The year 2020 marked a significant expansion in the scope and capabilities of 3D printing, with notable advances in hardware, techniques, materials, and digital resources. Insights into these developments were captured in MakerBot’s 3D Printing Trends Report, which compiled data from over 1,200 professionals spanning aerospace, industrial goods, military and defense, medical, and automotive sectors. One key takeaway from the report was that reliability outweighed accuracy as the primary factor influencing machine selection among designers.
Manufacturers introduced a diverse range of new machines over the year. In March, Stratasys unveiled the J826, a mid-range, lower-cost addition to its high-end J8 series, aimed at providing professional-grade capabilities without the premium price. Shortly thereafter, the company released the J55, described as an “office-friendly 3D printer for designers” and priced at roughly one-third of the flagship PolyJet systems. That same month, MakerBot launched the Method Carbon Fiber Edition, engineered to process carbon-fiber-reinforced nylon, enabling the production of parts robust enough to replace certain metal components.
Large-format printing saw a leap forward in August when Formlabs introduced the Form 3L, offering a substantial build volume of 11.8 inches in height, 13.2 inches in width, and 7.9 inches in depth. In November, Creality’s Infinite-Z printer entered the spotlight through a Kickstarter campaign, attracting $1.4 million in pledges. This unconventional design features a conveyor-belt-style build platform, allowing for objects of theoretically unlimited length.
Technical innovations emerged from research institutions worldwide. Swiss researchers developed a rapid, high-resolution 3D printing process capable of working with both soft and rigid materials. The Wyss Institute, in collaboration with Harvard’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, introduced Multimaterial Multinozzle 3D printing, a method enabling filament color changes during extrusion. Addressing single-nozzle limitations, Meiji University, Osaka University, and Texas A&M University devised Programmable Filament, allowing multimaterial output from standard single-nozzle printers.
Novel material applications also gained attention. Jack Forman of MIT Media Lab’s Tangible Media group pioneered an “underextruding” technique to fabricate flexible fabrics using low-cost, unmodified printers. Industrial designer Jiani Zeng and computational designer Honghao Deng leveraged multimaterial printing to produce lenticular effects in their “Illusory Materials” series, demonstrating how optical properties can be embedded directly into printed objects.
The digital ecosystem for 3D printing resources expanded as well. Thangs emerged as a competitor to Thingiverse, promoting a “geometric search” capability to enhance model discovery. NASA’s 3D Resources site added hundreds of downloadable models, textures, and visualizations, including .stl files for functional tools such as the Multi-Purpose Precision Maintenance Tool.
Unexpected cultural trends surfaced alongside these technical strides. Among them was the niche practice of 3D printing sprue cards for model airplane kits, illustrating the technology’s reach into hobbyist communities. For visual enthusiasts, Wild Rose Builds offered striking time-lapse videos capturing the printing process in action.
Not all developments were positive. A study highlighted health concerns associated with FDM 3D printers, revealing that these machines emit toxic particles. The findings indicated that children aged nine and younger are particularly vulnerable to these emissions, underscoring the importance of adequate ventilation and safety precautions in environments where such printers are operated.