![]() ![]() ![]() Conversely, when they are an inch or less, the force of the moving bandsaw blade often breaks them off the part, but this can pit the part surface. I have found (while cutting off the raft) that when the supports are an inch or more in length, they generally stay in place on the part and have to be manually removed (but this is now much quicker and easier without the raft). You can cut off the raft and then work through other areas of the supports. I agree on the post processing and support removal, its really a chore that I dislike as well, but the power bandsaw makes it somewhat easier. I lower the density and then manually reposition or add supports where I think they look empty. I reduce both the density and point size prior to printing. It works great for parts off the Form 3, but parts from the Form 3L may require a larger model where the part can fit into the band cutting area. ![]() There may be no better solution, but I thought I give it one more try by being more explicit.Īny bright ideas, other than “don’t do that”? Thanks in advance. All my time is going to be spent in either removing supports in the print, or playing with alternatives. I’m never going to get the production I need. With 48 hour printing times, the trial and error of manual placement isn’t practical, since I’m only making a few of each model. I’ve been looking at the suggested alternative software, but they make support generation into a career. Slope and density and touch point size are at a minimum It would be ideal if I could simplify part of the lattice, eliminating some cross linking, leaving out the cross bracing (in part). But the choice is either too few touchpoints, or a lattice that is so dense it becomes a solid. The autogenerate in Preform prints successfully, and is quick (sort of) to generate the supports. Not all get one, and this works, but there are still a bazillion points, which generate a highly complex lattice underneath. To try and be clear, I need a lot of touch points, since the model is a bird with feathers, and each tip wants a touch point. Meaning a hack saw, metal shears, and needle nose pliers sort of a chore. This makes removing the structure a chore. The problem I face is that the underlying structure becomes too dense when I apply the right number of touchpoints. ![]() By the way, things like springs need to be printed sideways or at an angle to prevent the spring action from interfering with the peal process.I’ve had success by cranking down the density, slope and touchpoint size to the minimum. I don’t know of a common place to post things around here. I’ve printed custom springs and 2-56 threader holes! speaking of which, if people need standard springs or ones with hooks, I can send you pro E files or generate STL files for you specific dimensions. This is like the cheaters way to speed up printers for the time being because it shouldn’t require too much effort to implement this in the software.Īll and all, I’m liking my printer and thus far, I haven’t had any failed prints. This would allow things you don’t care about like the supports to be printed faster making the whole things faster. From first marker to second marker or finish can be set to a finer resolution like 0.05mm. Zero to first marker could be all the support structure just before the model and it can be set to 0.1mm. The person is able to change the slice resolution for each section. Each section can be user set and the default value would simply be to whatever the user selected upon file creation. Anyways to keep things simply, my thinking is to have a slider much like the slice viewer that allows maybe 2 or 3 different layer height thickness. I was about to post this as a new topic but figured somebody else must have thought of this before me. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |