I would’ve never known it was fake. How would someone benefit from posting a fake print?
1 Like
they wont have to take time to actually print their model so they can just spam prints all day long and reap the rewards
So what’s the reward? Are they wanting to sell the STL, or the physical model?
the reward is many downloads of their unproven model where they gain points from makerworld which can earn them free printers or thousands of $$ in gift cards etc from their fraudulent models
1 Like
I have a feeling that HpInvent account is just copy of everything. Nothing is original.
2 Likes
If I pay someone to steal from someone, am I not guilty of a crime? Is it a defence to say that I did not know? This is the fundamental problem with bblmw reward system. But - those who want to make toys, who can’t design their own, will use mw, and waste more filament, which is good for filament sellers. In particular bblmw, which traps the naive into buying only from bbl.
Oh boy
grabs popcorn
6 Likes
I don’t typically engage with these discussions, but I can understand everything you have said except this.
People can feel their own way about others using renders when uploading, but as long as you are following the rules/guidelines set in place on MakerWorld then they have no backing. I would also agree with you about keeping a consistent image across your profile, because that is very important as a brand.
But you have essentially just stated that you have 3D scanned other people’s designs, made edits to them, and then uploaded them as original work? Then trying to justify it by saying you are not effecting their sales that much? If that is the case, this is just simply not okay and there is no gray area to it.
I would imagine someone with as much community engagement as your designs have to understand and agree with this.
Since you seem to mention the community several times and seem to want to better it, I would implore you to go through your uploaded work and address this by relabeling non-original work as such, giving proper accreditation to designs that require it, and removing any non-original work from ongoing contests.
9 Likes
You are not a Maker, you are just a professional copy and paste, there is not a single model of your imagination, just look at the T-rex flexi (a random model) old Thingiverse model where you and many others have added a little heart, a butterfly, a flower! As for the vases, it’s better for me to keep quiet. At least you try to emphasize your clones\remixes, there are also those who do worse than you, but you are absolutely not a Maker
3 Likes
not possible to have top layers going 2 different directions, nice try… also layer dont lay in patterns curving up and down layers lay evenly across…
1 Like
Did you even read my comment ? Or just don’t understand it ?
Maybe we can educate you → Google „Moiré-Effect“ >
2 Likes
Ah, I remember some flexi T-Rex entries into multiple contests with only a little added-on (a small flower, a small heart, etc) to justify entering the contests. I don’t remember the name of the account or names of potentially several alternative acccounts. Is this the account?
1 Like
Dude you’re just lost 
Tried my best to explain.
Naming your picture “retard” is a little offensive don’t you think ?
Just because you can’t wrap your head arround it …
Thats it, i’m outta here… bye bye Forum
2 Likes
You have yet to explain how it has 2 top surfaces, upload your actual print holding something with todays date… all your efforts and time spent here you could have actually uploaded a REAL model… bye 
1 Like
You’re annoyed someone thought your faked layer lines were A.I. generated rather than your faked layer lines being by a Google moire effect.
But, it appears you agree they are clearly faked layer lines in order to try to convince the average user and possibly (depending on your notice) BL as well that these are the equivalent of actual printed models when they clearly aren’t when more than a second of review is paid to them.
I can’t imagine a reason for introducing fake layer lines unless there is an aim to deceive.
I think all renders should be labelled as such. The same for A.I. generated images (I understand from your description that you are not someone doing that).
Honesty should surely be the policy for the benefit of users.
I am clearly in the camp that requires actual photo evidence of printed models to show that models can print, don’t fall off the player whilst printing, don’t have a poor surface on the plate or the model itself, when multiple colours are used, they are printed correctly and the amount of waste generated is minimised as far as is possible whilst returning quality and so on.
My agreement with the rules that require photo evidence is because I’ve been burnt by ‘designers’ who whilst aren’t in it to game the system, they are also not in it to make sure users have a tested trouble free experience.
Measure twice, cut once was a lesson I was taught back at school, I imagine most were and the logic is simple, things done go the way we hope, so we confirm. That’s as relevant for woodwork as it is and even more so for fast, multiple material devices that print on multiple plates on multiple printers using any number of different filaments.
You said you’re not coming back to the forum. That’s a shame because no one should feel pushed out. But, you can’t get angry because others don’t share your opinion.
You may feel judged by some who called your work out (many designers have been called out, you are not alone) for what turned out to be true, you are faking your visuals with the intentional or unintentional outcome of making those less observant believe you took the time and trouble to guarantee your work by testing it thoroughly which includes printing it.
I have several designs currently in progress, each one has reasons why multiple prototypes are printed.
One of which simply because I want the user to be able to print it without requiring support for big overhangs and bridges and the tolerance between gaps to be just right so that a sheet of paper needs to be gently pushed through rather than falls out of the angle changes.
All the guesses in the world don’t show if the quality holds or the tolerance when printed actually works as hoped. Tweak things, print again, test, tweak and print again. When it’s perfect, it’ll be uploaded.
If I never printed the designs - how would I ever know?
That was rhetorical.
3 Likes
And now I’m taking my rendered marbles home…
Defending your position is your right and all that, but I fail to see where you’ve engaged in the “Community” to have the right to challenge others “value”.
2 Likes
I have totaly the same opinion that there should be real photos. But they don’t have to be the cover photo.
To shorten the discussion, simply click on the link in the first post (or any other of my models) → there you can see that there are real pictures of the actual printed parts. Most of the time also with unremoved support structure and then the final result.
First pictures are always the renders followed by real pictures. (And yes I always print my files before uploading them and check if they turn out right)
Renders are not to deceive but give a accurate representation. Also including the actual layers comes closest to the actual printed result. Super smooth surfaces without the lines are giving the object a more perfect look then they will look if printed. Look at the posted example the topmost surface has clear imperfections because auf the layer height for the render and also the real print. Why should I render a picture that has a perfect smooth top surface if it does not turn out like that when printed.
And maybe other people didn’t check my design or it was not clear … here is the picture of the upload
I hope you will admit to being disingenuous as the models listed below had no photo evidence two days ago and the actual photos have been added since.
Adding the photos after you uploaded the models with only renders and then coming here and saying “I add photos” hoping people didn’t notice they were added afterwards.
- Cute happy Turtle smiling
- Cute Dog sitting an Stone smiling happy
- Cute happy Squirrel with Nut
- Cute happy Dog in sweater hoodie cape
5 Likes
To add to this, they also changed out the render photos to try and argue with the other user that what he was pointing out was incorrect.
The original renders absolutely had two top layers as pictured at the very beginning of this post.
Unfortunately it seems they are acting in bad faith, another thing I don’t appreciate as a fellow designer.
5 Likes