His core message: equipment lowers the barrier to manufacturing, but materials define the ceiling of the industry.
On August 26, 2026, at the Formnext event in Shenzhen, Liang Cheng, head of the 3D printing business at Kingfa Science and Technology, delivered a speech on the evolution of FDM materials.
A set of figures paints the industry landscape for 2026. Global installed base of consumer-grade FDM machines stands at around 20 million units, with production volumes in the first seven months of this year up 52.3% year‑on‑year. Full‑year demand for PLA filament is projected at 120,000–140,000 metric tons, representing year‑on‑year growth of over 50%. China accounts for more than 90% of global equipment production capacity and over 60% of filament production, with exports making up 70–80% of output.
Looking back at the history of FDM, we can see it as a three‑act play. In 2009, the core patents expired, and open‑source projects gave rise to a desktop ecosystem. From 2022 onward, multi‑color, high‑speed machines brought 3D printing into the mainstream consumer spotlight. And from 2023 to the present, farms with thousands of printers have emerged, shifting the industry's center of gravity from hardware to operations and consumables.
The material landscape forms a pyramid. At the base, PLA, PETG, and TPU account for over 90% of farm shipments. In the middle, PA, PC, and carbon‑fiber reinforced materials are used for functional parts and tooling. At the top, PEEK and PEKK serve aerospace and medical implant applications.
The speech also shared several real‑world cases. PETG is evolving from a simple PLA alternative into an independent engineering material segment; Kingfa's modified PETG strikes a balance between high flowability, low stringing, and high stiffness. A case study on lamp‑shade material selection proved that "there is no single best material, only the best match" – and PETG won out for its adequate translucency, processability, and cost‑effectiveness. On the aesthetics front, a CMYK translucent color‑blending system and a "layer‑wise iridescent" technology developed with an art academy give materials inherent decorative appeal, reducing the need for post‑processing painting or coating.
For farm operators, one formula is worth remembering: true material cost = purchase price + failure cost + time cost + reputation cost. Hidden costs are often overlooked – when a farm scales from ten machines to a thousand, the impact of material variability multiplies proportionally. In the age of scale, procurement is shifting from "lowest unit price" to "batch‑to‑batch consistency."
Over the next decade, material evolution will follow four main tracks. Commercialization demands that materials pass certification systems for food contact, toy safety, flame retardancy, and medical use. Scaling requires tight consistency in diameter, color (ΔE), and moisture content – with RFID and cloud parameter libraries becoming standard. Mass adoption calls for ingredient transparency to build consumer confidence, turning filament selection into something akin to reading a food label. And materials themselves are moving toward functionalization (conductive, flame‑retardant, antimicrobial), aestheticization, and greener formulations (recycled and bio‑based feedstocks).
Toward the end, Liang raised five industry‑wide challenges: the imbalance between quality and price (PLA prices have dropped over 60% in two years); opaque material information that leaves users in the dark; parameter lock‑ins that hinder third‑party filaments; copyright disputes over model designs; and the lack of unified standards. But positive signals are emerging – China's first international standard for 3D printing materials, ISO 5425:2023, has already been published.
Equipment tore down the entry barriers, but materials will decide how high the ceiling can go.
