2 minutes ago, smartavionics said:Obviously, increasing the infill density could help strengthen the tube and the regions immediately above/below it but here's some other suggestions:
1 - increase the wall count (stiffens tube and gives more area to attach to the skins above/below).
2 - increase the skin expand distances so that the skin covers the ends of the tube which will give a much stronger joint.
1 minute ago, alonmln said:Correct me if I'm wrong but changing those settings will apply to the entire model?
Thus lengthening and using more material even when not needed in other places
Sure, but if you just want to modify the settings within the tube area you have to do a lot more work.
Actually, the time difference is not a lot 3h46m rather than 3h38m. The material difference is going to be pretty insignificant also.
3d printing, it's a tradeoff (tm)
2
BTW, I recommend using an interface (roof) on the top of the support as it will greatly improve the quality of the underside of the platform.
1
What I would do is lower the model into the build plate so that the platform bottom is, say, 5mm from the buildplate and then do some experiments to see what gaps and interface density, etc. works best. When you have found a good combo, print the whole model.
1
I would print the part in 3 pieces. Top and bottom plates with a hole the diameter of the connector rod, and the Rod itself. Press fit or glue the assembly. Might need to use a brim on the connector rod. Print the two plates first and get the actual hole diameter that the printer produces and then experiment by printing a short section of the rod until you get a good fit. Then print the whole rod. No support material required.
1
3 hours ago, XYZDesignPro said:I would print the part in 3 pieces. Top and bottom plates with a hole the diameter of the connector rod, and the Rod itself. Press fit or glue the assembly. Might need to use a brim on the connector rod. Print the two plates first and get the actual hole diameter that the printer produces and then experiment by printing a short section of the rod until you get a good fit. Then print the whole rod. No support material required.
I completely agree - that's the only way to avoid lots of re-prints and poor quality printing for that piece.
Yeah, so I gave this file as an example to some complicated prints I'm working with, where this type of separation is not possible.
4 hours ago, XYZDesignPro said:I would print the part in 3 pieces. Top and bottom plates with a hole the diameter of the connector rod, and the Rod itself. Press fit or glue the assembly. Might need to use a brim on the connector rod. Print the two plates first and get the actual hole diameter that the printer produces and then experiment by printing a short section of the rod until you get a good fit. Then print the whole rod. No support material required.
I was not aware that the project was designed to be a printing challenge. Also I had no idea the parts could not be separated, for post printing assembly, for some unapparent reason. I was thinking more along the lines of good DfAM. While I have a UM3 Ext, and I assume you do as well, not everyone has the ability to print with dis-solvable PVA supports. Printing this part without that ability would be a real mess IMHO.
As smartavionics said earlier: 3d printing, it's a tradeoff
Anyway, just my 2¢ worth . . .
There are two ways to approach this based on whether this is a single piece or multi-piece setup.
As a single piece you can use a cylinder or any other object to modify the wall counts and infill density.
This is such a setup with the settings I used.
It is just a cyinder placed around the supporting pole. The I set up the 'per model' settings. Note, I also used the Mesh Type on this cylinder. This will prevent it from printing and it will modify everything in its boundaries.
This is the slice:
If it is a multi-part set up with two boxes and one cylinder then you can use the 'per model' settings to give the pole a different set of settings. This is the multi-piece slice.
1
@ahoeben reacted positively to this.
I forgot to mention, as I usually do....welcome to late nights and not much sleep from the day before, that he had @bagel-orb are responsible for this set of powerful tools.
I use them very often as they just solve boat loads of issues. That whole block of tools is tech wizardry at its best....worked since day one and lets me do fun things.
Kudos to youdos!!
1
And kudos to kmanstudiosos for taking the time to make pictures to go with the post.
1
Welcome to the other side of sleep deprivation...by yesterday morning, I had gone into automatic pilot and just started doing work. Oddly, I can do that and got a boat load of work done.
But, I am very stringent on giving credit on things, especially super duper things...dunno what happened there.
But that little box is my favorite set of tools in the Cura package.
This may or may not answer your question. But if you can change the model, I would add a fillet around that cylinder:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fillet_(mechanics)
In general, when designing models for 3D printing, you want to add fillets everywhere and probably also round all the corners a bit.
ArunC posted a topic in UltiMaker Cura,
.thumb.jpeg.0b7a05eafc09add17b8338efde5852e9.jpeg)
Dustin posted a topic in Firmware,
Recommended Posts
burtoogle 513
Obviously, increasing the infill density could help strengthen the tube and the regions immediately above/below it but here's some other suggestions:
1 - increase the wall count (stiffens tube and gives more area to attach to the skins above/below).
2 - increase the skin expand distances so that the skin covers the ends of the tube which will give a much stronger joint.
Link to post
Share on other sites
alonmln 0
Correct me if I'm wrong but changing those settings will apply to the entire model?
Thus lengthening and using more material even when not needed in other places
Link to post
Share on other sites