AbeFM

The coordinate system thing works... if you've just saved and STL and used that coordinates when you did it. (edit: You must save the file, but you can then delete it even before import. You don't need to re-save the SW file, it'll come across right if you've just saved an STL) So most of the time it doesn't work, I don't know i I can easily reassign it without breaking mates in the assembly at large. It's too bad since the "lay flat" thing leaves a LOT to be desired. You're lucky to get 10% of a flat surface in one layer.

OMG, the good news just doesn't stop. I've had countless issues with stuff coming in goofy, especially stuff drawn at an angle relative to the default coordinate system. I made a new coordinate system, as reference geometer, last on my list - hoping to use it for STL manual output. When next I loaded the SW file, it respected that, and my part is perfectly aligned!

I'm still using one version back, and will switch over when I get a chance. In a big rush to bang out this printer and I've got the plug-in working so well now. BTW, using V0.5.4, perhaps V1 is in order soon, I mean, it works :-), and it will open assemblies! I wouldn't have tried, but I mis-clicked and this relatively complex part came in just fine! Kinda exciting. Feel free to berate my duct design. :-)

I'd ask for a small cone, which maintains separation from the surface by x-y, z spacing... but basically it seems (from the outside looking in) that you could use the "roof" that you would for standard supports. I can draw some ideas but I doubt they'd be helpful? Anyway, a roof is what I think they need, because they are otherwise truly Glorious. Some of my bigger/crazier prints are faster/cheaper/easier-to-clean than before.

An option for "tree supports per object" might be useful here. From what you're saying, he could print one object upsidedown or 1 mm off the bed, and avoid the tree issues?

Still finding myself in the position of playing back-and-forth with the settings for Adaptive Layers. It *really* would be nice to see "average layer thickness" and "range", or min/max would be even better: Average Layer Thickness (0.15 mm) Layer Thickness Range (+/- 0.08 mm) Maximum Layer Thickness (0.23 mm) Maximum Layer Thickness (0.07 mm) In other news: If you have two objects of different height it won't print the overage of the taller one.

I don't have any great answers, but I can say my experience parallels your own. The best way to use this plug-in is to do a test print, see what happens, go back, retweak it, edit g-code by hand, etc. Saying "layer number", or being more explicit about where the stop will happen, would be a huge upgrade to a useful tool

I agree with much of what was said - overall it's a pretty good print. If you layer heights are big you could make them smaller a bit, but you kinda don't have to. The only real advice I have that others haven't given is look CAREFULLY at the print preview - many times I think there's an issue with the printer, but hairs, holes, extra segments, blobs, seams, and the rest are all there plain as day on the preview.

I believe I get it, I think we are describing the same thing. I feel that the current description in the software isn't super useful, and I feel that starting with the thickness you specified as "average" doesn't make particular sense. Great feature, but I'd appreciate a direct response to the earlier post: What makes a more intuitive way to use the feature from the user's perspective?

Thread on Prusa forums: https://shop.prusa3d.com/forum/original-prusa-i3-mk3-f30/mk3-cura-profile--t13916.html

Am I correct that you basically pick the thickness of the fist layer, then the software varies the line heights up and down based on the curvature there at the point? Might I suggest that this leads to parts with the line width basically down at the minimum/maximum. Would it make sense to require that the *average* line width is the one specified (which gives good control over time)... Or to just specify the Max & Min desired line thicknesses since that's all you're really controlling anyway (aside from step size, etc). It seems a more intuitive way to use the feature?

I saw the "multiple build surfaces" in the feature list, but haven't messed with it yet - with a preset for each printer, I thought I would be good. As I have 3 printers, I was trying to do a Grand Benchy Comparison, but the process of changing the "printer" kept changing settings I didn't expect, so it was very hard to do a direct comparison. In fact, after the experience, I'm finding I keep losing settings I think I have saved. The difference between "profile", "Material", and "printer" don't make a lot of sense. I can change the material and no getting the settings I expect, same for printer. It looks like each printer has its own profiles.... But then again, there are some repeats between them. It is hard to tell where they are coming from - I made custom profiles and they show up under two of my 3 profiles. Being in just one, or in all three, would make sense, but I don't see how it ended up in two. I guess I'm looking for a workflow which will EASILY allow me to pull a single selection from a menu so I can print the same thing on a different printer. (Slightly related: How do you edit the name that is appended to the begining of the output files? I would like PI3MK2_(model name).gcode to be "MK3_(model name).gcode", the CR-10 to be CR10 (not CCR10_), etc. I looked at a bunch of cfg files and never found it.)

Well if that doesn't sell me on "it's worth tweaking the settings" then nothing is. I agree, there's something basically wrong when this is the result. It's not to disparage the fine folks working on all this, it is a sign that things both have potential and aren't done yet. :-)

If it's a one time thing, you could edit the g-code - you could cut out the bits you don't want. Set basically delete the lines after the set up and the skirt, going to layer 3 or 4 (or whatever the first no-bottom layer is, (number of floors + 1), then just set the current Z to that height, and you should be able to retain the rest of the code. It's probably a good exercise, and doesn't require massive new skillsets.

Where is the best place to do that? I've helped on other software projects and kinda used GitHub a bit, but not sure how to make suggestions. Can you point me to a link where it's obvious how to make a suggestion where someone can read it who might do it or work with the community to define a goal? Be wary - when you use adaptive printing on something without large areas of nearly verticle walls, you are just effectively setting the line thickness very small. Definitely preview your object with layer thickness displayed/ You can see this Benchy here is printed almost exclusively at 50 um even though it's nominally over 3x that. The bottle displayed above is a great place to use this feature, but as many objects end up printing with only a few NOT smallest layers, there's more to be gained by leaving it constant (avoiding Z microsteps) than by using it. EDIT: This is coming up in another thread, and you can still get gains by playing with the settings. See my post over here with side-by-side benchies.

If you drop the model, you'll just get a floor printed below the model.

I recently got a new printer, and have been using the included software for slicing, and I don't feel the software is up to the job. I stopped using Slic3r when I discovered CURA years ago. Is there some god starting place for CURA settings? There's S3D packages everywhere, but I really want to stick with CURA if possible. There's already ~8,000 Mk3's out there, so there should be SOME demand.

Question: Wouldn't normal supports work just fine for you? You're not supporting internal structure, just the holes in the outer wall? Just put a push-out piece in each hole. Less material, easier to print, etc?

There are some options for like, infill and supports being relative to the individual object instead of the world. I don't know if the "tree" stuff is tied in there yet. Could you perhaps try "ungrouping" the objects? Huh, well, I did, and no luck. I get one big crazy tree when there's two objects, grouped or not. I've often thought it would be nice to have some post-processing copy, that will stamp the same g-code all over the plate with just an x-y offset (which would do what you want, take one golden object and move it around. I guess that's what you're doing manually. In S3D you put in manual supports then stamp the part all over... but you get the same issue with not quite the same supports generated.

Huh, yeah, that's probably a reasonable way. Certainly the two "defaults" conflict. Thanks!

Just so it's not all vinegar on this thread: One of my favorite models sliced just great in Cura today. I tried it in desperation because all I get out of Slic3r Prusa Edition is: I'd think of this as a "rounding error" but either way, it kinda sucks. Which leads me to: Does anyone have a profile for the Prusa i3 Mk3 for Cura, or know where I might look?

Steve, Do you have the same trick for SolidWorks? I, too, constantly have this problem. Something like a 1 click 90* rotate would also solve the problem quite quickly and be general.

There are maybe 5 threads right now on CURA not printing the model as shown - just leaving stuff off. Skipping lines, adding blobs... Errors bigger than a line width. None of them have progressed to the point of exchanging information or running tests. It seems pretty critical to me, but you can't push a rope.

I've continued to have issues with tree supports, I can set the angle lower, and get a few points which KIND of help the object, but end up with poor surfaces on small spheres. Is there something I'm missing? Can I help in some way to define a feature which would be reasonable to attempt to include?

I was trying to solve a nasty print (the sort where a single support added in would fix it, but we use the tools we've been given). I would like to be able to have the "Don't Support" option let us pick either supports or tree supports. The trees are almost perfect, but sometimes need a little help. I'd like to draw a block for all the "tree only" areas, and use standard supports elsewhere (for the places Tree won't work right (because it doesn't have a "roof" as discussed before).