Simplify3D User Forum

dkightley wrote: ↑Tue Sep 11, 2018 6:59 pm

You can replicate this older behavior using the variable settings wizard to create a third process for the area where you wish for solid layers and set the solid diaphragm interval to every 1 layer(s).

That's a very, very messy way of getting a solid layer at a defined layer. A half way house between the functionality of versions 3.1.1 and 4.0 would be a much better solution!

What about this as a way forward....whenever the Variable Settings wizard is used to create multiple profiles, the number of top & bottom layers settings for the interface between profiles are zeroed out. And if a solid layer is then needed, the user can add either top or bottom layers back in at will!

Great suggestion, however theres also bottom and top solid layers in each of these processes that wouldn't be present at the exact process change area. If the top and bottoms are zeroed those other areas don't get proper fill. This was the issue with 3.1.1. 4.0.0 fixed this by allowing the solid layers in the transition area to get ignored but still produce solid fill on bottom and top areas within the process that didn't meet up exactly against the preceding or following process.

As long as we are requesting changes to solve the issue, there is another solution. I think it would be nice to have an option that made support under the edges of the roof where it meets the chimney. Basically, the would look like the walls of the chimney continue down through the infill (slightly enlarged within the model) so that there is support all the way down. Then when the top layer goes over the roof, it has the chimney walls under it to support it. This would eliminate the issue, and if it were taken in to account with the infill percentage, it wouldn't cost much if any more plastic, it would just adjust the shape of the infill to make sure it provided support.

I was just about to ask for the same thing: extending the "Include solid diaphragm every ... layers" to allow arbitrary layer specification because multiples of X often don't match the required layers in the print (and, frankly, who wants to do the math for that with anything other than a trivial print?!)

One idea for extra-awesomness would be to be able to add these layers through the print preview view. i.e a new "Add diaphragm" button which would add it at the layer you are currently looking at. That would save so much time! - a huge UX win!

I agree that it would be nice to either be able to tell it to print those solid layers between processes (maybe just a checkbox) or an input box which would allow you to day I want solid layers at layers 14, 15, & 16 in a 25 layer print.

TimWilde wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:12 pm I was just about to ask for the same thing: extending the "Include solid diaphragm every ... layers" to allow arbitrary layer specification because multiples of X often don't match the required layers in the print (and, frankly, who wants to do the math for that with anything other than a trivial print?!)

One idea for extra-awesomness would be to be able to add these layers through the print preview view. i.e a new "Add diaphragm" button which would add it at the layer you are currently looking at. That would save so much time! - a huge UX win!

This would be great to avoid clicking back and forth from prepare to print window

+1 - For exactly the same reasons. I've had to do this a number of times when I'm making a model with very little infill (or none) ... and then a surface needs made. But I don't want 'every 50 layers'. Just at layer 50

Would be a great option to add.

+1 . Would really like a non-clunky way to have solid layers between two processes. (It's not clear to me why the top / bottom solid layers specified in a two process setup are ignored.) This third diaphragm-only process concept seems like it's going to work, but wow that's an awful workaround.

There's a thread in the Trouble Shooting & Bugs section that is allied to this subject: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=11769

When the Variable Settings Wizard was introduced, the bottom and top solid layers at the interface were prevented from being printed...and the top number of layers from the highest profile was adopted for "real" top surfaces throughout the model....and a similar thing for the bottom solid layers.

The above feature request is for solid layers to be specified as user defined heights....and I suggested using the redundant number of top/bottom layers as an indicator for user-defined solid layers.

I think if the devs look at all of these different requirements, they could produce a one-fixes-all solution!

I agree completely with Doug. Removing the top/bottom layers with multiple processes was plain dumb.
The workarounds are mess also. You guys seem to have made some changes that really feel like big steps backward.

Why should I need to have to manage 3 or more processes just to have a few solid layers at a specific point in a print? It is just messy, inefficient and opens the door wide for other issues.

I think one solution would be to have the ability to add solid layers (infill tab) at specified heights ( I know there is an add at every X layer which is a start ).
Maybe it is a default of only one layer at any particular height but sometimes that is all that is needed.

I think if you guys took the already existing add solid layer every X layer and expanded it then that would be great!

Something like the fan control section: Like fan on at X layer at 30% except for a solid layer. So ...
Add solid layer at layer X for 3 layers. Maybe add some limits like only 2-4 layers or something so it isn't used as a substitute for solid infill or things like that.
This would be extremely usefull!

Thanks for the continued feedback, gents! I've updated our internal tracking to reflect the new interest.

S3D-Jake wrote: ↑Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:32 pm Thanks for the continued feedback, gents! I've updated our internal tracking to reflect the new interest.

Thank you!!