Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts
  • Sign Up
Sign in to follow this  
Daid

New support material method.

Recommended Posts

Posted · New support material method.

This new support method works very well - Just an additional brainwave:

With this new method, ánd the new dual extruder set.. You should be able to the print support with the same material but at a lower temperature, so that the support breaks off really easy..

Would that work?

Ciao!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · New support material method.

Nice upgrade!

The bottom indeed looks much better now, a rigid base for complex builds.

Unfortunately, 13.07_T2 now prints in mid-air :wink:

1307-T2 prints support in mid-air

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · New support material method.

Works great (-;

1207T2 Sup1

 

After I printed this, I suddenly thought if it wouldn't be a good idea if one could

enter a negative "Cut off object bottom"-number, just to lift the object a little and avoid this:

1207T2 Sup2

Because the first two (maybe three) layers always have a slightly different height,

the printing quality of a lifted object would benefit from this...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · New support material method.

A while back I saw a video by Bernhard Kubicek, which was about printing ColorFabb XT onto PLA.

So now that our Ultimaker is installed with the dual extrusion as well I can finally do some testing with XT as support material for PLA.

First results using cura13.07_support_test2.

9697939221_a63d549231_z.jpg

9701174902_72a6df06d0_z.jpg

9697966933_0d262b3902_z.jpg

The layer adhesion between PLA and XT is definitely less compared with PLA onto PLA. First attempt was alright, some support parts were hard to remove because the ‘sheathed’ support can make it difficult. That's why some parts of Pinkie Pie did not survive.

I do like the new generated support, seems to generate just the amount of support needed. I was wondering if the ‘sheathed’ support should be an option like in Kisslicer. Using XT I would like the support to be just lines and no wall around it. However using soluble materials I can understand sheathed support is probably better, because it is easily removed anyways. Could the wall around support become an optional feature, daid?

Another thing I was wondering about. Say during a print when the very last layer of support is put down should the support material hot-end switch off? Or is it better to keep it warmish so when it hits the print while traveling over it, it will be less likely to damage it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · New support material method.

When I have a difficult support challenge, or a part where surface finish is very important, I usually reach for the netfabb Ultimaker Engine and its "fluff" support. netfabb uses a different approach than all the other slicers called "fluff" support. Rather than trying to make support structures that break away in large pieces, fluff is what it sounds like. It crumbles away in many, easy to remove pieces, but it is also highly configurable so the bases can be made quite solid too. If some of the fluff breaks away (blows away ;)) before the support is finished, it usually doesn't matter. Very often, a few wads of fluff can fall apart but the support structure still works well. netfabb fluff is also the easiest support to remove from nearly inaccessible cavities in models, using a poker and long scraper of one's choice, like a screwdriver.

But like everything netfabb, it took me countless hours of trial and error to achieve excellent results with fluff support. Though, the default fluff settings (weak fluff, strong fluff, etc.) worked quite well for PLA, it was worthless for ABS. It took much tweaking, but I like the concept and the results I get now.

I really wish netfabb would fix the remaining bugs in their UM engine and update their documentation, but I guess they are too busy developing and releasing their new software products, instead of fixing their old software. Given netfabb's apparent lack of interest in further development of the UM Engine, I really hope the other slicers catch up to netfabb's extensive layer-by-layer list of slicer controls quickly too.

For an example of nf's fine control granularity in the context of support, what other slicer gives a user the capability to turn support on and off on a layer by layer basis? Yes--I use this feature. I have models where the slicer creates support for the full range of layers, but some of the support in the mid-level layers is not necessary. Yet the models require support higher on the print. If the base of the higher support starts higher too, I can disable the support where it's not needed and turn it on back on again for the upper layers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · New support material method.

I think there's some kind of display bug in the new 13.07 SupportTest1/2 versions.

Oftentimes, the time estimate after slicing shows as "45 minutes" and not the proper time.

I cannot find exactly what triggers it, but it seems consistent at a particular set of parameters for a particular model.

The model prints fine, it's just that sometimes it shows the calculated print time as exactly 45 minutes (even though it might be a very long print).

Has anybody else experienced this?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · New support material method.

In the current (non-beta) version of Cura, one can adjust the flow rate for support material, but not spacing.

In the latest beta (SupportTest2) one can adjust the spacing of the supports (it behaves like infill), but not the flow rate.

I think the best approach would be to keep both parameters adjustable. Spacing will affect the print time and supported layer quality, while flow rate will affect the ease of removal of the supports.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · New support material method.

Got my ultimaker a month ago and since day one I wished for a better support algorithm, super happy that it's happening :)

I did some testing with T2 and here is what I found :

- with attached STL (scale 5.0) it decided to print mid air (screen #3)

- with Distance Z at 0.6 it started building support structure past the point where it was needed. Look at the arc section (screen #4). I expected more separation, but instead it sees like Cura extended support material in Z direction by that amount. There are 3 layers past arc. Layer height was set to 0.2mm , so it makes sense 0.2 * 3 = 0.6mm but im not sure it should be happening. I thought support material should have been pushed down .

cura.jpg

And some pics of the print

20130910_211226.jpg

after I cut through raft

20130910_211530.jpg

Had to use some considerable force and pliers to separate the bottom part

20130910_212547.jpg

I couldn't get rid of support material inside the arc because it expanded past actual mesh

20130910_212601.jpg

Also I couln't agree more with Matt about having both parameters for support - spacing and flow rate.

EDIT: forgot to link to an STL in case it's needed

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/51782614/3Dprint/support_test.STL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · New support material method.

(Back after 2 weeks vacation)

 

Interesting tests, I see there are some areas that need improvements. The unneeded support material is problematic, but should be solvable. I have some other things to attend to first, then I'm back on the support material.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · New support material method.

great news, and welcome back :)

after neurotically checking this thread for the first few days I was getting worried that development of this awesome feature was abandoned

 

(Back after 2 weeks vacation)

 

Interesting tests, I see there are some areas that need improvements. The unneeded support material is problematic, but should be solvable. I have some other things to attend to first, then I'm back on the support material.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · New support material method.

As you might have seen here and there, there is a lot of buzz happening around the UM2 release. And as you might expect, the whole company, including me, is involved in that. Which is why the new support method hasn't got a lot of love the last few weeks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · New support material method.

I've got a question to that:

If I would print with the old support material method and then with the new: at what of both methods do I need more material?

If it will be a lot more at the new method it would be nice if you would include a check-button because PVA is not that low priced!

By the way: would be nice if you would integrate a second filament setting price/kg to calculate the real price!

The cost for PLA was about 30Euro /kg and PVA was 60Euro / 1/2kg...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · New support material method.

The new support material uses a lot less material, this was one of the important things that changed. It's also easier to dissolve, due to the more open structure.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · New support material method.

Can we change the Extruder offset by any means?

I am using Cura13.10 RC-1 on win7(64 bit). In earlier versions there was option in preference. Now I can see very few options there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · New support material method.

Any news on the support implementation?

I'm running Cura 13.11 and actually I am not happy at all with the new support structure. It works great for parts that have 'open' areas that needs support to the outside of the part, but it destroys parts that need support in enclosed parts. The horse and bird posted in this thread are excellent examples (I had another bird destroyed http://www.thingiverse.com/make:55256) due to this problem. The same goes for support of replacement fan bodies. These need internal support structure, which just doesnt work with these solid settings.

Could configuration be added for support type? Or if it's possible to judge the topology of the needed support structure you could implement the solid blocks to the outside of the model, and the old lines to the inside or enclosed areas of the model.

The key issue is that the old support structure can be bent, causing it to be broken away easily, while with the new one this is no longer possible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · New support material method.

I miss an additional parameter about the "support" options included in "Expert Settings".

This parameter could be named "treshold" and if would give some control about the scope of the generated structures.

Being "treshold=100%" the default value, the calculated value by the aplication now, any variation would increase or decrease the scope/size the support structures generated.

This idea comes from some prints which haven't support at a specific point (aplication doesn't consider necessary...and my print crashes) or some prints I'd like decrease at minimun the support structutures in order to gain speed of printing.

Is this idea an insanity?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · New support material method.

Could an UM official please reply to this thread or should I file a support ticket? Its holiday ofcourse, but I've got some prints up for next week of which some are currently unprintable due to the update to the support implementation that is, IMO broken. Should I downgrade?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · New support material method.

Could an UM official please reply to this thread or should I file a support ticket? Its holiday ofcourse, but I've got some prints up for next week of which some are currently unprintable due to the update to the support implementation that is, IMO broken. Should I downgrade?

 

Hoi Coen,

I think and hope the officials are around the Christmas tree. :roll:.

For a unofficial answer see this post; http://umforum.ultimaker.com/index.php?/topic/3818-cura-slicing-error/

If you are in a hurry, try version 13.10

PS.http://umforum.ultimaker.com/index.php?/topic/3654-nederlands/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · New support material method.

If this is really such a problem, just spend the five minutes it would take to model custom support material into your part using whatever 3d software you're familiar with. Auto generated support is convenient, but it's inefficient even in the best of implementations, and often a hindrance when trying to achieve perfection on a large subset of prints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · New support material method.

(I had another bird destroyed http://www.thingiverse.com/make:55256) due to this problem.

 

Before printing anything - look at it in layer view carefully. Go up and down the layers many times until you are sure there are no mistakes. I printed a simple box today which had a slicing problem (easily fixed) but it was not obvious the first time I looked at it in slice view. Fortunately I looked at it several times and noticed the problem before I printed it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · New support material method.

Thanks for the tips! I was not aware of Meshmixer, and hadn't found a reliable (and legal) 3D program yet. Meshmixer seems perfect.

Having the possibility to run different cura versions next to eachother I just downgraded to a lower version that still has the old support structure which is easily removed. So I am helped for now.

However, judging from a functionality viewpoint the current implementation is still broken as the auto-support does not generate correct supports for 'enclosed' volumes. I hope Daid is aware of this and will update the support implementation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · New support material method.

However, judging from a functionality viewpoint the current implementation is still broken as the auto-support does not generate correct supports for 'enclosed' volumes

 

I don't think you need it for "enclosed volumes" as in this case it can just do bridging. Right? Or am I missing something due to my lack of imagination?

I guess if you had a cube but with a dip in the top middle - *that* would be an example of an enclosed volume that needed support. Cura won't support that if you choose "support: everything"?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...