Hotpoint

Thank you very much everyone for your help. I thought I must be doing something wrong, but missed it. I'm glad it was me rather than the print, as it is a good one. I clearly have a lot to learn still.

Good advice @tinkergnome, Not sure how that one snook in there as only experimental one I thought I've tinkered with was the tree support. But it has done the trick. You don't know what you don't know which is exactly why I'd asked for some guidance! 😉

Yes @peggyb, Exactly the sort of result I'm seeing. Although it's not restricted to this model, so I had thought there must be something in general I have set wrong. Never tried Meshmixer but will download it and give it a try. I contacted the company I purchased the model from and they have assured me its a 100% correct watertight model (but they have never printed it!). Thanks again.

Appreciate the advice @peggyb, Yes, I'm on old PC which could do with a GPU boost hence I don't get the latest and greatest views, so I'm unlikely to get the same view as you but thanks for sharing. Had the drop to bed selected on prior to the model supplied, but was just trying this to move the print way from the bed to see if it made a difference (It didn't). Also blamed it on experimental tree support but I am seeing similar when using conventional (zigzag) support. The best way to describe the problem, for a simple shape, I can come up with is imagine printing a cylinder. On its end you end up with a circular cross-section. However print the same on its side and the area engulfed in the resultant support becomes distorted and the cross-section is more of a tear drop. Attached image shows the resultant ridge on what would otherwise be a semi circular part.

Hi @maht, I have tried to print a skull with horns, this time without experimental tree support, but I still have the same issue using standard support. It only seems to happen on these deer skulls or skulls with horns. The pulling down of the print to the bed is not something I am able to overcome. I think I might be doing something wrong, but so far I can't work out what? Did you get a chance to review the file I attached? Many thanks.

Thanks maht for your kind offer. Sorry for the delay, work got in the way of having fun! DeerSkull_175pc.zip

Thanks I had submitted a ticket (1234!) as initially the post received no responses. I guess I will not hear back on that until next week. If I allow models to overlap would co-placing any small flat model in the right location achieve the same as an alternative workaround? I'm new to this forum, is the a way to contact gr3 or Maht direct or hope they pick up on your post?

Looks like it's time to upgrade my PC or at least buy a better video card! 😳 Is there a way to deselect "Compatibility mode" and run full feature all be it a bit slower?

Hi GregValiant Thanks for your response. Yes I thought this too. The same problem occurs in other models and regardless of their orientation. The example shown here was just as it caused least noticeable distortion to the final output. The problem occurs where there is not a significant amount of flat surface in contact with the bed. With this, and the other models I have tried, there is always a tendency to pull the detail of the area around the lowest point to a pyramid or ridge (model geometry dependant). Also noted that the sit bones on RHS, under the slicer controls, are not distorted in any way and did not quite come down into the lowest layers. I had thought that the use of a raft and tree support would be sufficient to preserve the shape of the model but so far this has not proved to be the case. I vaguely recall that in the infancy of Cura it required a minimum flat surface on the initial layer to try and provide stability and bed adhesion during printing. I wondered if some legacy algorithm was the cause of the distortion. May be way off track as this is only speculation. If you have any more suggestions I bee sure to give them a try Cheers

As far as I know there is no animation of the tool-chain in CURA 4.6. If you are aware of this feature then please let me know how you invoke it. The play button (purple in above screen capture) is used to start\restart the slicer, the results of which are displayed when it completes . Changes to the top layers and 5 detailed layers (grey) can effect what is shown and the slider (black) lets you move up and down in the model layer to show the detail around the chosen level. If you are saying that the resultant gcode, when run, only prints the top layer then you also have me stumped. Hope this helps

There should be a slider bar on the RHS that lets you adjust the visable layer from top to bottom.

Hi, New to the site so apologies if I've broken any form norms. Had a search in the forum and didn't turn up anything that looked related, so sorry if I've made a newbie mistake. Have a reoccurring issue when trying to slice models that don't have a suitably large enough flat spot for standard bed adhesion. Tried with all support options in the settings (standard, experimental, adding user blocks..) and with combinations of bed adhesion options (none, brim, .. but most specifically raft) . Even tried turning off the drop to bed setting. However in all combinations of theses setting I'm still get a distortion in the lower portion of the model! Had hoped (since I've already paid for the model) that it could be printed without the need to go to an editor and chop it to more amenable chucks. Note the above is in the case where the model is not dropped but hovers ~1-2mm above the bed with a raft and tree support enabled. Any other suggestions would be gratefully received. Thanks Again let me know if there's some convention I've tramped on or vital information lacking from the post.