Simplify3D User Forum

Pushing the boundaries of the software and doing something outside of what the program is intended to do are 2 entirely different things. Make the walls .3 mm thick and see if it prints. I would be neither confused nor bewildered that this print didn't work...

I must thank everyone for their input and suggestions but I think I am being treated as a newbie who doesn't know what he is doing. Far from it. I have tried all the methods that have been suggested but I feel the major point of weight reduction is being overlooked. As mentioned earlier, solid models have thickness and therefore, even when printing with single wall thickness, there are two walls laid down, one for the outer surface and one for the inner. That is twice as much plastic as is necessary for what I am doing. For the parts I am currently printing I am using a 0.25mm nozzle, extrusion multiplier down at 75% and extrusion width overridden to 0,24mm and the prints are coming out just fine.

There have been many, many pages of complaints about how all the slicers treat thin walls and this method of using surfaces can overcome some of the issues.

The part in the images is the top stage of a two stage, FAI competition model rocket. All the parts revealed in the cross section are made up of surfaces that do not quite meet each other but are 0.25mm apart. This slices properly and prints very well and only weighs 2.3 grams.

I am not trying to pick an argument with anyone, just trying to skin the cat in a different way.

STL is only used because it's the legacy that early 3D printing left us with and no one has bothered to implement a proper file format (like STEP) yet. Surface models are not the way to go forward, and likely never will be. You can still achieve what you want to do with solid models, you just have to think about it a little more carefully.

For your most recently pictured part, it looks like if you capped the top and bottom of that part, you would have a solid model. Then, you can specify one perimeter and no infill or top/bottom layers. You'll get the one perimeter that you're looking for and you won't have to do dumb things with surfaces to get there.

Now, I also agree that it would be VERY useful if thin walls were properly supported. I.E. only print one extrusion thickness if that's all the width there is in the solid, and maybe even dynamically vary extrusion width for thin walls, but that's an issue for another thread: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=3471

Thanks dorsai3d, I'll play around a bit more with solids though I had done quite a bit before stumbling on the surface trick. However, I am not so sure it is 'dumb' tricks with surfaces because, if it achieves what we want from our prints then surely it is worth doing. Having said that, I will certainly try what you are suggesting and see if I can finally get solids to do what I need.

Thanks again,

Mike