While I'm about as far from an expert on 3D printers as you can get, since no one else has responded yet, I thought I'd give an explanation a try.
The first thing to remember is that resolution can mean two different things with regards to a 3D printers. It can refer to the accuracy with which plastic is placed (dependent on the motors, the software, and limited by structural constraints that might introduce error), or the quantity of plastic that is placed on a given spot and the precision with which you dispense plastic (which is dependent on the extruder, and possibly the software, I think). The first type of resolution is effectively limited by the second in that it doesn't matter how accurate your placement is, if you're extruding 1mm globs of plastic, you're not going to be able to put stuff closer together than that.
With regards to the type of resolution you're referring to and given the design of Simpson and the stated opinions of nicholas.seward and Annirak, I imagine resolution is almost entirely down to the motors and drive system. I doubt they'd let software be a limiter on the performance of Simpson.
edit: Printing layers that aren't parallel to the surface and/or curve (and possibly abandoning the layer system or at least partially replacing it, although that'd be a major undertaking) is indeed really neat.
The first thing to remember is that resolution can mean two different things with regards to a 3D printers. It can refer to the accuracy with which plastic is placed (dependent on the motors, the software, and limited by structural constraints that might introduce error), or the quantity of plastic that is placed on a given spot and the precision with which you dispense plastic (which is dependent on the extruder, and possibly the software, I think). The first type of resolution is effectively limited by the second in that it doesn't matter how accurate your placement is, if you're extruding 1mm globs of plastic, you're not going to be able to put stuff closer together than that.
With regards to the type of resolution you're referring to and given the design of Simpson and the stated opinions of nicholas.seward and Annirak, I imagine resolution is almost entirely down to the motors and drive system. I doubt they'd let software be a limiter on the performance of Simpson.
edit: Printing layers that aren't parallel to the surface and/or curve (and possibly abandoning the layer system or at least partially replacing it, although that'd be a major undertaking) is indeed really neat.
