “LibreOffice is open source, and public institutions use it.”

Yes. But those projects have decades of development behind them, hundreds of active contributors, dedicated organizations and foundations, and commercial sponsors with budgets for security audits.

The open-source ecosystem for FFF 3D printing slicers is not Linux. It’s an enthusiastic, talented - but incomparably smaller - community operating without that infrastructure. Treating them as equivalent isn’t belief in open source - it’s a misunderstanding of scale.

Let’s return to printer manufacturers

There are companies on the market that have built excellent hardware - and stopped right there. Slicer? Take something open source, fork it, add a logo.

Ecosystem? The community will handle it. Software security? Well, we didn’t write it.

That’s a strategy that looks reasonable in the short term. In the long term, it’s a mistake.

A 3D printer today is not just a machine. It’s an entry point into a process that begins on a screen and ends on a build plate. Every step along that path - from designing the model, to slicing it into layers, to managing the print - happens in software.

If a manufacturer does not control that software, it does not control the user experience. It does not control security. It does not control what it is actually selling.

Hardware is the easiest part of this puzzle to copy. Motors, rails, extruders - all of it can be replicated. But software that is cohesive, secure, tested, and maintained by a responsible team - that cannot be copied in a quarter.

A slicer vulnerability is not just a technical issue. It’s a question of responsibility.

When a user downloads a model from a popular repository and opens it in a slicer, they assume someone is watching over it. That someone, somewhere, has tested it, checked it, secured it.

A printer manufacturer that recommends specific software - even if they didn’t write it - implicitly takes responsibility for it in the eyes of the user. The user doesn’t make that distinction.

They only know they bought a printer from that company and found a link to that software on its website.

Responsibility does not disappear by saying, “it’s open source, we just recommend it.”

That’s why companies that take their place in the market seriously should take software seriously. Not as a cost to avoid by using someone else’s work - but as a foundation without which hardware is only half a product.

The community gives a lot. But it does not provide guarantees. And it should not be forced to carry a burden that belongs on the shoulders of the manufacturer.

A printer without software is a machine without a brain. A printer with software no one is responsible for is a machine with a brain borrowed on trust.

Six years ago, most of us were sitting at home, unsure what to think about everything that was happening.

The news from Italy kept getting worse. Hospitals in Lombardy were overwhelmed, doctors were forced to choose who would be connected to ventilators, and the word “Bergamo” took on a meaning no one had ever wanted it to have.

Apocalyptic notifications were coming in from all directions - another country, another number of infections. The air was heavy with something that is hard to describe as anything other than collective disbelief. The coronavirus pandemic was supposed to be the end of the world.

Of course, as we know today - it wasn’t. At least not in the way we feared.

It ended rather abruptly, giving way almost overnight to the war in Ukraine and yet another crisis - this time with a different face but a similarly crushing weight.

But before that happened, those several months of the pandemic brought a great change. Among other things, it changed the whole 3D printing industry.

Let’s start with Italy, because that’s where it all began.

In mid-March 2020, a hospital in Bergamo was on the brink of collapse. There was a shortage of everything - protective equipment, devices, ventilators. The company Isinnova, together with Massimo Temporelli, founder of a Milan-based FabLab, came up with an idea that in normal times would have seemed bizarre: to 3D print components necessary for safely connecting patients to respiratory equipment.

It worked. The story spread around the world at a speed we all learned not to underestimate that year.

That was the starting signal.

Within days, Materialise developed and released a free model of a “touchless” door handle attachment - print it, install it, open doors with your elbow. Simple, functional, effective.

Chile’s Copper3D published the design for the NanoHack mask - to be printed at home using antibacterial copper filament, as a substitute for unavailable N95 masks.

Polish designers Przemysław Stachura and Filip Kober created adapters for masks and diving equipment, allowing the use of commercially available filters.

And Prusa Research released a protective face shield design that became one of the fastest-replicated projects in the history of 3D printing.

What happened next was truly remarkable.

Owners of 3D printers around the world - hobbyists, small businesses, schools, universities, individuals sitting in their own apartments - began to organize. Spontaneously, without top-down directives, without central management.

Face shields were being printed in tens of thousands per day. At the peak, people spoke of hundreds of thousands of units daily.

Local coordinators collected finished parts and delivered them to hospitals free of charge. Those who didn’t yet have a printer - bought one. Those who did - bought more filament and printed non-stop.

The industry experienced something no business model had predicted: lockdown drove consumer 3D printer sales at a pace never seen before.

People confined to their homes, suddenly with excess time and a need to do something useful, discovered 3D printing not as a technological curiosity - but as a genuinely practical tool.

But the pandemic did something else as well. Something the industry had been talking about for years, but which had never surfaced with such force.

Global supply chains collapsed in front of everyone’s eyes. Factories in China stopped. Containers sat idle in ports. Lead times stretched from weeks to months.

Manufacturing companies that had spent decades building their models around a single supplier located thousands of kilometers away suddenly realized how fragile the foundations of their businesses really were.

And then someone remembered the 3D printer sitting in the corner of the production hall.

The concept of virtual warehouses and on-demand production - long treated as a curiosity or a conference buzzword - suddenly became very real and very necessary.

Instead of storing physical spare parts, you just keep a file. Instead of waiting weeks for a shipment from Asia, you print locally. Mercedes-Benz Trucks had already been doing this for long-lifecycle vehicle parts - Whirlpool as well.

The pandemic made the rest of the world start taking it seriously.

Logistics costs typically account for around 5% of the total value of goods - and for years they were treated as a fixed constant. Lockdown showed that this cost could skyrocket, or that the entire supply chain could simply come to a halt. Distributed manufacturing - based on a network of local producers instead of a single central factory - stopped being theory. It became a contingency plan that suddenly everyone wanted to have.

In 2017, ING published a report titled “3D printing: a threat to global trade.” It forecast that by 2040 or 2060, as much as 50% of global production could be additive, and the value of global trade could fall by 20-25%.

Back in 2017, the report made an impression, but traditional industries - automotive, logistics, finance - received it with a mix of skepticism and quiet unease.

Today, looking from the perspective of 2026, we can see that the pandemic was the strongest real-world validation of that report’s thesis - while at the same time showing how far we still are from its full realization. 3D printing did not replace global supply chains. But for the first time, it became a real part of the conversation about what they should look like.

The desktop market grew. Companies like Bambu Lab, Creality, and Prusa Research changed the rules of the game in the consumer segment - cheaper machines, faster printing, simpler interfaces. The number of home 3D printer users today is incomparable to what it was in 2019. That growth did not come from nowhere.

It came from lockdown. From face shields printed in garages. From door handle attachments and masks made from copper filament.

From people who touched a 3D printer for the first time not because they wanted a gadget - but because they wanted to help.

Six years ago, we were preparing for the end of the world. The world didn’t end. But it changed - and 3D printing changed with it, finally stepping out of the niche it had been pushed into for years.

What today looks like the natural growth of a popular technology has a very specific starting point: March 2020. Open-license files and printers running all night.

It’s worth remembering that.

I wrote this once, but I’ll say it again: Michael Molitch-Hou is the greatest AM writer alive.

And if you don’t even know who that is, please do yourself a favor - unsubscribe from this thing and stop the embarrassment already…

Anyway, just in case you simply forgot (this I can forgive):

• Michael Molitch-Hou is one of the longest-serving journalists in the AM industry.

• He started his career in 2012 when he joined the newly launched 3D Printing Industry website.

• He first served as an editor, and later as editor-in-chief.

• After the collapse of 3DPI, he wrote for Engineering.com and Forbes, among others, before joining 3DPrint.com as editor-in-chief in 2020.

• He left 3DPrint.com last year to join ASTM as a content strategy & marketing manager.

So this is his resume (which is obviously astonishing), but what matters far more are his articles and the impact they’ve had on the development of the global 3D printing industry. Michael didn’t just report on achievements, breakthrough launches, or major events - above all, he wasn’t afraid to expose scandals, lies, or manipulation.

You could say he was a pioneer of investigative journalism in the AM sector.

His two most high-profile articles are:

• “Hype Hangover: The Rise and Fall of Avi Reichental”, published in November 2015 on 3D Printing Industry, and

• “Poland’s 3D Printing Scene Was Built Upon a Huge Deal That Never Happened”, published in August 2016 on 3DPrint.com (about the unrealized deal for Zortrax to supply 5,000 3D printers to Dell).

So yeah.

And now Michael is releasing a book! And not just any book - a true rarity. A collector’s item:

“Impossible Works: The Book of 3D Printed Art”

The book is available on Kickstarter. It is the first serious artistic publication documenting the aesthetic revolution sparked by additive manufacturing technology.

The publication will be released as a large-format hardcover volume. Its content spans approximately 300 pages and includes over 350 illustrations.

The book covers a wide range of fields - from sculpture, architecture, and fashion, to aerospace and medicine, all the way to food - showing how, over the past decade, additive technologies have moved beyond prototyping into museum collections, production lines, and clinical applications.

The digital edition is expected to reach readers in December 2026, while physical copies are scheduled for delivery in February 2027.

One of the project’s most distinctive features is the limited “Founders’ Edition,” restricted to 75 copies. Each will feature a cover produced using laser powder bed fusion technology.

The covers will be made from bio-based polyamide 12 supplied by Arkema, and the finishing will be carried out in collaboration with post-processing specialists. If these plans come to fruition, this will be the first book in history with a cover made using 3D printing technology.

Prices are not low: $25 for the digital version, $65 for the standard edition (early bird - then $75), several higher tiers, and finally the aforementioned Founders’ Edition at $195.

But we’re not buying this for the price. We’re buying it for two reasons:

• because it’s a fantastic publication that is much more than “just another book about 3D printing”

• because it’s the right thing to do

Yes, most of you wouldn’t even be here if it weren’t for the hard work of Michael (and many other authors) in documenting and promoting 3D printing and the AM industry worldwide. It’s thanks to people like Michael that you heard about it in the first place. You didn’t pay for it then, nor later - you simply benefited from it.

Now is a good moment to give something back. To express appreciation.

I’m not urging you. I’m simply stating that it’s the right thing to do. I ordered my copy within two hours of the campaign launch.

Atomic Layer from the Past:

9 years ago, the Michał Sołowow Group (MSG) acquired full ownership of 3DGence, a Polish industrial FFF printer manufacturer founded in 2014. Initially focused on high-end desktop models, the company later shifted entirely to industrial systems.

Last year at Formnext 2025, it was revealed that 3DGence’s industrial 3D printers have become part of HP’s offering. The 3DGence brand is being gradually phased out, and its products will be offered under the HP brand.

Read all:

News & Gossip:

#1

Xiaomi’s €100 TC4 titanium watch strap for the Watch 5, released December 2025, was made with use of LPBF technology. The 43-gram band is 50% lighter than steel and enables complex internal structures impossible with conventional methods.

Read more: www.voxelmatters.com

#2

At AMUG 2026, Würth Additive Group and B9Creations announced a strategic partnership integrating B9’s production-grade technology into Würth’s Digital Inventory Services (DIS) platform. B9 provides validated printers and QA/QC tools ensuring identical output across locations, while Würth contributes secure digital recipes and logistics.

Read more: www.3dprint.com

#3

Sculpteo has introduced a new industrial-grade 3D scanning service at its Paris facility, enabling customers to digitize objects for reverse engineering, prototyping, and on-demand manufacturing. Parts are captured using automated or manual scanning depending on size and complexity, then converted into ready-to-use mesh files. Custom formats are available for seamless workflow integration.

Read more: www.tctmagazine.com

#4

Polish filament manufacturer - ROSA3D, has introduced PLA LW AERO and TPU Flex LW, foaming filaments that reduce print weight by up to 2.5 times compared to standard materials while maintaining identical dimensions.

During printing, the material expands, creating a porous internal structure with a smooth, cast-like surface. PLA LW AERO offers rigidity for cosplay, props, and RC models, while TPU Flex LW provides softness and shock absorption for grips and gaskets. Optimal foaming occurs between 240–260°C with flow rates around 0.4. Users should calibrate per printer for best results.

Read more: www.voxelmatters.com

#5

Flashforge has launched the Creator 5, an FFF printer featuring four independent, tool‑free swappable print heads. The “FlashSwap” system is basically a clone of the Snapmaker U1 (and, to some extent, the Prusa XL). Available via early‑bird reservation, the final price ranges from €699-€849. Shipping begins in May.

Read more: www.3druck.com

#6

Velo3D published it’s financial results, reporting 2025 revenue of $46 million with a $31 million backlog, driven by defense and aerospace adoption. The company is expanding its Rapid Production Solutions (RPS) business, targeting scale production over machine sales.

Despite a $71.4 million net loss, operating expenses dropped 38%, and a $30 million private placement strengthened its balance sheet. New contracts include a $32.6 million Project FORGE agreement.

Read more: www.3dprint.com

#7

Bright Laser Technologies announced they have produced over 100,000 copper alloy parts on its BLT-S400 system. Copper’s reflectivity and thermal conductivity were addressed through eight‑laser configurations and support for red and green lasers. Automated production lines enable semi‑ and fully‑controlled workflows.

Read more: www.voxelmatters.com

#8

Tethon 3D has acquired Fortify’s advanced materials IP, specializing in technical ceramics and dielectric materials for RF, microwave, and mmWave applications. The technology enables precision fabrication of components such as radar systems, satellite communications, and antennas.

The acquisition is strategically timed as defense priorities shift toward drone warfare and RF jamming resistance. With prior collaboration between the firms, Tethon aims to scale high-performance ceramics for real production environments in defense and telecommunications.

Read more: www.3dprint.com

“No custom scripts, no Python hacks - just physical toolpath generation built directly into the software.” That was the message in a recent social media post. If you follow this thing, you know exactly what it refers to.

At first glance, it sounds simple. Kind of safe. It feels like a solution to a long-standing issue in the industry: excessive process complexity.

But look closer, and a paradox emerges.

At the very moment when LPBF is maturing into true industrial production - printing propulsion components, hypersonic parts, and defense systems - some software vendors are positioning themselves by limiting engineers’ control over the process.

That is precisely the opposite of where the industry should be heading.

The Problem with “Closed” and “Simplified” LPBF Approaches

Traditional LPBF build preparation software was designed in an era when the technology itself was still experimental.

Locked scan strategies, predefined parameter sets, and tightly controlled workflows made sense when the goal was simply to make the process work at all.

But the industry has moved on.

Today, LPBF produces aerospace components, propulsion systems, and high-performance industrial parts. At this level, the goal is no longer simplicity - it’s optimization and scalability through control and IP differentiation.

Closed, manual, GUI-centric approaches introduce three fundamental limitations in an industrial context:

• First - lack of transparency. When toolpath algorithms and process parameters are hidden, engineers cannot verify whether the printed part truly reflects the intended energy distribution. When they fail, there is no easy way to fix the problem.

• Second - lack of scalability. A “one-parameter-set-for-the-whole-part” approach ignores the impact of local geometry on thermal conditions. Overhangs, thin walls, and complex internal channels all influence melt pool behavior in ways that static parameters simply cannot compensate for. Further, approaches optimized for 1-2 materials will never meet the needs of production users who keep their alloy secret.

• Third - lack of transferability. Qualification tied to a specific OEM machine does not transfer to other systems. Every new machine, material, or geometry requires a full IQ/OQ/PQ cycle from scratch - a model that does not scale to the demands of modern aerospace and defense manufacturing.

What industrial LPBF qualification actually requires

Production-grade additive manufacturing demands the ability to understand, tune, and optimize the process itself. It requires confidence in the manufacturing process through real understanding.

That means:

• Control over scan strategies

• Spatial variation of parameters within a part

• Multi-laser coordination

• Structured DOE experimentation to define process windows

And yes - sometimes it means writing code.

Calling programmable manufacturing “hacks” completely misses the point. In every other engineering discipline, programmability is what enables complex systems to evolve.

Engineers automate CAD, simulation, and analysis workflows every day. Manufacturing is no exception.

Instead of hiding manufacturing logic behind rigid GUI workflows, a tool like Dyndrite LPBF Pro exposes the system so engineers can control it. Its Python API enables full vector-level control - every scan vector, every laser on/off event, every exposure parameter is explicit, controlled, and versioned.

Not for everyone - and that’s the point!

Metal 3D printing is not for everyone. In reality, it serves a relatively small, highly specialized group of users.

Unlike broadly accessible ecosystems designed for general use, metal AM is operated by experts in laser physics, metallurgy, thermomechanics, and qualification standards.

These engineers require deep, granular control over the process to achieve highly complex parts and meet productivity targets in regulated environments.

Build file equivalence: a bridge between machines

One of Dyndrite’s key innovations is the concept of build file equivalence - the ability to generate, verify, and reproduce identical strategies across different machines and OEM platforms.

Instead of qualifying each machine independently, this approach introduces a shared, software-defined print and qualification methodology.

Identical vector paths can be generated across any OEM system using programmable, machine-agnostic slicing tools. Machine-specific compensations are applied programmatically, while geometry-aware algorithms adjust energy input and scan strategies to ensure consistent melt pool behavior.

The result: a single qualified build file can be deployed across multiple machines with confidence that process intent is preserved.

Where the industry is heading

This is the direction the industry is moving toward.

Qualification frameworks such as Dyndrite’s Delta Qual increasingly require manufacturers to demonstrate a well-understood and controlled process window - rather than relying on fixed parameter recipes (NASA 6030, SAE AMS 7003).

A relatively small number of organizations worldwide are truly pushing LPBF into full-scale industrial production. These are the companies solving the hardest problems in aerospace, propulsion, and defense manufacturing.

For them, deep process control is not optional - it is fundamental and existential.

Do you wish to give your software vendor insights into your manufacturing process knowledge, custom alloy, or competitive part geometries?

A closed software approach that obscures what the machine is actually doing is simply unacceptable when qualifying mission-critical components. Engineers must be able to verify exactly what the laser will execute, and build Process Control Documents based on transparency and traceability.

The AM industry stands at a crossroads.

One path leads toward simplified interfaces at the cost of control and transparency - a model that may work for consumer applications or prototyping.

The other treats LPBF as a mature industrial tool: measurable, repeatable, and fully auditable.

With scripts, Python APIs - and all the so-called “hacks” that come with them.

More on this subject in Anthony Graves’ article on LinkedIn.

I recently saw a meme: “Iran suddenly accelerated the energy transition of the Persian Gulf so it could reach climate neutrality faster - and the whole world is pissed off”…

Every reasonable person knows that the environmental protection movement promoted over the past 20 years is driven maybe 5% by genuine concern for the planet and human life, and 95% by making big money off that movement.

Of course, there are people in this movement who sincerely believe in all this political-corporate nonsense and see paper drinking straws or bottle caps that can’t be removed as necessary steps toward saving the climate from destruction.

But that’s a minority.

These people have simply replaced God (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist) with Ecology.

They worship it and cultivate it in exactly the same way Christians, Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists cultivate their faiths. And like in any faith - we see that something isn’t there, yet for various reasons we choose to believe that it is (because, for example, we feel it or experience it).

So Ecology is a religion. It has both devoted believers (even fanatics) and outright infidels.

Alright, enough eco-theology… back to the point. Let’s get back to that meme...

There’s a war!

Oil tankers either don’t sail at all, or only some do, or they get hit by missiles and burn (and don’t sail). Oil starts running out, prices skyrocket, and everyone watches in horror as a global economic crisis unfolds in real time.

But that’s not how it’s supposed to be, right? We should be happy that this “bad” oil will be gone, because fossil fuel consumption will decrease and the environment will improve.

So yeah, actually, this turned out well, didn’t it?

People supposedly wanted to move away from fossil fuels, but somehow it wasn’t going very well. Now they have a strong argument and motivation - fuel is scarce and expensive, so it’s the perfect moment to switch to solar panels, wind turbines, and heat pumps.

Hey! What’s going on? Why aren’t you switching? Why are you still filling up your tanks?

Because in reality, people are only interested in ecology as a philosophical concept.

The entire economy has been, is, and will continue to be based on fossil fuels. We discuss ecology in trembling voices while simultaneously taking full advantage of the benefits that only fossil fuel-based energy provides.

Ecology is a slogan. People want to talk about it, but they don’t want to live it – definitely not when they discover the consequences of an ecological lifestyle.

And I’m writing this as someone who spent three years working on a fascinating branch of ecology - compostable bioplastics. And who failed quite spectacularly.

Literally today, after nearly five years of activity, I am closing my eco-startup GREENFILL3D.

It has been operationally inactive for a year, and today it formally comes to an end.

Great idea, interesting field, valuable experience. But it didn’t work out… sometimes that’s just how it goes.

GREENFILL3D was a company that developed its own proprietary biodegradable filament based on wheat bran, a byproduct of pasta food production. Using this filament, it produced custom advertising stands - ECO POS - on 3D printers.

The company was founded in mid-2021 and debuted globally in February 2022, gaining immediate publicity. It won several awards and distinctions and was nominated for the 3D Printing Industry Awards in the sustainability category.

I described the story of GREENFILL3D here:

Unfortunately, by mid-2024 it was already a failed business that we were still trying to save with Anna Ślusarczyk. But there was nothing left to save. The sentiment had shifted. Nobody was interested in what we were doing.

Because what we were doing was serious. The world wanted to fight microplastics. And we offered one of the solutions - the best one we saw at the time.

So how do you fight plastic? The options are:

• stop using it entirely; go back to the 19th century and make everything from wood, steel, glass, or ceramics

• start recovering it - recycling; currently the dominant trend

• start producing bioplastics - materials that will naturally decompose in soil under reasonable environmental conditions.

The first option is impossible. The second comes with a significant environmental burden (plastic must be cleaned of organic and chemical waste using water) and is difficult to implement (it requires advanced material sorting - the worse the sorting quality, the worse the recycled output).

So the third option seems the most attractive, right? Produce plastic that decomposes after use - disappears.

The catch is that the more biodegradable a plastic is, the lower its durability and lifespan.

Our wheat bran eco-filament was truly biodegradable. Buried in soil for less than a year, it “disappeared.” Really. It was tested. It actually worked.

It also had a beautiful natural wood color and texture. It looked fantastic as lamp shades.

For some time after printing, it was very flexible - hard to break, behaving somewhat like polypropylene.

But the longer it “existed,” the more it degraded. It became brittle. It would crack in your hands like a communion wafer or matzo.

If you put it outside in winter and poured water over it - it quickly developed mold and started to rot. It wasn’t resistant to water or moisture - quite the opposite, water and humidity activated the decomposition process.

On top of that, it was very difficult to produce and later to use in 3D printing. We used modified Creality Ender 3 MAX printers. We never dared to print wheat bran on a Prusa or Bambu Lab machine - we simply didn’t want to risk damaging them.

So in summary - it worked, but it wasn’t as simple as everyone expected or wanted. Trade-offs are inevitable. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

And it was hard for us to achieve anything meaningful with it…

Yes, people asked about it a lot. We conducted many tests and prototypes - mainly in packaging and advertising - but most of it led nowhere. Potential clients were always disappointed by the final result in the form of… functional or durability limitations.

I even came up with a term for it:

people looking for eco-products made of eco-plastics are looking for water-resistant materials that dissolve in water.

That simply can’t be done. Biodegradability or compostability isn’t something you switch on with a button. It’s a process that, once activated, cannot be stopped or reversed.

So everything is slowly returning to square one. After a brief period of fascination, bioplastics are retreating. Today, recycling dominates - a process that isn’t without flaws and limitations, but is widely perceived as better.

Ultimately, ecology in manufacturing - especially in 3D printing - has moved far down the priority list. While 3-4 years ago it was a key point in every PowerPoint presentation, today it’s mentioned as the 6th or 8th advantage.

I wrote about this in detail here:

Ecology - both in everyday life and industrial production - is fine as long as it doesn’t get in the way of traditional products or manufacturing methods.

As long as an eco-product is convenient, it will be loved. When it turns out to be inconvenient - people quietly return to old (bad) solutions.

Oil, which is now starting to run short globally, is just as “bad” as it was before the Iran conflict or even before the war in Ukraine. And yet it is still used - with reluctance - because there is no better alternative.

And the current situation once again proves this, exposing the superficiality and weakness of the arguments of militant environmentalists.

There are supposedly so many alternatives to oil, but for now everyone is waiting for “that awful Iran” to either surrender or reach an agreement.

Anything - just so oil tankers can start moving again!

John Kawola has a certain talent. Not for building vast empires, but for something much harder - choosing the right battle.

A month ago, I published an epic interview with John - a living legend of the AM industry - about the philosophy of running a company. About what he learned at Z Corporation, and what he later carried over and adapted at Ultimaker, and now at Boston Micro Fabrication.

Profitability has always been key, but so has maximum simplification and a focus on the essence of the offering. At Z Corp, it was speed, cost, and color; at BMF, it’s small, precise parts. That’s it - and that’s enough.

There’s no talk of compromise here. No attempt to be everything to everyone. And that’s exactly why the launch of the microArch S150 Series is no coincidence.

Because this week, BMF introduced two new 3D printers for microfabrication. And for the first time, they are… small.

The microArch S150 and microArch S150 Ultra are desktop-class devices, ready to operate in a laboratory, office, or even an industrial environment.

BMF built its reputation on PµSL technology - Projection Micro Stereolithography. This is not just another variation of resin-based SLA - it’s a different level of precision. Optical resolution at 25 µm, positioning accuracy of ±3 µm. Layer thickness from 10 to 100 µm.

Production of parts that most other additive technologies simply cannot reproduce - microneedles, microchannels, nozzles, chips, microfluidic systems, fiber-optic components.

Until now, there was one problem. BMF machines were large, expensive, and demanding. They worked great - but only where someone had the resources to operate them.

The microArch S150 Series changes that.

The base version - microArch S150 - is designed for R&D labs, research environments, and prototyping. One-button printing - no manual calibration, no complex infrastructure. Integrated touchscreen, predefined print parameters, support for high-viscosity materials. Simple and repeatable.

The Ultra version is a different league. Nine times faster than the standard S150. Fast iterative prototyping, low-volume production, the ability to print a large number of precise components in a short time - this is exactly what has been missing in the micro-precision segment.

Both systems are equipped with HEPA13 filtration and UV-C sterilization (253.7 nm), enabling the use of these 3D printers in biomedicine, microelectronics, and contamination-sensitive environments - where chamber cleanliness is a requirement, not an option.

Kawola says it plainly in the launch announcement: the goal is to make micro-precision no longer reserved for a select few. To make it accessible to a broader group of users - without compromising quality.

The North American premiere will take place at RAPID+TCT in Boston, between April 13 and 16. The microArch S150 will be available for orders starting in the second quarter of 2026.

Atomic Layer from the Past:

8 years ago, a legal battle ignited between two 3D printing rivals. Desktop Metal sued Markforged for patent infringement over metal printing technology. The feud traced back to 2013, when Ric Fulop helped build Markforged before leaving in 2015 to found Desktop Metal.

After a trial in June 2018, Markforged was cleared of all charges. The rivalry intensified with accusations of stolen trade secrets, which were also dismissed. The saga took an unexpected twist in 2024 when Nano Dimension acquired both companies.

A year later, Desktop Metal ultimately declared bankruptcy (although it reemerged in a reduced form), while Markforged remains in the corporate shadow of Nano Dimension. The main actors of this saga have long since moved on - both in their careers and in their lives.

Read all:

News & Gossip:

#1

I wrote a really great article about it. The kind no one could possibly criticize. But I decided that, being in my position, I shouldn’t touch competitors… no matter how much they deserve it.

#2

MOVA AtomForm has launched the AutoForm Palette 300, a multi-material 3D printing system featuring an automatic 12-nozzle swapping system. Supporting up to 36 colors, it utilizes OmniElement technology for seamless, purge-free material changes. Additional features include smart nozzle identification, integrated filament management, and speeds of up to 800 mm/s.

Read more: www.tctmagazine.com

#3

meland - Chinese family entertainment brand, has partnered with Bambu Lab to open the country’s first 3D printing creativity center for children at a Shenzhen mall. Designed for ages 5 to 12, the venue features interactive zones where kids explore a 3D printed CyberBrick City and learn design basics using Bambu Lab A1 printers. The initiative combines play with hands-on creative education.

Read more: www.voxelmatters.com

#4

At TCT Asia, Farsoon launched two new large-format metal 3D printers. The FS1311M-U features a 1310 × 1310 × 1650 mm build volume with up to 16 lasers and optional beam shaping. The FS812M-U offers an 810 × 810 × 1700 mm build envelope with a 41% reduced footprint.

Read more: www.tctmagazine.com

#5

Another AM legend - Patrick Roeffen, the godfather of the European desktop 3D printing market and former Channel Sales Manager at Ultimaker, has joined Bambu Lab!

I have known Patrick for over 10 years, and I’m thrilled to be working with him again! So are dozens of Bambu Lab resellers across Europe, whom Patrick has helped grow over the years.

#6

And finally - the Pop Mart case has been settled. Everything you’ve read about it in 3D printing media was either half-truths or complete nonsense.

At the same time, note that no one has addressed the #1 issue so far.

Interesting, isn’t it?

Recently, one of Bambu Lab’s resellers asked me a question that at first seems trivial:

What is MakerWorld actually for?

Well, the simplest answer is: it’s a library of free models. You know, so people have something to print after they buy a printer.

But in reality, the answer is far more complex. Without MakerWorld, Bambu Lab is just one of many 3D printers on the market. Maybe the best, maybe not - it depends who’s judging.

But when you combine it with MakerWorld and all its functionalities, with Bambu Studio, with Bambu Handy - in short, with the entire ecosystem - you’re talking about something completely different. Something far beyond just a printer.

Today, users don’t buy a 3D printer. They buy the entire experience. And its foundation is software.

I recently wrote that desktop 3D printing is undergoing a quiet revolution. That the user has changed. That it’s no longer a maker building a machine for the sake of the machine, but a person with an idea looking for a tool.

I’m coming back to that thought today - and I apologize for that. But this topic is like a splinter: if you don’t remove it, it hurts more and more. And I feel the industry still hasn’t fully pulled it out.

So once again, more clearly.

A 3D printer without an ecosystem is like a car without a map. It has an engine, wheels, a gearbox - you can go. You can drive across a country or an entire continent. But you don’t know where you’re going.

You don’t know how long it will take, how much fuel you’ll use, or what’s worth seeing along the way.

You have a car. You don’t have infrastructure. You don’t have context.

You don’t have - simply put - an ecosystem for driving.

The same applies to a printer without everything that surrounds it.

A 3D printer is a starting point, not the destination. To truly work - for the user, not for the technical specification - it needs an environment.

Materials selected and tested for a specific machine, not a random list of filaments from Alibaba.

Software integrated with the machine, not a separate application from another era that you operate like a 1990s scientific calculator.

A mobile app that lets you manage prints as naturally as you manage a playlist.

A repository of models - ready, verified, organized - so people know what to print and why.

And design tools integrated with the printer - for someone who has never opened CAD software in their life but wants to create something of their own.

This is not a wishlist. This is the minimum.

When someone buys their printer, they are not buying a machine. They are buying a cohesive, multi-layered ecosystem in which hardware is just one node.

So MakerWorld is not an add-on. It’s part of the value. Bambu Studio, Bambu Handy, Maker’s Lab, project crowdfunding - all of it together builds an experience that the printer alone could never deliver.

Hardware is the easiest thing to copy. All the fundamental 3D printing technologies have already been invented. The real advantage does not lie in a new nozzle or another axis system. It lies in the total user experience - cohesive, integrated, and capable of building loyalty that no standalone machine can achieve.

And this is where the industrial sector is still stuck.

So the conclusion is both simple and uncompromising: today, you don’t buy a 3D printer. You buy an experience. And this must be translated into the industrial level - not as a copy of the consumer model, but as its thoughtful, dedicated version. Because a company that buys a machine without a map, without software, without support, without a ready-use context - is buying a problem, not a solution.

A car without infrastructure. An engine without a gearbox. Hardware without an ecosystem.

It technically works. But it won’t take you anywhere.