Yeah, but 3D printers are also really slow. The part in the article took 18 hours (on both printers) and in my lab we've had similar experiences.
Not sure where the break-even point is, but the cost of a failed print is pretty high in terms of sunk time for most prints. On an industrial scale, a machine that prints correctly 99% of the time might be a better investment than two that print say 75% of the time.
Not sure where the break-even point is, but the cost of a failed print is pretty high in terms of sunk time for most prints. On an industrial scale, a machine that prints correctly 99% of the time might be a better investment than two that print say 75% of the time.