![]() From what I have learned studying it, I think at one time S3D had a significant advantage. I do not use S3D though I spent quite a bit of time evaluating whether or not to use S3D. #Ultimaker cura tree support softwareI seriously considered the Zortax M200 (and the Mark Forged) before settling on the MK3 because I did not like the idea of the closed software ecosystem. Other slicers have the same issues with supports.Īgreed. I have no problem removing supports with a 0.25mm Z gap. Slic3rPE is not perfect, but Prusa has invested a lot of time and effort into it to where it rivals the only real commercial contender for hobbyists, Simplify 3D for $150, and all while keeping it open source. The original open source version was very clunky to work with. Prusa forked an existing slicer (Slic3r) and has made significant enhancements to it over the last year. If they have cash flow issues preventing them from taking on too much then they should abandon the SLA printer and maybe the multi material unit and focus on the MK3 and SlicerPE. ![]() So I think that suggests they might have a few bucks to invest into the software. In a nutshell, Prusa Research should be improving the user experience and that means SlicerPE needs some major attention. ![]() Examples include the FreeCAD engine or the Fusion360 engine (I forget which one it is but Fusion360 has its roots in an open source 3D engine) instead of re-inventing their own version of a 3D UI. There are existing 3D engines that can be used for the UI. Geez, it's not rocket science in this day and age. Even in its new 1.42.0 form it is terrible, (improved from "disaster" I guess). For any 3D company to even claim 1.41.3 has a usable UI when it comes to supports is telling of how much importance they give to them. The former UI (1.41.3 and earlier) is a disaster in this respect. So I guess it is true there has been improvement with the UI. I have watched a Youtube video demonstrating a better way to move the support enforcer around in 1.42.0. Prusa Research promised improvement last year but as far as I can see we haven't seen anything yet. They are almost always very difficult to remove, create an unacceptable surface finish on overhangs, etc. Getting back to the supports, SlicerPE supports are not very good. You shouldn't have to waste your time printing something they should be able to tell you about in advance. So, this is the issue that what was causing the print artifacts I encountered last year with Cura.įWIW, the slicer should also be able to alert you when you have features in your STL that cannot be accurately rendered by the slicer. And, the printer should also tell you when it cannot keep up. should tell you when the printer cannot keep up with the g-code stream. This brings up another point, SlicerPE, Cura, etc. Sending a large amount of g-code to the printer causes problems because the printer cannot process the g-code fast enough and keep up. But for some reason the SlicerPE doesn't properly spatially filter the X-Y g-code and the end result when you ingest a large STL file is a very large g-code file with sub micron tool movements. Generally, the actual resolution of the printer is largely determined by the layer height. I am not sure why the size of the STL should even matter except that it would take more time to slice. At the time I did the comparison, I was using a very high resolution setting in Fusion360 to generate my STL files. ![]() I can make the MK3 go bananas if I slice a large STL file. Since then I have come to realize the problem I experienced is more likely related to the complexity of the STL file I was using at the time when comparing the two slicers. Nevertheless, I have used Slicer since then and avoided printing anything that required supports. Really, not even comparable, Slicer being a complete fail by comparison. However, the supports were an order of magnitude better than SlicerPE. At the time I experienced small layer shifting and imperfections with the output of Cura so I abandoned it. I eventually settled on SlicerPE because the quality of the print was better than Cura. It looks to me there has been a big improvement with Cura tree supports since then. ![]() They had beta tree supports then as well. When I got my Mk3 last summer, I tried Cura. I was just looking at Cura when I posted the message. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |