lattice?

[arhi]

I want this in S3D
https://www.3ders.org/articles/20180223 ... opper.html

[Ret]

To me, this feels like it's more of the design process, not the printing process. Saying that, I doubt it will be set as a priority over other requests.

Check out the program Meshmixer, it can pretty much do all of what you can see being done on that site you linked.

Cheers!

[arhi]

To me, this feels like it's more of the design process, not the printing process.

not really, having this type of infill for e.g. is very much a slicer process, also having this parametric that can be applied on every object is something that can be in cam actually before then in cad.. so s3d could do it... and wait a year it will be in all foss slicers

Saying that, I doubt it will be set as a priority over other requests.

I doubt anything on this forum affects what/how/when they do anything

Check out the program Meshmixer, it can pretty much do all of what you can see being done on that site you linked.

I use meshmixer for a while and lattice pattern they support is nice but if I need to start meshmixer to setup support or create lattice or.. I will then slice in meshmixer too why pay $150 for s3d?

[Ret]

I do agree with you, infill is very much a slicer process, but what I saw in those images looked more of the design process than what a slicer would do, in my opinion. Also, why print with lattice infill when its slower than traditional infill? Lattice infill doesn't really benefit FDM much, as it does SLA/DLP/SLS. It doesn't seem to be really useful for FDM.

I'm sure you know why you're paying $150. With S3D, you surely get what you pay for.

[dkightley]

To me, this feels like it's more of the design process, not the printing process.

I totally agree with you on this one. Nowhere in the article referenced by the OP does it say the plug in is designed to create an infill...in fact it clearly states at least twice that the plugin is a CAD or modelling plugin...and not an aid for 3D printing. And looking at the photos in the article, some show the effect as a surface finish and not as an infill that has a skin around.

As S3D is a slicing software....and not a 3D CAD/modelling software, then I cannot see why this tool needs to be considered for inclusion.......irrespective of whether the software is free of charge or costs $150. S3D is a slicer......and I would prefer the developers to concentrate on issues and improvements to its sole purpose in life....slicing for 3D printing....and not waste time and effort turning the product into what it's not!

Now if this thread was asking for an additional infill type that mimicked the effect shown in the article, then that's a different matter. However having said that, I can't see any benefit from having such an additional pattern.....and would not vote for it!

NB This is my opinion....and not a response in a potential argument. I have a right to express an opinion....provided of course it doesn't break the bounds of decency, etc...which on this occasion, it doesn't.

[arhi]

To me, this feels like it's more of the design process, not the printing process.

I totally agree with you on this one. Nowhere in the article referenced by the OP does it say the plug in is designed to create an infill...in fact it clearly states at least twice that the plugin is a CAD or modelling plugin...and not an aid for 3D printing. And looking at the photos in the article, some show the effect as a surface finish and not as an infill that has a skin around.

it is a cad plugin (for start, not many cam's for 3d printing have ability to work with plugins)... anyhow dunno how many 3d printing "pocessors" you had a chance to see, I had some limited experience with few of them 5+ years ago and this was available as an option, and was very useful (yes, the process was not FDM)

As S3D is a slicing software....and not a 3D CAD/modelling software, then I cannot see why this tool needs to be considered for inclusion.......irrespective of whether the software is free of charge or costs $150. S3D is a slicer......and I would prefer the developers to concentrate on issues and improvements to its sole purpose in life....slicing for 3D printing....and not waste time and effort turning the product into what it's not!

well this type of processing of the solid can bring many useful features in the slicer, especially for FDM!
for sla/sls I would not bother, the said plugin is free (even open source if I remember correctly) so for sla/sls you handle everything in the cad, print 100% infill and bobs your uncle; on the other hand for FDM it's bit different as printing lattice structure the way slicers would normally slice it would not work, so creating "printable lattice structure" as a special type of infill (and then one can decide to go with 0 top, 0 bottom and 0 shells to get only that structure) can create very usable parts with FDM (just like these new infill types prusa's and erik's teams are slowly pushing into slic3r and cura)

as for $$$ I don't think that s3d need to have this 'cause it cost money, and yes, as @ret said I know why I paid for it and I'm not sorry I did... I do get extremely frustrated from time to time to have to run slic3r for some parts to get proper output but it's happening less and less (under 5% of cases since 4.0.1) so no it's not that $$$ makes s3d implement something like this .. I just wrote, if I'm going to be using meshmixer then why use s3d..

Now if this thread was asking for an additional infill type that mimicked the effect shown in the article, then that's a different matter. However having said that, I can't see any benefit from having such an additional pattern.....and would not vote for it!

NB This is my opinion....and not a response in a potential argument. I have a right to express an opinion....provided of course it doesn't break the bounds of decency, etc...which on this occasion, it doesn't.

reading this I'd say you believe the "feature request" section of the forum with ++ and +1 and .. and .. is how features go into s3d .. if that's true we'd have support for 3d mouse by now.. I see the feature request section as "throw ideas here, maybe some ideas take" hence I thrown the idea

and yes, I share your opinion that this is looooooooooooooooooooow on the list of priorities... or not any type of priority at all