Babaganoosh
-
Posts
11 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
3D Prints
Posts posted by Babaganoosh
-
-
3 minutes ago, smartavionics said:
That's what tends to happen, also, in the example I show above if the skin lines go across the regions (at 90 deg to how they are shown above), then the walls curve inwards in the middle due to the tension. You really need the skin lines to anchor on supported areas rather than bridge walls if possible. With my example above, the skin areas are, essentially, triangular so you can't avoid the skin lines terminating on one of the bridge walls but at least they are at quite a shallow angle which will minimise the inward pull.
I see. That's a good explanation, and I would agree. I can't see a better solution than that at the moment. I'll repost if I ever come across anything that works well in my radial-ish type case.
-
2 minutes ago, smartavionics said:
Hi @Babaganoosh, can you please attach the project file for your example?
Yep, here.
-
12 minutes ago, smartavionics said:
Generally, I think the bridge skin lines need to be orientated parallel to the unsupported edge. Of course, the strategy is difficult to achieve if the skin area has multiple unsupported edges in different directions.
Let me just start by saying that I have no expectation of you to implement this just for my little part, and if its well beyond feasible, no use continuing the conversation, but I am still curious. This is a programmatic issue or printing issue? The skin lines in your image are parallel to one of the unsupported edges, but not the other for each pie piece. It would seem a concentric skin, would result in shorter bridge skin lines, but then you'd have each line only attached to two floating bridge lines rather than one more stable point. So maybe my concentric fill idea would be too unstable and things would just droop.
-
@smartavionics, I have one seemingly buggy part of this now that I've paramaterized some elements. I'm now using the latest Windows build from your dropbox link and have a quartered version of the previous part I showed, with a few other minimization things to waste less material/time. See image below, but the paramaterization is done via "per model settings" where I set both the Bridge Wall Speed and Bridge Skin Speed equally in each model and go from 30, 45, 60, 75 mm/s. As you can see in the image, the skin speed is appropriately changed, but the wall speed still seems to follow my general Outer Wall Speed setting of 30 mm/s. I've tried this with a few different Outer Wall Speeds thinking that it may be something weird with the Minimum Layer Time affecting the walls but not the skin for whatever reason, but this doesn't seem to be the case.
A few other debugging things I tried:
- I enabled the bridge settings on a default profile (where I haven't messed with other settings) and the same behavior shows.
- I tried deleting the skin per model settings to see if one was working but multiple had issues
- I tried doing the same processes in the Ultimaker 4.0 build.
- I tried just updating the Bridge Wall Speed without any per model settings
None of the above were able to actually modify the Bridge Wall Speed. Am I misunderstanding this term or is this an actual bug?
-
1 hour ago, smartavionics said:
Hello @Babaganoosh, here's an object I have used for testing the bridging. To ensure that the skin areas are aligned in the radial direction, they must not meet in the centre so that each skin area remains separate. Obviously, you can't do the same trick with the object you show above.
Note that this is a very old image, the skin in the centre doesn't look right but the other skin areas look OK.
@smartavionics, interesting, and yes it does look more or less radial, but was this radial pattern intentional or just what happened by default from this design? I'd say in this case, assuming the red walls are fixed, it would actually be better to have a concentric skin as this would result in the shortest bridge skins between these walls. As it stands, the bridge skin lines are of variable length and the shorter ones my work well while longer ones may fail. But it doesn't look like those red walls are supported, but bridge walls , so I'm not sure what would work best there. I could try to incorporate some similar ideas into my design and see if they work better. Thanks!
-
3 hours ago, phaedrux said:
Thanks, i'll look into that. @smartavionics Once I have cura-build setup, how do I build your version?
@phaedrux. Follow the build instructions for OS X but you'll have to replace the terminal line command:
git clone git@github.com:Ultimaker/cura-build.git
with smartavionics git repo.
git clone https://github.com/smartavionics/Cura.git
As smartavionics doesn't appear to maintain his builds as releases as Ultimaker does, you'd have to checkout his mb-master branch before building and build based on that branch.
If you need more info, read up on how to use cmake, and git. If you still need further help after that, then open an issue asking for smartavionics to update the git readme to reflect the actual build procedure as the current one linked to the Ultimaker one depends on git releases. Further help on this topic should be restricted to smartavianics git repo as these questions are not relevant to his bridging features in Cura.-
1
-
-
On 4/12/2019 at 4:21 PM, smartavionics said:
Hello @Babaganoosh, thanks for the comment.
Yes, my Cura, Uranium and CuraEngine forks have mb-master branches which are the latest "released" branches. My builds are always from those branches.
Personally, I have always achieved better results with a reduced skin density for the first bridge layer, having the lines too close together always caused them to get tangled.
Can you achieve a greater flow rate by reducing the speed proportionately so that the extruder rate doesn't increase?
Anyway, I will see if it possible for the bridge skin density to be > 100%.
Got it! I also found your dropbox link to the builds in another thread. I won't build my own for now as the dependencies list for Windows looks monstrous. Though if you can't find a means to make the bridge density >100% I may someday take a peek under the hood and see if I can figure something out.
I never had much tangling issues regardless of settings, but based on the few numbers I've seen thrown around on the thread, it looks like everyone is trying to print MUCH faster than I am. I'm using 0.1mm thickness, and speeds around 15 mm/s.
I did a lot of testing on a standard bridging geometry, but after dialing these settings down, I tried on the actual part I'm making, and the settings didn't adapt very well. I'll keep playing around with more specific test parts to try to dial this on in. The troublesome part is kind of like a gear with a flat top, so there are a lot radial patterned bridges. Since the bridging is all linear fill, sometimes lines will take a a very short bridge path and others will take very long paths. You mentioned this earlier, but some control over the pattern might help here. Something like a radial pattern, though I don't see anything similar within the existing bottom/top layer patterns that would achieve this. It may be quite difficult to implement in general as well since it would involve calculating a centroid for each layer. Also it might result in a lot of excess build up material at the centroid if the nozzle passes by there so many times. I'm not sure of an ideal solution yet on this one, but your builds and bridge settings are definitely helping get better results compared to the standard Ultimaker build. Thanks!
Edit: I found an existing setting that might be useful for this. The "Extra Skin Wall Count" would allow me to bridge all the outer supports first by adjusting the number of wall lines to match the support dimensions, then bridge the skin between. This works well for the first layer bridge, but this has two drawbacks. I don't want those extra walls on my actual top and bottom layers, and I'm noticing that if you print all bridge layers like this, instead of just the first, then it lacks compressional integrity, as you can essentially punch out the skin portion since no lines were printed from outer wall to outer wall. I can update some photos of this if thats not clear, but ideally the bridge settings would allow for a total wall count for each layer (I know, more settings).
-
On 4/13/2019 at 12:27 AM, phaedrux said:
My mistake, I thought that was already part of the experimental settings. That would be a really great addition. I'm still surprised that's not something that happens with Cura by default.
I would love to build an OSX release, but I have no idea how to get started with that. If you can point me in the right direction...
I was able to test the Accel and Jerk for bridging settings and it appears to be working. Now If we can get bridging over infill implemented I'd say it's pretty much perfect.
Thanks for all your hard work on these. Your branch fixes so many of the things that was keeping me from wanting to use Cura.
@phaedrux, you can find the build instructions here. Optionally you could run from source as per here.
-
@smartavionics first off thanks for an amazing contribution! I've been printing bridge test parts for the last two days just toying around and having some great initial results.
Where do you maintain your builds you mentioned? I'd like to see what your newest version looks like compared to the Ultimaker build. I checked your git hub, but didn't look like your Cura fork master branch was updated very recently. Are you maintaining these in another branch perhaps?Also one thing I've been hoping to see is some way to allow Bridge Skin Density above 100% (i.e. allowing overlap). I'm parametrically testing various flow rates, and noticing, at least for my 30mm bridge gap test print, that flow rates well over 100% are working best. By best, I'm trying to achieve as flat and non-stringy bottom to the bridge as possible. With lower flow rates, I can still print flat surfaces, but the bottom of the bridge tends to contain a fair amount of stringy-ness (one or two lines that are detached from the rest of the part). The trouble is that I can only go up to a certain flow rate before my extruder gets backlogged and starts skipping. I'm hoping for an overlap percentage that would bind these detached strings to the rest of the layer via the last line printed.
Maybe this would just end up warping the first layer due to low rigidity and overheating it, but I'd at least like to see how it turns out.
Right now, the 4.0 Ultimaker build is not allowing me to go above 100% overlap, but not sure if your build allows for this, or if implementing something like this would be difficult or not? Is there some other setting in Cura that allows for such overlap that I'm not aware of? Ideally I'd like it to be limited to just the bridge skin, but if I can test the idea out on some small parts it might act as more motivation to implement it in the bridge controls you made. Thoughts?
-
I agree that this as default behavior has the potential to shock/frustrate a fair amount of users (myself included). Yes, it is my fault for not reading carefully through the installation process, but I think deleting profiles should be a very intentional task, maybe only reserved for someone looking to remove the entire Cura software from their system due to lack of use, etc. (e.g. through a dedicated uninstaller separate from the update process). Having this in an update installer where careless users (myself included) are simply pressing enter to cycle through the GUIs can result in a fair headache. Simply changing the default to "No" when asked if the user wants to delete configuration files, such that mindless Enter keystrokes wouldn't result in profile loss, would save a lot of people headaches I assume. Just my 2 cents.
Introducing The Experimental Bridging Settings
in UltiMaker Cura
Posted · Edited by Babaganoosh
Incorrect information.
Ah, yes. Thank you! Actually, I am able to print curved bridge wall with a fair accuracy. I'm heading out of the office for the day, but will post some actual prints showing this tomorrow.
Cheers!
Edit: I rushed that comment and after taking a closer look at my prints, I do agree that the actual bridge walls along the curves are not actually curved, but segmented lines. The smaller these segments, the more of a true curve it becomes, but they are still segments. The segments in my print were small enough that I could not visually tell the difference initially. Anyways, you solved what I misunderstood as a bug, so thanks!