Real Photo for Print Profiles is (sometimes) a nonsensical requirement

MakerWorld
1

I know that probably no one here can help me much (but I need to just “vent”). And … maybe … someone “in charge” will read this after all (?)

I’ve come across a requirement that models on MW must have at least one real photo. OK, I understand the reasons why this is the case and I fully agree. However, the requirement for a real photo also applies to Print Profiles added by Designer, and there, at least in some cases, the requirement is nonsensical… even (sorry) stupid…

Example (and really just an example) - I need a pipe stand/rack, so I design one. I come up with an excellent solution for attaching the pipe to the rack, which I like so much that I want to offer it to others. Of course, I will have a lot of REAL photos for the main model… simply because I want to show off how great it is.

But… my model… which I developed for my specific needs… has two floors, each for five pipes. I have ten of them, so I don’t need any more and two floor solution fits great on my own bookshelf.

But, I want to offer the model to as many people as possible and meet their various requirements in advance. What might they want? So I’ll make more versions, which I’ll publish as separate Print Profiles… a model with only one floor, two floors, three floors, and a MAXI version with four floors… and each of them has several sub-variants - for 5 pipes, 10, 15, 20… I should point out that it’s all still the same… the main ingenious mounting solution (which is why I’m publishing it), is still the same… it only differs in the number of floors and the number of slots on each floor. Are these models functional? Of course they are… it’s all the same… there can be no doubt about their functionality… it only differs in size.

However, in order to publish individual versions as separate Print Profiles on MW, I need their real photos! So what now? Should I really print all versions?? if I’m not mistaken, there are 16 of them… and some of them are pretty large … what am I going to do with them? I don’t need them! One stand that I developed is enough for me, and maybe I’ll keep one more… but I really don’t need 16! It will take me a week or two to print them. And once I print them and take one photo, what next ? Will I throw them away into garbage? How many kilograms of filament would be printed unnecessarily just to accomplish a request for a real photo ??

Let me repeat that I understand why a real photo is usually required, but in cases such as the one described, it seems completely nonsensical to me. How do you deal with this?

P.S. An identical situation occurs when the Print Profile contains the same model as the main one, but a different material is used (the profile contains the recommended settings and parameters). Do I have to print the model again in a different color to get a request for a real photo?

If you read it, thanks for your time and appreciate your opinion/advise how to solve this …

TW

3 Likes
2

i was pretty lost about your case specifically, sorry im only 1% focus today.

but maybe this could explain why a real photo is required in general for both model and print profile.

1- model real photo is required just because AI is absurdly misused in this platform, so a real photo is a must just to showcase the model after printing, which basically is much better for you to post a real photo due to users need to see how your model looks eventually.

2- print profile real photo is required because user need to see how the print result is with the parameters of the 3MF file you uploaded, for example, this profile is for PLA and other is for ABS, also this profile is single color print and the other is multicolor, by that the user can guarantee the the print profile with whatever parameter you uploaded have worked…in other words it is printable.

as a creator mainly and a user casually (when i’m too lazy to create it) i would 100% need to see a real photo on both model page and print profile section, just to guarantee that after whatever +hours of printing the print will be complete without babysitting the machine every few minutes.

after all the main objective of having a bambu printer is the perfect ecosystem and piece of mind (One click print).

i hope this helps, and incase i did not get the point you wanted, here is my sincere apology ^^

3

if there are small changes on the versions, just put the same real image on all the print profiles?

4

This is a complete non-issue given that the print profile automatically adds your default image as a print profile image. This means as long as you’ve uploaded at least one real image (which you should have already done) you need to do zero work to add a real image to your print profile.

If you’re talking about adding additional print profiles, well those profiles are presumably different from the default one and thus a real image should be required to show that profile also is actually printable.

But, I want to offer the model to as many people as possible and meet their various requirements in advance. What might they want? So I’ll make more versions, which I’ll publish as separate Print Profiles… a model with only one floor, two floors, three floors, and a MAXI version with four floors… and each of them has several sub-variants - for 5 pipes, 10, 15, 20… I should point out that it’s all still the same… the main ingenious mounting solution (which is why I’m publishing it), is still the same… it only differs in the number of floors and the number of slots on each floor. Are these models functional? Of course they are… it’s all the same… there can be no doubt about their functionality… it only differs in size.

And thus you are obligated to demonstrate all those additional profiles are actually printable. Ergo a valid and reasonable requirement for a real image.

P.S. An identical situation occurs when the Print Profile contains the same model as the main one, but a different material is used (the profile contains the recommended settings and parameters). Do I have to print the model again in a different color to get a request for a real photo?

If it’s just a different colour, you don’t need a separate profile. If it’s a different material (say a PETG version) then yes, a separate profile is justified and again you need to provide proof it’s printable.

A “trust me bro, it printed for me, take my word for it” approach is not conducive to a healthy platform.

5 Likes
5

It may happen (and experience shows that it happens and will happen) that the additional Print Profile will be deleted, cos it has the same photo as the main profile…

6

Even though I fully understand the arguments you write… don’t you really mind printing (unnecessarily) kilograms of filament just to be able to photograph a model that differs only in size? Or perhaps in used filament ? When it comes to a small model, it probably doesn’t matter, but for larger ones, it seems completely pointless to me…

1 Like
7

BTW, how would it work if my model is a shoe (e.g., made of TPU)?
Do I need to have an extra photo for all sizes… 7, 71/2, 8, 81/2, 9, 9 1/3, 9 1/2, 9 1/2W… etc… if it’s still the same shoe? :slight_smile:

For example, in the case of “parametric” models, there is no additional photo (nor is one required) to prove that the model will still be functional (and printable) with changed input parameters… which is logical… so why isn’t the same logic used in similar cases?

1 Like
8

Just an additional point – the fact that someone (a designer) has successfully printed a given model is not proof that the model is actually “generally printable.”

For example, if it is an extra “sensitive,” dimensionally accurate model with minimal tolerances that the designer can print only because he has a perfectly tuned printer and used particular filament (brand, manufacturer, etc…), this does not mean that any “common Joe” with his “distuned” printer and wet filament bought on ALiexpres “on sale” means absolutely incomparable with the original material used …

9

This is such a bad faith response. Yes, photographic proof that your profile resulted in a printable model is proof that the profile generally speaking produces printable models. If someone tried to print the model using a poorly maintained printer or bad quality filament, that doesn’t disprove the printability of the profile. Literally that’s why MW removes ratings for such stupid reasons.

Given that print profiles include filament information and bambu printers include a slew of maintenance and monitoring features futher debunks this nonsense point.

Just upload a picture and get on with your life.

4 Likes
10

So what now? It’s a requirement to post photos for print profiles. There’s your answer.

Every little carve-out people push for, if granted, makes policing models harder. The no photos thing has been beaten to death. Your altruism is noted. You get a gold star.

Thing is, no/fake/AI photos are used by spammers to spam models and flood with low-effort junk (like different sizes of pipe?). Due to the issues spammers cause you may not find much sympathy in your quest to post models of pipe. Maybe an actual example instead of hypothetical made-up stuff would make for a more convincing argument?

As long as you are using hypothetical examples of pipe, you really are making the case for spamming and not showing any real inconvenience. A real example where you just can’t spare the filament to benefit mankind would be better. Show us a real example.

3 Likes
11

And you can always post raw files and even print profiles in the files section. I have a model that MW can’t verify as a print profile due to textures making it take too long to verify. The solution is just to publish it as a model. It’s still a 3mf. People can still download it. But it doesn’t require real photos (even though it has them). It’s just not published in MW’s print profile section.

There’s your workaround if you need to distribute lots of models you don’t want to print and photograph. Not as good as being able to post as a print profile but you can still post the unprinted models. And you should note that the models are unprinted in the description.

4 Likes
12

One solution:
Put all the variants on different plates in the same profile.

7 Likes
13

Regarding “putting everything into one main profile”… I’ve thought about that too… It would create quite a mess - the 3MF file would contain unnecessary number of Plates with files for different versions scattered all over the place… and users would just have to figure it out somehow… So they will probably print something they don’t actually need, but it will make my work easier :slight_smile:

But seriously, I don’t currently have any model in progress for which the discussed requirement for real photos would be a serious problem. That’s why I used a “hypothetical model” with pipe rack. Or more precisely - I am finishing one model that I want to publish in the coming days, where there are several versions that differ only in size - the “capacity” … BUT …

… with this model, however, the requirement for real photos does not pose a REAL problem - simply it is not so big that I would not be able (if necessary) to print and photograph the individual variants, of which there will only be 3 or 4.

Well, I’ll be “gritting my teeth over the unnecessary work,” but I can live with it - it will go fairly quickly… and I’ll lose (unnecessarily) a maximum of 0.5 kg of filament… which isn’t real loss considering how much is sometimes thrown away when tuning a prototype…

However, while thinking about how I would actually publish this, it occurred to me how I would do it if the model were really BIG… and had many versions that differed only in dimensions (width, height, etc.). That is why my question worked with a “hypothetical model” … I believed that would best show how stupid this (otherwise reasonable and useful) requirement can sometimes be…

14

I understand In some some cases a real photo is problematic.
But,
There are so many that would abuse not requiring a real photo. In most cases solves the render problem from someone that are ignorant.

The similar problem I have seen that is more stupid is: requiring a photo for a support ticket. Yes some tickets need a photo for context, a picture is worth a thousand words…
For some tickets I just uploaded a random photo, and stated such.

2 Likes
15

A real photo is never problematic—if you have verified the profile can be printed, you’ll have something to photograph (even if it’s a bad photo). If you haven’t verified the profile can be printed, you shouldn’t be uploading it.

6 Likes
16

Actually I see that very often, especially for variants of the same thing. You can give each plate its own name. That allows to clearly call out the variants. Together with a mention in the description, it should be quite clear for users.

5 Likes
17

you can put it in the same file or in different files attached to the same posting.
There are lots of ways it can be done. the problem is expaining what way you have used. With the wide range of skill levels, and understanding levels, it might be very wordy, just expaining what method you chose. Then because many don’t read (or maybe it is in a different language) it is a waist of time.

I find it funny how many think they understand. But they don’t see other points of view. The only way to see it is the way they think.

2 Likes
18

It most certainly is NOT nonsensical

3 Likes
19

At the end of the day, while I do sympathize, you can just upload the 3mfs for different iterations of the same models without uploading them as print profiles. Then, people can still download and print all of your print settings without you having to print them out yourself every time.
I personally had an issue with separating an assembly up for the X1C, then taking the exact same model and rearranging it for H2D plates with the same settings. Technically, MakerWorld wants me to print out the whole model again to test to make sure I made no mistakes there, but I don’t want to waste the filament.
Although in those cases, I just upload a second picture of the same model lol

1 Like
20

If you’re going to make a print profile, you should test it. I understand that you created different profiles to help people out. But you don’t actually know 100% that they’re going to work.

1 Like