The 3D Print Software Question

A couple of weeks ago I was asked a question on LinkedIn. The question was "In your view which is the best 3D print software?". There were two ways I could have answered the question.

1. Immediately, by naming the software I have used and am currently using to print my prototypes.
2. In a more comprehensive form, later.

Even though the first option might have led to a badge, I decided against it because I believe that a professional has the obligation to answer such a question as objectively as possible and to the best of his ability. Merely providing an unsabstantiated opinion amounts to little more than advertisement. This does not mean that all the websites on the Internet on which these subjects are discussed do not provide unbiased information, but it does mean that yet another recommendation by someone whose interests are difficult to assess doesn't go very far to paint a clearer picutre.

Furthermore, the question is far harder to answer than is immediately apparent. This is because implementing one or more parts from a CAD drawing by means of a 3D printer consists of more than merely the mesh model(s), the print software, and the printer. Specifically,

1. the design of the part or parts to be implemented plays a major role. This includes the size/dimensions, and geometry of the part (or parts) to be implemented.
2. The physical/mechanical, and/or chemical properties, the implemented parts are required to fulfill. For example, the required mecahnical and thermal stability of the parts.
3. The required surface quality of the part and/or those of its individual shapes, i.e. smooth or rough, porous or not. For example, a part may contain circular/roundish cuts and/or cavities, which due to their smaller dimemensions and their functionality may have to be smoother than larger, more rectangular shapes of other surfaces. The innards of a carburetor as opposed to its outer surfaces, would be a point in case.
4. Whether or not the parts can, have to, or optionally, will undergo further processing, once printed. E.g. will they be sanded/grinded, painted, or treated galvanically, etc...
5. The purpose the printed part is required to fulfill. E.g. is the part merely going to be a mock-up, a prototype for testing or demonstration purposes, or is going to be one in a batch of a small series.
6. The type of 3D printer and the printer's capabilities. For example, the minimum and maximum precision with which the printer can produce parts.
7. The print (e.g. the hosting, slicing, etc.) software.
8. The time factor. I.e. the amount of time required to design, print, make adjustments/corrections, and finish the part(s).
9. The budget/production costs. E.g. the cost for the material(s) from/with which the part(s) are printed, the costs for finishing the printed parts, the number of discards that are likely to be produced, etc..

All these factors have a significant influence on the result of the printed parts and it is the combination and not the individual factor that determines the outcome. So there is no simple answer to the question.

Moreover, there are circular dependencies, not only with respect to the overall process (i.e. between the manufacturing costs and the design and vice versa), but also between the individual factors. For example, the surface quality determines whether or not the part has to undergo further processing (e.g. sanding and painting) prior to being presented/delivered to the customer. But, the fact that a product has to be presentable to the customer determines the required surface quality and therefore also whether or not it has to be sanded and painted.

Thus, to provide an opinion on which a decision which print software is the best can be based, it would be necessary to define standardized tests, by which this could be determined. These tests would not only require categorizing the software but also the printers, and consequently they would also have to incorporate most if not all the factors I have outlined above. Defining them would therefore be no mean feat.

To put the whole question into context, I came to 3D printing for no other reason than that I required (special) parts for a micro-controller project and printing them appeared to me the easiest, fastest, and most flexible method for producing parts that were likely to undergo numerous modifications during development. To me the print software is therefore merely a means to achieve the ends, and as long as these can be achieved, I am prepared to put up with (some) inadequacies.

Although I initially used the software that shipped with the printer I soon switched to the Cura print software, for no particular reason, other than curiosity and the fact that I had used FreeCAD to design the parts and Cura also comes as a FreeCAD "plugin". However, irrespective of the software I used, the results were always at least satisfactory and often even exceeded my expectations. Whether this can or has to be attributed more to the design, which I intentionally kept as simple as possible (the KISS principle), or the generous tolerances I incorporated into it, the software, the settings, the material, or the printer itself happened to be better than its nominal specifications, is not something I had ever asked myself before.

I might also add, that ever since the first parts I printed, my best friend and I have an ongoing dispute regarding their design. In this context it should be pointed out, that my best friend has as many years of professional experience in rapid prototyping, as I do in software development. He can therefore undoubtedly be called an expert in the field, whereas I am not.

But, because there are convincing arguments in favor of both design philosophies, we have agreed on that he will design and print the next generation of parts for my project. He will not only print the parts on a sinter printer, as opposed to the "sausage" type printer (actually called a fused filament printer) used so far, but also employ CATIA (or Autocad) and Magics (or the Autodesk print software), instead of the software I have used. Naturally, I'm curious as to how the parts will turn out, not only with the respect to their design but also their shock absorbing and other quaiities. Unfortunately, this necessitates that I complete the next phase of my micro-controller project first and this, apart from the electronic hardware, also requires a considerable amount of programming.