miliaffiliates.blogg.se - Cetus3d slicer

#CETUS3D SLICER CODE#

If you want to experiment a bit more with PrusaSlicer, try adjusting the Print Settings->Support material->Options for support material and raft->Contact Z distance setting. This might be one area where Simplify 3D has an edge. 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. Not wrong or right, but their way and less suited for your purpose.

There are myriad reasons for doing it this way that were discussed in the GitHub threads. If you could get rid of the stringy stuff, it would be nearly identical in thickness. 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. My understanding of the issue with PrusaSlicer/Slic3r supports is that they put down a layer of bridging underneath the supported layer. That said, by all means, try other slicers. I have no idea what the details are, but apparently Tiertime has some patent. OK, that's consistent with what I'd read before. 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. One interesting point is that the best Z separation value may vary with layer height. Z distance = Layer Height + 0.1mm), but haven't noticed any superior results. I tried a couple of the variants described in the github threads (e.g. 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. You may see very different results with another slicer, and you may prefer that in this specific circumstance. My understanding is that this approach is worse in some cases, better in others.

#CETUS3D SLICER CODE#

There's actually are several very long discussion of how PrusaSlicer and the Slic3r code base on which it is based on Github. 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. I'll print out some samples and post them for comparison. Posted by: Yeah, the problem is that they do sag 😕. Maker's Muse has a good video on this topic.

Design the part as sub-components that can be assembled after printing.

If these are your designs, include some break-away supports at key points. Try to design the part or position the print so the ugly supported surfaces are not visible.

As Joan notes, reorienting the part works, but may introduce weaknesses along the horizontal axis.

Your best strategy is avoiding the need for supports as much as possible. Appearance is still not quite as nice as regular surfaces IMO. After printing, the supports are dissolved. Supported surfaces are fully supported by the dissolvable material.

Print with dissolvable supports with no gap.

There is no underlying layer to squish against, so extrusions come out round and stringy, with poor visual appearance. This small gap means that the supported surface is literally printed in air above the supports.

Print supports underneath the supported surface with a small gap in order for the supports to be removable.

When parts must be printed above supports, there are two options: You can tweak settings to an extent, but supports are always a compromise.

You are running into a limitation of current consumer-grade FFF printing, regardless of manufacturer. There are real world complex parts, where different orientation is not an option.

Posted by: particular part is just for demonstrational purposes, an example.