Hi everyone, we’re SnowX team working on a desktop metal printer.

We’ve noticed that information about our upcoming desktop metal 3D printer has appeared online ahead of our planned introduction.

While this wasn’t how we expected to introduce it, we’re excited to see the interest and discussion it has already generated. So we’d like to confirm a few things.

It is a metal 3D printer built for the desktop. We’ve focused on three things from the start: high precision, desktop-level safety, and making metal 3D printing accessible for everyone.

Interestingly, these are also some of the topics many of you have been discussing. A few quick answers to some questions we’ve seen:

1. Titanium or aluminum?

Highly reactive metal materials (e.g. Titanium or Aluminum) are NOT SUPPORTED. Our initial material will focus on steel. Other non-reactive material is under testing.

2. “It would have to sacrifice safety to miniaturize something like that.”

It DOESN'T sacrifice safety for size or anything else. In fact, some of our biggest engineering efforts have gone into ensuring SAFETY in everyday use. Going even further, we’ve devoted just as much care to protecting our users’ HEALTH.

3. “You probably need an oven.”

You do not need an oven for post-processing. What happens after printing is much much simpler than you might expect. We’ll show you.

4. Suspicious object prints?

The suspicious object AI detection algorithm is under development, which is designed to identify and restrict suspicious, prohibited content to be printed.

We’ll share more here soon. Until then, keep the questions coming. We’re reading them.

It looks so nice, and feels solid. It's a protective cap for a specialty cable connector.

About time!! Let’s go!

This is the worst customer service experience i’ve had in a while. They said the heated base was included in the package, then when I found video proof from my pet cameras they said I would still have to pay to return the item back to them. I disputed it through my credit card.

I may have just prevented my next blob of death, but what now? Help

Hello! I recently got a CT scan of my dog, how would one go about possibly getting that 3D printed? What’s a ball park estimate? Are there different materials that can be used? Can it be printed in a way that it still functions like a normal skull, like with a hinged jaw?

I backed the L4 Lightmake 3D printer on Kickstarter today. It's my first time backing a project on Kickstarter.

I really hope this is successful as the machine should be perfect for me to really increase my project efficiency by allowing me to print 4 fairly large parts simultaneously.

It's also quite the beast and makes the H series look quite compact in comparison.

Anyone else jump on this one? Will these really ship in November? What backer number are you (I'm #268)?

This is my current maker set up that’s in 2 different spots upstairs in my house. Also btw I’m 15 and this is all mine. I’m considering of return the Ocillascope. Should I? I mainly do robotics and cad stuff

Columns shown here should be vertical. As they are printing the printer is putting the next layer up in the wrong spot, slightly skew.

Not sure what this is doing, or how to fix this.

Kobra S1max.

Hello!
I just got this printer a couple days ago, started printing TPU with it. There seemed to be no issues or anything till now, the tubing on the top of the machine has come out of the nozzle, taking a couple pieces with it, including the small metal teeth that hold the tubing in. I’m not exactly sure how to fix this issue, or if it is even possible to be fixed.
If I am able to get it fixed, I would love to also know how to prevent this issue from happening again. My current theory to preventing the issue again would be to find a way to place the TPU on top of the machine and thread it through that way, rather than using the detachable side hook on the machine for an extra/outer spool.

Photos are attached to this post, but if possible I can always send more. Just would like to see if this is an easy fix or not. I am also open to buying new parts if needed.

Should I just take it back for repair?

Hey guys. Hoping someone can help me. I'm getting these horizontal lines on this figure I'm trying to print. This is a resin model that I'm trying to print with filament.

I was messing around trying to get better results using PETG as support for gold PLA, and the support interfaces and where they actually connect with the PLA looks great, but I'm also getting these horizontal lines that only happens where the support interface is.

I'm using an X2D, using the main nozzle with the PLA and the auxiliary nozzle with the PETG.

Using Bambu Studio with a 0.12 layer height. Also using the settings for PETG interface as recommended by Bambu sitio. Gonna add a couple photos of the settings. If you need to see anything else, I'll answer happily.

Thank you all.

This is a minimalist wallet I designed for a few cards, cash, and specifically a key-fob for Volvo cars. Only 16mm thick with the key fob inserted and 3 cards! Includes a ring to clip keys or attach to a bag/other accessories. 

Other materials needed: about 10cm of 2.5mm(1 inch) thick elastic band. Sewing needle/thread.

Model available on MakerWorld for anyone interested: https://makerworld.com/en/models/3246163-car-key-fob-wallet-for-volvo-super-slim-wallet

I'm planning to start a small 3D-printing brand focused on 3D-printed desk accessories, home décor, and collectibles. Initially, I'm thinking of starting with small, aesthetic products and gradually expanding into more unique/custom-designed pieces.

I'm looking for a name that:

Doesn't sound like a typical "3D Printing / Creations / Prints" business

Is short and easy to remember

Sounds good internationally

Has an actual meaning or story behind it

Could work as a proper product/design brand if the business grows

One name I'm currently considering is ORIGO.

The word comes from Latin and means origin, source, or beginning. I like the concept because the idea behind the brand is taking something that exists in your imagination and turning it into a physical object.

But I'm not completely sold on it, and I'm wondering whether it sounds too common or is already associated with too many businesses.

What do you think of ORIGO as a brand name?

And if you were naming this kind of business yourself, what names would you suggest?

I'm particularly interested in names connected to creation, origin, imagination, making, form, or bringing something into existence. They don't have to be English I'm open to words from other languages as long as they sound good as a brand.

Also, one completely separate question for anyone who has experience selling 3D-printed collectibles:

How does copyright/trademark work if you want to make collectibles based on characters or designs from franchises like Marvel or DC?

For example, if someone designs and 3D prints a Spider-Man, Batman, or other recognizable character and sells the physical prints, is that generally allowed, or would you need a license from the rights holder? Does it make a difference if the model is your own original design?

Brutal honesty is welcome. 😄

Got a centauri 2 yesterday, did some pla stuff and today switched to petg pro but i have been noticing some issues such as the stringing that can be seen in the pic, some blobs formating on the nozzle and somethimes falling on the print and some bad lines, so i was wondering why it was so bad and how could i fix it or mitigate

By Alex Rivera, Unicorn Analytics

For Hong Kong investors, the central question raised by a U.S. patent litigation of the Hong Kong-listed Shenzhen Creality 3D Technology Co Ltd (03388.HK) is not who will ultimately prevail at trial. It is whether the company has given the market sufficiently specific, accurate and timely information as the case has evolved.

Creality listed on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong in May 2026. In its IPO prospectus it described a U.S. patent dispute involving certain 3D-scanning patents and products, noted a mixed summary-judgment outcome, and concluded that any potential liability was immaterial. It pointed to limited recent sales of the accused scanners, the cessation of those products, a supplier indemnity and legal advice.

The prospectus did not name the plaintiff, Artec Europe, or the case number, and it incorrectly referred to the forum as a New York State court rather than the federal court in the Eastern District of New York.

After public questions during the offering period, Creality issued a clarification in early June restating that the matter had already been disclosed and would not have a material adverse effect. Its subsequent interim results continued to treat the litigation as immaterial and reported no material subsequent events after 30 June, even though a significant court ruling had intervened in July.

That July ruling is the most consequential recent development. On 23 July the U.S. court excluded Creality’s damages expert, finding his reasonable-royalty analysis fundamentally flawed because it relied on a non-arm’s-length cooperation agreement between the defendants that was neither a patent licence nor a proper benchmark. At the same time the court allowed Artec’s damages expert to testify. The practical effect is an asymmetry: Artec retains expert support for its damages case while Creality cannot rely on the excluded analysis.

The procedural posture of the patents themselves also requires precise description. In April 2026 the court granted Creality summary judgment of no literal infringement on one of the three patents. It did not, however, remove that patent from the case. The court directed that claims under all three patents proceed to trial: literal infringement claims on two patents and, to the extent asserted, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents on the third.

Creality later moved to strike the doctrine-of-equivalents theory and the willfulness allegations that can support enhanced damages. Those motions remain pending. Artec has opposed the doctrine-of-equivalents motion and was due to respond on willfulness. None of these applications has been granted, and the issues are expected to be tried.

Against this background, Creality’s materiality assessment rests heavily on two pillars: the disclosed sales figures and the advice of counsel. Both invite scrutiny.

The sales numbers cited in the prospectus cover 2023 to 2025, a period after successor products had begun to replace the accused models. They therefore capture the tail of the products’ commercial life rather than the years when those models were the primary offerings. Early litigation records also show substantial crowdfunding activity for one of the products before a court-ordered freeze. In addition, Creality faces potential joint and several liability with its co-defendant, and the question of willfulness remains live. These factors suggest that the disclosed recent sales figures alone may not fully capture the scale of possible exposure.

The counsel pillar has also shifted. The July ruling removed the defendants’ damages expert from the case. New counsel appeared for Creality and its co-defendant in August. Assessments prepared under the previous representation, particularly those that rested in part on the now-excluded expert analysis, at least warrant fresh evaluation. Creality has not issued a further voluntary announcement addressing the July order.

Materiality is not frozen on the date a prospectus is signed. Low recent sales of specific products are a relevant quantitative input, but they are not the only one. When claims under all three patents remain headed for trial, when the damages-expert field has become asymmetric, and when potential remedies include royalties, enhanced damages or injunctive relief, qualitative factors also matter: the strategic importance of the technology, reputational effects, management attention, the strength of any indemnity, and the company’s broader intellectual-property position.

None of this predicts the outcome of the January 2027 trial or establishes that the litigation will prove financially material. Creality continues to contest liability and the scope of the claims. The court has not found infringement. Yet the record shows a case that has continued to develop after the prospectus and the June clarification.

For a newly listed company that emphasises innovation in scanning and related ecosystems, the gap between a risk mentioned in a long document and a risk explained with sufficient specificity and currency is a legitimate subject for investor attention.

Clear disclosure is the mechanism through which markets assess and price risk. When court developments alter the picture, the information available to investors should keep pace.

Back in the day, paint scrapers and razor blades were the perfect go-to for removing stuck prints from the build plate.

These plastic razor blades work just as well (if not better because you can be more rough with them) and cost a whopping $5 on amazon.

These work much MUCH better than 3D printed scrapers too, and are significantly safer to use than paint scrapers (for both your body and your build plate).

Edit: I never thought the use of scrapers was such a divisive topic but here we are lmao. Some folks have rather strong opinions in the comments.

I'm working on a project that I want to post to Thingiverse and I'm a bit stuck on whether or not to mark it used by AI. It doesn't look like there is a partial-AI or assisted-AI option, just all-or-nothing. The file is an OpenScad script to generate model train hopper loads (e.g. coal car, gravel/rock, wood chips, etc).

I used ChatGPT to help figure out how to take [x,y,z] lists of "humps" and populate them along the length of the rail-car with little piles of squares on a base surface.

BUT... I personally designed all the formulas, loops, code, etc. that decides how many little squares, where the humps should be positioned, how tall they should be, how to place the humps to get various realistic appearance by hand.

So...I'm slightly puzzled. I don't think its fair to say AI-generated when I spent weeks of time crafting the artistic qualities of how the distribution of the "stuff" is generated (about 2/3 of the code - 200 lines or so) but I also don't feel like it would be correct to entirely hide that a critical portion of it code for translating the hand-crafted arrays of data-points into mathematical model to render (the last 1/3 - 120 lines or so) was AI generated.

What do people think?

Example of the model output for 3D printing...

4.6 to 3H is bonkers…

and I didn’t even crank it to ludicrous or take the filament to its maximum flow rate

I have a 499 dollar synth that has black keys in sets of 5 that are on plastic hinges and they broke.

I tried to order replacements and they won’t sell the 8 dollar replacement parts to me because I’m not a licensed technician for their company .

A licensed technician wants 60 dollars to diagnose (8 screws removed and put back in) 125 dollars an hour and 3 months to diagnose

I was thinking I can ask you lot about what program to get started on so I can design my keys and then print them out for way less money and time . I know how to fix my instrument but I can’t get the replacement component for less than 310 dollars and 3 months give or take

the synth was 500 dollars and a new one cost 750 these days , . The actual keys sell for 8-25 dollars and it’s literally taking screws out and putting them back .

TLDR what program would you recommend for someone trying to 3d print replacement set of 5 black keys for their synth to circumvent a billion dollar corporation protecting their ip at the expense of their customers good time ?. I just want to make noise