Choose your 3D Print-Scan-Measure Expo 2026 Education Sessions
Quality
Additive
Design
Process
Digital Zoom Lets You See More. Virtual Zoom Lets You Measure More.
Presenter: TBA
Most people treat zoom as a magnification problem. On a measurement system it's an accuracy problem. A mechanical zoom has moving elements that wear, drift, and have to be recalibrated. A digital zoom just enlarges pixels. Virtual zoom does something different, and the distinction is the difference between seeing a feature and measuring it reliably.
What this session covers
Telecentricity and why distortion matters. OGP optics are designed and built in house and fully telecentric across the entire zoom range, which is what delivers accurate measurement across the full field of view rather than only at the center
Fixed lens versus mechanical zoom, and what happens to accuracy, repeatability, and maintenance when you remove the moving elements from the optical path
Digital zoom versus virtual zoom. Digital zoom enlarges what the camera already captured. Virtual zoom changes magnification through software while preserving measurement capability at every step
What the change delivers: instant magnification changes, higher resolution imaging, improved throughput, reduced downtime, and better accuracy at high magnification
A direct comparison of the new M-Series against legacy Flash and Zip systems
Where the line stands now, with virtual zoom across E-Series, M-Series, and the rest of the platform
Relevant if you work in
Semiconductor and microelectronics · Medical device · Precision machining · High-mix inspection
Session length: One-hour window, roughly 30 minutes of presentation with time for questions
Seats are limited.
One Sensor at a Time Is a Choice You Shouldn't Have to Make
Presenter: TBA
A traditional CMM gives you one sensor and a tool change. For a part with features that need tactile, optical, and laser measurement, that means either multiple setups on one machine or multiple machines. VersaFlex puts up to three sensors on an articulating head, simultaneously available, which changes what a single setup can accomplish.
What this session covers
Where single-sensor measurement breaks down, and what it costs in setup time, fixturing, and accumulated error to measure mixed-feature parts across multiple operations
The VersaFlex sensor array: up to three simultaneously available sensors on an articulating head
The sensor range, from touch, scanning, and feather probes through Telestar, Rainbow, DRS laser triangulation, grid projector, and TTL laser, and which feature types each one is actually right for
CAD-based programming, and what it means for time to first measurement on a new part
Honest positioning on where FlexPoint fits versus where a dedicated CMM or a video system is still the better answer
Relevant if you work in
Medical device · Aerospace · Precision machining · Contract manufacturing and inspection
Session length: One-hour window, roughly 30 minutes of presentation with time for questions
Seats are limited.
The $30,000 Mistake: Verifying Fixture Clearance Before First Contact
Presenter: TBA
An AI server motherboard carries $20,000 to $30,000 worth of processors, power modules, and precision electronics. Component heights range from half-millimeter surface-mount resistors to 30mm power modules, all packed within millimeters of each other.
Before any of those boards ship, they pass through RF and wireless screening, thermal cycling, and functional testing. Every one of those tests needs a fixture that presses against the board to establish contact.
If the clearance calculation is wrong, or the as-built board differs from the CAD model, the fixture crushes a component and a $30,000 part becomes scrap. There is no partial loss.
The traditional answer was to design the fixture from CAD and then press it against a real board to find out. As the case study behind this session puts it, the first press of a new fixture on a real board is an uncontrolled experiment with an expensive subject.
Relevant if you work in
What this session covers
Where CAD and reality diverge. Surface-mount components have placement tolerances. Through-hole components have lead cut variation. Populated boards differ from nominal in ways that are small individually and consequential collectively, especially when a fixture is coming down to within fractions of a millimeter of something it must not touch.
Capturing the as-built board. Non-contact scanning of the full populated surface, switching between fine mode for resolving individual component geometry and large-area mode for covering the board efficiently. Contact measurement risks the exact damage it's trying to prevent, and manual measurement is impractical at this component density.
Virtual assembly. Bringing the fixture CAD down onto the scanned board in software, and getting back a color-mapped clearance report. Blue means the fixture clears. Red means it contacts or compresses.
Targeted correction instead of iteration. Using the report to identify exactly which fixture features need modification and by how much, rather than adjusting, repressing, and re-evaluating.
What it changes operationally. Verification in hours rather than cycles of physical trial and error. Zero boards damaged during validation. A digital record of every scan and report for quality management and audit.
Where the threshold actually sits. The case for this approach isn't limited to $30,000 boards. It applies wherever a single fixture-induced damage event costs more than the workflow that prevents it, which brings in telecom hardware, industrial control boards, and automotive ECUs.
AI infrastructure · Semiconductor and electronics · Telecommunications hardware · Automotive electronics · High-value assembly · Contract manufacturing
Session length: One-hour window, roughly 30 minutes of presentation with time for questions
Seats are limited.
Implementing Additive: From Design to Production
Presenter: TBA
The question isn't whether you should 3D print a part. It's how you build a repeatable process around the technology once you decide to.
What this session covers
Designing for the process, not around it. What changes when the part is intended for production rather than validation, and where design decisions determine whether the process scales.
Material selection for end use. What the material has to deliver in service rather than on a desk, and the gap between a datasheet number and part performance.
Building repeatability. Making the fiftieth part the same as the first. Process control, material handling, and the operational discipline that separates a production line from a prototype shop.
Case examples from production environments. Companies running additive as a production process today, what they built to get there, and what they learned along the way.
The validation question. How you prove a printed part is what you think it is, which connects to the measurement sessions elsewhere in the program.
Relevant if you work in
Transportation and autonomy · Aerospace · Consumer products · Medical device · Supply chain and reshoring
Session length: 45 minutes with time for questions
Seats are limited.
Why You Shouldn't Glue Parts Together
Presenter: TBA
When a part is too big for your printer, the instinct is to print it in sections and bond them. Every joint introduces tolerance stacking, and the finished part drifts from what was designed. Printing full scale removes the question entirely.
What this session covers
Where tolerance stacking comes from in bonded assemblies, and what it costs in dimensional fidelity
What changes structurally when a part is printed as one piece
Applications in transportation where full-scale printing is already in service
Practical constraints: build volume, material, print time, and post-processing at scale
Relevant if you work in
Transportation and autonomy · Aerospace · Large-format tooling and fixtures · Supply chain and reshoring
Session length: One-hour window, roughly 30 minutes of presentation with time for questions
Seats are limited.
Metal Parts Surface Finishing with Extreme Control: From mirror to matte finishes, identical every time
Presenter: Jesús Contreras (DLyte Managing Director)
Dry electropolishing used to be a narrow answer to a narrow problem. If your part was too big, too complex, or hollow, the answer was no. That has changed. Dry electropolishing now brings unprecedented control to manufactured part surfaces.
What this session covers
The application of DLyte has transformed into a part-centric approach. Three developments are accelerating adoption:
Mass finishing without fixturing. No more holding each part in a specific orientation. Removing that requirement changes both labor cost and batch economics.
Turbo Flow and the end of size limits. Large component challenges are no longer an issue. Where the limits of part size now sit, and what that means for bringing finishing in house.
E-Blast for internal geometries. Piping, internal channels, and cavities no line-of-sight process could reach.
Plus updated case examples from applications that were not possible two years ago, and a live demonstration during the session.
Relevant if you work in
Medical device · Metal additive · Aerospace · Semiconductor · Robotic surgery
Session length: 45 minutes with time for questions
Seats are limited.
Eliminate Drawing Translation Errors and Validate Your GD&T Callouts
Presenter: TBA & Nick Keehn (Director of Engineering at Indicate Technologies)
Inspectors interpret 2D drawings to automate inspection processes using a 3D model. This often leads to misunderstandings about the required data acquisition and analysis methods. Applying traditional and GD&T (Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing) tolerances directly to the 3D model can eliminate these errors and increase productivity by providing the inspector with a detailed inspection plan before any programming begins.
What this session covers
What MBD (Model Based Design) actually changes. Moving from drawing interpretation to a model carrying unambiguous GD&T qualifications, and what that does to programming time and the opportunities for error.
Where translation errors come from. Drawings leave gaps around data acquisition and analysis method. Inspectors fill those gaps with assumptions, and the assumptions vary.
Converting what you already have. Most manufacturers have decades of 2D prints and no path to MBD that doesn't involve redrawing everything. The conversion process, what the output looks like, and how to adapt and enhance rather than redraw.
QIF (Quality Information Framework). The open ISO (International Organization for Standardization) file format EVOLVE Design creates, and the starting point for any Industry 4.0 inspection workflow. Modern CAD packages all support QIF, so the differentiator is not the format itself but the compliance behind it. EVOLVE Design is fully compliant to multiple GD&T standards.
Why it works regardless of your equipment. The software is machine-agnostic, so the decision isn't tied to a capital purchase.
Handing a spec to a supplier without ambiguity. An MBD file communicates intent and requirements in a way a drawing plus a phone call never can.
Relevant if you work in
Semiconductor · Medical device · Aerospace · Supply chain management and reshoring
Session length: 45 minutes with time for questions
Seats are limited.
Force and Material Testing in a Regulated Environment
Presenter: Scott Blanchard (Manager at AMETEK Sensors, Test & Calibration)
Material tests are often specified in a reverse-logical order. After a testing machine is selected, someone figures out what it can tell them. Then one of those tests is adopted. What could be the benefits from an approach that chooses the testing machine based on well-designed functional tests?
What this session covers
Designing functional material tests. Tension, compression, peel, friction, texture, fatigue. What stresses will the part experience during use, and which tests replicate those stresses.
Capacity considerations, and whether bigger is always better. What test range you need now, whether to plan for an expanded range, and the tradeoffs between a handheld gauge, a benchtop tester, and a full frame.
Interpreting drawing specifications. What the part spec means relative to test system specifications, and sources of measurement error that may surprise you.
Frame and control impacts. What's needed to enable reliable tests with documented results. Single versus dual column, manual versus motorized, and the software layer that turns a force reading into a documented result.
Compliance and documentation. What regulated industries require for electronic records and signatures under CFR Part 11, and how system architecture either supports that or fights it.
Relevant if you work in
Medical device · Pharmaceutical and drug delivery · Packaging · Transportation · Batteries · Compliance-driven manufacturing
Session length: 45 minutes with time for questions
Seats are limited.
