Loading

Aria the Dragon

by loubie, published

Aria the Dragon by loubie Dec 19, 2014

A part of these Groups

View All

License

Use This Project

Give a Shout Out

If you print this Thing and display it in public proudly give attribution by printing and displaying this tag.

Print Thing Tag

Thing Statistics

45680Views 13116Downloads Found in Creatures

Summary

"Aria is the daughter of Adalinda and her voice is as beautiful and magical. A kindly dragon, she sings to the land every spring, ensuring good weather and a bountiful harvest for those people and animals who share her kingdom".

This was a really difficult model to build.

I wanted to see if I could make a more delicate and "Pern-like" dragon than Adalinda and I built Aria in Blender. I also decided to rig her so I could experiment with poses and re-use the model if I wanted to. I should warn you that using rigged models isn't a case of "just pose and print" - any high resolution modelling will have to be completed after the pose is baked (I believe is the term) into the geometry. The temptation is to put your model into an elaborate pose but you will quickly find that the original idea is unprintable and you really have to work the angles to keep the look. I wanted to keep her crouching like a lizard would, rather than the Adalinda model which is sitting flat on the ground. However, to keep her support free, I wanted to keep her looking up - which I think gives her a gentle appearance.

I found this excellent dragon rigging and modelling tutorial series on Blender Cookie:

http://cgcookie.com/blender/cgc-courses/creating-a-stylized-dragon/

It is by David Ward and it's free (yay!) and very useful but it doesn't cover 3D printing considerations (I was on my own there). Aria is my first rigged model and there is no way I would have progressed without the guidance from David's tutorial.

The style of Aria was also inspired by the fabulous dragon sculpture on the Dragon Bridge found in Ljubljana:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Bridge_%28Ljubljana%29

Aria's story is rather silly but a domestic party requested one. An uncharitable suggestion (from same party) has been made that Aria charms the land to ensure she has plenty of fat cows, pigs and sheep to eat:-)

Instructions

You can print this model without supports. She is 13cm tall.

More from Creatures

view more

All Apps

This App connects Thingiverse with Makeprintable, a cloud-based mesh repair service that analyzes, validates and repairs most common mesh errors that can occur when preparing a 3D design file for p...

App Info Launch App

Kiri:Moto is an integrated cloud-based slicer and tool-path generator for 3D Printing, CAM / CNC and Laser cutting. *** 3D printing mode provides model slicing and GCode output using built-in...

App Info Launch App
KiriMoto Thing App

With 3D Slash, you can edit 3d models like a stonecutter. A unique interface: as fun as a building game! The perfect tool for non-designers and children to create in 3D.

App Info Launch App

i just finished printing it and it is awesome even better with no supports

Hello Loubie,

Your model is very beautiful.... I reproduced this with pleasure .
thank you
;)

here
http://www.lesimprimantes3d.fr/forum/topic/858-exemple-impression-discovery200/?do=findComment&comment=35788

She looks lovely. Thank you for printing her.

This is one of my favorite models on the whole site. Amazing design on the part of the creator to be able to print this without support. My first one came out pretty well, aside from a little roughness on the head. I've got some bronze-fill filament on the way that I'm going to try to print the next one in.

Dude, this model is amazing! I printed one with 0.1mm layer height with 0.4mm nozzle in ABS Green; and put it to my desk on work - everybody is impressed and asking who designed it! I am giving full credit to you - no worries - and they exclaim every time that the designer did awesome job and printer printed amazingly. I owe you big thanks for making 3D community awesome for my co-workers :)

Also, I think you should write your name, or nickname, to somewhere (like the standing table of it, for instance) I think. Some co-workers started to ask me to print some for them for some money; but that'd mean I would take all the credit (and benefit) of the thing this way. If you print your name, at least you would be known for your work.

I'm happy you enjoy Aria so much and that your colleagues like her too.

Regarding your other points. I could put a watermark on Aria, but that would likely make her far more difficult to print and impact the overall look - she really is very small and in this instance it wouldn't do much. As she is an artistic work, I am automatically covered by copyright and through the CC license which I released the model online with and you agreed to the terms of when you downloaded the model. As you can see, she is covered by CC-AT-NC, which means you must attribute me if you use her and that she cannot be used for commercial gain or profit. So, by selling prints to your colleagues for profit (for example), you would break the terms of the license and thus violate the copyright. Of course, if you want to print Arias and give them to your friends then that is perfectly fine. You could also print out the Thing Tag which gives my details and the URL, so they could see where the model originally came from.

Wow! I used a transparent red filament. She's currently watching over my computers at work and has already achieved quite a bit of fame around the office. Thanks so much for making this available.

You should take a picture of your make and post it on here. Glad you like her:-)

Since we, Just 3D Print, and other companies/individuals are being maligned and spammed by people this week for commercializing public domain CAD designs, we will post a long and thorough response on this page, and other similar pages, so that all creators can better understand all of the potential issues surrounding such commercialization, and know what they can or should do with their designs depending on if they want them commercialized by others.
Firstly, some background-
The reason that the vast majority of CAD design creators have been contacting us, and other companies, this week regarding their creations being turned into 3D printed items and sold online, is that a competitor of ours had an intern contact a few thousand creators of designs that we/others are “ripping off”(AKA making 3D printed versions of) with an email spam program that filled their entire inbox with spam emails with an all CAPS subject line akin to “WARNING: THESE @HOLES ARE RIPPING YOU OFF!!!!!”. Most creators’ spam filters blocked the messages, but a few people received them. Of these few, an even fewer number actually read the email sent and did not question the source. These individuals have gone onto various forums, websites, etc. and started berating the individuals/corporations linked to by the devious spammer to the point where the situation has snowballed such that most 3D printing companies engaged in commercialized of public domain CAD files are getting 50 emails a day about the situation claiming that we are the single worst entity in the universe engaged in pure evil or something akin. In reality, if one just searches on eBay or Amazon, one will find numerous individuals making 3D printed creations like us. On the first page alone (of 270,000 listings on eBay), there are http://goo.gl/11AsrG, http://goo.gl/2DzwnX, and http://goo.gl/H5M7Dl, as well as ourselves, selling 3D printed creations based on non-proprietary designs. Thus, creators should first understand that we, and others, are only one among probably about 5,000 individuals and businesses making 3D printed versions of open-source designs. To be honest, it is quite surprising that creators emailing us/others have not realized this before- thousands of individuals have been making 3D printed versions of their items for sale for years.
Now, to the legal issue-
So, are the thousands of us commercializing online CAD designs acting illegally/against legal precedent? The short answer is that this is usually not the case. The long answer breaks down as follows:
When someone creates anything new whatsoever, and wishes to create profit from it, there is a way of doing this. In the legal domain, it is called a “trade secret”. When you have a “trade secret”, you don’t freely distribute it. Rather, you make individuals you share it with sign a non-disclosure-agreement (commonly called an NDA), you mark all items related to your trade secret with CONFIDENTIAL, you remind individuals you are sharing the secret with that the secret is confidential, etc. In this way, you can protect your economic interest in the trade secret indefinitely (think Coca-Cola secret formula) so long as the secret never falls into public domain. Anything from Uber’s gross profit margin to a CAD file can be a trade secret if treated properly. If someone who was shared the trade secret (let’s take the Coca-Cola secret formula for example) tried to profit off of it or in any way damage the secret owner (start another soft drink brand called Best Coke which uses the Coca-Cola formula or shares the secret with Pepsi) then the secret owner can seek an adequate equitable remedy or a remedy at law (sue the person that violated the NDA/abused the secret). On a side note, if an individual starts a Best Cola using the same formula, but found the formula through experimentation/without violating an agreement, either directly or indirectly, then the original secret owner has no remedy.
If, on the other hand, the new item, for whatever reason, falls into “public domain” (it is widely available for anyone in the public to see), then the creator cannot prevent other people from doing what they will with that new item (if somehow the Coca-Cola formula got posted online and thousands saw it, Coca-Cola could no longer prevent other individuals from using it) and, if they seek remedy with these individuals, any sensible court will dismiss the case before going to trial.
The three big exceptions which lead to creations that remain protectable, despite being in public domain/widely distributed, are patented items, trademarked items, and copyrighted items. So, to bring the discussion back to the issue at hand, the big question is- do CAD files, created by individuals and shared on sites like Thingiverse (making them fall into public domain), fall under any of these three?
As far as patented items, perhaps .1% of online CAD files are as such. Of this .1%, the vast majority of the designs have either not been litigated (no one considers a patent valid until it is successfully defended in court at least once) or the owner has not taken any reasonable steps to prevent individuals from using the design as they will- which can invalidate a patent (they in fact are promoting people to void the patent by putting the design online for anyone and everyone to download). Therefore, realistically, perhaps .01% of Thingiverse, or 20,000 designs are protected by valid patents and even these valid patents would be very hard to defend in court as the owners promoted people using their designs as they willed. Nevertheless, if any creator presents us/others with an issued patent for a design, we are happy to remove an item based on said design from our marketplaces if they wish us to do so.
Next, we have trademarked items. Trademarked items are a set of words, an image, or a sound combination that clearly communicates that a product is being made by a certain brand. The vast majority of trademarks are brand names, logos, or slogans. Trademarks are much more common on Thingiverse/in created CAD files, but are rarely owned by the creator of a design. Instead, it is typically some large company (like Paramount) that owns the TMs. We have found, in our personal experience, that the majority of large companies do not care about a few fan-designed items being produced and sold on eBay/Amazon. Rather, they view it as fueling the value of the TM as it builds up a community of “super-fans” that go to see their movies, buy their things, etc. If, however, a TM owner feels differently about us, or anyone, using the TM for marketing fan-designed goods, they are welcome to reach out and say so. When we get a request to not use a TM, we of course remove any items with said TM.
Finally, there are copyrights. With 90% of public domain CAD designs clearly not addressed by patents or trademarks, copyrights are the last, best hope for a claim that a public-domain CAD design can be protected. A copyright is a protection given to “original works of art” so that creators can make a living in their creative endeavors. Typical examples of a copyright are a work of film, photography, music, or literature. So, is a CAD file an “original work of art”? No significant court has yet made this determination so, until such a time, it is anyone’s best guess. What’s more, a CAD file is really computer code/software and the question of code being an “original work of art” has been hotly debated for more than 40 years now with no end in sight. Most coders have simply given up on protecting their work and have opted for sharing it on github/elsewhere- as they know defending it will be costly and highly uncertain. Another note on copyrights is that individuals are allowed to use copyrighted material as inspiration for another creation so long as the new creation is “substantively different, transformative, or a parody” and does not negatively impact the value of the original. A classic example of this would be any Weird Al song. In the same way, if in the future it becomes settled law that original CAD designs are copyrightable, a good case could be made that 3D printed versions of these designs are transformative. After all, no one is reselling the exact same CAD files/strings of computer code, but rather using these files to create a completely different thing that could be in any number of colors, materials, scales, modifications, qualities, etc. With such extreme variance in the output of different individuals, it is a hard sell to say that everyone is selling the exact same thing. In summary, it is a significant stretch to say selling 3D printed versions of public domain CAD designs violates copyright laws/precedent.
A quick note on pictures-
Yes, all photographs are copyrighted by their creators, but in order to defend a picture/tell people not to use it, it must be registered with the U.S. copyright office. The vast majority of Thingiverse creators do not register their photographs. If we, or most others, are contacted by someone who has, and they do not wish for us to use said photograph, we/others remove it as soon as possible. We do not want to use other individual’s photos to begin with-we only do so when we have not made an item yet. When we sell the first item and print it out, we take photos of it and put those online instead.
The Thingiverse “license”-
The vast majority of “discussion”/justification for why we/others are being spammed by haters saying that we/others are “ripping creators off” of their designs comes based not on legal precedent, statutory/common/constitutional law, or any other sound grounds, but rather on the Thingiverse “non-commercial license”. This license is a complete and total fiction written up to give creators the illusion that they are retaining IP rights to their designs when they upload them to Thingiverse-thus encouraging more creators to upload designs even when doing so might not be in their best interest.
The reason the license is a fiction is that it is purely lip-service without any substance of an actual contract/license and the very drafter of the license knowingly violates it millions of times daily. Firstly, the license is not a valid contract, NDA, or any type of binding agreement for multiple reasons. One of these would be that any contract requires “consideration” to be paid by both parties-they each must pay a “real price” for entering into the agreement or it is not valid. A Thingiverse browser does not pay any real price for downloading a design. Another reason is that in the United States we have 300 years of legal precedent, law, etc. about what is public domain and what can be done with said material. Weighing this against a quick blurb written up by a 1st year law student is no comparison whatsoever- any sensible court will rule that the 300 years of public domain rules apply to a design instead of the blurb. Thirdly, anyone can download a Thingiverse design without getting an account and agreeing to the “non-commercial license” in the first place. You might object to this because Thingiverse puts a tiny disclaimer below the download button (which BTW you don’t even have to click to download the files) saying that, by downloading a file, you are agreeing to the non-c license. This, in legal terms, is called a click-wrap contract. The abilities of these contracts are incredibly limited and are more for protecting against lawsuits then initiating them.
Furthermore, Thingiverse knows that the non-commercial license is legal toilet paper so it has no qualms about violating it millions of times daily. Thingiverse is a website owned by Makerbot which is owned by Stratasys, Inc. Stratasys is a for-profit company listed on the NSDQ with a market cap of about $800M (once as high as $6B). Every for-profit company, unless otherwise specified, exists to make profits for its shareholders. So, if Thingiverse did not generate Stratasys profit, it would be ethically obligated to shut it down. But, it does. How so? The biggest four ways are through advertising, selling more printers, API/data access, and corporate partnerships. Firstly, most Thingiverse pages have advertising somewhere on them which gives Stratasys $ from sponsors who put their content there VIA Google Ads, AOL Ads, etc. Secondly, Thingiverse enables Makerbot/Stratasys to sell more printers, because they can not only market printers to Thingiverse users, but also show interested customers the 2M potential things that they could make with a 3D printer. While, technically, a large open database of things helps all 3D printer manufacturers, since Stratasys owns 30% of the consumer marker and 20% of the professional market, it is one of the largest beneficiaries. In a similar fashion, Disney funds travel commercials for Orlando/Florida because Disney captures some 30% of all the tourism dollars that come to Orlando. Thirdly, Thingiverse has just opened its API for anyone and everyone to buy into. This means we can gain access to all of Thingiverse’s data on what categories are being most viewed/download, what keywords are being searched, and in general gain any data we want on things, Thingiverse users, etc. Lastly, Thingiverse is putting in place corporate partnerships to boost profits further. For example, some users may have seen 3D Hubs icons next to things enabling them to connect with local individuals who have 3D printers and have the thing printed for them. In doing this, Stratasys/Thingiverse is DIRECTLY enabling commercialization of the “non-commercial thing” in exchange for $ from 3D Hubs. While at the moment the program is an opt-in, don’t be surprised if very soon Thingiverse makes the 3D Hubs icon either opt-out or non-removable entirely. While we could list several other ways Thingiverse makes $, any creator should get the picture by now-Thingiverse exists to make Stratasys $ off of creators’ designs in direct violation of its very own “non-commercial” license. If a creator is OK with a billion-dollar Israeli company monetizing his/her designs, but hates on a Philly startup trying to make ends-meat, then they have a very strange position indeed.
Creator’s Intentions-
Beyond the legal case for why public domain designs can be monetized, we do think it is worth addressing design creators’ feelings on the matter as we do not want to be entirely flippant of the community of which we are a part.
Based on our experience, the vast majority of creators on Thingiverse, and elsewhere, have zero intention of monetizing their work-they don’t patent it, register it, or otherwise protect it, they don’t list it for sale online, and they don’t ask anyone to pay them in exchange for their creative activities. Most creators make designs because they love doing so, they want to bring something new into this world, and they like taking part in the maker community. So, when others monetize these creators’ works, they either “don’t care” (https://goo.gl/Y8X5ck) or they just want a call-out (http://goo.gl/qoqOZ9). When these creators respectfully approach us, or others, about getting a call-out, switching photos, etc., we are happy to work with them. When instead, a vocal minority calls us “thieves”, or similar derogatory terms, we are just going to delete the email and ignore whatever false and slanderous accusations they spew.
If you are a creator and you DO wish to monetize your work, then please do NOT put it on Thingiverse. List it yourself on your own website, eBay, Amazon, Etsy, 3D Hubs, Shapeways, etc. or have a company like us do it. Not only is this easy to do, but then your CAD designs can stay as trade secrets so others cannot use them as they wish.

Conclusion
If you’ve managed to get through the four pages of this post, then you should see that, contrary to the wild and unsubstantiated claims being thrown about, we are far from some evil, thieving entity. We are currently only receiving attention as the result of a smear campaign by a competitor, tons of individuals are now monetizing open-source designs from sites like Thingiverse, the vast majority of CAD designs are not currently protected by United States IP law once they fall into public domain, the Thingiverse “non-commercial license” is legal toilet paper that Thingiverse itself violates millions of times daily, and most creators either don’t care about their works being monetized or simply want a call out- if not, they likely would never have put their designs online for anyone and everyone to download in the first place.
So, at this point, we have one of two options as a company. Firstly, we could allow the legal gray-ness of CAD designs, a smear campaign by one of our competitors, and a vocal minority of hater-creators stop us from conducting our marketplace operations. Or, we could proceed and allow both the legal aspects and the creators to sort themselves out. The cost of proceeding might be some hurt feelings, while the benefits include putting food on the table of our families, creating high-paying local jobs, contributing tax revenue to support our roads, schools, and defense, bringing manufacturing back to the USA, and, perhaps most importantly to the creators, providing thousands of customers the opportunity to buy a unique, high-quality creation that they almost certainly would not be able to acquire without the miracle of 3D printing and the maker community. Due to the overwhelming favorable outcome of this cost-benefit scenario, we have chosen to move forward and try to scale our startup instead of letting ambiguity paralyze us. Many companies most creators know and love (e.g. Ford, Microsoft, Facebook, Uber) have been in similar situations and chosen the same. In the end, consumers get to decide with their dollars what they want the marketplace to look like and trying to resist this rarely leads to good outcomes.

A note on lawsuits:
Several individuals have suggested suing us, and others, to “prove a point” that they do not wish for their designs to be monetized. While many lawyers are ethical and would warn that this would be a costly/fruitless exercise, many others are less ethical and would say such a suite would be a good idea. If you do not live in the state of the individual/company you are suing, the cost of such a suite would be $40,000 minimum and a sensible court would almost certainly either dismiss the suite entirely or in trial watch the argument for damages be completely and utterly destroyed. In the incredibly unlikely instance that such a suit won at trial, likely damages would be $0-$200 (no intention was made to monetize the property before the suite and no 3D printing service sells very many of any individual item). Thus, the bringing of such a frivolous lawsuit will leave a $39, 800 hole in the bringer’s pocket, a $40,200 hole in the defendants, and the only real winner will be the lawyers-as usual.
Instead of bringing a suit, creators should consider working with the individuals commercializing their designs to get call-outs and original pictures when possible. If creators want to monetize items themselves, they should keep the designs in-house and/or with a partner instead of posting them online. If a creator is like the vast majority out there and simply does not care what others do with their designs, please disregard this long post and continue business as usual.

A note on “ripping customers off”:
Some individuals in the forums have said that while they would be OK with us/others making a “reasonable profit”, they feel we are “ripping customers off” with our prices. This could not be further from the truth.
Firstly, no one has a gun to their head and is being forced to purchase something from us. Every individual sees the price plainly and decides that they would value the item more than the amount of money that price represents. What’s more, after receiving the item, the vast majority of customers are happy with the deal- as reflected in Just3DPrint’s eBay account having 100% positive feedback.
Secondly, in fact, we are far from “making a killing”. While most of our local competitors charge about $1.50/cubic centimeter for 3D printed plastic creations, and Sculpteo/online sites can charge $2-$5, we charge a mere $.75. When you subtract the monthly fee and 15% of sales we pay to eBay/Amazon + PayPal/our payment processing agent, the cost of liability insurance, the cost of paying our employees, the cost of the materials, electricity, and maintenance for running the 3D printers, the cost of taxes, the cost of lawyers + keeping in good legal standing, the cost of returns, the opportunity cost of not pursuing high-paying jobs in finance or elsewhere, etc. you will find that, in fact, we make a very “reasonable profit”. Occasionally, items are mispriced because the scale on them in wrong-if you come across any of these, please let us know and we will fix the price on them.

"...but rather on the Thingiverse “non-commercial license”. This license is a complete and total fiction written up to give creators the illusion that they are retaining IP rights to their designs when they upload them to Thingiverse-thus encouraging more creators to upload designs even when doing so might not be in their best interest...."
The license is not Thingiverse's, but it's a Creative Commons licence, specifically a "Creative Commons - Attribution - Non commercial" (CC BY-NC 3.0) license. It HAS legal standing (https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Case_Law), and like similar licences, if you infringe on any of its part your license to the object expires. So, essentially, if the author wanted he could claim legal compensation, or perhaps ask the FSF for legal assistance. So, don't delude yourself into thinking that because you are not being challenged what you are doing is legal.

Feb 17, 2016 - Modified Feb 17, 2016
loubie - in reply to Lisa48frog

Thanks for the heads up. I've sent them a message, so let's see what happens.

Saw this on display in a 3d printing shop (not as a product, just displayed though). So awesome!

Thanks! She turns up everywhere:-)

I printed but it came to life thanks for nothing #no

I printed but it came to life thanks for nothing #no

Beautiful job on designing for a fine 3D print. No supports needed, everything bridged great using PLA. My son, a dragon collector, is absolutely delighted with it.

Fine work here. Thank you!

Thank you for your kind comments and I am very happy that Aria is considered good enough to add to a collection:-)

I really appreciate the excellent write up. Now I'm interested in learning more about Blender. Thank you for the training recommendation.

I tried several times today to print this using a variety of slicers. My first attempt with Makerbot was really good except for the dragon's chest and part of the stool. My second attempt with Replicator G somehow did not stick to the build plate. I loved it and would like to make one for my niece. With 85 or more successful attempts I must be doing something wrong. I am still relatively new to 3d printing and am using a Flashforge Creator Pro which is very much like the Makerbot Replicator 2. Any ideas?

I'm sorry to hear you've been having problems printing Aria. I can only really advise that you check your bed leveling which may help with the adhesion and perhaps using something like Elmer's glue or blue painter's tape. As you don't really describe what the other problems were, then I can only suggest you ensure you have plenty of cooling (if printing with PLA). Aria is a challenging print but she is possible. Good luck.

I was using ABS and I did use Elmer's glue. Most all of it printed beautifully except for part of his stomach and a little of the stool. The rest is perfect so I don't think it is the level. I used the Makerbot software to slice and even tried adding a shell and reducing it to .1mm instead of .2mm. I have a Flashforge which is like a Makerbot. What would you suggest I use for a slicer/settings? Thanks so much - it is for my niece who is a huge dragon fan and your design is exactly what I was looking for.

Not having any success printing this with Repetier host, using cura slicer at .1mm layer height.

Any tips?

Thank you:-)

Fell in love with this dragon immediately. I just got my first personal printer last week and used this beauty to test multiple part printing. I have been working in a rapid prototyping lab for years and we have makerbots and powder printers but neither could have accomplished this build successfully on the first try. I was so impressed with the beauty of the end part that I will be turning it into a nightlight for my nephew when I get the time.

loubie - in reply to Tywar

I'm glad you like her and I love your print - she looks like she's carved from ice. What printer and material did you use?

Also, I don't know if you have dual extrusion on any of your machines, but I shall soon publish a re-sculpted two piece Aria: eyes and pedestal as one file and body in another. I just need to finish testing it. I plan on making little lamps when I get it to a point I am happy with.

Tywar - in reply to loubie

I'm using a FormOne+ printer with FormLabs Clear resin. I have been using Makerbots for years at my rapid prototyping lab and found they are too high maintenance for me. The Makerbots I have used need near constant supervision or something will go wrong. From what I have seen the FormOne+ has far less possible points of failure and can be left to run overnight without fear of failed prints. I am currently a college student and am staying in a dorm room. The Makerbots and powder printers are far to noisy to run in a confined space for more than a few hours. I have run prints on the FormOne+ and can sleep right next to it while its printing.

loubie - in reply to Tywar

LOL! I love my resin printers for exactly the same reason - quality of detail and nice and quiet. I don't own any Makerbot printers so I can't comment on the user experience. My Ordbot can be left on its own to print and for an FFF printer it is comparatively quiet.

Do post pictures of the Aria night light if you make it.

Please... more Dragons. This is perfect!!!

Glad you like her. There may be more dragons in the future...

We have lunched a KickStarter campaign for our industrial grade 3D printer "Rhino". We are asked to print Arla the Dragon to demonstrate the precision of our printer. Since you own the license would that be OK if we use the print as a sample for the KickStarter campaign?
Best regards
Mohsen Chamanirad
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1094677795/rhino-industrial-grade-3d-printer

Feb 14, 2015 - Modified Feb 14, 2015

Hey! I want to make a dragon chess set to print and sell. I could print this in dual extrusion if you want. Anyway, could I use your dragon for my chess set?
If you want it printed in dual extrusion I would need some directions as to how you'd like it printed? Why do you want it printed dual extrusion? Just to see if it works? Do you want the pillar printed apart from the dragon? (in that case 2 files would be needed) 1 dragon file, and 1 pillar file.

Thank you for your interest, but both Adalinda the Singing Serpent and Aria the Dragon have a non-commercial license which means they cannot be used commercially by anyone other than myself.

Hi, are you able to upload this as a 2 material file. Pillar and Dragon?

Jan 24, 2015 - Modified Jan 24, 2015
loubie - in reply to W3nD7

I could do, but it will take a bit of thought and work. It'll help if I know what you want separate files for. This for dual extrusion?

Yes, to make the Dragon and the Pile in different Colours with dual extrusion.

Well, if you have a dual extrusion printer set up (I don't at the moment) and are prepared to help me with testing, then I don't mind putting in the work as I think it is an interesting idea. PM me if you are.

Jan 15, 2015 - Modified Jan 15, 2015

I love Dragon Riders of Pern!!!! Thanks for making this!

Thank you very much:-)

Wow, this is just amazing. Yeah, going to the top of the queue. Well done, yet again.

Thank you very much - she is the first fully rigged model I've ever made and that was an adventure (in a geeky 3D modeling sense)

She's just beautiful, really. I actually just started learning (or to attempt learning) about rigging. It's pretty awesome, and if I can wrap my head around it, it'll make the miniature design process a lot easier. Are you using Blender?

Thank you again. Yes, I use Blender and I found an excellent tutorial on rigging (which actually use a dragon as a project) on Blender Cookie. The link is in the Thing info. However, you want to rig and pose very basic versions of your models and save the sculpting until the pose that been baked into the model. Trying to pose a hi-res sculpted model gets very ugly and unprintable results.

What printer or printers did you use to print this model?

The blue Aria was printed on an Aluminatus clone and the green Aria was printed 3DS Projet 1200. The blue filament is ColorFabb Ultramarine. The green resin is 3DS VisiJet FTX Green.

deja vu?
thought I already saw and liked this. (maybe a premonition??)

Yeah - I managed to delete it yesterday. Doh!

Top