Simplify3D User Forum

It is very difficult to adjust the speed settings to achieve maximum quality combined with maximum speed.

S3D makes things complicated by dividing the visible surfaces into "solid top/bottom layers" and "outline shells". They print slower than the default printing speed (defined as underspeed in the Other tab), so the outer surfaces look nice. This causes problems regarding the solid top/bottom layers.

I normally have 4 bottom layers and 4 top layers. This means that the 3 hidden bottom layers as well as the 3 hidden top layers also print at slow speeds. This greatly increases the time to print. This is especially true if the bottom or top layers creep/extend along slanted walls slowing down the print even more. What I want is these 6 layers be printed at default speed. This will shave approximately 12% off the printing time without any visible reduction in quality.

Even better would be to get rid of the two underspeed settings Outline Underspeed and Solid Infill Underspeed and replace them with a single Visible Surfaces Underspeed. That way we can control the print speed of only the visible filament of the model, which is simpler, more intuitive, prints much faster, yet keeping the same quality.

While I can understand why you might want an additional option to control the speed of the final outer layer, I would prefer they add the feature rather than take away useful existing features. It certainly would not be "even better" to get rid of the other layer speed options. You might only want control over the final outer layer but I think other users, myself included, would still like speed control over a few layers deeper than that.

The outer layer is not the only layer that effects the visible surface quality of a print. In fact the preceding layers and infill can, and do have a huge affect on the outer layer and therefore the visible quality of the print. Removing the ability to control that would be a huge mistake and have a negative affect on overall quality. I can't imagine the S3D folks would even consider removing such a useful set of options, but I wanted to voice my opposition for doing so.

I don't see why anyone would want to control the speed of hidden layers. I accept that for the outer surface to be perfect, there should be a speed gradation where the inner layers get progressively slower as they get closer to the outer surface. S3D already does this automatically with the outline shells, which is good. All this analysis and work should be done by the software, not the user.

Let me give an analogy, if your car breaks down, are you going to fix it when the only tools you have is a hammer and pliers? No, you let the experts at the car repair shop do it for you. The same applies to software, it's not your job to figure out the speeds of every layer, this is something which can be done much better by software algorithms.

I've attached two images and descriptions which show the current shortcomings of S3D using a cube and sphere as examples. I've used extreme values to better show the speed differences. Solving this is a matter for the S3D developers to create an algorithm that adjusts the speed based on the offset distance from the visible outer surface.

jrw wrote:I don't see why anyone would want to control the speed of hidden layers.

There is a use case to control every aspect of every single type of extrudate in the print, different temperatures, speeds, extrusion width, layer heights etc etc for every single type, interface layers, support layers, inside support, outside support, bed to support, part to support, support to part, inside perimeter, middle perimeter, outside perimeter, overlaps between perimeters, overlaps between infill and perimeter, infill of all 100% layers with their position wrt object (bottommost, middle, topmost, first after bottommost, first before topmost etc etc) ... so "removing" an option is %#&_@%$&# .. maybe adding few more options in the "dummy" section and adding even more stuff into advanced settings would work, but removing anything from already pretty limited app NO!

I feel we can easily reach a consensus. I have no problem with adding detailed control for the user for all print aspects, for example in the "Expert" section. However, the big picture is, if the software is intelligent enough, there is no need for the user to waste time fiddling with every setting.

Let me give an example, instead of slowing the print speed for certain layers to print better overhangs, the software will automatically reduce the print speed for those local areas where the overhangs appear so that those overhangs get printed perfectly without the user having to spend hours trialing to get it right.

To steer the focus slightly back to the original topic, which might have been phrased too simplistic, what I'm proposing is changing the concept of top/bottom + outline shells to a simple "offset" scheme where the speed of filament is determined by the offset distance from the outer visible surface. Of course, on top of this there can be additional settings at the user's discretion to modify the filament properties (speed, width etc), at which offset distance, and location (bottom, top, side, which angle etc).

jrw wrote:However, the big picture is, if the software is intelligent enough, there is no need for the user to waste time fiddling with every setting.

There is no software that is intelligent enough, not even for machines that are in the million us$ range (their slicer especially give you more advanced options to tweak stuff), how come you expect from software that have less then update per year and is missing some basic functionality to be "intelligent enough"

jrw wrote: Let me give an example, instead of slowing the print speed for certain layers to print better overhangs, the software will automatically reduce the print speed for those local areas where the overhangs appear so that those overhangs get printed perfectly without the user having to spend hours trialing to get it right.

There is 20 different things you can do to make any part of the print "better" and which one of those 20 will work depends on the part section, material type, nozzle geometry, hotend assembly, extruder assembly, environment... making "one solution fit all" will fit your one use case and make everyone else suffer. Since software can't be smart enough, it should provide way for informed, educated, operator to make decisions himself. The "smart software" works only in situation where you have a 100% vendor lock (the printer, the extruder, hotend, nozzle, material and no mods) and then you can have the "3click print" like you have for e.g. with TearTime UP printers. If you get their printer and their ABS you can print anything perfectly using their slicer (that btw knows how to handle thin wall compared to Simplify3D that doesn't even after pages and pages of raging users begging for it) with perfect overhangs and support that almost remove itself .. the only problem is you are limited to their material and you can't modify the printer at all. If you do mod the printer or, god forbid, use the material that's not provided by them, everything falls down like a card tower.... You, of course, understand, that ABS provided by them is 3 to 5 times more expensive then ABS you can get elsewhere and that other materials (hips, petg, pc, tpu...) are not supported..

jrw wrote: To steer the focus slightly back to the original topic, which might have been phrased too simplistic, what I'm proposing is changing the concept of top/bottom + outline shells to a simple "offset" scheme where the speed of filament is determined by the offset distance from the outer visible surface. Of course, on top of this there can be additional settings at the user's discretion to modify the filament properties (speed, width etc), at which offset distance, and location (bottom, top, side, which angle etc).

that's making things more complicated then they have to be ... look at temperature tab "layer1 xC, layer 5 yC ..." you have 5-6 perimeters, I doubt you will have more, having settings for each of them is simple "outtermost perimeter - settings x, 2nd inside (up to 5th) settings y, 6th inside settings z ... same with top and bottom layers (and yes, you want top and bottom layers to be handled differently) and solid layers after/before them... same as interface layers for support, same with overhangs, same with outside slanted surfaces, same with inside support, same with ....

The problem is, ppl are begging for thin wall for ages and what we got is few additional default configs for some new printers and 5 new interface languages.. asking them to remove *anything* is dangerous! It is easy to remove and call that feature!

upsm, I can feel your frustration, however a software with "Simplify" in it's name should be... simple, right? Just kidding. Perhaps S3D in their next release can provide an XML file with a few hundred override settings for advanced users in order to satisfy all target markets.

The main point I'm making is that S3D doesn't speed up the innermost top/bottom solid layers the way it does with the perimeter shells, and offered the"offset" scheme as a way to solve this problem, which I still think is the most robust way forward. Of course, the best way to add extra user control on top of this still needs to be worked out.

jrw wrote:upsm, I can feel your frustration

Actually with the branch of slic3r with dynamic layer height and knowledge of how to use mesh modifiers with slic3r I'm moving almost all my work there. I use Simplify3D now only when I really need manual support but that's getting rarer and rarer thanks to meshmixer 'cause the inability to control interface layer with Simplify3D makes the support pretty much the same as the rest of the print so actually in that case meshmixer is easier to work with and generates better supports then Simplify3D

Maybe sometimes in future they add some features that will bring Simplify3D back on the throne of small'n'cheap slicers..

jrw wrote: The main point I'm making is that S3D doesn't speed up the innermost top/bottom solid layers the way it does with the perimeter shells

I have to say Simplify3D does a lot on the speedup, especially compared to foss counterparts,
- different speed for perimeter
- different speed for solid layer
- multiple layer height of infill (the most important option imo)

yes, there's more room for improvement speed wise but compared to other stuff that's missing, speed is the last thing I care about, we'r missing some very important basic functionality that should be implemented first.

I am having a problem where my models are being printed at 0.6mm/s. That's not just slow ; it is so slow my printer can hardly print at that speed. That speed is unacceptable. I am trying to see if there is a setting that I am missing here to get the speed up. I thought that maybe it was just an issue with this particular object so I tried importing another object and same issue. The slow speed shows up in the print simulator so at least I am not waisting any more filament. The raft,etc. print really fast but when it comes to the printing of my object it goes down to printing at 0.6mm/s. What's the issue here?

John

Johnm wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2020 12:21 am I am having a problem where my models are being printed at 0.6mm/s. That's not just slow ; it is so slow my printer can hardly print at that speed. That speed is unacceptable. I am trying to see if there is a setting that I am missing here to get the speed up. I thought that maybe it was just an issue with this particular object so I tried importing another object and same issue. The slow speed shows up in the print simulator so at least I am not waisting any more filament.

That's not really what this old thread was about... maybe we can keep track of your problem in your thread over in "Troubleshooting"?
(Or, if cross-posting, at least at a factory/gcode file so others can have a look at the settings?)