Why can't S3D do this properly? Or can it?

[smeagollum]

@horst.w: I disagree. Not that I don't want the process splitting (which is a good thing), but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any automatic functions for issues like this. It is cumbersome to split many times, and adjusting the split points after the fact entails editing each of the processes manually. For sandwiched processes that means editing both start and stop height, and while that's OK when you have just three processes, it becomes a nuisance with more.

If there was an automatic function (for instance based on a minimum area) to avoid underlying holes for protruding structures, then that would be a lot more convenient than manually splitting into multiple processes.

[brian442]

Any reason for the third process if it is just printing the remaining part of the pegs and they could remain at 100% fill?

I was assuming they wanted the peg printing with normal infill, but if you want to print it solid, then you only need to make 2 processes. So for this example, you would just add a single split location at 4mm, and that's it.

[horst.w]

@horst.w: I disagree. ... for issues like this. ...

No, it isn't an issue! It is intented!

A continuous printed 50% infill is stronger than a peg only sitting on perhaps 3 or 4 top layers because the affiliation is deaper instead only bonding by the layers. Closing the surface makes sence when you want to seal the part belowe.

You must accept, that a lot of users have different wants. And if this methode as well as it is existing is not strong enough for an appliance, than change to metall. The continuous printed infill has a heavy duty eggshell-effect.
I'm sure, you are not able to break out the peg by hand (4 - 6 perimeters provided), it will be broken before 10 mm above. The flaw is not the crossing of the cube and the column.

H.

[smeagollum]

A continuous printed 50% infill is stronger than a peg only sitting on perhaps 3 or 4 top layers because the affiliation is deaper instead only bonding by the layers. Closing the surface makes sence when you want to seal the part belowe.

That's a fair point, I guess. However, surface quality (the surface on which the pegs are) suffers a bit, so I still maintain that having an option to allow the slicer to automatically close top layers below a certain size would have been a great addition. Such an option could be default set to zero, giving the same behaviour as is the default now.

I have no problems accepting that different users have different needs, which is why more options is a good thing.

[horst.w]

...
which is why more options is a good thing.

Yes! And that is why we have here such a lot postings concerning the theme : ... but Cura makes it better ....

Yes! But it needs a well done standard for all users. Exotic wishes of only a few users can't be considered by the developers ...

Yes! We have e.g. the option of the Variable Setting Wizard *) - and I have forgotten that it exists .... I do it my way step by
step, perhaps I remember it next time


H.
*) no print without opening the Edit-menue. Why the Wizard is not situated there? That would be an improvement! Or not ?
The menue Tools is for me the collection of basic settings of the machine than the place for a really usefull option.

[wirlybird]

Any reason for the third process if it is just printing the remaining part of the pegs and they could remain at 100% fill?

I was assuming they wanted the peg printing with normal infill, but if you want to print it solid, then you only need to make 2 processes. So for this example, you would just add a single split location at 4mm, and that's it.

Yea, your right on the infill. Thought of that after the fact! I suppose for my part a solid peg would be fine since they would be the last things to print so not much time involved!

Also, the pegs on mine are going to be attachment posts and I am going to try to "smush" them with a hot object to kind of make a rivet. Never tried this before so no idea how well it will work.

[sforeman]

I wish there were an "up vote" for this topic.

More than 80% of my prints have a flat surface at some point and then additions projecting up. The projections have a weak connection because there is never a perfect overlay between the inner perimeters on the solid top layer of the flat surface and the outer perimeters of the projected additions.

I am always having to spend 30 minutes making two extra processes - one to add a solid layer and then another to continue with my previous settings. It's even more painful because the variable settings wizard in in mm and the sliced output is in layers so the task of finding the correct place to split processes usually takes a couple iterations to get everything correct.

[Russ]

I'd really like an option to disable this 'feature'. I'd gladly trade a little more filament for the nicer surface.

[FifthFox]

I think I figured a work around using some of the advice from this forum and some tricks I had developed on my own. First, use the Variable Settings Wizard to mark the intersection between the two objects (solid top surface), Then go in and edit the second process. Under the Advanced tab, you should see a start at XXX with a check box in front of it, where XXX is the slice position. Increase this by half a layer. Under the G-code tab, reduce your Z offset by half a layer. Click on OK to save. Click on the 'Prepare to Print' button. Select all processes, and check the Sequential Printing radio button. Click OK. Scroll through your layers at the intersection to proof the print. It should print like two distinct objects stacked on top of each other.
I had done this previously by introducing the gap in the model, but this is way easier. You may have to play with the layer distance to trick S3D to print as two objects. This concept worked well for coasters I had made using PLA/Hytrel and PLA in two colors. The soft Hytrel will bind to the PLA surface, but you'll get better adhesion if you print a flat surface on top of a flat surface. The appearance of the underlying surface is much improved using this technique.

[tumtumtum]

This really needs to be supported as an option. Here is what my print looks like. Simplify3D excludes printing the area where the edge protrusions are which causes a collapse because the filler isn't dense enough to support. I can somewhat fix this by using a higher level of infill but the slicer should really take care of this.