![]() TierTime has officially published only Simplif圓d profile, but not for others like Cura or Slic3r. Their UpStudio supports printing gcode generated by other slicers. Posted by: particular part is just for demonstrational purposes, an example.TierTime Cetus is a very capable printer. There are real world complex parts, where different orientation is not an option. You are running into a limitation of current consumer-grade FFF printing, regardless of manufacturer. When parts must be printed above supports, there are two options: You can tweak settings to an extent, but supports are always a compromise.Print supports underneath the supported surface with a small gap in order for the supports to be removable.This small gap means that the supported surface is literally printed in air above the supports. There is no underlying layer to squish against, so extrusions come out round and stringy, with poor visual appearance.Print with dissolvable supports with no gap.Supported surfaces are fully supported by the dissolvable material. After printing, the supports are dissolved. Appearance is still not quite as nice as regular surfaces IMO. Your best strategy is avoiding the need for supports as much as possible.As Joan notes, reorienting the part works, but may introduce weaknesses along the horizontal axis.Try to design the part or position the print so the ugly supported surfaces are not visible. If these are your designs, include some break-away supports at key points.Design the part as sub-components that can be assembled after printing. ![]() Maker's Muse has a good video on this topic. Posted by: Yeah, the problem is that they do sag □. I'll print out some samples and post them for comparison. that sure sounds like a limitation of current consumer-grade FFF 3D printing! □I'm curious whether the improved Cetus results are the result of their Up Studio (?) software, or a Cura profile.ĭifferent slicers handle bridges differently. There's actually are several very long discussion of how PrusaSlicer and the Slic3r code base on which it is based on Github. My understanding is that this approach is worse in some cases, better in others. You may see very different results with another slicer, and you may prefer that in this specific circumstance. Supports got a lot of attention from the Prusa developers in 2018-2019, but hard to say where it is on the list of priorities. I tried a couple of the variants described in the github threads (e.g. Z distance = Layer Height + 0.1mm), but haven't noticed any superior results. One interesting point is that the best Z separation value may vary with layer height. There also seem to be dependencies on bridging parameters, as that stringy stuff between the supported surface and the underlying interface layers is printed as a bridge. OK, that's consistent with what I'd read before. I have no idea what the details are, but apparently Tiertime has some patent. That said, by all means, try other slicers. My understanding of the issue with PrusaSlicer/Slic3r supports is that they put down a layer of bridging underneath the supported layer. Since there is no underlying layer to flatten the bridging layer out, it will add to the thickness of the supported part with that stringy surface you're seeing on the underside that is causing the wall to be roughly one layer thicker. If you could get rid of the stringy stuff, it would be nearly identical in thickness. There are myriad reasons for doing it this way that were discussed in the GitHub threads. ![]() Not wrong or right, but their way and less suited for your purpose. If you've got a lot of pieces that need large supported areas like this that you can't work-around otherwise, give 'em a shot. This might be one area where Simplify 3D has an edge.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |