I enjoyed this article, but perhaps not for the reasons the author hoped. This quote, "With some tweaks to my G code and use of a nozzle that is more suited for higher resolution prints I am confident that I could produce a part that would be very close to the quality of the Stratasys produced part." really summed it up. It sums to "I can tweak my setup and get this part to be good enough relative to the expensive machine." and that is great. What is missing is it is every friggin' part. Seriously, all of the $2,000 printers have quirks that hit based on part geometry, especially in ABS. Part too long? need to add hold down tabs to prevent warping. Too many overhangs? extra supports. Too long a tool travel? Up the hotend temperature so that the extruded material doesn't cool down to much.

You can make great parts but every machine is different, and every part you make has a slightly different requirements. "Real" manufacturing tools are all about the repeatability and setup. Pretty much any machining center can take a gcode file, look at it, and adjust itself to make the best possible rendition, or warn you if it can't do so and meet its advertised tolerances. A hobby machine you print it, you tweak the parameters, you print it again, maybe you tweak the gcode a bit, and finally you print a really nice part.

What gets you repeatability? measuring. There are so many things that you can measure and hobby machines don't. Who puts glass slides (accurate to a tenth of a micron) providing position feedback on the x, y, and z stages on a hobby machine? Nobody, the slides and readers cost $1K just by themselves. There has been some motion toward monitoring the feed of the filament to give a "stripped filament" warning, but who measures the actual flow? the temperature of the melt chamber and feed path?

I really enjoy my 3D printer, I'm printing out a damper for a meat smoker as I write this, its going to be glorious, but its also the 3rd time I've printed this particular part to tune it up. We'll see how it works on the smoker.

i haven't ever used or owned a 3d printer and this part

>This quote, "With some tweaks to my G code and use of a nozzle that is more suited for higher resolution prints I am confident that I could produce a part that would be very close to the quality of the Stratasys produced part." really summed it up. It sums to "I can tweak my setup and get this part to be good enough relative to the expensive machine." and that is great. What is missing is it is every friggin' part.

is sooo true regardless of discipline.

/rant on

sure, you can make vim/emacs/sublime or macos/linux/windows behave just like you want, but you have to do this on every box you ever touch (disclaimer: i use vim). as i get older, the more i want my tools to just work, without tweaking for hours that requires deep knowledge about the system i'm customizing, to the point of willing to pay money to get the customizing part done for me. in this case, the $200k machine most likely isn't used by a single person who knows everything about its quirks, so it's all the more important for it to work correctly without tweaking, on the first try. i wish more software was like that.

/rant off

There are tools out there that address your specific complaint re: software repeatability. A combination of Ansible/Emacs/Git dot files can yield a consistent environment across machines. Howard Abrams has some great material on how he does this with Emacs (howardism.org).