Marketing intelligence

Dry market research

Dry is best positioned as a deterministic toolpath review, verification and compiler layer for additive manufacturing teams that need machine-motion output they can inspect, gate, reproduce and embed.

ICPCompetitionPricingG-code SaaSPrinter librarySlicer mapCAD embedding

$24.2BWohlers 2026 reported AM market size for 2025.

EUR 11.33BAMPOWER 2026 industrial metal/polymer AM market estimate for 2025.

$6.78BResearchAndMarkets AM software revenue forecast by 2033.

Strategic Positioning

Dry should not start as a slicer replacement, MES, print-farm dashboard or visual-only G-code viewer. The first commercial wedge is a narrower, defensible layer:

CAD / slicer / generated G-code

->

Dry review / trace / verify / rewrite / report

->

Upload gate, CI gate, or embedded product workflow

Best one-line positioning: Dry is a deterministic toolpath compiler and verification layer for teams that need machine-motion output they can inspect, gate, reproduce and embed.

Ideal Customer Profile

ICP 1

Post-slicer QA operators

Print farms, service bureaus, internal additive labs and production cells reviewing many files before release.

• 20+ jobs reviewed per week, or high-value jobs where one failure is costly.
• 3-5+ hours/week spent on review, triage, re-slicing or postmortem work.
• Can run a CLI in a post-processing, upload or CI-like workflow.

ICP 2

Integrator platform teams

Teams building slicers, CAD/CAM tools, print-management products, manufacturing SaaS or extrusion tools.

• Product already imports, emits, displays or routes G-code or equivalent motion files.
• Roadmap includes verification, traceability, optimization or cross-language SDK support.
• Buyer values a commercially licensed clean-room core over GPL-coupled code.

ICP 3

Toolpath R&D teams

University labs, consultancies, process-development teams and advanced makers generating custom paths.

• Ad hoc scripts are no longer reproducible enough.
• Need exact G-code/IR plus metrics for machine trials.
• Want reusable evidence for publications, demos or client work.

ICP Fit Score

Use this scorecard before committing pilot effort.

Criterion	Points
Recurring production or review volume	2
Measurable failed-job, rework or manual-review cost	2
Clear profile/policy owner	2
Ability to run CLI/SDK in workflow	2
Clear buyer with pilot budget	2

8-10 points: pursue pilot. 5-7 points: nurture. 0-4 points: not first-wave.

Buyer Map

Role	What they care about	Dry message	Objection to expect
Operations manager	fewer failed starts, faster release-to-print	Standardize pre-print review and reduce operator-dependent checks.	We already trust our slicer.
Lab manager	process consistency and documentation	Profile-backed reports for repeatable review.	Who maintains profiles?
Staff engineer	correctness, APIs, maintainability	One deterministic core across CLI/Python/TS/wasm.	Can we trust the IR contract?
CTO / VP Eng	roadmap velocity and support burden	Embed a tested toolpath compiler layer instead of writing one.	Is this stable enough to depend on?
Quality owner	traceability and evidence	Source-located findings and stable rule IDs.	How complete is the rule catalog?

Competitive Landscape

For tactical positioning against individual slicers, see the slicer attack map.

Slicers

Examples: PrusaSlicer, UltiMaker Cura, OrcaSlicer, Simplify3D.

Stance: complement first. Dry validates, traces, compares, transforms and embeds workflows after or below the slicer.

AM workflow / MES

Examples: 3YOURMIND, AMFG, Authentise, Materialise workflow modules.

Stance: potential customer or integration partner. Dry understands toolpath artifacts below the MES layer.

Build-prep engines

Examples: Materialise Magics, Dyndrite.

Stance: adjacent technical market. Avoid direct LPBF/build-prep competition early.

Print-farm tools

Examples: SimplyPrint, Printago, OctoPrint, Moonraker ecosystems, 3DPrinterOS.

Stance: integrate as a preflight gate before upload, queueing or print start.

G-code viewers

Examples: OctoPrint GCode Viewer, gcode.ws, PrintPal viewer, MeshInspector viewer, NC Viewer.

Stance: visual inspection is not enough. Dry sells structured findings, contracts and reports.

Package Strategy

First wedge

Deterministic Review + Audit

For print farms, service bureaus and labs.

• review-gcode, trace-gcode, structured reports and profile gates.
• Optional source-preserving rewrite after re-verification.
• Best initial pricing test: $1,500-$5,000 fixed pilot, then $99-$499/month team package.

Second offer

Embed SDK

For product/platform engineering teams.

• Commercial SDK/support license around CLI, Python, TypeScript and wasm surfaces.
• Best initial pricing test: $5,000-$15,000 developer pilot, then $15,000-$75,000/year support.

Proof channel

Research Authoring + Verification

For labs, consultancies and R&D groups.

• Workshops and project-specific path-generation support.
• Best initial pricing test: $2,000-$10,000 workshop or $10,000-$50,000 integration.

G-code Machine SaaS

The broader service opportunity is a hosted control plane for any machine whose production artifact is G-code:

G-code / controller config / CAM or slicer profile / sender state
  -> Dry machine adapters
  -> capability pack + review report + proof run
  -> registry, API, CI gate, edge agent and dashboard

That gives Dry a SaaS path around public analysis, private machine registries, proof retention, fleet drift checks and integrations with CAD/CAM, slicers and sender tools. See the dedicated G-code Machine SaaS plan.

Printer Capability Library

Printers remain the best first vertical. Dry can turn fragmented printer configuration into a shared API and package format:

Klipper / Moonraker / OctoPrint / Cura / Prusa profiles
  -> Dry printer capability pack
  -> CLI, SDK, registry, checks, samples and proofs

This would give Dry a central product layer for printer properties, macros, calibration samples, proof artifacts and runtime profile resolution. See the dedicated Printer Capability Library plan.

CAD Embedding

Dry's most visible "compiler layer" package is a CAD connector. The first useful integrations should keep the host CAD system responsible for geometry and UI, while Dry handles IR, verification, reports and target output.

Recommended host order:

Host	First motion	Why	Priority
Fusion 360	local add-in	quickest polished CAD MVP, good maker/R&D overlap	1
Rhino/Grasshopper	components	best procedural toolpath fit	2
Onshape	cloud app + FeatureScript helper	strong cloud/platform story	3

See the dedicated CAD embedding page for host-by-host MVPs, packaging and sources.

Pilot Design

Print farm preflight

Inputs: 25-50 historical G-code files, 2-3 printer/material profiles, operator notes on known issues and a target report format.

Success criteria:

• catches at least 3 actionable classes of issues;
• reduces manual review time by 30%+ on the corpus;
• produces reports understandable by non-engine operators;
• no accepted rewrite creates a new verifier error.

Platform embed

Inputs: one product workflow that imports/emits/displays G-code or Dry IR, one conformance vector target and one report output requirement.

Success criteria:

• external product calls Dry without shell-only hacks;
• conformance vector reproduces;
• integration owner can explain error/report semantics;
• API gaps become specific roadmap items.

Source Notes

• Wohlers press archive
• AMPOWER Report 2026 summary
• ResearchAndMarkets via Business Wire
• 3YOURMIND distributed manufacturing software
• AMFG additive MES guide
• Authentise workflow management
• Materialise Magics
• Dyndrite
• PrusaSlicer
• UltiMaker Cura
• SimplyPrint pricing
• Printago
• OctoPrint and GCode Viewer
• Moonraker file API
• Klipper configuration reference

The full implementation report is maintained with the private product source.