Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts
Sign in to follow this  
tomato-icn

Cura feature I dream about

Recommended Posts

Dear Daid, yeah I know you're sick and tired of various feature requests,

but I must ask please =

as Cura is the best 3d printing software at the moment,

will you ever plan to implement STL EXPORT feature,

I mean when model is scaled, rotated, supports generated, etc - so it will be possible to save this work as a new STL file, not just GCODE.

Thank you so much in advance,

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be mislead, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Do you want to save the way a printer would print this file? such as shell thickness and infill? Because that would be gcode. If you had an stl with all those features such as wall thickness ect actually inside your print, I think you would be hard-pressed to get it to slice and make something meaningful.

You can always save the stl as robert mentioned, and then save the gcode next to it. It's the gcode that your printer uses to print.

Or do you want something like a "saved game" function for cura so that way you can save the model, and it's slicing parameters all in one fell swoop? And then load it up with curra whenever you want to make a change to the way it prints? If so I think you would want something that can carry more info than an stl.

One way to emulate this would be to save your gcode and stl. Then when you start up cura later you can just reload the stl you saved and then load the preferences from your previous gcode (file>load profile from gcode), If everything is in the same orientation it would result in the exact same slicing style and gcode.

Hope it helps

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

STL only allows for triangles, nothing else. So I cannot save support material, settings and stuff like that in it.

If you want a model that has the support structures and shells generated internally, then you mis-understand how Cura works, Cura never generates a model like that. As Cura slices the model in 2D slices and from that point on only works on the 2D slices, the shells get added on 2D slices, infill gets added on 2D slices. Everything actually happens in 2D.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what about the possibility of exporting the path of the extruder as one long twisty spline? Or two splines where one is the path while extruding and one is just the moves. It would then be easy to sweep it NURBS style in one's preferred 3D package and it would look exactly like the final print infill and all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.

What are u going to do with those lines ?

You cant use them to model anything. You cant export them as model either caz CURA will not slice lines, it slices mesh that has faces.

Think harder, you will find it unnecessary.

How much do you know about 3D? Have you never heard about NURBS and spline sweeping?

I don't know what the original poster would do with the lines but when sweeped they would be sliceable, though it seems meaningless. I imagine this function could be used to check if a print fits with another print (parts that are supposed to interlock or slot together etc.) or to change the automatically generated support in some way.

And this was a discussion fundamentally about converting support material and infill to be part of the 3D model, to me this seems doable with the method I proposed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use 3ds max. its super eazy to use editable polys and booleans.

I dont understand what is the problem with it.

Clearly u and i dont speak the same language here, nor use same software.

 

I'm sorry if I came out as offensive, it was meant to be a joke.

I also use 3dsmax, since the DOS days. 3d modelling is what I do for a living. And booleans are useful in some specific situations, but usually best avoided. They tend to screw up complex meshes, although ProBooleans work much better than before, and can even clean up some meshes fast. But if you care about topology, booleans are usually off limits. Since most professionals are really anal about topology, hence my joke. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also do 3D graphics for a living and have been doing it since I was 14, I worked about 5-6 years in 3DS Max and the rest of the time in Cinema 4D. Out of all the forums and discussions I've seen over the years this is the first time I see anybody claim they can cut NURBS and splines out of their workflow (replacing it with box modelling??). Do you realise that objects created with NURBS can be turned into editable polys and be used in booleans? Do you know that the meshsmooth modifier people often use with box modelling is actually generating a NURBS surface? Which can then be turned into editable polys? I don't see how this is a question of either/or...

One thing I've experienced though is that booleans should be avoided unless there's no other option. Chopmeister is right about what they do to geometry and the unchamfered and not easily meshsmoothed edges generated are too harsh to fit prominently in a photo-realistic environment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we're all seriously off topic now, since this is turning into a discussion about 3d modelling. Maybe this warrants a separate thread.

That being said, it is not completely true slicers don't care about topology. I've had to fix dozens of models from other people over the years because they wouldn't print, mostly due to liberal usage of booleans. And even if they don't care, you should. It's good practice and solves all the problems in advance. I'll always rather have correct models than hope the slicer, renderer or whatnot won't notice. And good topology facilitates easier subsequent changes.

And just to set the record straight, the industry standard practice is to avoid booleans whenever possible, and anybody who works with 3d professionally will tell you the same (obviously, that does not apply to solid modeling, which is based on boolean operations anyway). There are good reasons for that, and it is not something either jdudeo or myself just invented. If you see no disadvantages in your own workflow, good for you, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.

As for NURBS. I don't use them per se, since I do architectural stuff mostly, so poly modelling is much more suited for my purposes. Plus, I personally find the workflow slow compared to the speed I can get with pure polys. (ie. NURBS in max suck ass and their development was abandoned a long time ago :)) Not to mention low-poly modelling is the only way when dealing with gazillions of instances and such.

And tehnically speaking, MeshSmooth creates a Catmull-Clark subdivision surface, not NURBS, although it looks and acts similarly to one until converted to regular polys. :)

But now that you mentioned splines, I totally see how you could "simulate" a print in Max with a spline exported from cura. Would be a cool feature, I agree.

 

 

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  

×

Important Information

Terms of Use Privacy Policy