Completely agree those design Rocks and thepresentation is beautiful, also they are perfect for mmu prints. I really don’t understand the point to report that profile, he also manage to post succesful prints and all the ratings are proof that design are perfectly done for 3D printing.
yeah indeed 
people posting really basic png to svg designs and print it and it looks like cr*p and get away with it because it has print picture now
not to mention thousands of profiles that only post projects made with hueforge
well since if the new rule is: If you got away with it already then your ok to not upload images, everyone else has to follow the rules for sure tho.
and help yourself and print this guys stolen 3D renders all you want. you can see from the comments not one was designed for FDM printing, 1mm thick tails that need rafts to print etc etc. many 4-5 star reviews stating how great the model is despite taking multiple times to print due to the untested profiles or just the unfriendly to print 3d models in general. this one cant even stand up on its own or successfully be printed but 4 star for effort? lol this guy is nothing but a point farmer and (probably) a model thief, do they even own a printer? doubtful.
1 Like
you must be trolling… have a good day there isnt a single printed photo of any of those models by the uploader. just a few from users who have printed the models. it doesnt change the fact that this person is breaking the rules and has been since the first upload, mmu profiles with ZERO Printing proof. yet he checked the box saying otherwise.
I think if there’s a print profile, then a picture should be required in some fashion or another. It should be part of the print profile, or part of the main set of images. I think it shows a lot more respect to the people that download and print these models, to show that yes I modeled this, but I’m also working to make sure it prints well for you.
Especially on bigger and more complex models. The more time you have to spend modeling something, the more likely you need to be running test prints to make sure it prints well, to make sure things assemble right. Of all the large models I’ve made, they’ve all required multiple prints to get right. There’s a lot of things that aren’t apparent until it’s a physical object. Experience can help curb that, sure, but you still can’t account for everything every time.
I don’t get why people are so resistant to printing the things they design. I thought that was like 90% the point.
That’s not to knock on renders or the way some people present their designs. Presentation and brand are important, and that kind of consistent branding is something that people want, that makerworld wants. I’m just like okay, but please include a shot in there somewhere in your presentation showing me what to expect off the plate. I personally have more hesitation printing designs without any sort of print model image, even if there are a bunch of makes. It’s extremely easy to make a fancy render of a model that would be difficult or impossible to print, so there’s no trust I can give to renders.
5 Likes
“I don’t get why people are so resistant to printing the things they design. I thought that was like 90% the point.”
because that takes time, effort, and a good model. why do that when you only care about free rewards right?
there is no thinking required, it literally wont let you upload a profile without checking a box saying that you’ve printed the model and have included a picture of it. you either add one like it says or you didnt and checked the box and lied. if you cant be honest and not lie for points then you should be unable to earn points, maybe a warning or something then your cut.
1 Like
I strongly advocate for providing an image for every model, not only to ensure its printability but also to offer users a preview of what they can expect.
However, there are instances where additional prints are unnecessary, particularly for variants. This holds true for models like the ones I’ve listed below, where the profiles remain largely unchanged but the geometry is adjusted. These variants print identically, with only differences in print time based on size and configuration.
I’ve personally printed most of these variants as I developed them to meet my needs. Additionally, there are numerous other variants not listed here, often created in response to specific requests, such as those from my wife.
Filament Case: Varying slot numbers and potential future sizes.
Drawer: Available in different sizes.
Boxes: Offered in various sizes.
Stackable Boxes: Available in different sizes.
Should a new size be requested and deemed generally useful, I’ll create a new profile. These new variants will print exactly the same as the existing ones; however, I may conduct test prints if uncertainties arise.
Printing all variants would inevitably lead to a significant increase in material wastage, surpassing the already considerable amount expended during the development of these models.
2 Likes
I can agree with this, and those are good examples. I’ve gone through and printed every variation of a modular system like that before, and sometimes it’s a bit much when all that changes from one variation to the next is like just the height.
It shows me that the designer doesn’t care about what they’re making, so why should I. It doesn’t give me any level of trust that they took the time to make sure their model is 3d print friendly, functional as intended, or anything like that.
3 Likes
I fully support the intention to enhance quality by enforcing the upload of images along with models. However, it’s worth noting that the current guidelines permit uploads without images, given the absence of a print profile or CC0 license. If all models lacking images are to be deleted, it might lead to justified complaints from users who adhered to the guidelines but had their models removed. Therefore, aligning the guidelines with this new approach would be advisable to avoid unnecessary frustration among users.
There is no checkbox for requiring print images for uploading a model, only for print profiles. You can still upload models without print profiles so If your going to make changes to the rules you should add a check box when uploading a model.
Maybe you could just require print profiles & print images to be featured on the front page. It would keep spam down while still letting people upload without profiles so they can still have their whole collection in one model depository.
Another thing is with Makerworld if I don’t have a print profile someone else can print my model take a picture, post their print profile and collect points. So it solves the problem of some models not having print images.
1 Like
“The removal of this model was necessitated by the absence of a physical picture. To maintain accuracy and model quality, we require users to select the ‘print test’ option and provide a corresponding image of the physical print. For more details, please refer to our community guidelines. Community Guidelines Your cooperation in adhering to these guidelines in your future interactions is appreciated. Thank you for your understanding and commitment to our community standards.”
This is their reason for taking down a model. There is no “print test” option in the upload process for a model only.
and they’re back
https://makerworld.com/en/u/2859915532
https://makerworld.com/en/u/1533644716
https://makerworld.com/en/u/3522784316
https://makerworld.com/en/u/888775006
it really helps finding them when they keep using the same files. 
1 Like
This can be tricky to tell on models that have an actual image of the printed model but have been photoshopped to use a different background.
This is a good catch. I always thought that some will create multiple accounts and then “donate” the proifle points to their “main” account. While allowing donation of profile points to the designer has good intentions, it’s an obvious loop-hole to exploit.
I would suggest changing the donation of profile points to a common public account set up by Bambu Lab instead of to the designer. The points of that public account can be used for charity purpose, or having a yearly lottery to award the points to a user or a few users. If some designers need some sort of acknowledgement of their contribution, then maybe the desinger and the profile maker get a mention in some fashion on that public account, or some other better ideas.
I think the requirement of real printing image should be absolute and no exception. While one can argue that this situation and that situation should be exceptions, the reality is that it will create more confusions and more excuses to break the rule.
The rule of having real printed image should be applied to both the model and print profile. No real printed photo, no upload of either.
This is akin to the rule of stopping at a red lihgt. One can argue that if there are no other cars and people acrossing, why shouldn’t the driver be given the flexibility to decide if it’s safe to ignore the red light. However, allowing this flexibility will be the same as having no rule at all and will be disastrous.
4 Likes
It’s hard to take someone with the handle of GenericUser seriously, or their opinion.
It’s hard to take someone who has just posted for the first time seriously, or their opinion.
Stick around for a bit and you will see that GenericUser is both knowledgeable and helpful here.
4 Likes
As with anything on the interwebs, do your own research and don’t believe what ANYONE tells you This is an open forum and your opinion is always welcomed as long as follows the MW guidelines…