There also seem to be dependencies on bridging parameters, as that stringy stuff between the supported surface and the underlying interface layers is printed as a bridge. One interesting point is that the best Z separation value may vary with layer height. Z distance = Layer Height + 0.1mm), but haven't noticed any superior results. I tried a couple of the variants described in the github threads (e.g. Supports got a lot of attention from the Prusa developers in 2018-2019, but hard to say where it is on the list of priorities. You may see very different results with another slicer, and you may prefer that in this specific circumstance. My understanding is that this approach is worse in some cases, better in others. There's actually are several very long discussion of how PrusaSlicer and the Slic3r code base on which it is based on Github. that sure sounds like a limitation of current consumer-grade FFF 3D printing! □I'm curious whether the improved Cetus results are the result of their Up Studio (?) software, or a Cura profile.ĭifferent slicers handle bridges differently. I'll print out some samples and post them for comparison. Posted by: Yeah, the problem is that they do sag □. Maker's Muse has a good video on this topic.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |