kmanstudios

Nope 😆 'Tis not I. It has been there since at least Cura 2.something when I first got started. Just a difference in needs or wants. Anytime I do something that has to be accurate, I would never use it. But, I make mostly silly little things, so occasionally it helps. And, if I missed a joke, Sometimes, I just do not get them. Sorry if I did 🙂

It is off by default. So, somebody experimented and forgot the setting was on. I have found it wise to change settings one at a time and check results in the sliced preview. That could save people from silly things happening. 😉 I say this as the guy that changes settings like mad all the time.

Your model is fine, I ran a check on it and there are no errors there. Then I ran it through my Cura (4.4) setup for my S5. Came out perfectly with none of the artifacting you see in your sliced image. I would be inclined to think it may have to do with either the version (I have seen issues with 4.8) or the setup for the printer type you are using. Saving the file out as a project file (.3mf) will let people see it the same way you see it as it will bring the model, printer type and settings into anybody's Cura.

I have used it several times in my prints if I have a tiny area that would look bad without a continuous surface to buttress it without supports.

So, I wanted to test out the Black 2.0 and Black 3.0 from Stuart Simple. While I have not been able to get that 'void look' as it is shown, but I can say they are the blackest Paint I have experienced. Black 2.0 is a black matte, but Black 3.0 has a 'velvety type of appearance. This was primed with Black matte spray paint. The Black 2.0 was painted over the Bat Symbol and cape up to ears. When Dried, I put Black 3.0 on the neck, face and cowl. This is Black Primed and then Black 3.0 on top. You can see the difference between the two areas (Black 3.0 and just Black Primer.) This is Black Primer with Black 2.0 over all of it and then Black 3.0 on the neck, face and cowl.

Since nobody asked, I thought I would share a few things I have picked up. As I try new things I will probably tack it onto the end of this. My hope is that some of you find this instructive and I will point you to a variety of sources that I pulled information from. For the most part, I prime my prints with a black matte and then sometimes I mist white onto the print to help illuminate shape. I also am not a representative of any paints that I talk about. Just things I have played with. First, why I think things like the Polyalchemy style of 'silky looking' prints, and why I also do not like using the materials. If you are going to be making single colour, and absolutely no paint prints, they are nice. Things like this: But this limits you to the colours they or any manufacturer will put out. What if you wanted to alter the colour? I wanted to be able to do washes over them. But, when applying paint over the print, it exposes a bit of how the prints come out the way they do. It really shows all the layers as opposed to the smooth looking prints above. So that sheen becomes this: The Grey is the base colour of the print and looks fine, but even the washes that let the 'shine' of the material through, still shows lines. And as soon as you paint opaque, it really gets bad like in the face. All these Polyalchemy prints using the same resolution and machine. This was not primed and was washed with acrylics. So, unless you are doing the single colour type filament prints, this is how far it can go. I also enquired @cloakfiend about something that he had painted and not doing full Chrome (chemical based, not paint based). He pointed me to Stuart Semple's "The world’s mirroriest mirror chrome paint." Humble as he is, he did not even mention he has a much more complete review of Chrome paint options here. For the details of how different chrome paints with a good reputation look, it is well worth the viewing. However, I am looking at the paints I am playing with, not always for their strict design. First off, the Stuart Semple Chrome (I have not compared a few others yet) was by a wide margin the best. It just has that really nice 'pop' you look for in the reflections and depth of colour. I am comparing my previous 'silvery paint' and other applications of colour on a bad print. This was primed first with black and no white misting. On your left side is the Stuart Semple's Chrome. You can see the line between your left and right sides at just inside her left breast. The Stuart Semple Chrome is much easier to apply and both paints require some sort of thinner as they are not water based. You can see the difference again in this image: Below the colours are washed over the Chrome side of the print in this order: A is Pthalo Blue (green shade) B starts about midway up the forearm and is the same Pthalo Blue mixed with Stuart Semple's "Unicorn Milk." It is not easy to see in the image but mixing them made the Pthalo Blue really nice and rich with a bit more of a sheen in it. C is Read with Unicorn Milk washed over the Chrome. Below, this arm has two applications of the Pthalo Blue: A is Pthalo Blue mixed with Unicorn Milk AND when dried, a was of Unicorn Milk applied over the Base Blue which is Pthalo Blue and Unicorn Milk mixed. B is the Base Blue applied first all over the arm. You can see the richness of the base blue starting down at the crook of the elbow. It is actually much nicer in real life. On her back I just mixed some colours together and washed them over the chrome. I will be experimenting with a rattlecan of gold to wash over.

I feel for you as it is not just the settings, but the basic philosophical approach on how the programs differ or slight nomenclature differences. Good luck!! 🙂

I took a look at the file. The first thing I noticed was the scaling of the object. The object had an actual size of about 0.25mm in height. you can see the amount of automatic scaling on the object. And, it came in at the floor of the virtual baseplate. I do uncheck the auto-drop to plate in my basic setup. I am also still on Cura 4.4. No other reason than it is working for me right now and I am still re-learning the software as a whole. I then ran it through 3DS MAX and did an STL Check and it came out ok. So, no errant vertices or polygons floating out in space. I have evaluated models before with the same problem and that one, unforgotten, tiny little piece of errant geometry have usually been the problem. But, before you print, you should look at the faceting of the image. See how it looks like the sides of a disco ball with a bunch of flat planes. This is how it will print. And, you can see it in MAX as well: No knowing the size you choose to print at, I scaled the original up to about 7 inches in height and that may make it easier for you to size it to your specs. 209603569_OpeningTest2_Fixed.stl So, the meshfixer you ran the model through did not find errors, because technically, there were no errors in the geometry. It worked as designed. But I think the scaling was a huge issue. I also do not know if the Prusa setup is correct or if should behave differently. But it came into my Cura 4.4/S5 flawlessly. So, while I cannot say what your issue is (one issue of a combo of one or two things that are not model related) but I hope the 'fixed' model works for you. 🙂 What was the source of the model? Program or download or....?

It gave me time to think of the paints I wanted to use to get a certain look to the piece. Thanks! 🙂

This took 23.5 days to print the base and another 2 days to print the female figure. For the second time.....The first time the fingers did not print well. This whole print used almost 2KG of material, so it feels like it has some heft. The design came about when I found a few Ziegfeld Follies girls. It became this; pseudo-art deco influenced fractals and practical modeling. Other view directions of the full piece. I used a variety of paints on this whole thing. I also tried out a couple of Stuart Semple's products. The hair was done using (ultimately)liquitex heavy body paints and the pearl topcoat (UnicornMilk is the paint's name). It mixed nicely with the liquitex paints and gave me this nice abalone look in the hair. The fingers came out nicely on the second print. The first print I did some Stuart Semple Paint tests on the first print. I always test on scrap materials. 🙂

I understand what you mean. It is a thought fraught with choices and each one has its own consequences. @flowalistik is probably the most pilfered from artist out there. There is a scan of the Batman that was from a licensed bust (you can actually see it in the comic book store on the tv show "The Big Bang Theory) that was at one time for sale as original art (as opposed to being a scan). This person also tried to sell the Scanned Superman Bust as well. Then the Batman scan was made available for free on Thingiverse. Note that I have downloaded a few models and printed them for myself or as gifts. But I posted them as makes and believe me when I say these were spot on models. But, I could not and would not sell them.

Start off 'small.' By this, print some non-complex things with a couple of materials to start with. Right now, I like the PLA and TPLA: Easy to print with and does not need much oversight. I printed a series of cubes with different infills and such to play with and watch how it all works. Also try printing things like these: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:704409 https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2806295 https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1278865 These will let you know what your overhang angles will print well as well as give you hollow shapes.

Go to "Preferences" and open "Configure Cura" and uncheck "Automatically drop models to the buildplate." Then you will be able to move the object below the buildplate. Just remember to compensate for the amount lowered.

@gr5 has an awesome vid to look at concerning bed adhesion and such. I tagged him here so he can post the link directly.

Howdy :)

Thank you for the clarity ♥️

If you take a look, your slice looks different than his slice. What difference did you make other than turning it upside down? Oh, and the upper left hand side does not seem to have any support in the hole there as it does in the other three holes.

Yep, that is why I sliced the files for the OP instead of making the OP search for an old version and made clear that the difference in versions needs to be evaluated. I hope this does go into the Cura data for fixes.

OK, here are a few files to see if everything is ok for you. Keep in mind that I have not upgraded beyond Cura 4.4. So if there is a bug in the version you are using, I have supplied additional files for you. Here is the sliced image from my system. No support in the holes. Since you have it set for the S5 I just hit slice. I made no changes to your file in anyway. The only difference is the version of Cura. 1st is the .3mf file from my system. Now, I am not sure this will help since the file may not slice the same way on a newer version. 1333205824_UMS5_part3_model_r_0(1)(1)_Cura4-4.3mf Now, just in case that will not slice like I saw it on my system, here is a .UFP file for you: UMS5_1333205824_UMS5_part3_model_r_0(1)(1).ufp I left the way it puts the UMS5 on front to much more easily differentiate by name (keep your files from being overwritten). And, just in case that fails, here is the GCode file: UMS5_1333205824_UMS5_part3_model_r_0(1)(1).gcode Now, the reason I have not upgraded as I just recently got back online after almost a year of being offline. And I am seeing some reports of bugs (of which you seem to have one found here in your initial post). So, I am sticking with what I know for now. Hope this helps 🙂

Cannot tell much without the file or .3mf file to evaluate.

That would be the 'have to do everything' approach 😂 I am not that good 😉

Did you try to download the file again? Files can be corrupted during that process. And, I have downloaded files from Thingiverse that have been poorly made/modified and corrupted.

👍

As @GregValiant noted, there were parts of the model floating about. That created the shadow profile. You can see the parts here: But there are a couple of other parts to this that make this a not so good model. First off, it has multiple parts to this instead of being one cohesive mesh. This is the first piece I found that was separate from the main mesh: When I deleted that, I still found another piece just floating over the main model: Once that final piece was deleted, the model was a single mesh and watertight. I do not know Fusion, but this is a list of the problems the final model had. And, yeah, it was a huge scale.

Use what you are comfortable with and.... slowly dabble in new materials that are available in the width that works for your system. Also depends on what is available to you by way of outside sales.