One of the advantages of 3D printing is that you can tailor the insert size to your needs. I like to have a single compartment for each vehicle or gun model, so right now my inserts for 5/8" counters are just 2/3 of the height of a Raaco insert - so I can stack 3 in an Assorter. With a lid, I can store a stack of 6 easily in an insert, which is sufficient for almost all counters. (Another option would be to use the original module boxes as containers; I haven't looked into it so far but since MMP has standardized their box sizes, and made them sturdy enough, it could probably be done)
The height of a 3D-printed insert would be indeed one of the most important issues to think about. I agree to the height of 6 for vehicles and guns. That is the height I stack these in my current RAACO storage, filling up the gun/vehicle types of which there are less than 6 in a Core Module with those of my old kit or from some HASLs (as this will almost completely prevent lateral shifting/mixing of counters if all stacks have the same height). For often needed types that might require more than 6 of a type, like a T-43 M43 or a Pz IVH, I take two stacks of 6. If you have single counter type compartments, then this precaution is not even necessary (though it still looks nicer to have a single height of stacks...).
The advantage of 3 tiers of inserts is that you can house more different types of vehicles in a single Assorter. The drawback is that you have to do more shifting of inserts to get to the counters you need. That is no small drawback.
Maybe one would consider a mix of 2 tiers and 3 tiers of 3D-printed counters, i.e. 2 tiers for Infantry/SW/Fuctions counters with stacks of 10 or 12 each, 3 tiers for Gun/Vehicle counters with stacks of 6 each. Probably, this would be the best approach.
Still, the 3D-printed inserts I'd use would be designed to fit a RAACO Assorter. The Assorters and Handy Boxes are much sturdier than the Core Module cardboard boxes and can be easier handled/carried while on travel.
The inserts come out a bit more expensive than the Raaco ones, but not by that much if you don't factor in the cost of the printer - and you can hunt for cheap filament.
One can hunt for good prices for RAACO equipment as well. Currently with regard to prices, 3D-printing is not able to compete. And the material quality of a RAACO insert exceeds that of a 3D-printed one - at least this is true for the ones I have seen so far. Finally, it takes a
lot of time to 3D-print some 200+inserts which would probably be required to replace the RAACO A75s and A78s. But it is only a matter of time that prices for 3D-printers, filament, etc. will drop and quality improve.
As for the tweezer thing... I'm a suction tool man myself. Well, actually, I mostly play VASL, but I like to pretend it's just temporary.
Personal preference, of course. I find that tweezers are better at handling stacks. In any case, the 'optimal' 3D-printed insert should serve both the tweezer- and suction-approach.
That leaves the matter of labels... I could see putting labels on the lids, but I'd have to use pictures of counters for that.
Actually I believe that for 3D-printed inserts, labels are superfluous if they are designed for lateral counter storage. As there will be no counter-shifting possible by design, the side by which you identify the counter will always be on top and be correctly aligned. For some Function counters of which front & back are different / that have multiple fuctions, you could use two compartments with one showing the 'up' side, the other the 'down' side of the counter. In other words, you can look at the counters directly if you open the lid in perfect alignment anyway without labels - at least for the top tier.
But frankly, for an obsessive guy like you, tweaking an insert design would probably be a pleasure all by ifself
Don't be mistaken. It is nice to
have but not exactly nice to
develop.
I shunned the commitment to switch from my original storage from the days when I picked up ASL to RAACO for many years despite all of its deficiencies because I was painfully aware of the work it was going to be. And needless to say I underestimated the amount of work it finally turned out to be - albeit the decision demobilize my original kit and punch a new one from 2nd editions of core modules along with clipping these did massively increase the necessary effort.
Once I had made the decision for a transition, though, I took the 'once and for all' approach. This, however, would have to be done based on a very well developed plan & system to keep it as 'stable' as possible ever after. So my approach is rather based on laziness rather than enthusiasm to deal with counter storage. For the same reason, I generally do not include any HASLs in my kit with the exception of some counters that see frequent use outside of that HASL as has been the case with some blue SS-counters for example. But as newer HASLs tend to become ever more specialized and can draw on a wider variety of existing counters within the 'core system', this case has become ever rarer so it is hardly an issue any more.
So a fundamental transition to 3D-printed counters will not happen before a new, big Core Module will be released which does not merely replace an earlier edition. And such new Core Modules will with decreasing probability be found within the WW2 timeframe, which I am interested in most for ASL purposes.
The latest really 'new' one has been 'Forgotten War', i.e. post WW2, the next one I
might see to be coming could be the Spanish Civil War in many years to come and which would be pre WW2.
Because 'FW' is not part of the WW2 time frame as a Core Module, I will not fully integrate it with the other Core Modules but keep it separate. For example post WW2 US units will be stored separately from the rest of the US OoB. The same is true for the rest of the FW stuff and I will treat any future non-WW2 time frame Core Modules the same way.
von Marwitz