#Plastic Part Design Optimization

[aprios]

DfM vs DfAM: What’s the Right Approach for Your Product Design

When bringing a new product to market, one of the earliest and most consequential decisions you'll make isn't about marketing strategy or pricing—it's about your design approach. The methodology you choose fundamentally impacts everything from production costs and timelines to your product's ultimate quality and performance.

Today's manufacturing landscape presents two primary design philosophies: traditional Design for Manufacturing (DfM) and the newer, increasingly important Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM). These approaches represent fundamentally different ways of thinking about how your product will come to life.

For companies seeking design for manufacturing solutions, understanding the distinction between these methodologies isn't just academic—it's essential to your bottom line. Choose incorrectly, and you might face unnecessary costs, production delays, or even design compromises that affect your product's functionality.

In this comprehensive guide, we'll explore:

The fundamental principles behind DfM and DfAM

Critical differences in approach and application

How to determine which methodology fits your specific product needs

Real-world applications in various industries, including medical devices

Integration strategies that leverage the best of both worlds

Future trends shaping design for manufacturing

Whether you're developing consumer products, medical devices, industrial equipment, or specialized components, understanding these design approaches will empower you to make informed decisions that optimize both production efficiency and product performance. Let's dive into the details that matter.

Ready to optimize your product design process? Schedule a consultation call with our engineering team to identify the ideal design approach for your specific needs.

What is Design for Manufacturing (DfM)?

Design for Manufacturing (DfM) represents a traditional but highly refined approach to product development that focuses on optimizing designs for efficient, cost-effective production using conventional manufacturing methods. This methodology has been the backbone of industrial production for decades, evolving alongside manufacturing technologies to create increasingly sophisticated products.

Core Principles of DfM

At its heart, DfM involves anticipating and addressing manufacturing requirements during the earliest stages of product design. Rather than creating a design and then figuring out how to manufacture it (often leading to costly redesigns), DfM integrates manufacturing considerations from day one.

The fundamental principles of design for manufacturing services include:

Material Selection Optimization: Choosing materials that balance performance requirements with manufacturing constraints and cost considerations.

Production Process Alignment: Designing components specifically for the intended manufacturing process, whether injection molding, CNC machining, sheet metal fabrication, or other traditional methods.

Assembly Simplification: Reducing part count, minimizing assembly steps, and standardizing components to streamline production.

Tolerance Management: Designing with appropriate tolerances that maintain functionality while avoiding unnecessarily tight tolerances that drive up costs.

When implemented properly, design for manufacturing solutions lead to products that not only perform as intended but can be efficiently produced at scale with consistent quality.

DfM for Traditional Manufacturing Methods

Different manufacturing processes come with their own design requirements and constraints. Let's explore how DfM principles apply to common production methods:

Injection Molding

Design for Injection Molding requires specific considerations like:

Uniform wall thicknesses to prevent warping and sink marks

Appropriate draft angles for smooth part ejection

Strategic rib placement for structural integrity without excessive material

Gate location planning to minimize visible marks and optimize flow

These considerations are particularly important for high-volume production, where minor design inefficiencies can multiply into significant costs across thousands or millions of units.

CNC Machining

DfM for machined parts focuses on:

Designing geometries accessible to cutting tools

Minimizing the number of machine setups required

Avoiding deep pockets that require specialized tooling

Planning for fixturing and workholding during fabrication

Here's the thing: while these traditional manufacturing methods have significant limitations, they've been refined over decades to achieve remarkable efficiency when designs properly accommodate their constraints.

DfM in Medical Device Development

One area where traditional DfM remains particularly crucial is in DFM for medical devices. The medical device industry faces unique challenges that make thoughtful design for manufacturing essential:

Regulatory requirements demand consistent quality and traceability

Patient safety depends on manufacturing precision and reliability

Sterilization requirements influence material and design choices

High-volume production must maintain exacting standards

For medical device manufacturers, integrating DfM principles early in development helps navigate these challenges while controlling costs. The structured approach of traditional DfM aligns well with the documentation requirements and validation protocols common in regulated industries.

Now let's dive into how additive manufacturing is changing this landscape.

Understanding Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM)

While traditional manufacturing methods subtract material (cutting, drilling) or reshape it (molding, forming), additive manufacturing builds objects layer by layer. This fundamental difference requires an entirely different design approach: Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM).

Breaking Free from Traditional Constraints

DfAM represents a paradigm shift in how we think about product design. Rather than designing around the limitations of conventional manufacturing processes, DfAM embraces the unique capabilities of additive technologies. This approach offers extraordinary freedom to create previously impossible geometries.

The core advantages of DfAM include:

Complex Geometries: Creating internal channels, lattice structures, and organic shapes that would be impossible or prohibitively expensive with traditional methods.

Part Consolidation: Combining multiple components into single, complex parts to eliminate assembly steps and potential failure points.

Mass Customization: Economically producing variations of a design without the tooling changes required by traditional manufacturing.

Weight Optimization: Developing structures that use material only where needed for strength while minimizing weight in non-critical areas.

What does this mean for you? The ability to reimagine products entirely rather than simply adapting existing designs to manufacturing constraints.

DfAM Principles and Methodologies

Effective DfAM requires understanding both the capabilities and limitations of various additive technologies. Each 3D printing process—whether powder bed fusion, material extrusion, vat photopolymerization, or others—comes with its own design considerations.

Topology Optimization

One of the most powerful DfAM approaches is topology optimization, which uses computational algorithms to determine the optimal material distribution within a design space. This data-driven approach creates structures that:

Maximize strength-to-weight ratios

Distribute stress more effectively

Reduce material usage while maintaining performance

Often result in organic, non-intuitive geometries

Support Structure Considerations

Unlike traditional manufacturing, many additive processes require support structures for overhangs and other challenging geometries. Effective DfAM addresses this by:

Orienting parts to minimize support requirements

Designing self-supporting features where possible

Creating easily removable supports that don't compromise surface finish

Incorporating supports as functional elements of the final design

When DfAM Excels

Design for Additive Manufacturing offers particular advantages in certain scenarios:

Low-volume, high-complexity parts where tooling costs would be prohibitive

Highly customized products tailored to individual user requirements

Lightweighting applications in aerospace, automotive, and other weight-sensitive industries

Consolidated assemblies that reduce part count and assembly complexity

Fluid flow optimization through complex internal channels and structures

Now that we've explored both approaches individually, let's examine how to determine which one best suits your specific project needs.

Choosing the Right Approach: Decision Factors

Selecting between DfM and DfAM isn't a matter of which approach is universally "better"—it's about identifying which methodology aligns with your specific product requirements, production volumes, and business objectives. Here's a systematic framework to guide your decision.

Production Volume Considerations

One of the most significant factors in your design approach decision is the anticipated production volume:

High-Volume Production

For products produced in thousands or millions of units, traditional design for manufacturing solutions often remain the most cost-effective approach. While initial tooling costs for processes like injection molding can be substantial, these costs amortize across large production runs, resulting in very low per-unit manufacturing costs.

DfM excels here because:

Per-part costs decrease dramatically at scale

Process consistency and quality control are well-established

Production speeds for conventional methods typically outpace additive manufacturing

Low-Volume Production

For products with annual volumes in the dozens or hundreds, DfAM often provides compelling advantages:

Elimination of expensive tooling costs

Faster time-to-market without mold creation lead times

Greater design flexibility for iterative improvements

Economic feasibility for customized variants

Geometric Complexity Requirements

The complexity of your product's geometry should heavily influence your design approach:

Simple Geometries

Products with relatively simple geometries—those made primarily of prismatic shapes, uniform wall thicknesses, and limited internal features—often benefit from traditional DfM approaches. These designs readily accommodate conventional manufacturing processes without significant compromise.

Complex Geometries

When your product requires:

Internal channels or structures

Organic, non-uniform shapes

Lattice or honeycomb structures for weight reduction

Consolidated parts with complex interfaces

DfAM provides capabilities that traditional manufacturing simply cannot match, or can only achieve at prohibitive cost.

Material Requirements

Your material selection requirements play a crucial role in determining the appropriate design approach:

Wide Material Selection

Traditional manufacturing offers access to thousands of material formulations with well-documented properties, certifications, and performance histories. If your product requires specific:

Medical-grade polymers with regulatory approvals

High-performance engineering plastics with precise specifications

Materials with specialized characteristics (optical clarity, biocompatibility, etc.)

Traditional design for manufacturing services may provide advantages due to the broader material ecosystem.

Specialized Material Properties

Conversely, additive manufacturing excels with:

Multi-material components

Gradient materials with varying properties

Novel materials specifically formulated for additive processes

Materials with properties tailored through print parameters

Time-to-Market Pressures

Market timing often drives design methodology decisions:

For rapid product development where beating competitors to market represents significant value, DfAM often enables faster development cycles by:

Eliminating tooling lead times (often 8-16 weeks for injection molds)

Facilitating rapid design iterations without tool modifications

Enabling parallel development of multiple design candidates

For products entering established markets where cost optimization matters more than speed, traditional DfM's focus on production efficiency may deliver greater long-term value.

Here's a comparison table summarizing key decision factors:

Factor

Favors DfM

Favors DfAM

Production Volume

High (10,000+ units)

Low to Medium (<1,000 units)

Geometric Complexity

Low to Medium

High

Material Requirements

Standard, well-characterized

Specialized or novel

Time-to-Market

Standard

Accelerated

Cost Structure

Higher upfront, lower per-unit

Lower upfront, higher per-unit

Product Lifecycle

Long, stable

Short, evolving

Hybrid Approaches: Combining DfM and DfAM

The decision between DfM and DfAM isn't always binary. Many successful product development strategies leverage hybrid approaches that combine the strengths of both methodologies. This integration can create powerful synergies that optimize both design performance and manufacturing efficiency.

Strategic Integration Strategies

Effective hybrid approaches typically implement one of several integration strategies:

1. Component-Based Hybridization

In this approach, different components within the same product use different design methodologies based on their specific requirements:

Complex, low-stress components leverage DfAM for geometric freedom

High-stress structural components use traditional DfM for proven reliability

High-volume, simple components utilize conventional manufacturing for cost efficiency

This strategic allocation of design approaches optimizes the overall product while respecting the strengths and limitations of each methodology.

2. Development Phase Hybridization

Another effective approach uses different methodologies at different stages of product development:

Concept development and early prototyping utilize DfAM for rapid iteration

Late-stage prototyping transitions to DfM principles to prepare for mass production

Manufacturing validation uses processes identical to final production

This progression allows teams to maintain agility early while ensuring manufacturability as the design matures.

Case Study: Medical Device Development

The medical device industry provides excellent examples of successful hybrid approaches. Consider a complex surgical instrument development program:

Critical handles and grips are designed using traditional DFM for medical devices to ensure reliable ergonomics and cost-effective production

Complex internal mechanisms leverage DfAM to reduce part count and enable sophisticated functionality

Prototypes use additive manufacturing for rapid testing iterations

Final production implements injection molding for high-volume components alongside selective additive manufacturing for complex subassemblies

This integrated approach delivers a superior product faster than either methodology could achieve independently.

Now let's dive deeper into real-world applications of both approaches.

Real-World Applications and Case Studies

Understanding how DfM and DfAM principles apply in practice helps clarify when each approach delivers optimal results. Let's examine specific applications across different industries.

DfM Success Stories

Consumer Electronics

A leading consumer electronics manufacturer implemented comprehensive design for manufacturing solutions when developing a new portable device. Their approach included:

Material selection optimized for both structural requirements and injection molding process parameters

Design modifications to eliminate undercuts and simplify tooling

Strategic use of snap-fits and self-locating features to reduce assembly time by 47%

Wall thickness standardization to prevent warping and sink marks

The result? Production costs decreased by 22% compared to the previous generation while maintaining premium build quality and reducing assembly defects by over 60%.

Medical Device Manufacturing

A medical diagnostics company applied DFM for medical devices when developing a new point-of-care testing platform:

Components were designed specifically for automated assembly

Material selection focused on biocompatibility and regulatory compliance

Tolerance stacking analysis identified and resolved potential fit issues before tooling

Design validation included manufacturing process simulation

These efforts reduced their production ramp-up time from 9 months to just 7 weeks while maintaining 100% compliance with regulatory requirements.

DfAM Transformations

Aerospace Component Redesign

An aerospace manufacturer redesigned a critical ducting component using DfAM principles:

Consolidated 18 separate parts into a single printed component

Reduced weight by 64% through topology optimization

Improved airflow efficiency by 23% using organic internal geometries

Eliminated multiple assembly operations and potential leak points

The redesigned component not only performed better but eliminated tooling costs and simplified supply chain management.

Customized Medical Implants

A medical device company implemented DfAM to create patient-specific implants:

Each implant is designed using patient CT scan data

Lattice structures promote tissue integration while maintaining strength

Production requires no tooling, enabling economical patient-specific manufacturing

Design-to-delivery time reduced from weeks to days

This application demonstrates how DfAM enables entirely new product categories that would be impossible with traditional manufacturing approaches.

What does this mean for you? The right design approach depends entirely on what you're trying to accomplish—mass production efficiency or design innovation—and sometimes, the best answer involves elements of both.

Future Trends: The Evolving Landscape of Manufacturing Design

The boundary between DfM and DfAM continues to evolve as manufacturing technologies advance and design tools become more sophisticated. Understanding emerging trends helps companies stay ahead of the curve and make forward-looking design decisions.

Artificial Intelligence in Design

AI is transforming both traditional design for manufacturing services and additive approaches:

Generative design algorithms automatically explore thousands of design iterations that balance performance requirements with manufacturing constraints

Machine learning systems predict manufacturing outcomes based on design parameters, enabling proactive optimization

AI-powered design validation tools identify potential issues earlier in the development process

These technologies are breaking down the traditional barriers between design and manufacturing, creating more integrated processes regardless of manufacturing method.

Materials Innovation

Novel materials are expanding the capabilities of both traditional and additive manufacturing:

Advanced composites with engineered properties are becoming compatible with injection molding processes

New additive materials increasingly match or exceed the performance of traditional engineering materials

Multi-material printing capabilities enable previously impossible functional gradients within parts

As material options expand, the decision factors between DfM and DfAM shift from "can it be made?" to "what's the most efficient way to make it?"

Sustainability Considerations

Sustainability is becoming a critical design factor across all manufacturing approaches:

Design for disassembly and recycling is being integrated into traditional DfM principles

DfAM enables material reduction through topology optimization and lattice structures

Lifecycle assessment tools help designers quantify the environmental impact of different design and manufacturing approaches

Forward-thinking companies are finding that sustainable design practices often align with manufacturing efficiency, creating business and environmental benefits simultaneously.

Convergence of Technologies

Perhaps the most significant trend is the gradual convergence of traditional and additive technologies:

Hybrid manufacturing systems combine additive and subtractive processes in single machines

Production lines increasingly integrate both methodologies within unified workflows

Design software bridges the gap between approaches, allowing designers to apply appropriate principles to different features

This convergence suggests that the future won't be about choosing between DfM and DfAM but rather about seamlessly integrating the right approach for each specific design challenge.

Conclusion: Making the Right Choice for Your Product

The choice between Design for Manufacturing (DfM) and Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM) represents more than just a technical decision—it's a strategic choice that impacts your product's performance, cost structure, and time-to-market. As we've explored throughout this article, each approach offers distinct advantages for different scenarios.

Traditional DfM continues to excel for high-volume production where cost efficiency and proven materials are paramount. Its structured methodology aligns perfectly with industries requiring regulatory compliance, consistent quality, and established supply chains. For many products, particularly those produced in large quantities, design for manufacturing solutions remain the optimal approach.

Conversely, DfAM unlocks unprecedented design freedom, enabling complex geometries, part consolidation, and customization that traditional methods simply cannot achieve. For low-volume, high-complexity applications or products requiring rapid development, DfAM provides compelling advantages that can transform your approach to innovation.

Many leading companies are discovering that integrating both methodologies—applying each where it delivers the greatest value—creates the optimal development strategy. This hybrid approach harnesses the efficiency of traditional manufacturing alongside the design freedom of additive technologies.

[koimethehorizon]

Fionna and Cake theory: Simon the Artist

Nothing like a good old creative panic attack.

Fionna and Cake good. Haven’t been excited about a show like this in a long time, though it being a part of Adventure Time does help quite a bit. I was holding on to some cautious optimism for the show when it was announced as yet another big IP series covering the multiverse (still waiting to groan at THAT scene where Prismo has to explain to us about there being infinite universes), but as usual, Adventure Time’s crew continues to surprise me with its creativity, humor, and thematic resonance.

The most striking part about Fionna and Cake so far is just how deliberately the show wants us to differentiate it from the original Adventure Time.

We’re getting shots where Simon pops an artery from his arm, a theme song that explicitly talks about suicidal ideation, discussions of rent and financial problems, and curses no longer disguised with AT’s usual dialogue. Adventure Time has always had violence, thematic density, and juvenile rating pushers, but they were always reserved at small points. Meanwhile, these are factors that are just casually shown and discussed in Fionna and Cake every 3 minutes or so. This is not an all-ages miniseries, it’s for young adults. (hint: this will be relevant later)

Let’s get right into it. This is much less a speculative lore theory and more on what thematic direction the story may be going.

Before we do, let’s get this out of the way first. This theory assumes that the current Fionna and Cake world is all a part of Simon’s head and not merely a separate multiverse, which… I’m certain is fact for the following reasons.

The immediately obvious piece is that Fionna and Cake was always the Ice King’s fanfiction. Now if you’re versed in AT’s continuity you’re probably going to be asking about the red light in Fionna and Cake + Fionna and… I’ve no answer for it unfortunately. It’ll probably be relevant later in the series and possibly age this post like milk but for now, we’re not here to focus on the how, but the why.

Second is that the intro and the ending of Ep 2 literally show Fionna’s world spilling right out of Simon’s head like an animated world out of a frozen brain. If that isn’t clear enough-

Didn't realize this until writing, but these glasses are just plastic made to look like Betty's

There’s no other explanation for this other than that this world is artificial or influenced by Simon in some sense. Fionna even specifies that the statue went under renovation 12 years ago, but nobody seems to know who it is. Considering how Finn looks in the episode, it’s likely that it’s been that long since Betty’s sacrifice in the finale.

With that out of the way, here it goes.

The reason Fionna and Cake exist in the first place is because the creators found Natasha Allegri’s genderswap designs charming and wanted an in-universe reason to use them the Ice King wanted to create trashy, wish fulfillment through art. It was a phase.

Definitely changed that image for publishing.

Simon can argue if they’re good or bad but it’s undeniably his art. It’s not just a portfolio he left behind in a closet, it’s an experience that was shared with a larger audience.

And even if wasn’t liked at first, the citizens of Ooo seemed to have come around to it. And some of them love it!

Whether Simon likes it or not, he has a fan base that is so endeared to the story he made all those years ago that they demand he makes more. Why let a good story, loved by many, go to rest when you still have some life and creativity left in you?

Can't move on in more ways than one.

Except, the problem is that Simon isn’t Ice King anymore. He’s aged out of it.

His real passion is history, he's an adult who who finds passion in the mundane and antiques from the past. And frankly, there isn’t much room for wish-fulfillment and fantasy anymore. Simon has responsibilities. He has a job and a daughter in a world that is moving faster than he can process.

And where Ice King wrote about looking for love, Simon has already had it.

And lost it. His mind isn’t focused on the rosiness of finding new love, it’s grieving the one he already thought was the one.

Wasn't he supposed to be good with kids?

Despite his new life experiences, all his peers seem to want from him is to make more of what they’re familiar with.

A story made from wants and wishes that he doesn’t even have anymore.

A story that was literally made by someone else at a different time. It’s a fiction he cannot connect to anymore, art that he’s embarrassed by. Yet also jealous of. Because at one point, the body Simon used to be in understood what exactly was missing from his life and could express that easily.

Seeing it again is like experiencing a retrospection of a cringey loser you don’t want to imagine having ever been. It’s not you anymore, and you don’t want to be reminded of that.

Because despite him having a new creative passion, no one seems to care about that. All they want is Fionna and Cake. And what is more lonely than other people misunderstanding what you’re trying to express?

If I failed to make it clear somehow, my theory is that: Simon’s relationship with Fionna and Cake is a metaphor for creators growing out of their art. And this new Fionna and Cake world is still comfort art born out of Simon’s current desires and perceptions.

The snippet subtitles this “child holding a phone”. I guess I’m wrong. Essay over.

Episode 1 and 2 both have direct parallels with each other. They’re both about a protagonist who are feeling displaced from their world, living a phase of losing a significant other, leaving a thankless job, wearing a mask of stability in front of the people they care for, seeking a guru at the heart of the forest, and concluding that they no longer belong in their current world.

But more importantly, Fionna and Cake (the characters, the world, and the show) are no longer for an all-ages crowd. Fionna and Cake now feature young adults, curses, gore, alcohol, partial nudity, financial issues, morning routines, mid-life crisis, and overt suicidal ideation. These are the feelings that Simon relates to and possibly desires to express through art. Thus, his story and our new miniseries have warped that way.

Am I overthinking this? No. How dare you assume that.

Is equating the unconscious writings of his dementia-ridden self to Simon as his younger self seem a bit odd? ….Kinda. Again, it’s not the how but the why that matters in this case. I'm NOT crazy, I have proof that there is some acknowledgment of this directly in the show.

Rewatch the bar scene and apply this reading of the episode to what Simon says there:

“Your old stuff, Fionna and Cake, honest to glob my man, is an inspiration to me.”

“My old stuff, I don’t really want to talk about my old stuff…”

“Why not? You should be proud! You wrote an entire extended universe in a fugue state if you think about it.”

"Simon cringes"

If you have ever shared art with a group of people in the past, you’ve had this conversation.

Not likely, not possibly, no perhapses. You HAVE.

And Fionna and Cake being an epilogue to a massive award-winning, near-decade-spanning, cultural sensation 5 years after it ended, might result in its creators feeling very retrospective about what audiences want from them now.

And how difficult it’s going to be to tell new experiences and tones from what’s come before. Also, come on. “Extended Universe?” That doesn’t sound like Fionna and Cake. That sounds a lot like something else.

Again, seems bad with this kid.

One of the more profound shots in the main trailer for the show features the inconspicuously Finn-like kid crouching at her Fionna and Cake book in Simon’s trash. I believe this character is going to have a major role in two ways. Convincing Simon to be proud of what he’s accomplished and/or embracing that Simon wants to move away from his original work in order to create something new, or perhaps more likely, reinvent Fionna and Cake into what Simon relates to now.

We’ll just have to see what Simon thinks of his new Fionna next week.

PS. Talking as a fan now, WHAT IS UP WITH THE 1000+ TREEHOUSE IN THE INTRO?!!! ARE WE REVISITING THIS TIMELINE AGAIN?

SOMEONE TELL ME NOW!!!

[alexanderwales]

Game Review: Factorio: Space Age (pt 2)

This is the second part of my review of Factorio: Space Age, covering the planets. This will have more spoilers than the previous section, but also include more cohesive thoughts on the expansion as a whole.

Vulcanus

Once you've built a spaceship, you have a choice of three planets to go to, and you can do them in any order you'd like. Each planet comes with its own researchable rewards, which require you to build up a base on the planet capable of making a science pack and shipping it into space (or alternately, to remake all sciences on the planet, but this is stupid and pointless given what lies further down the tech tree).

I chose Vulcanus first. There are five resources here, three of which can't be found anywhere else: coal, sulfuric acid, calcite, tungsten ore, and lava. Lava gets used to make anything having to do with copper and iron using the foundry, which is most of the things in Factorio. Sulfuric acid gets used with calcite to make water, which is one of the notable things missing from Vulcanus, along with oil. Plastic requires a long chain to make: coal liquefaction into heavy oil into light oil into petroleum into plastic. Because rockets require plastic twice (LDS and blue chips), you eventually need to set up a fairly sizeable build for this.

I didn't find any of this to be too interesting. Infinite resources are at least different, but there was nothing that fundamentally changed how I view the game, and I ended up setting up a bus with more fluids than usual, mostly making on-site plates, pipes, steel, etc. The art for it is cool, and impassable lava is at least a little constraining, but I didn't feel like it was all that great.

Tungsten ore is the main material from Vulcanus, and it's defended by the other major thing that makes the place unique, the worms. Each worm has a territory, and until you've killed your first worm, you don't have access to a tungsten ore patch, only loose scraps that have been laying around.

The worms are long and segmented, very distinct from the biters. They disable electronics with their attacks, making fountains of lava beneath you, and overall I think they're cool ... except that they're a little too easy to defeat. I set up a grid of 50 turrets with armor-piercing ammo, and that proved sufficient.

This is a boring solution. I wish it didn't work. It was the first thing I tried, and afterward I thought ... well, what was the point of that? I don't have a good solution to what you'd want to do to stop this from working, but I do think this is sort of bad design, since it's a "more dakka" solution. I've also seen that you can build a tank and take one out with a single uranium shell, which is even worse design. What I wanted was a fight were I needed to use poison capsules, land mines, strategically placed turrets, etc., some kind of mixed-asset offensive package, and what I got was fifty turrets in a stupid grid. I really do try to not be one of those players that optimizes myself out of having fun, but it's hard to motivate myself to do something the pointlessly hard way when there's something simple, easy, and foolproof.

The other thing about demolishers is that they have their own territory, and that territory never changes. This means that if you want to expand beyond a relatively modest starting patch, you need to kill them ... but unless you're going for a megabase, you don't need to kill more than three or four of them across the entire time playing the game, and since they only attack if you build in their territory, those worm encounters become like 1% of the Vulcanus experience.

I would have liked if the worm territories changed. I think it would have been cool if they fought each other for dominance over an area in a way you could capitalize on, or if they would expand into places that no one had claimed, or places a dead rival had left behind. It would have been cool to require the player to build up some do-nothing machines or other infrastructure to keep the worms back, like a sort of "build this at the edge of your territory to be in constant motion to convince the worms that it's occupied" type of thing. But instead, you just kill the worms and that's that, you never see them again unless you go hunting them. According to my end-of-game statistics, I killed 8 small demolishers and 2 medium demolishers, which was probably 5 more worms than I needed to kill, since I ended up with a lot of empty space I didn't do anything with.

So overall, Vulcanus is the weakest of the planets for me, and I think that's at least partly down to the under-use of the worms and the simplicity of the "new" mechanics.

Fulgora

Fulgora contains the ruins of a vast civilization, and there are no resources except the heavy oil between islands and the scrap that's left behind. Solar is terrible on Fulgora, but there are lightning storms at night, and lightning towers can collect it into accumulators to power your base.

Scrap gets "recycled" into a bunch of different things, and so it quickly because a nightmare of sorting things out, dealing with excess products, and turning complex materials into simple ones. There are no iron plates, those need to be recycled from iron gears. There are no copper platers, those need to be recycled from copper wire. Blue chips, which in any other circumstance need to be jealously guarded, are found in abundance.

I found this to be great fun. The challenge is certainly unique, turning the production chain on its head, but it has a nice "ramp" to it, as first you get a pile of crap, then you turn it into things, then you uncover excesses that are gumming it up, and the problems keep coming, but they usually come after you've solved some other problem.

When I started, I did a sushi belt (ed. - a sushi belt is a belt that contains multiple unsorted good, controlled by circuit conditions which allow certain limits of each item to go by, named after conveyor belt sushi restuarants), which was good enough for the short term and got me all the basic technologies, but ran into all the problems that come with a sushi belt, and switched over to a belt-based sorting system of splitters that could handle two full green belts of scrap input.

There is, for me, one big miss on Fulgora, which is that the lightning storms are basically not a challenge at all. You set up a grid of substations, each with a lightning rod, and that protects your base. You set up accumulator fields on one tip of the island, and this is a pretty boring solution. If you went to Gleba first, you can instead set up heating towers that burn the fuel you get from scrap, but this doesn't seem like it saves terribly much more space, and either way you need the lightning towers, so I'm not sure it's worth anything, and I never implemented that plan.

One of the other big challenges of Fulgora is that it's a set of islands, and there's no way to place anything on the oil sands. Additionally, there are two types of islands, one with a fair amount of space and minimal scrap, the other with tons of scrap and almost no room. In theory, this encourages a rail world, but in practice, the first island I plopped down on was the one I stayed on the entire time, and my rail network, such as it was, extended to only two of the smaller islands to guarantee all the scrap I would ever need. I think I rolled high on one of those islands: 63M scrap is a ton, but that's what I ended up with on default settings. With the drills from Vulcanus, expected output is double that, and with the legendary drills I can now produce, it would be 787M. There's simply not a need to place rails elsewhere.

I do feel that Fulgora would have benefitted from some enemies of some kind, either those that lived on the oil fields, so you'd have to build defenses on the edges of the islands, or some kind of robot enemy that you needed to kill to take islands from. Given the setup of an abandoned high-tech planet, and the electrical weapons you unlock there, it would have been nice to have some reason or chance to use them. I've definitely played Factorio scenarios with bot opponents and buildings that can be captured after the AI's defenses have been breached.

Still, the scrap sorting puzzle was a good one, with many solutions, and Fulgora was a ton of fun.

Gleba

Gleba is a swampy fungi planet. There are no conventional resources except for stone, and pretty much everything else is derived from two plants, jellynut and yamako, that get broken down.

The main mechanic of the planet is spoilage, where materials break down over time. Jellynut and yamako last for about an hour, the products you get from them are much less, a material made from both of them, bioflux, lasts a lot longer, and nutrients, which are fed to the new building, the biochamber, last hardly any time at all.

Spoilage is cool because it requires a very different mindset. Normally in Factorio, you're building up big buffers to minimize downtime. On Gleba, you want as little buffer as possible, just constant rivers of materials flowing by to be as fresh as possible, because if anything stays still for too long, there's a chance it'll spoil, which will stop the machine trying to take the ingredient, which can create a spoilage cascade.

My initial plan was to have some kind of circuit-based just-in-time system, where every machine would be monitored in order to see what ingredients it needed, and everything would be made fresh-to-order.

I ended up not doing this, mostly because demand stays relatively constant, and where it doesn't stay constant, you can just eat the spoilage costs. There's so much abundance that you really don't need to care about half your crops going to waste.

The other reason I didn't end up going with this is because unfortunately, the "river of goods" solution has essentially no complications to it, and you can simply dump everything into a recycler/incinerator at the end. In some of the Factorio overhaul mods, this concept is called "voiding", a way of dealing with byproducts, and if you make voiding easy, you essentially remove a logistical challenge, which means less gameplay. I kind of get why they made this easy, but ... I don't know. I did kind of want something that would require a big, complicated solution, a factory that dances on the edge of clogging itself up.

I ended up with a completely belt-based system, with a belt of jelly and mash, then a belt of bioflux, all nutrients made on demand, and production lines in defined blocks. The final build does 520 science/minute, which becomes 2Ks/m with full-prod biolabs, most of which goes into the trash, since it's not actually consumed all the time.

One of my favorite little puzzles of Gleba was the metals, which are produced with bacteria that spoil in a minute, becoming ore. There's a process, with bioflux, of having bacteria make more bacteria, but if the bacteria ever stop flowing (if, for example, you have enough ore), then they spoil and die, and the whole production line stops. So you need to build in a little kickstart system that will inject new bacteria if it's needed, and I found that to be delightful to work on.

The other major thing on Gleba are the enemies, which are pentapods. Pentapod eggs are necessary to make biochambers and science, but after you have one, you can set up breeding, which is dangerous given they can make more of themselves, but definitely the way to go. There are three forms of pentapod, all with their own weaknesses, and ...

Look, I went to Gleba last, but I put up a defensive wall fairly early on using only materials that I had gotten from Gleba, and then basically never had any cause to think about the pentapods again. Because I slapped this down with blueprints, it took all of ten minutes, most of which was spent fixing the kind of scuffed corners (skill issue). So I would say the amount that I actually got to experience the pentapods was pretty minimal. I also shipped in four artillery turrets that are crowded around a box of ammo, supplied by site-made shells using imported tungsten, and the circle almost entirely contains my pollution cloud, so in theory it's just an easily solved problem.

It might have been different if I had gone to Gleba first, I don't know and can't say without actually doing that, but I would have liked a little more of a challenge, and this might be where being a veteran hinders me.

Overall, I really enjoyed Gleba, the mechanics were new and unique, the little puzzles inherent in design were interesting, and I thought that overall it had the best art direction of the four planets, which is saying something, because I think they're all great on the front.

Aquilo

On every other planet, a "cold start" is possible, building up from just what you find laying around. Aquilo is different: it's a planet with ammonia oceans and some scattered liquid vents, and part of the point of it is that you need materials from outside, including anything made from iron, copper, or stone. You can't softlock on other planets, but you can softlock on Aquilo.

Aside from requiring pretty solid planetary logistics, Aquilo's main mechanic is heat. It's cold enough there that bots don't work very well, and everything has to have a heat pipe near it for it to function, including pipes and belts. To heat up a heat pipe takes either nuclear, fusion, or the heat towers that burn up fuel, and if the heat ever stops flowing, everything will seize up, requiring heroic efforts to get running again.

There's not all that much to Aquilo. You pull up slurry from the ocean, split it into ammonia and ice, use them together to make ice platforms, import concrete, and then combine oil and ammonia to make rocket fuel, which is used to both launch rockets and to toss into heating towers for power and heat to keep everything running.

The science pack is easy, though it require imported holmium plate, and my entire 200 science per minute production line was run off a tiny cluster of buildings that would have been pretty trivial to expand.

It seems to me that Aquilo is at least partly inspired by Seablock, an infamous mod where you start with almost nothing on a tiny island that you have to expand with the mineral sludge you dredge up with an offshore pump. But Seablock is a very long mod, one that typically takes hundreds of hours, and here ... well, there are a handful of challenges, and they're not all that challenging. I think I could probably list them out now.

Making ammonia also makes ice. You can void excess ice through repeated recycling, but ammonia can't be voided except by combining it with crude oil to make solid fuel, which can then be put in an incinerator. I solved this problem with a simple circuit condition.

Science and some crafting uses coolant, which must be cooled back down after use. If you just keep making coolant, eventually the system will seize up, since you won't be able to put more hot coolant into the system. But because this is a lossy cycle (you lose half the coolant) you can just hook a pump up to a tank and only inject more hot coolant into the system when below a threshold.

Outposts need their own heating for the pumps to work, and those outposts are, on default settings, quite far away. This requires setting up a self-sufficient little heating module that's either serviced by train or which runs entirely with materials found at the outpost. I ended up doing two different modules, one for oil outposts and the other for everywhere else ... but I never actually had to use them, because there were sufficient resources for tens of thousands of resources right next to the starting area.

As the "final boss", I am underwhelmed, and even as one of four planets I find myself a little underwhelmed. I don't know how much postgame stuff I'm going to do, but I can't see that there's going to be much challenge in going large on Aquilo, except that I might have to build another ship for moving in materials (as currently I have a single ship that makes a circuit of the solar system for materials and also handles shipments of science).

There is also, again, a lack of enemy. Once the rocket fuel setup was done, I had a single scare when ammonia backed up and stopped ice production, which shut down the water chem plant, which killed the turbines and stopped power to the entire base. But that didn't even freeze anything out, and it was fixed pretty easily from a restart module I'd built earlier, and after that, the ammonia issue was fixed to never have that problem again. If the cold is the enemy, it's not enough of one for my tastes.

Integration

With each planet you conquer, you get a new science pack, which opens up new technologies, and in theory you, can use them on other planets. These buildings are very powerful, and so there's some incentive to return to old factories, rip up old designs, and install new ones using the better buildings.

I did eventually do this, but I'm not sure how much I actually needed to. My furnace stacks were replaced by the foundries from Vulcanus, supplies by a hauler ship exclusively for calcite, though I did make an abortive attempt to just harvest calcite from space using a stationary space platform.

(I made four of them before giving up on the project, and found out only later that asteroid spawn rates depend on how many chunks large the ship is, so the ideal build has asteroid collectors on very long arms, and there's nothing in the game that tells you about the asteroid spawning thing, so ... whatever, it's opaque and very gamey hidden stuff, of the kind that I hate.)

I replaced my circuit production areas with the EMP, which saved vast quantities of resources and also made more circuits at a much faster rate within the same blueprint. I upgraded most belts to green.

I didn't end up using the biochambers much, in part because they need nutrients to run, and 50% prod with more module slots is great, but not so great that I wanted to set up a biter egg farm that could potentially blow up in my face.

Cryochambers just came too late for me to implement them anywhere, though I probably would if I kept playing to the megabase stage, or if I'm gunning for an achievement that requires updating Nauvis.

So I think, strangely, when considering how the planets impact each other, they ... kind of don't all that much? Yes, having foundries on Gleba means that you can make all your belts and things at a fraction of the cost, but how much doesn't that really impact anything? It meant that my ore production areas could be smaller, I guess. Is that worth anything? I kind of don't think so, if I'm considering the main gameplay to be in terms of design and decisions. Foundries saved me from having to lay down a furnace stack. EMPs saved me from having to have expansive red circuit lines to get the blue chips necessary for rocket launches.

Ideally, I would have liked one or two killer techs that mostly work through combining each planet's "thing". Like imagine that there was a combination recycler and foundry that melted down whatever was put into it, giving you molten copper and iron in exchange, creating a whole new kind of problem in exchange for ... I don't know, much much faster recycling, or less loss from recycling, or maybe a recipe that allowed true voiding. Or if you went to Gleba and then Vulcanus, and were able to bring biochambers that would allow the cultivation of some new specimen specific to that environment, maybe something that would allow better plastic production, or could pull water out of the air, both of which are kind of a pain in the ass on Vulcanus. Couldn't there be some kind of new bacteria swimming in the oil sands of Fulgora? Not something that would trivialize any challenge, something that would be a reward for having two flavors of research from two different planets. Ideally, there'd be six of these in total, allowing for each pair to benefit each other pair, but at that point I start to feel like I'm just asking for new content.

I cracked my game back open to check the tech tree, and all the Aquilo techs require all three planets. The are two techs that require mixed packs: Rail Support Foundations, which simplify rails for Fulgora, and Railgun Damage, which increases the power of the railgun. That's it. This screams missed opportunity to me.

So in terms of how the planets and their mechanics interact with each other ... I would say that they mostly don't, which is a bit of a shame. The biochamber in particular requires nutrients, which makes it effectively unusable on Vulcanus and Fulgora ... unless you're shipping in heroic quantities of bioflux, I guess, though I don't think that I could ever see myself doing that. I guess maybe on Vulcanus, which has the aforementioned plastics problem? But it feels like the kind of thing that would mostly be done for a stunt rather than because it was actually the right thing to do. And potentially on Nauvis, but it does seem like a megabase thing to do, rather than normal play. I will have to do the math, this too might be a skill issue.

(Real quick: 1 Bioflux makes 8 nutrients in a standard biochamber, which is 12 with prod, which is 24 MJ. A biochamber consumes 500kW, so with no spoilage nutrients allow 2 crafts of the 2 second oil cracking recipes, which means that every Bioflux can, at most, turn 960 heavy oil into 1080 light oil rather than the 720 light oil it would normally crack into. But obviously since the Bioflux has to be shipped in, it ends up being less than that. This is obviously more effective than shipping over oil itself, but ... man, I don't know, this seems very weak, even with adding in productivity to other steps. I guess the use case in Nauvis, where you're in theory shipping Bioflux anyway in order to feed captive biters, but that's still premised on an oil shortage that I never actually experienced.)

I do also want to say that quality had very little impact on my play. I tended to carry around some high quality quality modules and use them when crafting infrastructure, but in most cases it just wasn't much to write home about. It's most important for the ships, and for personal stuff, but it never felt that important.

And finally, I do want to give a shoutout to how easy and effective remote viewing was. One of the things I'm going to eventually do, after a Factorio break, is the 40 hour achievement run, and I have to imagine that a lot of that is just landing on a planet, doing the unlocks, building a rocket to get back, then having starter bots do all the actual base building for me, which is pretty cool.

Conclusion

Space Age took me about 140 hours, and I would say that about 10 of that was idle time while I was waiting for legendary ship parts or for a buildup of materials. The Jacknape-class ships have an issue with ammo production where they can more or less keep up with rockets, but the belt buffer goes from the front of the ship to the back, meaning that it empties from where it's needed most, rather than emptying where it's needed least, and yeah, having a fully stacked buffer takes a hot minute of waiting. Similarly, the quality module I made works over sufficient time scales, but especially while waiting on quality quality modules, there's a real temptation to just leave it running rather than actively playing.

130 hours for a veteran player is a long time for an expansion, much longer than I would have expected, even knowing what I knew about the expansion going in. Some of that time I don't count as expansion time, like all the parts where I was just doing normal Factorio stuff, and I did end up building adapted malls on each of the planets, which added on more time that could have been cut out by making an effective blueprint the first go-around, and which I don't really count as expansion time, because there's not much that's unique about making the new malls. But even if I'm arbitrarily cutting things out, that's still a ton of time.

Overall, I'm extremely happy with it, and I think I'll be more happy with it once there's another round of iteration, QoL, changes based on feedback, and modding. The modding scene for Factorio is really really good, and I have to imagine that the expansion is only going to make it better, particularly some of the changes that were made to implementation.

But I do think that it could have been more, and maybe this is just coming from a guy with more than a thousand hours in this game and multiple overhaul mods under his belt. It's very possible I would have had a better time with it if I'd chosen a higher difficulty, though of course that's very hard to know ahead of time. Certainly there were some design misses for me, and at least some of that is because I have enough experience that I can fix things with circuitry, plan a base that doesn't immediately become spaghetti, and see the deadlocks coming. I'm not saying that it wasn't hard, because parts of it certainly were, and I'm not saying that I made a bunch of perfect bases with no major flaws, because there were designs that needed to be ripped out and belts that needed to squeak through. But I think I would have preferred more complexity, more problems, more more more, and I'll have to hope that mods can give it to me.

All that said, this is the best expansion I've ever played, they put a ton of work into making sure that every planet was truly different from the others artistically and mechanically, and it's a 10/10 from me.

(I do plan on getting all achievements ... eventually. The "win in 40 hour" achievement seems very doable, and that's the hardest of the lot, though the others might take some significant time. It took me multiple years to finally getting around to doing the last green chip achievement, so I'm in no rush.)

[erhangwang]

DP3 - Research Project - Mediator Spaces

Week 2:

I started to explore and test materials this week, by mixing plaster with sand, salt and shells in different ratios, I casted several samples of materials. Further, I used casting to explored the idea of having Tribo-Panels connected to the skin of the building space to potentially generate energy. I should make more samples for structural testings next week, keep investigate different mixtures to find the optimal one, (having oysters as a protective sacrificial layer), and do more literature reading on the mechanical theory of the energy systems.

Inspired by the floating bridge and insects, I designed aero-limbs systems for the first buildings space, I should iterate on this design and explore the possibility of using anchors to support the buildings.

I also communicated the idea of buildings space 1, gathering space for oysters and salt erosion, through an axo; and the organisation of spaces. The idea is to have different circulation systems in the building to guide people through differently during high tide and low tide, the bunker lab would study how hostile environment would affect different people's behavior (e.g. small scale simulation space to get people's arm trapped). I will layer another layer of iterated plan next week in more details. The spaces can be more Interlocked as well.

Notes:

Measurable info for maps: Overview, zoomed in and section of high and low tides

research architectural projects in Blackpool

Archaeological maps of samples collected

Bigger social and env. responsibility of project

Labs to map different parts of the area

sacrificial and protective layer with structural core

Part static building with part buoyant

Lost Pier, fast moving Sands

shells with plaster to take more loads?

Literature study of energy systems

Making quicksand model

Using plastics bags to visually test wind

Torch for sun-path study

Orthographic and Stareographic of sunpath

Retreating Village, Smout Allen

Walters Yard, London

Arctic Research Station, icecap melting

Hugh Broughton, Axo

[foundationsolution1]

Weep Holes: An Essential Component For Structural Integrity

The world of construction methodologies is vast, dynamic, and continuously evolving. Among the myriad of procedures and mechanisms crucial to the development of robust structures, a particularly crucial yet often overlooked feature is the ‘weep hole.’ In this blog, we delve deeper into what weep holes are, focus mainly on their application in cinder block structures, reasons for their installation near the footing, and the benefits that they provide related to relieving water trapped within a structure.

To begin with, let’s establish what Weep Holes are. Weep holes, as the name suggests give an image of something that exudes, seeps out, or, indeed, weeps. In construction parlance, they are purposely drilled in a structure to allow the movement of water or to let it escape from within.

Though these holes can be integrated into several types of structural system, their use is widely popular in cinder block constructions. Cinder blocks, also known as concrete masonry units, are commonly used in residential as well as commercial construction due to their affordability, strength, and insulation properties. Their design usually involves hollow cores, or cavities, that can unintentionally trap water within. Whether it’s from groundwater, landscape irrigation, or rainfall, the cinder block can host this water, giving birth to many potential issues such as mold, mildew, efflorescence, or even structural failure if water freezes and expands.

Therefore, to alleviate these concerns, weep holes are drilled into the cinder blocks, typically in the bottom row and near the footing. Placed lower down because water tends to flow to the lowest point due to gravity, these openings play a vital role in the overall health and longevity of the structure.

When water is present in the hollow cavities of the cinder block, the weep holes facilitate an escape route. But it isn’t just about aiding drainage; these holes also play an essential part in the structure’s ventilation, helping trapped moisture to dry up more quickly.

One might wonder–why near the footing? The footing of a building is the lowest part of the structure, usually installed below ground level. For blocks near the footing, water accumulation is most likely due to their proximity to the ground. To prevent rising dampness creeping up into the structure and ensure optimal effectiveness, weep holes are strategically drilled near the footing.

One concern that often arises about weep holes is the threat of small creatures or pests entering through them. To prevent this, weep holes are generally covered with plastic, steel, or another type of mesh to allow water escape but deter critters.

Let’s sum up the importance of weep holes: They are not a construction afterthought but an essential design feature engineered to prolong and conserve the structural integrity of cinder block structures, whether they be a garden wall, chicken coop, house, or commercial building. By simultaneously promoting ventilation and facilitating the drainage of trapped water within the cinder blocks’ hollow cavities, weep holes help to prevent the onset of undesirable moisture issues, water damage, and structural instability.

So the next time you come across some random, small holes in a structure, remember, they aren’t gaps in design or construction; they’re mitigating water damage one drop at a time. This is the importance of an often overlooked, yet vital construction element – the weep hole.

Tagged Essential Component For Structural Integrity, Structural Integrity

[mysticdragon3md3]

I'm sorry to all the people sore about the new packaging for Nendoroids, but some of these comments make it sound like you wouldn't have preordered, if you got the new box design that replaces all the plastic packaging with paper. o.o? Are you guys Nendoroid collectors or box collectors?

I don't know if you've heard this before, but GoodSmile figures cannot remain in the box. You're not preserving any collectibility by displaying your figures forever in the box. You're thinking of WESTERN figures and those figure producers' plastics. GoodSmile representatives have said several times, the plastic that GoodSmile uses to make their figures will DEGRADE if left unopened, in the box! The plastiziser will melt the figure surfaces and turn some platics into horrible discolorations.

Are you guys really buying articulated figures with swappable parts, to not play with them? Even my $120 scale figure, that i was afraid to touch, had swappable parts which i swapped and therefore, handled the figure, to set for optimal display.

How do you guys even have the room to keep all that plastic? I can't wait to have collapsible paper packaging, to save space, avoiding the struggle to throw it all away and wonder if it'll even get recycled. Some of you may have the money to buy all your figures and all the space you want. But some of us are just barely scraping together money for just the figures and can't afford to just get more storage/living space, just for packaging. I would love to just keep all my packaging, in case i decide to sell some of my figures in the future, but a lot of us have limited space and have to make tough choices.

Companies have to stop producing so much plastic. We still need plastic for our figures to be made out of, and if something needs to be cut, I'd rather it be the packaging. Recycling isn't working, and has been proven to be a scam in a lot of cases. China is no longer buying the world's trash to process or recycle. Japan has started new laws in 2022, to reduce plastic packaging by 2030 and become plastic-free by 2050. What do you expect to happen? For Good Smile Company to break the law, just so we can display their figures in the box---which will destroy the figures anyway? GoodSmile is not Tokyu or Mitsubishi. They don't have the power to bend laws to their whims.

I'm not looking forward to the bootlegers who will try to scam us with opaque boxes, either. But we'll just have to come up with new tactics to circumvent them. In fact, do we really need new tactics? Lots of scale figure collectors and plastic model kit/gunpla collectors have been navigating bootlegs, despite opaque boxes, for years. Maybe we can just learn from them, ask them how they do it. I for one, plan to just buy from officially licensed partner shops and directly from figure producers, as much as i can, just to make sure. But i was already doing that. They even have yearly sales, so i dont want to hear complaints about getting locked into high prices, from avoiding secondary markets. Ever go to the Bandai/Bluefin warehouse sales? Check out Kotobukiya's KotoUS shop during Black Friday? Or GoodSmile's 2-3 insanely low sales every spring? Even the officially licensed secondary-market partner shops have sales. These new, plastic-free-packaging boxes are not the end of avoiding getting scammed by bootlegs. We just have to learn to navigate our new world's rules.🐔

I'M the one who has to deal with that packaging. Me, the end user, the collector. This is beyond "preformative environmentalism", "greenwashing" or a "marketing spin so GSC can cut costs and raise profits". I don't have room for all this non-collapsible plastic! Of course, i dont want to throw any part of my collections away! I'm extremely sentimental! But if the packaging were collapsible, less, and just smaller, then i wouldn't have to deal with this struggle to let go of packaging into the trash, in the first place!

Let the packaging evolve! They will refine the design until it's effective in all the ways we need. In case you haven't noticed, GSC has already been changing their box/packaging designs for years, and we all survived. And regardless of whatever images of flimsiness the word "paper" bring to mind, there are designers who actually know what they're talking about, who know better than non-experrts, about how sturdy paper can me manipulated to be. Paper can be molded into non-collapsible clamshell bubble packaging, if you want that so badly. Paper does not automatically equate flimsy.

[engineers-heaven]

Vehicle Design and Manufacturing Processes

Introduction: Vehicle design and manufacturing processes have evolved dramatically over the years. From manual assembly lines to high-tech automation, the automotive industry has witnessed numerous advancements that enhance vehicle performance, safety, and sustainability. This blog explores the latest trends in vehicle design and the manufacturing processes that are transforming the industry.

Design Considerations: Designing a vehicle is a complex and multi-disciplinary process that involves engineering, aerodynamics, ergonomics, safety, and aesthetics. Engineers must consider factors like fuel efficiency, performance, and environmental impact, all while ensuring the vehicle’s safety for occupants and pedestrians.

For example, modern car designs prioritize aerodynamics to reduce fuel consumption, with sleek shapes and specialized components that minimize air resistance. Additionally, the safety of the vehicle is ensured by incorporating advanced safety systems, such as collision avoidance technologies, airbags, and crumple zones.

Manufacturing Technologies: The rise of automation has revolutionized vehicle manufacturing. Robotic arms, AI, and 3D printing are now integral to automotive production. Robotics allows for faster and more precise assembly, while AI systems help in predicting maintenance needs and optimizing production schedules.

One significant advancement is the use of 3D printing for creating prototype parts and even some vehicle components. This technology enables manufacturers to design and produce intricate parts with reduced material waste and lower costs. Additionally, automation has sped up assembly lines, allowing for mass production while maintaining consistent quality.

Sustainability: As the world becomes more eco-conscious, the automotive industry has shifted toward more sustainable practices. Electric vehicles (EVs) are at the forefront of this revolution, offering a cleaner alternative to traditional gasoline-powered cars. In addition to EVs, car manufacturers are adopting environmentally friendly materials, such as recycled plastics and plant-based composites, to reduce the carbon footprint of their vehicles.

Furthermore, energy-efficient manufacturing practices, such as using renewable energy to power factories and reducing waste, are helping the industry move toward a more sustainable future.

Future Trends: The future of vehicle design and manufacturing is exciting. One of the biggest trends is the development of autonomous vehicles, which use sensors, AI, and machine learning to navigate roads without human intervention. These vehicles promise to increase safety, reduce traffic, and improve transportation efficiency.

Modular vehicle design is also gaining traction. This approach allows manufacturers to produce customizable vehicles with interchangeable components, which can be tailored to meet different customer needs.

Conclusion: The automotive industry is undergoing a revolution, driven by innovative design principles and advanced manufacturing technologies. As sustainability becomes increasingly important and new technologies such as autonomous driving and electric vehicles take center stage, the future of vehicle design looks promising. By continuing to prioritize safety, efficiency, and environmental responsibility, the industry will continue to transform how we think about transportation.

For comprehensive information and resources on engineering topics, please visit the Engineer's Heaven website.

[a-modernmajorgeneral]

Viewers turning in for the track and field events at the Summer Games in Paris next week might just do a double-take: Instead of the usual rust-colored reddish hue, the track is purple.

The new, eye-catching color will serve as the backdrop for runners competing at the Stade de France, the country’s largest stadium, located in the northern Paris suburb of Saint-Denis. The track is made by Mondo, a company based in Alba, Italy, that has made every track used at the Olympics since 1976.

The color was mainly an aesthetic choice, as purple, blue and green make up the palette for the competition venues at this year’s games. The design actually incorporates three separate colors: lavender for the track itself, darker purple for the service areas and gray for the exterior curves at each end.

Even the glue used to adhere the track to its asphalt base—2,800 pots in total—is purple, just in case any becomes visible.

“The big part of the job was to come up with a track that was different from what we had seen … to go a little bit outside the box,” says Alain Blondel, an Olympic decathlete who now serves as the sports manager for the Paris games, to Olympics.com’s Nicolas Kohlhuber.

This is the first time an Olympic track has been purple. But it’s not uncommon for athletics venues around the world to play around with color. For example, since 1986, Boise State University has famously eschewed the traditional green-colored turf for its football field, opting instead for a shocking shade of bright blue.

Color aside, the Paris track is unique for several other reasons. For one, it incorporates the shells of bivalve mollusks, like mussels and clams. Ahead of the games, track-maker Mondo began partnering with a mussel farming and fishing company called Nieddittas to give used shells a second life.

Staff at Nieddittas harvest, clean and prepare the shells—which are made primarily of calcium carbonate—so they can be ground into a powder that can be incorporated into the track material. The shells would have otherwise been headed to a landfill, so the process transforms waste into something useful. It also reduces the need for mining, which is how manufacturers usually obtain calcium carbonate.

All told, 50 percent of the Paris track comes from recycled materials, reports BBC’s Padraig Belton.

This innovative use of recycled natural materials aligns with the goals of the International Olympic Committee, which vowed to make the Summer Games in Paris the most sustainable Olympics yet. Other sustainability efforts include bike parking at many venues, more plant-based food options for spectators, 100 percent locally sourced renewable energy, a geothermal cooling system at the Olympic Village and aquatic center seats made from recycled plastic bottle caps, among many others.

The track’s design and materials may also help athletes perform their best. The Paris track has the same base as the one used at the 2020 Summer Games in Tokyo, with some minor modifications, per reporting by Reuters’ Manuel Ausloos and Vincent Daheron. At those games, athletes set three world records and 12 Olympic records—and officials expect even more records to fall next week in Paris.

“The first indications are that it will be a very, very good track,” Blondel told the Associated Press’ (AP) Jerome Pugmire in April. “If we see athletes with personal bests on the scoreboard, it means we did a good job.”

For this iteration of the track, Mondo researchers improved upon the new polymeric material first introduced in Tokyo. They also used computer algorithms to further refine the optimal shape and size of the air bubbles within the lower layer of the track, which help absorb and then rebound the energy from the runner’s foot striking the ground.

The vulcanized rubber provides good grip and resistance for Paralympic athletes who use wheelchairs and prosthetics. The track has also been specially designed to complement the latest generation of running shoes.

“For the track, we only see the aesthetics, but there is great work that goes into the underlayer,” says Alessandro Piceli, a research and development manager at Mondo, to the Guardian’s Sean Ingle.

Mondo leaders say the Paris track will be 2 percent faster than the one used in Tokyo, per the BBC. But, in 2020, runners also got a boost from hot temperatures and new shoe spike technology, per the Guardian. It remains to be seen how the track will affect athletes’ times, but its creators are confident we will see records fall in Paris.

“The athletes will find this track to be more reactive and better suited for their competition,” said Maurizio Stroppiana, vice president of Mondo’s sport division, to the AP’s Andrew Dampf and Luca Bruno in March.

[evilautismcrusades]

The Trials and Tribulations of the Jebble Sculpture

Once upon a six hours ago, I had a dream. It was a dream of creativity, of beauty, and of my beloved insane jester. It was a dream of cherishing him, a wish to hold him in my hands.

I didn't yet have access to getting my grubby mitts on an official Jebble talking plush, but what I did have was clay.

My first attempt begun smoothly. I had forgotten at the time that I owned oven-bake Sculpey polymer clay, and as such I used the more obscure Sculpey air-dry clay for my creation. I worked slowly, tediously carving each and every silly detail into his goofy round face, delicately attaching the pupils to his eyes and the ears to his head.

Working slowly was my mistake.

As I soon realized the fate to befall him, I began to panic, hastily kneading bits and pieces of clay in an attempt to finish forming him before he became too solid to work with. My efforts were for naught; in fact, in my rush to put on his features, he began falling apart, his features now messy and his body covered with divots from my nails. It was too late for him. There was nothing within my abilities that I could do to save him.

Thus, I had to make the difficult choice to abandon him. He sat on my dresser overnight and, in the morning, was as hard as plastic. His strained expression demonstrates his eternal misery, having to live with a half-finished body, wearing a half-finished outfit, covered in dirt and cat hair from the stickiness of the clay, but alas, there was nothing to be done.

This is how Pebble was born.

I wasn't satisfied with the outcome of my efforts. All this time spent on a dud, and for what? To leave him to sit barely right of my keyboard, forever gazing into my soul?

No. I had to try again.

That moment was when I realized how to do Jebble justice. I dug through my drawers, moving aside long forgotten craft books and papers, and pulled out my old box of Sculpey oven-bake clay.

When I say old, I mean old. I'd had this clay since four, maybe five Christmases ago, and that didn't make working with the already tough material any easier on my hands. It was dense, crumbly, and disheveled.

By some miracle from Toby Fox himself, I managed to make it work. Using the same original formula I had for Pebble, albeit at a slightly larger scale, I began sculpting. Two balls, one on top of the other.

The further I progressed, the more hopeful I became, but I tried to keep my expectations low. I hadn't sculpted anything since I was eleven, and most of my memories of it were the sadness that accompanied my beautiful pieces breaking.

And yet, I couldn't help but think he was turning out splendidly for my first time in so long. Even if his gums looked unnatural, and he had no bottom teeth, and he was currently little more than a slightly detailed head atop a sphere, he was beautiful. Surely nothing could go wrong...

I worked on him more and more throughout the evening as I binge watched Matt Rose and Jeaney Collects videos, often looking back at his ingame sprite for reference. He wasn't perfectly accurate, quite stylized in fact, but what did it matter? I loved him all the same.

It was here I realized I would have to make some further stylistic changes to his design, both for his own safety and for my own convenience. I knew from my own experiences that Sculpey's oven-bake clay could be fragile, especially without glaze (which I didn't have) or an internal wireframe (I did have crafting wire, but nothing to cut it with, so he unfortunately went without any). If I wanted to keep him for longer than a month in a house with my clumsy self and a cat who loves to knock things over, he would have to be optimized.

So, such changes were made. I decided to skip out on giving him arms, for the amusing rotund aesthetic it provided and to minimize the parts on him that could break. His legs would be simplified and his body would simply be placed directly atop his shoes. Black paint would be used to add the illusion of shorts. His tail would be made short and thick, curled closely to his body so nothing poked out too much. His ears and the bells of his hat were his only particular weak spots, but they looked nice as they were and couldn't be modified too much without rendering them unrecognizable.

He was still fugly, but it was a start.

I then would hit another roadblock: his collar. At first, it's quite difficult to distinguish just what it is based on looking at his sprite, and his other official depictions don't make it any easier; on the official Jebble plush, he dons the typical scrunchie-like poofy collar, but on the rest of the merchandise, including shirts and posters, it's more flower-shaped, for lack of a better word.

Personally, I am on the side of Jebble fanartists who portray him with the former, but I was quick to choose the latter for my sculpture for the sake of my own sanity; delicately folding all those ruffles would have been painful, and making and attaching a bunch of little triangles was infinitely easier.

Thus, this was his final design. Simple, skrunkly, and round.

Here's him fresh out of the oven, lightly toasted and ready to eat paint.

Getting paint to match his colors was quite an experience, helping me to remember just how blue he is canonically, despite how often he is depicted as purple. I, too, am guilty of making his blues warmer than they are, but what can a guy do? It looks good with the yellow and green.

Regardless, I wanted to stick to the canon colors for him, so I dug up my old bag of paints and mixed them up. Painting him went quite smoothly, and he was almost finished, but then...

One minute, I was holding him with confidence, taking care not to touch any of his still-wet paint as I added slightly darker shades of blue to his face.

The next, he had fallen face-first onto my desk with a loud thud.

My heart was broken, and yet it was still racing in my chest as I internally hoped that nothing had fallen off of him, that none of his paint had been smudged in my panic to pick him up, but even then I knew hoping was worthless. In this horrific accident, he had lost a good chunk of his right ear and one of the bells from his hat. How could I let this happen to him? How could I let my confidence do this to my beloved boy?

I didn't have glue to repair him, and for a moment I sat there on the brink of tears. All of my efforts really were for nothing after all. I'd might as well hit him with a hammer so he wouldn't have to suffer the same fate as Pebble.

Somehow, through the fog of desperation and sorrow, an idea came to my mind. I still had the pieces that had broken off, and maybe, just maybe, I could reattach them with the air-dry clay.

I stuck small blobs of it to the places that had broken and squished them tightly together, then smoothed out the edges to somewhat blend it in with the rest of the clay.

Thank the stars it (mostly) worked. The bell that had fallen off was too small to reattach, and had to be remade entirely from the air-dry clay, but it worked. He was fixed.

Recovery was a longer journey for him than it was for me, but thankfully he had his beloved hubby and weird brother to comfort him in these trying times.

He even got to wear Spamton's jacket, which was somehow simultaneously too big and too small for him, and he wound up looking like he was T-posing.

But after all this, once his repairs were dry, I repainted him and he was finally finished.

Behold him in all of his demented gremlin grace.

To top it all off, here's a doodle of him happy and recovered. <3

[aprios]

Why Design for Injection Molding (DfIM) Is Critical for High-Quality Plastic Parts

Imagine investing months into designing a groundbreaking plastic component—only to discover during production that it warps, cracks, or simply can’t be molded efficiently. This nightmare scenario is all too common when Design for Injection Molding (DfIM) is overlooked. In industries ranging from medical devices to automotive manufacturing, achieving high-quality plastic parts isn’t just about aesthetics or functionality—it’s about ensuring every step of the process, from design to production, aligns seamlessly.

Design for Injection Molding (DfIM) is the secret weapon that transforms good ideas into great products. By integrating principles like plastic part design optimization and leveraging expert injection mold design services, DfIM ensures your parts are manufacturable, cost-effective, and built to last. In this in-depth guide, we’ll explore why DfIM is indispensable, how it applies to specialized fields like DFM for medical devices, and why partnering with a design and manufacturing company—such as Aprios—can make all the difference. Let’s get started.

What Is Design for Injection Molding (DfIM)?

At its core, Design for Injection Molding (DfIM) is a strategic approach within the broader discipline of Design for Manufacturing (DFM). It focuses on tailoring plastic part designs specifically for the injection molding process—one of the most versatile and widely used methods for producing precise, repeatable components. DfIM isn’t just about making a part look good on paper; it’s about anticipating how that design will behave when molten plastic is injected into a mold under high pressure.

The process begins with understanding the unique demands of injection molding: material flow, cooling rates, and mold release. Whether you’re crafting a simple consumer product or a complex component requiring DFM for medical devices, DfIM ensures your design is optimized for production. This might mean adjusting wall thickness, adding draft angles, or rethinking feature placement—all part of plastic part design optimization.

Industries like healthcare, automotive, and electronics rely on DfIM to bridge the gap between creativity and practicality. By working with plastic injection mold design services, companies can avoid costly redesigns and bring their products to market faster. In short, DfIM is the foundation of efficient, high-quality plastic manufacturing.

Why DfIM Is Critical for High-Quality Plastic Parts

Injection molding is a high-stakes game. With pressures reaching thousands of PSI and cycle times measured in seconds, there’s little room for error. A poorly designed part can lead to defects like sink marks, warping, or incomplete fills—issues that compromise both quality and profitability. Here’s why Design for Injection Molding (DfIM) is essential for delivering high-quality plastic parts:

Defect Prevention: Uniform wall thickness is a cornerstone of DfIM. Uneven walls can cause uneven cooling, leading to stresses that distort the final part. Proper draft angles—slight tapers on vertical surfaces—make ejection easier and reduce surface imperfections. These details, often refined through injection mold design services, are what separate a flawless part from a flawed one.

Material Efficiency: Choosing the right resin is only half the battle; DfIM ensures the design maximizes that material’s potential. For instance, a part with excessive thickness wastes material and increases cooling time, while a thin, optimized design—crafted with design for manufacturing solutions—balances strength and efficiency.

Cost Savings: Every iteration of a mold or design tweak costs time and money. By incorporating DFM services early, DfIM minimizes trial-and-error, reduces scrap rates, and shortens production timelines. The result? Lower costs without sacrificing quality.

Consider a real-world example: a manufacturer designing a plastic housing for an electronic device. Without DfIM, they might overlook shrinkage rates, leading to parts that don’t fit their assemblies. With DfIM, they’d account for this upfront, ensuring a perfect fit every time. Across industries, high-quality plastic parts owe their success to this meticulous approach.

DfIM in Action – Key Principles and Best Practices

To truly harness the power of Design for Injection Molding (DfIM), designers must adhere to a set of proven principles. These aren’t just guidelines—they’re the building blocks of manufacturability. Here’s a closer look at the essentials, along with practical applications:

Avoid Sharp Corners and Undercuts: Sharp edges disrupt resin flow and create stress concentrations that can crack under load. Rounding corners improves mold filling and strengthens the part. Similarly, undercuts—features that trap the part in the mold—complicate ejection. Injection mold design services can suggest alternatives, like side actions or redesigns, to keep things simple.

Optimize Ribs and Bosses: Ribs add strength without excessive material, but they must be thin (typically 50-60% of wall thickness) to avoid sink marks. Bosses, used for screws or inserts, need proper spacing and support. These tweaks, part of plastic part design optimization, ensure durability without overcomplicating the mold.

Incorporate Proper Tolerances: Injection molding requires tighter tolerances than, say, 3D printing. DfIM aligns tolerances with the process’s capabilities—typically ±0.005 inches for precision parts. Collaborating with plastic injection mold design services ensures these specs are realistic and achievable.

Take a plastic gear as an example. A DfIM-optimized design might feature rounded tooth profiles, consistent thickness, and a slight draft for easy release—making it both functional and mold-friendly. These best practices, refined through design for manufacturing solutions, turn concepts into production-ready realities.

DfIM for Specialized Applications (e.g., Medical Devices)

When precision and reliability are non-negotiable, DFM for medical devices elevates DfIM to a whole new level. Medical components—like syringe barrels, catheter housings, or implant casings—must meet stringent regulatory standards (e.g., FDA or ISO 13485) while performing flawlessly in life-or-death scenarios.

Here, DfIM goes beyond basic manufacturability. It considers biocompatibility (ensuring materials won’t harm patients), sterilization compatibility, and microscopic tolerances. For instance, a poorly designed mold draft could leave burrs on a surgical tool, posing a contamination risk. DFM development services address these challenges by integrating regulatory insights into the design phase.

A practical case: designing a plastic inhaler component. DfIM ensures airtight seals and smooth surfaces for patient safety, while design for manufacturing services validate the design against medical standards. This specialized focus makes DfIM indispensable for industries where failure isn’t an option.

How Design and Manufacturing Companies Support DfIM

Bringing a plastic part from sketch to shelf is no small feat, and that’s where a design and manufacturing company shines. Companies like Aprios offer a suite of DFM services that amplify DfIM’s impact:

Plastic Injection Mold Design Services: Crafting molds tailored to your part’s geometry, material, and production volume. A well-designed mold can handle millions of cycles without wear.

Prototyping and Testing: Before committing to full production, prototyping—often via 3D printing or soft tooling—lets you validate DfIM principles. Adjustments here save headaches later.

DFM Analysis: Using simulations and expertise, injection mold design services identify potential issues—like resin flow bottlenecks or cooling inefficiencies—early in the process.

For example, a company developing a plastic automotive bracket might turn to design for manufacturing solutions to refine rib placement and test mold durability. The result is a part that’s lighter, stronger, and cheaper to produce. With expert support, DfIM becomes a competitive edge.

Common DfIM Mistakes to Avoid

Even seasoned engineers can trip over DfIM pitfalls without proper guidance. Here are the most common mistakes—and how DFM services can help you steer clear:

Ignoring Shrinkage Rates: Different plastics shrink at different rates (e.g., ABS at 0.5-0.8%, nylon at 1-2%). Failing to adjust for this distorts dimensions. Plastic injection mold design services calculate shrinkage upfront.

Overcomplicating Designs: Adding unnecessary features—like intricate textures or redundant supports—increases mold complexity and cost. Simplify with plastic part design optimization.

Skipping DFM Reviews: Rushing to production without a design for manufacturing services review risks missing flaws—like inadequate venting—that cause defects.

Picture a phone case with an overly elaborate logo. Without DfIM, it might stick in the mold or show burn marks from trapped air. A quick DFM check could streamline the design, saving thousands in rework. Prevention, powered by expertise, is always cheaper than correction.

Conclusion

Design for Injection Molding (DfIM) isn’t just a step in the process—it’s the backbone of producing high-quality plastic parts that meet performance goals and budget constraints. From DFM for medical devices to everyday consumer goods, DfIM ensures your designs are manufacturable, efficient, and built to impress. By embracing plastic part design optimization, avoiding common pitfalls, and tapping into design for manufacturing solutions, you’re setting your project up for success.

At Aprios, we specialize in turning your ideas into reality with expert plastic injection mold design services and comprehensive DFM development services. Don’t leave quality to chance—contact us today to discuss your next project. Let’s collaborate to create something extraordinary, from concept to completion.

[poojalate]

The Science of Writing Instruments: How Design and Materials Affect Your Writing Experience

Writing instruments are an essential part of our daily lives, whether we're taking notes, signing documents, or engaging in creative projects. But have you ever wondered how the design and materials of a pen or pencil influence your writing experience? From comfort and ink flow to durability and performance, every aspect of a writing instrument is meticulously crafted to ensure an optimal user experience. In this article, we’ll explore the science behind writing instruments and explain how their design and materials impact comfort, writing flow, and longevity.

1. The Importance of Ergonomics: Comfort and Grip

One of the key factors that determines how enjoyable and comfortable a writing instrument is lies in its ergonomics. Ergonomic design refers to how the pen or pencil fits in your hand and how it reduces strain during use. A well-designed writing instrument can minimize hand fatigue, especially during extended writing sessions.

Barrel Shape and Thickness

Thicker barrels are often favored by those with larger hands or for those who tend to grip their writing instrument tightly. The larger surface area helps distribute pressure more evenly, reducing strain on the hand.

Slimmer barrels, on the other hand, are ideal for people with smaller hands or a lighter writing grip, offering more control and precision.

Many modern pens, like the Pilot Dr. Grip or Uni-Ball Jetstream, are designed with cushioned grips to enhance comfort. Pens with textured or rubber grips also provide a more secure hold, preventing slippage and allowing for better control while writing.

Weight Distribution

The weight of a writing instrument and how that weight is distributed can significantly affect the writing experience. A well-balanced pen, where the weight is evenly distributed, helps maintain a natural hand posture, reducing wrist strain. Metal pens, such as those made of stainless steel or aluminum, often have a heavier feel, giving a sense of control and precision. However, for extended use, lightweight materials like plastic or composite resins are preferred for reducing hand fatigue.

2. Ink Technology: The Heart of the Writing Experience

Ink type and flow are critical components that determine how smoothly a pen writes. Different types of ink have unique properties that impact both the writing experience and the durability of the pen's output.

Ballpoint Ink (Oil-Based)

Ballpoint pens use oil-based ink, which is thicker and dries quickly on the page. This ink type is less likely to smudge, making it ideal for everyday use, especially when quick writing is needed. However, the thicker consistency requires more pressure to be applied when writing, which can lead to hand strain over long periods.

Impact on Writing: Requires more pressure but offers clean, smudge-free writing.

Durability: Long-lasting ink that is less prone to fading.

Gel Ink (Water-Based)

Gel pens use water-based ink combined with pigments, offering a smoother writing experience and more vibrant colors. The ink flows easily, requiring less pressure, making these pens a favorite among students and artists. The downside is that gel ink can take longer to dry and may smudge, especially for left-handed writers.

Impact on Writing: Smooth, easy flow with minimal pressure required, making it ideal for long writing sessions.

Durability: Vivid colors but can smudge if not handled carefully. Fade-resistant in most cases.

Fountain Pen Ink (Liquid-Based)

Fountain pens use liquid ink, which flows naturally due to gravity and capillary action. This creates an effortless writing experience with no need to apply pressure. Fountain pens are often chosen for formal writing or calligraphy due to the elegance and fluidity they bring to handwriting. However, liquid ink is more prone to smudging and requires special paper to prevent bleeding.

Impact on Writing: Extremely smooth and fluid, allowing for expressive writing styles.

Durability: Requires more care; ink may fade over time or smudge if not allowed to dry properly.

Rollerball Ink (Liquid-Based)

Rollerball pens combine the convenience of a ballpoint mechanism with liquid-based ink, resulting in a pen that offers the smoothness of a fountain pen but with more controlled ink flow. The writing experience is smooth and requires minimal pressure, making rollerball pens ideal for long writing sessions or for those who prefer a fluid, easy glide.

Impact on Writing: Effortless writing, with less pressure needed than a ballpoint.

Durability: Similar to fountain pens, rollerball ink can smudge but generally dries faster.

3. Nib and Tip Design: Precision and Flow Control

The design of the nib or tip is crucial for controlling the ink flow and determining how a pen interacts with the paper. The choice between fine, medium, and broad tips impacts how smooth, controlled, or bold the writing experience feels.

Ballpoint Tips

Ballpoint pens have a small metal ball (usually stainless steel or tungsten carbide) that rolls as you write, distributing ink onto the page. The ball size determines the thickness of the line, with finer points (0.5 mm or less) creating more precise lines, while broader points (1.0 mm or larger) are ideal for bold writing.

Fine-tipped pens provide better control for small, detailed handwriting.

Broad-tipped pens deliver a smoother experience but are better suited for larger, bold handwriting.

Fountain Pen Nibs

The nib of a fountain pen is highly customizable, ranging from fine to broad, and even flexible or italic nibs for different writing styles. Gold or stainless steel nibs are commonly used, with gold nibs offering more flexibility and softness while writing. The design of the nib allows for varying line widths depending on the pressure applied, making fountain pens ideal for creative writing or calligraphy.

Impact on Writing: Can create expressive and variable strokes, depending on pressure and nib type.

4. Material Durability and Longevity

The materials used in the construction of a pen or pencil play a significant role in its durability and lifespan. Here are some common materials and their benefits:

Plastic: Lightweight and affordable, plastic is the most common material for everyday writing instruments. It’s durable enough for frequent use but less long-lasting compared to metal pens.

Metal (Aluminum, Brass, Stainless Steel): Metal pens offer superior durability and often have a more premium feel. They are resistant to wear and tear, making them ideal for long-term use, although they tend to be heavier.

Wood (for Pencils): Wooden pencils are biodegradable, making them an eco-friendly option. High-quality pencils like Faber-Castell or Staedtler use sustainably sourced wood, ensuring durability and environmental responsibility.

Conclusion

The design and materials of writing instruments go far beyond aesthetics, directly influencing comfort, writing flow, and durability. Whether you're choosing a ballpoint pen for quick notes or a fountain pen for elegant letters, understanding how these elements work together can help you select the right tool for your writing needs. By paying attention to ergonomics, ink technology, nib design, and materials, you can enhance your overall writing experience and find the perfect instrument for your style.

[hiparks]

Which Warehouse Does Your Business Need?

You need a warehouse.

You have pinpointed the most optimal location and finalised on all the high-tech equipment and machinery to function with ease, but how do you decide which warehouse building is best suited for your operations and functions? Let’s find out.

The Standard Warehouse

For operations that only need basic walls, a roof and some clear space, the standard warehouse is the way. These warehouses can be made in any size required and are extremely versatile.

It is possible to fit them with skylights and windows as well as with multiple gates, ramps and docks. They are a popular solution for almost every industry, providing storage for machines, raw materials and equipment, and products in production; serving as transshipment points in logistics; storing goods for retailers and wholesalers; acting as distribution centres for e-commerce; and even housing donations and relief supplies for non-profit organisations.

A standard warehouse can be easily adapted to specific equipment and spatial requirements by the warehouse developer and are extremely cost effective for businesses that require minimal retrofits to get going.

The Container Warehouse

This is a specific kind of storage warehouse is a stopover for goods coming or going from freight transport. These warehouses are used to consolidate or deconsolidate freight goods to prepare them for the next legs of their journey. Or in other words, it is a temporary storage for the goods to wait a little for other goods to come and fill a container up, before they can be shipped off. The challenge here is to have a system that allows storing, tracking and retrieving the goods easily and efficiently.

Container warehouses need to be located close to ports, airports, or major railway hubs. These warehouses can be designed for efficient cross-docking and provision can be made for ample parking space for holding trucks even in case of demand surges. These warehouses are also equipped with stacking racks, crane systems, container frames, floor anchors, proper lighting, and robust security systems.

The Open-Air Warehouse

For large and heavy items that are difficult to move in and out of warehouse dock doors, open-air warehouses provide an efficient storage solution. Custom-designed racks for open yard storage can offer protection from atmospheric elements and play a key role in keeping the goods safe. Typically, the warehouse is an open area with space demarked and fenced in with walls with a high level of security to safeguard the assets.

Depending on the sensitivity of the goods and the extremities of the climate, storage can be covered or partially roofed. Goods are also protected by covering them in plastic wraps or tarps. These warehouses are commonly used to store vehicles, spare parts, machines, and raw materials for construction, metalworks, or timber sectors. The design of open-air warehouses focuses on shielding goods from harsher natural elements like direct sun or snow but may not address milder elements like humidity, wind, dust, and temperature fluctuations.

The Industrial Warehouse

This is the modern-day factory which may span across multiple halls and floors and can be tailored to integrate advanced technology and equipment. The industrial warehouse can be designed to have spacious loading and unloading areas; ample space for machinery, equipment, goods, and workplaces; high ceilings and large doors for the transporting of goods and large machines, even indoors; bright administrative and office areas; parking spaces for delivery and staff vehicles; pleasant social and relaxation areas for the workers; strong load-bearing floors; a reliable energy supply and ventilation; independent lighting systems for each work area and fire protection measures like fire alarms, smoke detectors, and fire extinguishers.

These warehouses are especially popular for manufacturing companies, energy and utility companies and businesses in the food and beverage industry.

The Custom-Made Warehouse

When your business needs are too complex to be housed in a pre-made standard warehouse, you need a warehouse designed around your requirements. These are called built-to-suit warehouses. They provide a high degree of customisation and can be made to create the ideal environment needed for your operations and goods.

Need a cold storage with consistent temperature and humidity, immaculate hygiene and protected electrical circuits? It is possible. Need a chemical warehouse with good ventilation systems, fire containment measures and specialised storage? Also, possible. Retail warehouses with space for smart racking and processing machines, auto warehouses with complex assembly lines or heavy industry that need tall lifting equipment and sturdy densified floors, a custom-made warehouse lacks for nothing.

The Automated Warehouse

If you are a business that uses machines to do it all, then an automated warehouse is what you are looking at. These are computer-controlled environments with automated racking and shelving, conveyor and retrieval systems. While the investment cost is definitely high, the efficiency is unmatched. These warehouses are sought by large trading companies, global e-commerce giants, logistics parks in India and manufacturing behemoths.

At the end of the day, you know your business needs better than anybody. It is crucial thus, to find a warehouse developer who is proactive in understanding your functional requirements and who works with you to overcome any infrastructural challenges in a collaborative way. At Horizon Industrial Parks, our teams specialise in delivering custom-made warehouses as well as providing swift plug-and-play solutions that can get your operations running in no time. To learn about what our customers like about us, click here, and visit our website to connect with us for exploring collaboration opportunities.

[yama-uba]

I know this is going to sound like a really weird idea, but let me explain:

Paralyves has a visual design that's somewhere between 3D anime, Borderlands, and paper dolls. If you grew up in a shitty country or poor family like me, you probably also find this style more familiar than the rich plastic Barbie-vaudeville of the American suburbia of The Sims 4. Did you have paper dolls with their paper clothes that you put on by folding the pieces on the sides? And did you draw most of the clothes yourself? And did you draw their house in a cheap notebook?

If not, ignore the above, but ask yourself if the world of Parafolk seems to be made of colored paper, like origami? Today YouTube recommended me a video about the game's development progress, which I had already seen. And I realized that the creators of Paralives should make merch, part of the sales of which will go to further development and repair of the game after its release.

The idea is this: A pack of 15-20 sheets of colored paper or cardboard (not necessarily high quality, possibly made from recycled materials and the more "lint", garbage, heterogeneity in texture, the better) for origami.

The sheets can be either painted with colored blocks, so that when assembling a three-dimensional paper figure it becomes a color-shadow, or have drawn elements. The back side of the sheet, if it is not visible when gluing the figure or assembling the origami, may not even be painted or bleached.

It is better to make the size of the sheets no larger than the area of ​​the CD case, so that collectors can put it in their stack with physical discs of their games. An extra piece of paper insert can be added to the end of the paper packaging, which will have the signature designation of the Paralives game.

The instructions for assembling and folding the figures/origami can be placed in the public domain on the Internet, since sooner or later it will appear there anyway. I think this is the most budget-friendly way to organize a fundraiser (unfortunately, I still haven't figured out how to optimize people and the implementation of this garbage for a group of ten people, but I hope that their studio will grow). Please note: Glue and scissors are not included in the set.

What do you think? It doesn't sound as complicated as custom merch that could very well be expensive junk (like a bottle of Todd Howard's cola). But it's an interesting enough idea to make me interested in buying it (cost of paper + salaries for the people + $4 of funding for an independent video game studio).

[bananapolice4ce]

The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't, by subtracting where it is, from where it isn't, or where it isn't, from where it is, whichever is greater, it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance sub-system uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is, to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position where it was, is now the position that it isn't. In the event of the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has required a variation. The variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too, may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was. The missile guidance computance scenario works as follows: Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is, however it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subracts where it should be, from where it wasn't, or vice versa. By differentiating this from the algebraic sum og where it shouldn't be, and where it was. It is able to obtain a deviation, and a variation, which is called "air"

The 757 is a low-wing cantilever monoplane with a conventional tail unit featuring a single fin and rudder. Each wing features a supercritical cross-section and is equipped with five-panel leading edge slats, single- and double-slotted flaps, an outboard aileron, and six spoilers. The wings are largely identical across all 757 variants, swept at 25 degrees, and optimized for a cruising speed of Mach 0.8 (533 mph or 858 km/h). The reduced wing sweep eliminates the need for inboard ailerons, yet incurs little drag penalty on short and medium length routes, during which most of the flight is spent climbing or descending. The airframe further incorporates carbon-fiber reinforced plastic wing surfaces, Kevlar fairings and access panels, plus improved aluminum alloys, which together reduce overall weight by 2,100 pounds (950 kg). To distribute the aircraft's weight on the ground, the 757 has a retractable tricycle landing gear with four wheels on each main gear and two for the nose gear. The landing gear was purposely designed to be taller than the company's previous narrow-body aircraft to provide ground clearance for stretched models. In 1982, the 757-200 became the first subsonic jetliner to offer longer lasting carbon brakes as a factory option, supplied by Dunlop. The stretched 757-300 features a retractable tailskid on its aft fuselage to prevent damage if the tail section contacts the runway surface during takeoff. Besides common avionics and computer systems, the 757 shares its auxiliary power unit, electric power systems, flight deck, and hydraulic parts with the 767. Through operational commonality, 757 pilots can obtain a common type rating to fly the 767 and share the same seniority roster with pilots of either aircraft. This reduces costs for airlines that operate both twinjets.

[92til]

Train Your Brain Effortlessly For Optimal Performance

There are more than a couple dozen legitimate companies producing brain entrainment software, then there are subliminals both video and audio, software to take advantage of brain plasticity and even anti-aging software. Brain games, teasers, brain music, logic puzzles, strategy games, chess and more are found everywhere including smart software that learns from your performance to crossword click here to learn more puzzles found at your grocery store... Discover what's the driving force behind this mind brain explosion and what kind of results can you expect.

As you age past 30 and well beyond, evidence shows the brain will slow down but only if not maintained through challenging new brain exercise and stimulation. You can speed your brain up and improve even your most basic cognitive abilities at any age.

Recent studies have shown that brain training software can be effective in cognitive functions including visual and auditory processing, working memory, attention, and decision-making. As a result , effects can increase IQ , improve focus and concentration, experience clearer and quicker thinking, increased alertness and awareness,  spur creative and profitable ideas, improve relationships, even model success and attract wealth, really. There has been significant breakthroughs and approvals in brain training software for rehabilitation of stroke and traumatic brain Injury patients as well

Bob Moos of the Dallas Morning News recently reported and listed testimonials and proof that seniors are using brain training software to sharpen their minds and maintain more than enough brain function to enjoy activities once thought taboo for the elderly as motorcycle riding. He also states  this new audio PC based brain training software is part of a $225 million-a-year brain fitness industry. Even during the recession , experts show explosive growth.

Consumers can choose from brain enhancement software as brainwave entrainment, subliminal audio and visual training, audio cortex training , brain fitness software, brain entrainment and subliminals for your MP3 player or phone,  even Nintendo has popular hand held brain improvement games . There are brain workout websites and games , puzzles , brain teaser designed to exercise your brain in a fun and stimulating way. Mental exercise improves blood flow to the brain over the long term and the benefits of brain health that comes with this.  Brain music has been proven to optimize and stimulate brainwaves, neurons while you're simply listening to comforting music.

In another recent study reported by a Washington post staff writer, mentally challenging activities for adults also prove them performing  better in ordinary tasks such as checking the ingredients on a medicine bottle or looking up a number in a phone book -- and this effect can last for years...  Optimizing intellectual skills can strengthen your mind analogous to the same way that physical exercise protects and strengthens the body.  A new study from London, even shows that winded physical exercise is more of a boost to mental skills and quickness of thought processing.

[printprizm3d]

Unlocking the Potential of 3D Printing: A Guide to PrintPrizm3D

Welcome to the world of 3D printing with PrintPrizm3D! Whether you’re a hobbyist, a small business owner, or an innovator looking to turn your ideas into reality, 3D printing offers limitless possibilities. At PrintPrizm3D, we specialize in providing high-quality 3D printing services that cater to a wide range of needs. Discover how our services can help you bring your visions to life and explore the benefits of incorporating 3D printing into your projects.

What is 3D Printing?

3D printing, also known as additive manufacturing, is a process of creating three-dimensional objects from a digital file. By layering materials such as plastic, metal, or resin, 3D printers can produce complex shapes and intricate designs with precision and accuracy. This technology has revolutionized industries, including aerospace, automotive, healthcare, and fashion, by offering rapid prototyping, custom manufacturing, and cost-effective production.

Why Choose PrintPrizm3D?

At PrintPrizm3D, we pride ourselves on delivering top-notch 3D printing services. Here’s why you should choose us for your next project:

High-Quality Prints: We use advanced 3D printers and materials to ensure your prints are of the highest quality. Whether you need a prototype, a functional part, or a decorative item, we’ve got you covered.

Expertise and Experience: Our team has extensive experience in 3D printing and design, enabling us to handle a variety of projects with skill and efficiency.

Customer Satisfaction: We are committed to providing exceptional customer service. From the initial consultation to the final product, we work closely with you to meet your specific needs and expectations.

Our Services

PrintPrizm3D offers a comprehensive range of 3D printing services to cater to various requirements:

Prototyping: Quickly and accurately create prototypes to test and refine your designs.

Custom Manufacturing: Produce custom parts and products tailored to your specifications.

Design Services: Our expert designers can help you create and optimize your 3D models for printing.

Educational Workshops: Learn about 3D printing technology and its applications through our informative workshops.

Visit Our Online Stores

Explore our wide range of 3D printed products and services on our online platforms:

PrintPrizm3D Website: PrintPrizm3D Website

PrintPrizm3D eBay Store: PrintPrizm3D eBay Store

Connect with Us on Social Media

Stay updated with our latest projects, promotions, and 3D printing tips by following us on social media:

Facebook: PrintPrizm3D Facebook Page

Instagram: PrintPrizm3D Instagram

Rippin-R-Us Instagram: Rippin-R-Us Instagram

Rippin-R-Us Facebook: Rippin-R-Us Facebook

Get in Touch

Have questions or need assistance with your 3D printing project? Contact us at printprizm3d@hotmail.com. We’re here to help you every step of the way!

Conclusion

3D printing is transforming the way we create and innovate. At PrintPrizm3D, we’re dedicated to providing high-quality 3D printing services that help you turn your ideas into reality. Visit our online stores, connect with us on social media, and discover how we can assist you with your next project. Embrace the future of manufacturing with PrintPrizm3D!

For further insights and tips on 3D printing, subscribe to our blog and stay tuned for more updates. Happy printing!