This isn't a bug, but it is frustrating. The problem is that simplify doesn't try to print features that are thinner than the extrusion width. You can try to reduce your extrusion width, but this is generally tied to your nozzle width. Reducing it may have nasty side effects, but you'll just have to play with it to see if its livable.mmcginnis9272 wrote:I have been using the Cura engine within Repetier Host for about 6 months before I decided to purchase Simplify3D. I have had issues with Cura not generating thin walls. Simplify3D seems worse. For instance, the attached file of a Pirate ship.
With a .4mm nozzle, I can get the sails to print with a magnification reduction as low as 67%. Simplify will not print the sails at any magnification lower than 81%. Anything lower than the stated percentages in each program cause the ship's sails to disappear. is there any way to get Simplify 3D to at least perform as well as Cura, if not better?
Omitting small model features should be an optional software feature, and should at least produce a notification. If you do not have the luxury of editing the part, or swapping your nozzle, then S3D is not trustworthy if you cannot force it to print the part.Rebekah_harper wrote:If cura prints this then the width would no longer be what the part parameter is.
You can trust S3D though
True, but in this specific example, the weakness is in the software, not the tool.jimc wrote:...there are limitations with every type of manufacturing. 3d printing is no different.
I am also an engineer--which is why I would never suggest it over-print without setting that flag--but I also realize that a) most people here aren't, and b) most of the files on the 3d download sites were not drawn by an engineer. The ship above is a perfect example; somebody drew it, it sliced with Cura (or whatever), but S3d could not print the design intent, which is far more important than any one dimension. An engineer knows when he's inherited a design that requires tweaking to be manufacturable, but as I said, the operator has to have control over the software, and blind changes made by the s/w--either thickening the rib or removing it-- are bad.dkightley wrote:Personally, I'm happy with the way the software works for thin walls.......probably because I'm an engineer.