Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/19/2018 in all areas

  1. 20 points
    I'm Steve Cox, a member of the Utimaker Community. I'm an experienced engineer having spent many years in the automotive industry but I'm now focussed on the world of 3D technologies, specifically 3D product design and 3DPprinting. I'm an Autodesk Certified Instructor for Fusion 360, so many of the images in this post are taken from that design software but this post is not specific to that software but is about designing for 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing. This is a first of a series of blog posts in this area that will be focussing on how engineering is interacting with the latest 3D technologies. Additive Manufacturing (AM) and 3D Printing (3DP) - whilst the way they produce an object from nowhere can often seem like modern-day magic, the truth is that in many ways they are no different to any other way of making things. Every method that we use to manufacture things has it’s own rules that we need to consider when designing. These rules are known as DFM – Design For Manufacture. This approach takes into account the pros and cons of the chosen manufacturing method to produce a design that can be made repeatably, reliably and to meet the intended function and life expectancy of the product. This way of thinking when applied to AM (or 3DP) is now becoming known as DfAM, or Design for Additive Manufacture. In reality there are two aspects of DfAM, the first we will deal with in this post where we will concentrate on the use of DfAM applied to detail features of the design to ensure manufacturability. The second aspect is using DfAM at the conceptual design to realise some of the unique capabilities that AM has to offer, and that will be covered in a later article. The rules of DfAM tend to be slightly different for each type of AM/3DP technology. Here we will be assuming that we are using Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) 3DP but, for instance, in metal AM residual stresses build up in the part during manufacturing due to the high local energies applied by the laser or electron beam. These have to be taken into consideration if warping and possible early-life failure are to be avoided. So, in metal AM, the use of DfAM can involve designing out thick sections where heat build-up can be greatest. This is seldom a significant issue in FDM 3D printing. Two of the main DfAM considerations in FDM 3D printing are layer orientation and overhangs which we will take a closer look at here. Layer orientation When a detail design is being prepared for manufacture one of the first things to consider is the loads that will be applied to it, and 3D printing is no different. There can be potential weaknesses in 3D prints in the “welded” joints that exist between every layer which provide multiple potential crack propagation opportunities. So at the detail design stage the loading direction may need to be taken into account, which can in turn lead to a decision being made on the print direction to be used very early on and that will then set the tone for the rest of the design. In this particular case the stress analysis in Fusion 360 on a loaded side wall of a design shows that the peak stress occurs on the inside face of that wall near to it’s base which, if we were to print it in this orientation, will coincide with the end of a layer and hence one of these potential crack propagation sites : Which can lead to this : The better way of 3D printing this design to withstand this loading condition would be to orientate the printing direction by 90 degrees to ensure that the load is being applied along the layer lines rather than across them. The strength of a part with this layer orientation will be many times greater under the loading condition described previously, though the amount is difficult to objectively state since simulation software taking into account the layer construction of AM is still an emerging area of activity. So this is a DfAM consideration to think about at the very start of your design - what are the main load bearing directions and is it possible to optimise the design to ensure that the way that you will make the part which does not result in loads being applied across a layer? This is the single most effective step that you can take, but it may not always be possible to do that, in which case you need to employ mitigation factors into your design. The usual best practice in any design is, where possible, to add a fillet (or radius) at the base of the wall to counteract these high stresses. This reduces the local stress moves the higher stress point further up the side wall and is an optimal way of adding strength with the addition of minimal material. However, in AM/3DP it is often a better option to use an angled face rather than a curved face to achieve the same effect The reason for this different approach is that the "staircase" of layers in more uniform in the case of the angled face, whilst with a fillet radius the smooth blend into the base results in a longer first layer step which reduces it's effectiveness. So this is another aspect of DfAM where strategies used for other methods of manufacture may need to be subtly modified to make them most effective when using this particular method Overhangs Once the print direction has been selected then the design of overhangs, and preferably the elimination of as many of these as possible, can be addressed. Fewer overhangs means less requirement for support which leads to a more efficient print time, lower material usage and reduced post processing time for removal of supports This is the most obvious way to eliminate an overhanging feature : Things like this are simplistic and often easy to spot, but you may find that your design is more complex than this and there is a tendency to design from experience with traditional manufacturing methods and put in features that aren’t good for AM almost without thinking. For instance in this example of a flanged coupling the features with blind tapped holes for the connection have been designed with a feature that would cause no problem for a moulding process but produce an overhanging area for 3D printing (highlighted in red when viewed in Cura) With some re-examination it was possible to re-imagine these features like this which result in no overhang and hence no support. Rather than fill this post with lots of examples of individual examples of this kind of comparison my recommendation when engaging with DfAM is to regularly check your design in the slicing software as your design develops, looking for those overhanging areas using an inspection tool that highlights those areas, or looking through the layer stack for areas that look difficult to print. The layer stack should be something that’s looked at before every print as a matter of course and is also a great way of spotting issues at the design stage that you may be easily able to address. In Fusion 360 the ability to go from the design workspace to the slicer software (such as Cura) to check for printability can be done with a single click of a button, and without the need for any time-consuming exporting and subsequent importing of .stl files. This can make the iterative process of Design → Check → Modify → Recheck much quicker, and result in a faster convergence to an efficient design for additive manufacture The approaches we have looked at here are when DfAM is applied at the detail design stage and looks to address, and deal with, the drawbacks of 3DP/AM. In a future post we will look at applying DfAM at the conceptual design stage where the advantages that AM has to offer can really become very valuable. This approach can be much more powerful and result in designs that really do provide unique and extremely effective solutions that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.
  2. 19 points
    Especially for you, here's the post again, so you can give it a second like: Yay, picking is working:
  3. 17 points

    Version 1.0.0


    Here is my full size Velociraptor skeleton. Juste made for the challenge. Lenght: ~180cm Sculpted with Zbrush. Total printing time: ~392h. Printer: Ultimaker2+ Filament: PLA Speed: 30mm/s - 50mm/s Nozzle: 0,4mm Layers: 0,15mm Painting : acrylic paint (spray and brushe)
  4. 17 points
  5. 13 points
    This is a project by a group of community members which was also involved in the Mark2 dual extrusion upgrade. More precisely, it's me coming up with an outside the box approach / weird idea for a certain unresolved problem. Smart people like @gr5, @Anders Olsson, @Dim3nsioneer, @rooiejoris throwing in ideas and @tinkergnome who implants the stuff into firmware. My impression of the current state of development when I started this was as follows. There have been filament monitor projects since the beginning of reprap. Only very few made it to some kind of product state, like the one by Aaron Tunell. Manufacturers like Prusa and others recently introduced some kind of filament monitors, with mixed success / reliability issues. The Duet3D guys set their hardware research (laser-based and rotating) on hold because they were experiencing inaccuracies of +/-20%. Well and then there was Ultimaker ... until yesterday with the S5 All these efforts have been or still are struggling to fulfill the most important objective: NO FALSE ALERTS. Otherwise any filament sensor would quickly render itself useless. What we want to achieve Objectives, the obvious part: zero false alerts detect filament runout ("nothing there") detect filament grinding ("nothing/very little moves") Objectives, the challenging part: detect first layer issues (see video below) detect when real flow leaves a certain safe process window and starts to compromise part quality (first, inter layer adhesion will suffer, then classical under extrusion will be visible) and try to counteract, that's where the real fun starts ... Current state of development We chose an encoder and there's a reliably working prototype for an easy to attach external flow sensor, mounted to the entry side of the feeder. Resolution is in the range of 0.015 mm. It's integrated in Tinkerware with a dedicated menu and we (well, he) implemented a gcode command: M591 T0 S1 E0.5000 L0.01695 R35:130 A0.3 P100.00 I leave the parameter interpretation as a little quiz here. Right now I'm working on a modified design which, besides the encoder, doesn't need some parts which cannot be printed and are in the +30€ range to have them manufactured. But most likely some parts will still not be FFF printable. How can I get this? First give us some more time to test and evaluate. If everything works like intended we might proceed like with the Mark2 project. If we should offer this as a product I'd expect a price tag between 70-100 €. And the UM3? That's the BIG question. Like @Daid recently stated their main market is already different. And indeed, has anyone seen any kind of (hardware) upgrade for the UM3 so far? Feeders are the same, mechanically our sensor fits. Electronics, not sure. Ultimaker originally wanted to use a serial interface on the UM3. For the UM2+ we simply connect the sensor's quadrature output signal to free I/O pins, there are enough left (4) for two sensors for a Mark2 dual extrusion UM2. Ultimaker won't do anything to support a sensor on the UM3. Anyway, if a large number of UM3 users would show interest, they might at least not impede a development ...
  6. 9 points

    Version 1.0


    The original dodecahedral kinetic sculpture by Stijn van der Linden a.k.a. Virtox. Made of five nested dodecahedra, each one is limited to rotate around its own axis. It was printed with dual extrusion on an Ultimaker 3 with water-soluble PVA support material.
  7. 9 points
    I managed to go to Europe about a month ago. While there, I got sick....really sick. Sinus infection that had moved into my lungs as well. Bad enough so that I am about to start my second round of antibiotics to fully wipe this out. That is what I get for treating the symptoms instead of the infection for the last year. Yes, I thought things were fine with just my antihistamines. Well...nope..... The upside? It hit me so hard and fast that I barely smoked two cigarettes when I got there it hurt so badly, and today makes 1 month of no smoking. And, just to let you know how bad I was, I have had no desire to smoke since. So, after being a complete addict on smoking.....no shame in that since it is truly addictive, I have been smoke free for one month and ready to continue being smoke free. Even when the habit part starts in (not the addiction, but the actual habitual rituals of smoking...after eating, etc.) it lasts for about 2 seconds and is gone quite easily. I have never been so happy to have gotten that sick in my live. LOL Probably good for the printers too, eh?
  8. 8 points
  9. 7 points
    After some trial and error with sizes I think I have come up with what works best for me with building details on the UM3. Attached a couple photos of before and after to show the end result. For vertical extrusions out from the face of the building I use 0.6mm width due to my nozzle size, for internal thin cuts that indent into the model I use 0.4mm width and for horizontal indentations and extrusions I use a height of 0.2mm. Windows I usually cut in 0.5mm with a 0.6mm offset to show the window frames when possible and for the thin elements I extrude or cut in 0.2mm just to show the facade panels details, this 0.2mm just shows enough of a detail to make it readable. Sometimes in the models I can't show all the horizontal elements due to the 0.6mm size but am able to capture enough detail for a solid representation of the facade. This model was in 1:500 scale and took a solid 3 days to print. I am using Form Futura atlas support in a polybox, which has never given me any issues and standard Ultimaker PVA settings. The balconies and verandah were printed separately. Hope this all makes sense. If anyone out there has any tweaks so I can add more detail, I would love to hear it.
  10. 7 points
    We're open for entries! Presenting an idea, an architectural design or something as big as an urban project isn't easy. A scaled model can really help to get your idea across. But besides your main model, there is more needed to get your idea across vividly! An architect regularly uses various entourage sets to help bring these ideas and models to live. At Ultimaker we think that 3D printing can have a significant impact on the projects and daily routine of an architect. There is so much more you can focus and work on while the Ultimaker is doing the labor for you. We're happy to see many architects embrace this technology and elevate their business. But.. we think we could make your lives even a little bit easier! Because just like any manufacturing technique, 3D printing has design guidelines. Guidelines that can make the difference between a flawless 3D print and a troublesome 3D print. We figured we could help by providing free entourage sets for architects which are designed for 3D printing and are free to use for your projects. Think of theme-packs like vehicles for urban planning, people and trees. But I can imagine that which vehicles you need may depend on your project because European vehicles might be different from American vehicles, and within a certain city or building you may need different types of people. And this is where the contest comes in ? Separated in 3 segments we would like to ask for your help to design and provide the best entourage sets. There are some rules though: - One set should contain a minimum of 6 different models - It should be designed for 3D printing, like no overhangs and it should be printable in single extrusion (without PVA).* - It should be submitted in a 1:100 scale so it is easy to scale up or down depending on ones project - You can submit as many entries as you want - Ultimakers and the winning entries will be made available to use for free as entourage sets by Ultimaker - You can only submit your own design - It would be appreciated if your entourage set is based on real-world 'subjects' and if you add a descriptive title like 'American trucks and large vehicles'. 'People set walking' or 'Adults and kids'. - Each segment will run for a period of 3 weeks - Got a submission? You can add an STL to your reply below. (It's also possible to add it to 3D files, make sure to add a link to the replies below. We only review the replies). * -As an example, when designing our example vehicle set we initially had a little detail in each tire that represented a rim. A nice tough we thought. But upon printing, this little detail made the first layer unreliable and therefore the whole print. We removed the detail and can now run a full set without any concerns. Download: Ultimaker example Entourage - Vehicles.zip The Start. We're open for entries now and looking forward seeing what you will submit. Each theme will run for 3 weeks, which means the vehicle theme will run until July 9th. When the contests are over, we will make sure the winning entries are available in this architect sub-forum and Ultimaker will continue to add to these entourage sets if necessary. Of course, we hope that everyone who submits a set will do the same. We'll start with vehicles, then people and finally trees. The Prize. So, what can you win? In each contest, there are 2 prizes to win. First prize; a large filament pack. Containing 10 reels of filament; white PLA. Second prize, a small filament pack. Containing 5 reels of filament; white PLA. The Jury. @Stefania Dinea and I, (@SandervG) are jury. We will look for the design for 3D printing element (remember, we want to make your life easier!) and your choice of design/subject, i.e., which set we think will be used most eventually.
  11. 7 points
    Introduction The 3.3 beta introduces new functionality that is intended to improve Cura's ability to print bridges and overhung areas. The current Cura code base has long had the ability to detect when a skin region spans across islands of support and those skins that Cura thinks are bridges will have the direction of the lines aligned with the detected bridge detection. But nothing was done to detect walls that spanned unsupported areas and no changes were made to the wall or skin print speeds, flows or fan speed. The new bridging functionality does now detect when walls cross unsupported regions and it does now modify the print settings for those walls and skin that are determined to be unsupported. This topic introduces the new settings that are grouped together in the experimental section and are enabled using the Enable Bridge Settings checkbox. The settings Explained You will immediately notice that there are quite a few settings. Why so many? Well, I realised pretty early on in my experimentation that modifying the skin settings for the first bridge skin and then using the normal skin settings for the skins above the first does not always lead to a good result. So there are settings to not only modify the print speed, percentage flow, density and fan for the first bridge layer (bottommost layer) but also for the two layers above. If you want to keep things simple you can un-check the Bridge Has Multiple Layers checkbox and then only the first bridge skin layer settings will be modified. The settings used for the bridge walls are Bridge Wall Speed, Bridge Wall Flow (aka line diameter) and Bridge Fan Speed. Also relevant for walls are Minimum Bridge Wall Length which only considers wall line segments that are longer than this length as bridges. Shorter wall line segments are just printed using the normal settings. Bridge Wall Coasting controls a feature that reduces the pressure in the nozzle as it approaches the start of the bridge. This is necessary because the extrusion rate will need to be very much reduced from the normal rate as the speed and flow used on the bridge is likely to be less. If this is not done, the wall line tends to droop very badly at the start of the bridge. Finally, there is Bridge Wall Max Overhang which controls how much a wall line can overhang the layer below before it is considered to be a bridge wall line. By default it is 100% of the wall line width so the line has to be completely over air with no overlap whatsoever with the layer below. Reducing the value of Bridge Wall Max Overhang means that the line doesn't have to overhang the layer below so much for it to be printed using the bridge wall settings. See below for an example of its use. For a given material and print temperature, there will be some combination of the bridge wall settings mentioned above along with Bridge Skin Speed, Bridge Skin Flow (aka line diameter), Bridge Skin Density (line spacing) and Bridge Fan Speed (and the similar settings for the 2 other skin layers) that produces the best results. This is where the fun starts because it's going to require a lot of experimentation to come up with suitable settings. The default values are tested with PLA at 200deg, 0.4mm nozzle and 0.2mm layers and may work OK, or not (YMMV). One other setting is Bridge Skin Support Threshold which is the percentage of a skin area that is supported for it not to be considered a bridge. i.e. skin areas that are supported for less than this percentage (default 50%) are considered to be bridges and will be printed using the bridge settings. Skins that are supported for more than the threshold value will be printed just as normal. Here's some picture that, hopefully, will make things clearer! First, here's the settings showing some typical values: Here is the first bridge layer, I am showing the layerview as feedrate so you can see the speed changes on the bridge. Notice also the coasting just before the bridge walls start (the walls are printed anti-clockwise): Here's the second and third skin layers: Finally, here are a couple of images of a model (thanks to the community member that sent it to me) that has some overhung regions. The first image is using Bridge Wall Max Overhang set to 100% and the second is using 50% and you can see that more of the lines are going to be printed using the bridge settings. For overhangs, I recommend setting Minimum Bridge Wall Length to zero as the wall line segments are likely to be very small. Feedback Required From You Please give it a go and share your experiences, all feedback is welcome (good and bad). You can either reply to this topic or for really bad news, please submit a github issue.
  12. 7 points
    THE ARCHITECTURE OF 3D PRINTING A manual intended for public use with the scope of offering tips&tricks for the architecture community passionate about digital manufacturing. Printer used throughout this process is Ultimaker 3, however more than 90% of the examples can be done with and Ultimaker 2 as well, the main idea is the work-flow process. Software Packages used within this series: Autodesk Revit, Rhino, Grasshopper, STL exporter, Cura The goal of this exercises and blogs is to make custom profiles that can be used at a general scale for generic scenarios within the architecture community that is focused on 3D printing and expand the knowledge pool. Connect and have a relation with the Ultimaker Architecture contest about to launch, so you have a starting point. REVIT For the purpose of this experiment and journey, in order to not step on any toes, we will begin by making a custom house, on a random fantasy plot, so the conditions will be challenging and content specific. Also, for this experiment, the proposed design will be modeled as closely as possible to a real case scenario, so therefore some random issues you may encounter along your design and print process can be illustrated. 01. TOPOGRAPHY Topography is one of the most complicated issues in Revit to print out, mainly because unlike every other type of category and geometry within this software, it is not a solid, just a mesh. Project constrains: A plot, a plan outline – to make it more fun and challenging I chose the U from Ultimaker as a plan outline, programmatic wise, we will do a house/villa. Photo 1.1 - site plan view, the plot and the outline of the volume. Just to prove that a simple Revit topograpy can't be printed we will export an STL (see export chapter for more information) When the um-1 file is exported and imported into Cura, you can notice that the site has not been exported, and/or it was too thin to be recognized. However if the Revit export is done in mm and a section box is used: You can detect some presence of a topography, however nothing printable. To transform the topography there are two ways to go about it a. Use a script through dynamo, however this requires a particular skillset and can be quite a hassle. b. Second and most common choice is to re-do the topography from a floor. And in first instance it will look something like this (the highlighted straight floor contour) Next step, you would probably thicken the floor to 3-5 meters, depending on the scenario, for 2 reasons: a. You will add height points, so the thickness should be greater than the difference between your highest point and your lowest point, I have a height difference of 3 m in my example. b. The floor will offset when you add height points, and you will like to be able to have a flat base. That being said, you begin by selecting the floor and clicking Edit Type In this step you will edit the structure to thicken the floor: You don't need a lot of layers, just 1, with the proper thickness, in my case 5000 mm. Result: Cura visibility: As you can see the topography is flat, however it is printable and more importantly readable in Cura. The next step you are interested in is to get the right curves in your topography. Select the floor > Modify Tab > Add point The idea is to add a floor point for every elevation point you have in the topography and also to Modify sub elements in order to place them at the same level. Adding points: Modifying points: Compare the existing topography line with the top of the floor. Once you are satisfied with the result, select the topography and hide it in view. So the result will look something like this: However, before you are done, there is an extra step you need to take, and that is to level the bottom layer. To do that, you need to activate the section box, which is available in the Properties panel of any 3D view. With the section box than you can virtually cut and control the size of your future print. Remember this tool because it is very relevant in all the processes. In order to better control the section box cut, I would recommend setting it in a side view. The 3D result in Revit: The 3D result in cura: ONE OF THE 3D PRINTED RESULTS: UP NEXT : THE ARCHITECTURE OF 3D PRINTING - 02 MASSING alternativ 1.stl
  13. 7 points
    Hi (architectural) community!, My name is Floris and i own a small business in printing scaled models for both architects and urban designers ( i myself am a urban designer). It started as a hobby/ interest to use the 3D prints in my workfield as an extra or advantage. I am still nowhere near a pro when it comes to knowing the in and outs of 3D printing / cura settings and getting the best result in the least amount of time (thats also the reason i joined this community, to learn). Below are a few of my works, ranging from an entire new neighbourhood to a single high end appartment complex to a few new houses. Currently i am working on 3 scaled models for an architect, i will post the results when they are done. For most of these models i used the following settings in Cura 3.1.0 Ultimaker 3 layer height: 0.2 top/bottem thickness: 1.2 wall thickness: 0.8 infill density : 15-30% printing speed: 20 -50% printing temp. 200 - 215 degrees travel speed: 200mm/s
  14. 7 points
    Problem was that dilithium was very difficult with legislation, being an accidental space-time warp risk. So we removed that feature last second.
  15. 7 points
  16. 7 points
    Some photos of my plated print 10mins before i ruined it lol. replating now...not going great....hmmm fun with lighting.....
  17. 6 points
    I am Stefania Dinea, an architect who mixes 3D printing, VR, parametric design and blogging daily and I will share some of my 3D printing tips & tricks with you. This series is my overview about the process and my work-around. Please feel free to comment and add. PREVIOUS POST: THE ARCHITECTURE OF 3D PRINTING - 01 TOPOGRAPHY THE ARCHITECTURE OF 3D PRINTING - 02 MASSING THE ARCHITECTURE OF 3D PRINTING - 03 TOLERANCES AND SNUG FIT 04 ENTOURAGE Basic entourage consists of the following: Human figures in scale, trees and vegetation, and vehicles. So what would be the best approach to this? Especially when you are dealing with a sloped terrain – you also have to remember that super glue is your best friend but it does not always give out the best result in terms of optimal efficient solutions. One of my tips is to place holes in the site (floor in revit) and make little support extensions/pins for your entourage of choice. So how thick should a pin be? Remember the 2 mm min thickness I was talking about? Well that would be it – 2mm in scale in 1:400 + offset of 0.3 mm. So in scale that should look like this: Support system diameter: Support placement diameter: This is how the site looks like after perforation: To do now entourage – one option would be to model in view, another would be to use a family to model specific entourage. One thing you cannot use are the families already included in Revit (unfortunately) specially when it comes to entourage. To look for inspiration, there are multiple options, in terms of sketching, and as I said before, you are only limited y imagination. So to get started you might want to use the following keywords in your google search: people silhouettes and architecture tree sketches and you will find example such as: So pick what suits your own project, your style and maybe you even have your own design. Now to continue with Revit, cut a section through one of the placements spots and insert and image of one of your desired human silhouettes once you have decided on one type and click on model in place. The simplest way to go around things is to just trace and extrude. and it might look bulky due to the scale you are working it – but remember that in the final print it will be quite small and fragile. A perspective preview of the result: I would print this item flat, however the issue is as follows: If you check the top view, my base model might be problematic and my single extrusion is impossible. The solution is to alter the base. If your model seems to thick and chinky, you might consider printing it on the side, and cut it in half. Just look how small it is at scale 100% in Cura - it's a game of spot the model (it's the very small yellow dot in the middle ) (it's that very small yellow dot) However, in scale 1:400 (250 in cura) it will look a lot bigger, not by much though. After the first print with recommended Cura setting for extra fine I discovered that my 0.3 tollerence in Revit was too little. So with these general dimensions in Cura, my print pin was just the exact fit of the diameter whole – therefore inadequate. To avoid going back to Revit and making alterations, I went for a modification in Cura. As follows, by making sure that Uniform scaling is unchecked – in the end, the only thing of importance that needed rescaling was the diameter of the base and not the height. Running a test print and seeing that this tolerance worked I remodeled the initial scalable human silhouette – and took if for another test print. The same principle applies to modelling tress, you can make them as a flat 2D extrusion or a 3D volume. In the image below are two examples: For efficiency reasons I do recommend you model them as a family type, so you can reuse them in multiple projects. And I do recommend you make a parametric family so you can change the level of detail according to scale. But more on that in another blog. For now I will print a little army of trees so my landscape will look something like this: As you will notice in my final prints photos, I am not a patient person, and in this industry is hard to be, as everything is last minute and deliveries have a yesterday deadline on them. No matter how fast the machines are working if it's not instant it is never fast enough. However, please remember the time when everything had to be made by hand and delivery took forever on various materials needed to produce a model – I don't know about you, but I sure don't miss it – not to mention the cost. Nowadays time is generally consumed by 3D modelling – that is why I am a huge fan of BIM – if you have a proper BIM model, adding an extra as a 3D print should take no time at all to adjust, as you will see in the following chapters. Also, how small can you print entourage? NEXT ON THIS SERIES: 05 HIGH RESOLUTION BUILDING FACADES human.stl site for landscape.stl tree1.stl tree-2.stl
  18. 6 points
    ya des gens très motivé sur cette terre
  19. 6 points
    Just a quick sketch I rushed out to print, a few issues and not complete coverage in the plate but a good effort! will try to polish it up and post some nicer pics later when im back from work. Also a photo of my high tech photo setup as promoised!! sorry its blurred but you get the jist. Ill post high res pictures from the camera when i get back was very late when I took this.
  20. 6 points
    Hi- I'm an elementary art teacher in Ohio and I did some fundraising a couple of years ago to get an Ultimaker 2+ for my classroom. I was excited to incorporate this level of technology into my art curriculum, but I didn't know exactly what kind of lessons to write to go along with 3D printing. I'm posting to share a bit of my story and also see what other art (or other) teachers are doing with their 3D printers. Last year, I had about 250 4th and 5th graders design objects using Tinkercad. I set an extremely loose framework for the project because I really wanted to see what the students were capable of creating. I had some amazing work as well as some very pedestrian designs. This year was my second year teaching 3D design for the printer. My 5th grade students studied architecture and each created a building of their own design. My plan is to display them as a large city. I have over half of the buildings printed at this point and it looks pretty fantastic. My 4th grade project is a pencil topper design. The project allows for a lot of creative freedom, but the size is constrained so the printing will go a bit faster. Students are finished with their designs, but I won't be able to print until the 5th grade buildings are finished.
  21. 6 points
    A) I have NO virus issue. You just ranted about your favorite anti-virus program. B)Yes, you have very poor communication skills and this is coming from someone with Asperger's. For instance you say you have to install service packs. WTF? I have not seen anything relating to service packs since the bygone days. Are you on XP or what? C) Just ranting without giving specifics like system, ram, OS, etc is you not being helpful. Even with all that missing you are the one to choose to get "Douchey" as you so eloquently put it. I saw other people attempt to help and yet you choose to troll them because you cannot solve your own problems. But you are the one blaming everybody else while acting superior. D) High end...oh I dunno, 3DSMAX, CURA (Which you cannot run at all), Maya, Houdini, Revit, Inventor, Space Claim, Z-Brush, MudBox, 3DCoat..... shall I go on or is this not heigh enough end for you? Oh, and I run a lot of them at the same time. As well as the full Adobe Master Suite of programs. E) I ain't got nuttin' to put up or bail on a ranting knucklehead. I can get my stuff running no issues.....you cannot.....I think that says it all.... Have a wonderful day in pissy land.....
  22. 6 points
    What, nothing about the improvements to manual supports and adjustment meshes? It is now much easier to load objects and mark them to be printed as supports, which is useful if Cura does not produce the support you want. You can also prevent support being added in certain places. Here's a slow-to-the-tooth gif that demonstrates the idea (it has been tweaked a bit since the gif was made): Per Model Settings now has a "Mesh Type" setting. It allows you to change a model from just printing as any other model to special functions. These special models don't necessarily push other models away, so that it is easier to create an overlap.
  23. 5 points
    Hi Ultimaker-community, I´m using my Ultimaker 2+ for building of splittable kiteboards. The edges are made of ABS. When I started with this I thought about building a big printer with approx. 800x500mm but realized then that it´s absolutely no problem to connect the pieces together with little bone-shaped parts. The top- and bottom layers in CURA are set to zero so that the epoxy-resin can later flow trough the edges during lamination process. This makes the bottom and top glassfibre stick very good together. Off course not very complicated parts to print but what I think a good example how 3d-printing helps to built stuff you need for hobby ;-) Greets Micha
  24. 5 points
    Bonjour et merci pour votre aide, au final on a éclaté la pièce pour faire de l'assemblage, ce qui a permis de ne pas mettre de support en option dans Cura, cela a vraiment simplifié la difficulté de nettoyage du support. Voici l’œuvre de mes élèves une fois assemblé. Prix A-Fictionados 2018
  25. 5 points
    Took a journey back to Fractal Land. This is an actual Julia slice that I then manipulated a bit. I am printing out a revised version of this right now. But this is printed at 0.2mm Layer height with a 0.4mm nozzle width. I did push the line width to 0.64mm to thicken the walls. Took a while to print and almost filled the print bay to the upper limit. I do not think the buildplate dropped more than1cm when finished. Height by Cura measurement is 260mm. Pretty darned solid with just two walls at the line width specified. Why not use one of my spiffy 0.8 nozzles if I am going to do this? Just trying things out is all. Used bunches of PVA though LOL. Made with Translucent Red PLA. Redesign is being printed right now with one wall at 0.64mm in FilamentOne's Clear Iceland Blue.
This leaderboard is set to Amsterdam/GMT+01:00

Important Information

Welcome to the Ultimaker Community of 3D printing experts. Visit the following links to read more about our Terms of Use or our Privacy Policy. Thank you!