4 ms·

I often wonder if there should be something like a "folded outline" mode in slicers. For example, it would make the outer left wall of an object: │││││││

by mg 11mo ago

I often wonder if there should be something like a "folded outline" mode in slicers. For example, it would make the outer left wall of an object: │││││││ │││││││ │││││││ │││││││ Inside of the object │││││││ is here │││││││ │││││││ │││││││ Look like this instead: ┌──── └─────┐ ┌─────┘ └─────┐ Inside of the object ┌─────┘ is here └─────┐ ┌─────┘ └───── The seam (where the print head moves up a layer) could then be on the inside of the object: ┌──── └─────┐ ┌─────┘ └───── <-- Print head moves up here ┌─────┘ └─────┐ ┌─────┘ └───── This might result in having no visible seam but instead evenly distributed vertical lines, similar to the horizontal lines that all 3D prints have. The horizontal lines look quite nice when the print is otherwise perfect. So maybe doing this and having horizontal AND vertical lines would look good overall?

VorpalWay 11mo ago
I like this idea. Hiding the seam in a crack or sharp corner (convex or concave) is already a thing, and your idea builds on that. I'm also curious what it would do for part strength. If you offset the zig-zags from layer to layer it will not be as pretty obviously, but it should act like offset bricks in a brick wall. Worth exploring (but I don't have the equipment to test part strength). One effect of this would be to make the print dramatically slower though, you would never get up to max speed due to all the cornering. You could do this sort of pattern already while modelling (though that offset version would be very fiddly). Less practical than the slicer but useful for a quick proof of concept. Thinking about it some more, this is not that far from the existing fuzzy skin pattern already in slicers, and I believe that the relatively obscure slicer IdeaMaker does allow to apply arbitrary textures as height maps on the sides of parts. That could be another way to explore this.
- cassianoleal 11mo ago
  > If you offset the zig-zags from layer to layer it will not be as pretty It would probably just be a slightly less random fuzzy skin effect. This is an interesting idea but I suspect print times would put most people off.
- mg 11mo ago
  I wouldn't mind long print times. I am not sure, but "fuzzy skin" seems to intentionally sacrifice some adherence to the object's exact shape? "folded outline" would not do that. If the printer prints it exactly, the print would match the object just as precisely as a normal outline. The IdeaMaker repo on GitHub says it is abandoned. Maybe there are other options? An open source slicer written in Python without dependencies that works on the command line would be my favorite starting point. If there is none, writing a new one might also be feasible?
  - VorpalWay 11mo ago
    Yes, fuzzy skin does that, in order to create a rough texture. But your idea won't be perfectly conforming to the original shape either, the physics of molten plastic means you will likely get unevenness still. You could consider writing a post processing script, or perhaps experimenting with https://github.com/FullControlXYZ/fullcontrol https://github.com/FullControlXYZ/fullcontrol (not a slicer but a toolkit for generating gcode from python). I suspect that a full on slicer in pure python would be rather slow though. I don't think IdeaMaker is abandoned, but it is closed source freeware.
    - mg 11mo ago
      Fullcontrol looks interesting, thanks! I just started 3D printing a few weeks ago. I already realized that I need to write my own CAD software. None of the existing ones are the way I want to design objects. That will probably take a few months. Then I will probably want to control the prints down to the gcode level and look into the situation then.
      - VorpalWay 11mo ago
        That is rather ambitious. I don't know how you prefer CAD, but if you don't like parametric CAD (Fusion, Onshape, FreeCAD, etc), nor sculpting (Blender, and various other artistic things) there is also code based CAD such as OpenSCAD and iirc some others. For me, parametric CAD is what clicked. I suspect making your own CAD engine is going to be quite a lot of work though, as unlike most 3D modelling for games etc, proper CAD works with mathematically perfect shapes, rather than tesselated approximations. (I believe OpenSCAD doesn't, it tesselates but let's you define the resolution dynamically as the script is executed.) For 3D prints, this is something that you can live with: the imperfections of the technology will hide the triangles mostly if you use a high enough resolution. But for subtractive CNC, this is a problem: If you mill from metal you will see the imperfections.
exasperaited 11mo ago
This would work in theory but quality would be exceptionally reliant on a well-calibrated printer, because you are asking it to do the thing that introduces the most motion variation: abrupt changes of direction.

by mg 11mo ago

VorpalWay 11mo ago

I like this idea. Hiding the seam in a crack or sharp corner (convex or concave) is already a thing, and your idea builds on that. I'm also curious what it would do for part strength. If you offset the zig-zags from layer to layer it will not be as pretty obviously, but it should act like offset bricks in a brick wall. Worth exploring (but I don't have the equipment to test part strength). One effect of this would be to make the print dramatically slower though, you would never get up to max speed due to all the cornering. You could do this sort of pattern already while modelling (though that offset version would be very fiddly). Less practical than the slicer but useful for a quick proof of concept. Thinking about it some more, this is not that far from the existing fuzzy skin pattern already in slicers, and I believe that the relatively obscure slicer IdeaMaker does allow to apply arbitrary textures as height maps on the sides of parts. That could be another way to explore this.

cassianoleal 11mo ago
> If you offset the zig-zags from layer to layer it will not be as pretty It would probably just be a slightly less random fuzzy skin effect. This is an interesting idea but I suspect print times would put most people off.
mg 11mo ago
I wouldn't mind long print times. I am not sure, but "fuzzy skin" seems to intentionally sacrifice some adherence to the object's exact shape? "folded outline" would not do that. If the printer prints it exactly, the print would match the object just as precisely as a normal outline. The IdeaMaker repo on GitHub says it is abandoned. Maybe there are other options? An open source slicer written in Python without dependencies that works on the command line would be my favorite starting point. If there is none, writing a new one might also be feasible?
- VorpalWay 11mo ago
  Yes, fuzzy skin does that, in order to create a rough texture. But your idea won't be perfectly conforming to the original shape either, the physics of molten plastic means you will likely get unevenness still. You could consider writing a post processing script, or perhaps experimenting with https://github.com/FullControlXYZ/fullcontrol https://github.com/FullControlXYZ/fullcontrol (not a slicer but a toolkit for generating gcode from python). I suspect that a full on slicer in pure python would be rather slow though. I don't think IdeaMaker is abandoned, but it is closed source freeware.
  - mg 11mo ago
    Fullcontrol looks interesting, thanks! I just started 3D printing a few weeks ago. I already realized that I need to write my own CAD software. None of the existing ones are the way I want to design objects. That will probably take a few months. Then I will probably want to control the prints down to the gcode level and look into the situation then.
    - VorpalWay 11mo ago
      That is rather ambitious. I don't know how you prefer CAD, but if you don't like parametric CAD (Fusion, Onshape, FreeCAD, etc), nor sculpting (Blender, and various other artistic things) there is also code based CAD such as OpenSCAD and iirc some others. For me, parametric CAD is what clicked. I suspect making your own CAD engine is going to be quite a lot of work though, as unlike most 3D modelling for games etc, proper CAD works with mathematically perfect shapes, rather than tesselated approximations. (I believe OpenSCAD doesn't, it tesselates but let's you define the resolution dynamically as the script is executed.) For 3D prints, this is something that you can live with: the imperfections of the technology will hide the triangles mostly if you use a high enough resolution. But for subtractive CNC, this is a problem: If you mill from metal you will see the imperfections.

exasperaited 11mo ago

This would work in theory but quality would be exceptionally reliant on a well-calibrated printer, because you are asking it to do the thing that introduces the most motion variation: abrupt changes of direction.