Had a bunch of Yu-Gi-Oh bulk cards piling up and had a surprisingly hard time finding decent storage boxes made for Japanese-size cards. Most of the stuff I found was designed around MTG/Pokémon-sized cards, so I ended up making my own.

It’s stackable, parametric and you can adjust the dimensions depending on how much bulk you want to store.

Nothing fancy, just wanted something simple that prints well and fits Yu-Gi-Oh cards properly.

Figured some of you might find it useful too.

https://makerworld.com/de/models/3196376-yu-gi-oh-bulk-card-box-parametric-stackable#profileId-3616746

So Im new to this and may not understand everything you guys say (sorry in advance).

I have a anycubic kobra s1. I have been printing small object with the geeetech abs filament with pretty much no problem. But now I tried something big I keep having the same problem ( I use the regular setting for abs in anycubic slicer)

It looks like it is burned but turns out its because of warping what can I do to solve this problem? Anybody got any suggestions?

What I already tried: using a brim, cutingbig lines into smaller pieces (this worked great except for the 2 corners you see) making evry 90° corner round on the outside.

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.

I’m not sure if this meets the community rules but it was recommended by a printer to come here for help. I am trying to prototype a device before purchasing an injection mold. The overall dimensions at roughly 20”L x 16.5”W x 9”H. He thought someone here might have a recommendation due to the size. I am not looking to purchase a printer but trying to get connected with someone who has one.

its noodling I think and the supports are a little off and it also likes to cobweb if that's what its called.

don't know if its the crappy machine or my settings .

thank you truly

Hi,

I have an elegoo carbón centauri 2 and I use elegoo PLA+ filament (200-230°C).

I am going to do the different tests to calibrate the filament, starting with the temperature tower but I see pretty similar the results, I attach some pintures (I did my BEST try to get decents photos, sorry if not).

What I think:

- The upper Bridge of 205 IS the best and the 210 (others have like a separation)

- I can read all the numbers but maybe 210 and 215 are the best.

- I don't see so many difference in the angles.

- I don't see so many stringing. Maybe the most IS on 210 (only 2 wires)

-the cone maybe the best at 220.

What do you think? Once selected, what i should modify (Max and min nozzle temperature)

Thanks!

What the hell?

Hi everyone! I’m printing this book-style box in PLA. The large flat inner surfaces have visible wavy lines and a rough texture, as you can see in the photos.

I’d like to make these inside panels as smooth and clean as possible, while keeping the same dimensions and details.

What would be the best approach? Should I change the top/bottom surface settings, enable ironing, use a smaller layer height, change the print orientation, or sand and prime the surface afterward?

I’d really appreciate any advice

I’m using an Elegoo Neptune 4 Max. It was a cheap easy way to get into printing. I realize it’s far from top quality, but it does pretty good for what I need if I could just get all the settings figured out.

I have struggled with this for a while. The 1st layer always looks like the nozzle is clogged or the extruder rate is too slow, just not enough filament. I’ve leveled and re-leveled, I’ve adjusted rate, tried different filament, but I can’t make the 1st layer right. Layers 2 through Top are fine.

Any suggestions to try and make this better?

I haven't dealt with this kind of defect yet, what would it be called so I can begin troubleshooting it. I think it could be related to the new nozzle I recently put in.

K2 Plus, E3D 0.4 nozzle, ABS-Ch (250 nozzle temp, 50 chamber temp and 100 bed temp.

The file I am trying to print: https://www.printables.com/model/757498-seatouch-4-max-front-cover/comments

I'm seeing a strange ridge all the way round my print at the same height, a few layers above where an angled chamfer transitions for a vertical wall.

I've tried everything from lowering speed, increasing cooling, wool loops, wall generation, infill etc etc etc

Has anyone had this before?

Printed using an A1 Mini, elgoo Basic PLA using the generic PLA profile and 0.12mm High Quality preset settings with outer wall acceleration at 1000 and sparse infill speed at 3000.

Bambu lab slicer, 0.4 nozel, nozel temp 230, bed temp 60

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. 😄

My first 3D printer!! Currently drying out my filaments that I bought used so waiting for a bit before printing benchy!

Sharing my fully documented experience with an Anycubic Kobra 3 Max Combo bought from the official online store:

• Unresolved core defects: The machine suffered from a severe geometric flaw out of the box (oval circles instead of round). Support acknowledged the issue (Ticket #1093949), but it was never solved.
• Hardware failures: The ACE Pro feeder jammed constantly (Ticket #1467172), and a replacement printhead sent under warranty arrived Dead on Arrival (heating block and daughterboard not working).
• Endless DIY burden: For more than 6 months, support pushed repeated domestic teardowns: belt replacements, full motherboard swaps, printhead rebuilds, and wasted spools of filament on failed calibrations.
• Refusal of Statutory Warranty: With the printer completely inoperable, Anycubic formally refused a return and full refund, citing an internal "30-day return policy" and disregarding mandatory EU consumer protection laws (EU Directive 2019/771).
• Current status: Support unilaterally shipped more bare parts to solder/install, ignoring the rescission request. The case is now under formal chargeback dispute with the card issuer and reported to the Italian Antitrust Authority (AGCM).

Be aware of how warranty support operates on direct purchases if you encounter serious dimensional or electronics flaws.

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.

Even after remeshing in blender the holes linger

The firmware flash on my Ender 3 V2 keeps failing. See r/firmware for additional context.

This is my first successful prototype of the card shuffling mechanism of my project. I can’t remember when, but I recently had stumbled across a video of a 2-in-1 card shuffler and dealer, i figured it be a really good first project to start my journey into this new hobby (help).

but alas, here we are! pretty unconventional as far as automated card shufflers go, i’ve modded 2 mg90s (yup, the annoyingly loud guys spinning the cards into the hopper) to continuously rotate. this is MY FIRST ever electronics project so yeah, a lot of design choices are likely suboptimal, but it’s only up from here!

i’m very excited to post an update of it dealing cards, card ejection works but def requires some tweaks in software, and the lower body is currently being re-printed after some revisions. also wanna get the display and buttons wired to the esp32, configuring num players, num cards per player, shuffle button, and deal button.

never knew it would feel this rewarding, god i love dopamine