Can anyone explain what's causing this?
Photo #1 shows 2 prints of the same part using the same filament: I used Craftware 1.13 to slice the one on the left and Simplify3D to slice the one on the right. My question is - why does the Craftware one look like Photo #2, but the Simplify3D one looks like Photo #3
I did check that all the obvious parameters like extrusion width, feedrate, etc. were the same for both slicers. The only significant difference I could find is the Extrudeer Adjust parameter - for Craftware it is 0.9 and for Simplify3D it is 0.8. So even though the Craftware part looks like it was under extruded it actually had 10% than the Simplify3D part.
Perhaps this has something to do with the issue - Photo #4 is a screenshot of Craftware's slicing results Note the different layer types on the outer shell. I don't know what effect layer type has on the actual extrusion results, but my guess is there is some relationship between this and the results I got.
PS: The good news is that both parts printed with no strings or hairs. This kind of part is a real challenge for any printer because each layer has lots of starts & stops for the extruder. So I've set retraction length to a whopping 9 mm and that seems to work well.
翻譯年糕
André Medborg
2015-12-07 03:46:09
Was your model 100% ok on both before you started?
André Medborg
2015-12-07 03:47:45
I found that with Craftware your model has to be without any mistakes. If any, it behaves irrational.
Birk Binnard
2015-12-07 03:48:35
Yes it was OK - I ran it through the 3D Builder error corrector which uses Netfabb's algorithms.
André Medborg
2015-12-07 04:05:22
Clarence Lee
2015-12-07 11:38:43
check if it's missing layer, since I still have problem with craftware with some model even after 3d builder repair or NetFabb
Birk Binnard
2015-12-07 13:39:21
Clarence - I did check the results of the Craftware slicing and I cannot fine any missing layers. I know that was a problem before, but it was supposed to be fixed in the current 2.13 version. As far as I can tell it has been fixed.
But to add more c
omplication to this matter, here is a pic from a similar part I just printed - similar in that the ribs are the same, but the part also includes the underlying curved surface. So perhaps the problem has something to do with the geometry/toolpath being generated.
André Medborg
2015-12-07 22:50:18
Please send me the original 3D file. I suspect there may be some kind of issues with you model
Birk Binnard
2015-12-08 01:01:45
André Medborg
2015-12-08 01:41:58
Hi Birk I mean the nurbs file so I can try my magic
Birk Binnard
2015-12-08 02:07:45
André Medborg
2015-12-08 04:21:47
Sweet I'll take a look at it later
Birk Binnard
2015-12-08 13:56:20
Problem solved (I think)
Someone on the Craftware forum discovered that Craftware inserts 2 extra prime/suck commands whenever (1) the Avoid Holes option is checked and (2) the GCode moves the printhead from one "island" to another - meaning it stops
the flow of filament while it moves from one part of the model to another part.
To fix this you need to uncheck the Avoid Holes option in the slicer Advanced tab. I'll do a test for this soon. If you want all teh gory details here is a link to the full thread:
https://craftunique.com/forums/view-thread/1400/#13878
André Medborg
2015-12-09 22:18:37
Birk I ran your Lamp8 through different setups. And what I can see is that your model is not one true solid, but multiple ones overlapping each other. To make one solid with this file mark the entire model and run the Boolean Union in Rhino. Now save it as .stl and slice it with CW. This gives a perfect result.
Birk Binnard
2015-12-09 23:15:48
Andre - thanks for your suggestion. I had not tried the Rhino Union command on any entire part before because it did not seem to me to be necessary. I do understand what it does so will use it from now on. I did discover the following Rhino strangene
ss however:
I called the 3DM file I posted a skeleton lamp because it has only the ribs, and not the underlying solid sides/surfaces. If I include the solid surfaces (there are 2, an inside & an outside) the Rhino Union command fails. This suggests to me there is something not quite right about how Grasshopper's Bake command generates Rhino geometry. My guess is it has something to do with naked edges, but of course this is only a guess.
I guess what I'll do from now on is to first try the Union command, and if that fails revert to my standard practice of eliminating as many naked edges as I can and then using 3D Builder's Repair function to fix everything else.
