Overhangs not being supported

[upsm]

Thanks, missed the STL in the first post. Definitely a bug easy to reproduce, hopefully will be quickly fixed.

[AK_Eric]

Weeeeel, considering I originally posted this Jan of 2015, it looks like no "quick fix" is in the works

[upsm]

Weeeeel, considering I originally posted this Jan of 2015, it looks like no "quick fix" is in the works

Uh 2+ years for a serious bug with reproducible test case. I heard some rumors but didn't think much of them. Scared now

[fuzzylogic]

Definitely a real frustration. For a $150 'professional' piece of software this is unacceptable. Shame it still hasnt been fixed!

[tenaja]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but $150 for design & engineering software is definitely FAR from "professional software". More like "not quite penniless hobbyist grade".

That does not excuse the lack of a resolution to this bug, though. Even many open source solutions would resolve issues like this. Although I do remember reading somewhere that this bug is not exclusive to s3d.

[upsm]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but $150 for design & engineering software is definitely FAR from "professional software". More like "not quite penniless hobbyist grade".

Pricing is in my opinion adequate, Simplify3D is priced similar to other low end CAM tools.

I think the problem is more lack of transparency. We have totally upside-down situation with slicer market, the free ones - "works for me, I won't promise nothing" ones - are transparent, you see the design process, what issues are being tackled, what features are planed, both short and long term, while the "for the $$$" (irrelevant how much), with promise of improvements and quality, that's completely opaque, no community interaction what so ever, no worklog, no issue system, with rare and embarrassing releases

What bugs me mostly is, since I am in software development world for over 30 years, and looking at the 3D printing community I see that most of the community is also (at least 50%) from the software development world, we all know that bugs with "repeatable test case" are easier to fix then all other and usually get higher priority. Not having that type of bug solved for 2 years, without any explanation "why it can't be fixed", tells a lot about the team behind the development process. It does not always means the team is bad, just that one making decisions on what is the priority either have way to much on his head (too many bugs -> not a very good product) or too little resources (not enough developers -> hence the question, is this app being developed at all, that's often seen on this and other forums). The message is surely not very encouraging.

[AK_Eric]

And, I'm sorry to say, this isn't fixed in 4.0 .

Just today I had to manually place supports for about 10 minutes on a head, since none of the upper teeth were 'automatically supported'. And had I not gone though and meticulously checked every one of them in slice mode, I would have had a failed print.

I'm happy that 4.0 finally released (with at least one fix I was looking for on thin-wall printing), not here to bash that. Just bummed out this now probably won't be addressed for another year, minimum... if ever.

[AK_Eric]

Yep: Looking at those models, S3D will have all sorts of problems supporting them. I still use S3D as my main slicer, but whenever I have any remotely non-simple models, I have to do all my support placement by hand (which can still fail if I miss something). Still a major missing feature ins this software.

[MarkFortune]

I, too, have seen this happen in the two days that I've owned Simplify3D. Coming from Slic3r PE, I'd expect that a software that costs 140$ more than the leading competition (WHICH IS FREE) would be able to generate its own supports. And for any of you that would say to tweak a setting for a particular model, or to check every model that I wish to print before exporting it, I would like to remind you that for a product called SIMPLIFY3D, it seems counterproductive to force users to check every print instead of simplifying the issue and fixing it.

Thank you.

[Venatius]

Just wanted to confirm this persists as originally reported in 4.1 as well. This issue has pushed me to request a refund (as I'm still within my trial period). While I recognize and admire the many great features this program offers, the ability to recognize that a print is physically impossible is not one that should go neglected for three (nearly four now) years when free software has no problem with it.