Example design studies
A first model.
A better next question.
We keep confidential customer projects private. These original studies use fictional briefs and AI-generated illustrations to explore useful printing decisions.
They do not describe customer orders, completed prints or measured results.
STUDY 01
Hypothetical design studyA controller before the controls
This is an independently invented brief for an empty, unbranded handheld controller shell. No customer device or electronics are represented. The question is which outer form would be useful to take into a future handling review.
Which outer form should we take into a future handling review?
Two hypothetical grip concepts at a comparable illustrative scale. Neither has been manufactured or user-tested for this study. This image is not a dimensioned drawing.
- 01Shared reference: define the same intended overall length and top-end region in an agreed drawing.
- 02Changed contour: compare the rounded capsule with the narrower waist and broader palm swell.
- 03Deliberately empty: no electronics, controls or device mass are represented.
The fictional brief
Assume two unpowered form samples, one per shape. For discussion, the starting overall length would be 150 mm for both, with the same intended top-end width. These are example inputs, not dimensions measured from the artwork or a confirmed print specification. The final width, depth and reference features would need to be defined in a real model.
The intended review would compare a gently rounded capsule with a narrower waist and broader palm swell. Both would remain empty. Controls, battery mass, electronics, seals and a working closure would be outside this first brief.
Two plausible approaches
A simple rounded grip
Nearly parallel sides could leave more freedom in where the fingers sit and how the form is repositioned. The shape would provide fewer deliberate cues about where to hold it. That trade-off needs a real handling discussion; the illustration establishes neither comfort nor suitability.
A shaped waist and palm swell
A narrower centre and broader lower end could give the hand a more obvious location. The same contour could constrain alternative grips or suit some hands less well. It is a proposal to investigate, not an ergonomic improvement already demonstrated.
The print brief should identify the exact contour change and what stays consistent. If handling is the purpose, mass, surface texture and finish also need consideration. The two illustration colours distinguish the concepts; a future physical comparison should control irrelevant differences where practical.
The open cavity and separate blank plate explain a form mockup's limited scope. The plate is a visual placeholder; its fit and attachment have not been designed or validated. This is a fictional concept, not a customer project.
- 01The empty cavity explains the scope. The separate plate is a placeholder; no attachment or fit is established.
What would need confirming
The intended users and holding positions; actual overall dimensions; handed or two-handed use; required control locations; eventual device mass; material and finish suitable for the planned handling; and the scope and method of the future review. If assembly becomes the question, the interfaces need their own design and assessment.
The useful result of the first review could be a better-defined next brief, including an unresolved question. No comfort score, winning design, strength result or manufacturing outcome is claimed here. Focused prototypes can represent only part of a product’s requirements; see Formlabs’ product-development guidance.
What to send for a quote
Send the two model files or sketches, the intended dimensions and units, one sample per option if that is the required quantity, and a note identifying the shared references and changed contour. State whether the samples are for visual comparison or physical handling. Use Get a Quote when the models are ready, or CAD design help to discuss creating the shapes.
STUDY 02
Hypothetical design studyThe space around the product
This fictional brief concerns the space reserved for a small tabletop product in a carton. The green object and orange block are original concepts, with no customer product, completed package or transit result represented.
Do we need the detailed shape, or the space it occupies?
A detailed fictional object and simplified volume dummy show two ways to discuss packaging space. The carton is illustrative. No fit check, drop test or protective-performance assessment has been performed.
- 01Include the high point. The raised feature contributes to the total occupied height.
- 02Simplify deliberately. Maximum extent is different from exact contact geometry or mass distribution.
- 03Check usable carton space, folds, dividers, lid overlap and accessories. The pictured carton is not a confirmed fit.
The fictional brief
Assume the first question is how much rectangular space to reserve. For this example, use an overall envelope of 110 × 70 × 40 mm, including the highest protrusion, and assume one planning sample. These are invented design inputs, not measurements of the render. The carton’s usable internal dimensions are not specified and would need confirming.
The illustration pairs a more detailed body, including a raised feature, with a simplified volume block. The block represents the outside envelope; it deliberately omits the grooves, recesses and exact local contours.
Two plausible approaches
Keep the detailed external form
Representing the protrusion and local contours could help discuss how a shaped insert contacts the object or how it is lifted out. It would also require those external details to be defined. Visual detail that has no bearing on the packaging question may add nothing useful at this stage.
Use an envelope dummy
A plain volume block could support an early space-reservation discussion before every surface detail is settled. Its maximum dimensions must include anything that occupies that space. It cannot demonstrate seating in a shaped insert. Because the block fills space that the real object may leave empty, it could also rule out an arrangement that a more representative shape might permit.
Choose between them by naming the packaging question. “How much overall room should we reserve?” and “Does this insert contact the intended surfaces?” require different representations.
What this concept could not demonstrate
A printed space dummy need not match the real product’s mass, centre of gravity, fragility or surface behaviour. Nor does it represent the response of the complete protective packaging. A genuine transit assessment concerns the product and packaging together and the relevant distribution conditions; ISTA’s procedure guidance describes that broader scope. This study does not recommend a particular test procedure or claim compliance.
What would need confirming
The product envelope and units; protrusions and attached accessories; which surfaces must be protected or accessible; actual carton and insert geometry; insertion/removal direction; and whether the task is a visual space discussion, a physical fit assessment or packaging-performance work. For a physical sample, agree the required dimensions, material and relevant allowances before manufacture.
What to send for a quote
Send the model or a dimensioned outline, the carton/insert information you can provide, the quantity and the specific question. Mark details that may be removed and features that must remain. State clearly whether the dummy is intended only to represent occupied space. Use Get a Quote for a ready model or CAD design help for a simplified model made to an agreed brief.
Make the next brief clearer
Choose what your model
needs to explain.
The generated illustrations are raster concepts. No editable CAD, production geometry or validated dimensioned drawing is supplied with these studies.
Explore the prototype-purpose guideWhat should your first print tell you?
Bring the question, the model and the dimensions that matter. Explore your next step with 3D Printing Leicester.