3D PRINTING · LONDON
Example design studies
A clearer brief starts with a useful example.
How much detail belongs in a small model? Where could a larger object divide? These original fictional studies explore decisions you can apply to your own print brief.
We keep confidential customer projects private. Every study here is hypothetical; the AI-generated illustrations do not document customer work, manufactured samples or tested results.
01 / A building model that comes apart
Hypothetical design study
The fictional brief
Imagine a simple courtyard building whose roof can lift off during a discussion. Separate context blocks show the relationship to neighbouring volumes. This is an invented building, with no architect, planning application or real development attached to it.
For the numerical example, assume a full-size building 24 m wide, 18 m deep and 12 m high. At 1:200, the main building would be 120 × 90 × 60 mm, before adding the base and context. The rendering explains the arrangement; it is not a dimensioned drawing or printable CAD file.
- Lift-off roof
Identify the view the roof needs to reveal, and agree how it locates when replaced.
- Separate context
Keep the surrounding blocks distinct from the main building when that helps explain the idea.
- Size the whole base
The building dimensions alone do not include the context and display footprint.
Scale changes the question.
Each value below is calculated by converting metres to millimetres and dividing by the scale denominator. The fictional 40 mm feature is included to show how quickly small details shrink. No value is a manufacturing limit.
| Decision | At 1:200 | At 1:100 | What to tell us |
|---|---|---|---|
| Main building only | 120 × 90 × 60 mm | 240 × 180 × 120 mm | Required scale and final dimensions; size the context/base separately. |
| Fictional 40 mm feature | 0.2 mm | 0.4 mm | Must it be present, or may its representation change? Neither size is guaranteed printable. |
| Relative linear size | Reference size | Twice each dimension | Check the display space and handling needs; this does not predict price or print time. |
| Roof and context | Separate if agreed | Separate if agreed | Identify pieces that lift off, stay fixed or may be exchanged. |
Main building only
- At 1:200
- 120 × 90 × 60 mm
- At 1:100
- 240 × 180 × 120 mm
- What to tell us
- Required scale and final dimensions; size the context/base separately.
Fictional 40 mm feature
- At 1:200
- 0.2 mm
- At 1:100
- 0.4 mm
- What to tell us
- Must it be present, or may its representation change? Neither size is guaranteed printable.
Relative linear size
- At 1:200
- Reference size
- At 1:100
- Twice each dimension
- What to tell us
- Check the display space and handling needs; this does not predict price or print time.
Roof and context
- At 1:200
- Separate if agreed
- At 1:100
- Separate if agreed
- What to tell us
- Identify pieces that lift off, stay fixed or may be exchanged.
Two ways to approach it
A — One main form. The building and roof could be one object, with separate context blocks placed around it. This would keep the external silhouette together with no removable-roof joint to manage. It would also close off the interior view and make roof alternatives harder to demonstrate. The geometry would still need a printability review.
B — Separate roof and building modules. A roof could lift off, with deliberate divisions between building wings where useful. That would let the model explain more than one view, but would introduce small pieces, seams, alignment and handling requirements. In this fictional brief, the removable roof makes B worth discussing; it is not an approved production decision.
Formlabs' architectural model guide describes scale preparation and component-based model planning. We apply those principles here to an independently invented example, without adopting its machine specifications.
Make assembly readable.
- Orient the modules
Match the intended faces before bringing the separate pieces together.
- Locate the joint
The tongue and receiving feature explain the idea. Their dimensions and clearance still need design review.
- Add the removable roof
Set the roof on after the modules are arranged. The real attachment method must be agreed.
The close-up simplifies the building into two separate modules to make the joint easier to see. It is a schematic variation, not a second view of matching CAD. A locating feature could help explain assembly, but the clearance, strength and attachment method would still need designing for the actual model.
Before making a real version
Confirm the true source dimensions, the scale, base size and features that must remain readable. Agree which pieces detach and where seams can sit. Check the material, printing process, allowable feature sizes and fit against the actual geometry. A small representative joint or detail sample could be discussed before the full model; none has been made or tested for this study.
What to send
Send the current model revision, required finished dimensions, a view of the whole assembly and a list of removable parts. Mark essential details and anything that may be simplified. State quantity, handling and required date.
Get an instant quote for a print-ready model, or discuss CAD design if the scale, modules or joints still need work.
02 / A larger form, planned in sections
Hypothetical design study
The fictional brief
Imagine a low tabletop base for a display object. For this example only, assume an assembled size of 600 × 300 × 60 mm, with softly rounded outside ends. The main viewing direction is from the front and above. No load, customer order or actual machine has been specified.
The design question is where to split the form while keeping its outline easy to read. The 600 mm dimension is the proposed assembled length, not a claim that we can print it in one piece.
- Choose the seam positions
The three-section option introduces two joints. Decide whether these breaks suit the intended view.
- Mark the visible top
Discuss orientation and support contact against the faces the viewer will see.
- Confirm the assembled outline
Check the whole object's dimensions and use conditions separately from each section's print envelope.
Two sections or three?
| Approach | Nominal section sizes before joint details | Potential benefit | Trade-off to discuss |
|---|---|---|---|
| A — Two equal sections | Two sections of 300 × 300 × 60 mm | One join across the visible shape; fewer pieces to align. | Each section needs a larger footprint. Actual envelope and orientation must be confirmed. |
| B — Three equal sections | Three sections of 200 × 300 × 60 mm | Shorter sections along the long axis; seams could become deliberate divisions. | Two joins instead of one, more alignment work and a greater need to plan the assembly. |
A — Two equal sections
- Nominal section sizes before joint details
- Two sections of 300 × 300 × 60 mm
- Potential benefit
- One join across the visible shape; fewer pieces to align.
- Trade-off to discuss
- Each section needs a larger footprint. Actual envelope and orientation must be confirmed.
B — Three equal sections
- Nominal section sizes before joint details
- Three sections of 200 × 300 × 60 mm
- Potential benefit
- Shorter sections along the long axis; seams could become deliberate divisions.
- Trade-off to discuss
- Two joins instead of one, more alignment work and a greater need to plan the assembly.
These nominal dimensions divide the fictional overall length only. Locating features, supports and other design details can change the space each print needs. Neither arrangement establishes a fit on our equipment.
Orientation is part of the decision.
One option would be to orient a section with its broad base down. Another would be to place a different face towards the build plate where the process and geometry permit. Compare the visible top, the joint surfaces and any support contact before choosing. Prusa's orientation guidance explains the general relationship between direction and surface finish; it does not validate either orientation here.
Treat seams as part of the design.
The illustration shows the three-section option with open gaps so the joins are visible. In an actual assembly, the sections would need an agreed connection and joint allowance. A deliberate seam could form a visual break; a continuous-looking surface would create a different finishing brief. The coloured lower line is a visual accent, not a confirmed colour, multi-material or finishing offer.
The Formlabs guide to larger multi-part models discusses why splitting and assembly can be design choices. Its SLA bonding examples are background reading, not an adhesive specification for this FDM concept.
Before making a real version
Confirm the assembled dimensions and the actual printable envelope for each section. Establish the display object's mass, contact footprint, loading and stability needs. Agree the material, wall/section design, joints, assembly responsibility, finish and delivery arrangement. A render provides no evidence of load capacity or physical fit.
What to send
Send a drawing of the assembled shape, all three dimensions, any separate-part files and a view marked with the important faces. Explain whether visible seams are acceptable, what the base will support, how it will be handled and whether CAD work is needed. Include quantity and the required date.
Discuss a large-format part, or get an instant quote once the model is ready to print.
Bring those decisions into your own brief.
Use our scale-model preparation guide to collect dimensions, essential details and assembly notes in one place. You do not need a finished design to start a CAD conversation.
Same city
New ideas
Higher possibilities