Doug, you are missing a third group. Those of us who design their own parts, and as engineers, see S3d as merely a tool, and sometimes it isn't good enough, so we grab a different tool rather than modify the part, because "the printed part" is NOT the end goal. Those of us in that group may want to controllably force the printer to print features that are "too small" for the nozzle, knowing in advance it will vary from the model.dkightley wrote:Unfortunately, in general there are two classes of user, the user who downloads and prints other people's work and probably doesn't know how to work a CAD package, and the user who designs all his or her own work. The former group see this as a bug, and the latter see this as a useful part of the validation process before printing. Both have good reasons to support what they feel.
I, for instance, design injection molded parts (among other things). Obviously, a part designed specifically for 3d printing is not necessarily an optimal design for molding--but since molded parts are really the end goal, any time spent on edits to accommodate a print are not only a waste of time, but can sometimes be counter-productive.
If I cannot force S3d to print a small feature (again, in a somewhat controlled manner), then I have to edit the 3d model, and perhaps keep separate configurations for molded vs printed. I have done this in the past, and it truly is a hassle to maintain. Although my CAD has features for Configurations, when they already have various mold inserts (i.e. my current project has five configurations for product variations) all of a sudden I could have ten different Configurations (or more). And that, all because one tool is lacking a feature that another tool is not lacking.
I understand the way S3d processes this features is not a bug, but sometimes, it certainly can cause it to be an insufficient tool. (Just in the same way that another tool that fails to print accurately can be an insufficient tool.)
