Cura feature I dream about

[tomato-icn 0]

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,

 

[IRobertI 520]

You can already do that. File -> Save model... and then type in "filename.stl".

 

[tomato-icn 0]

thanks a lot, just tried - as far as I can see it only exports the following parameters in STL

size, orientation.

Shell thickness - no? Any solutions please?

Thanks in advance!

 

[irongland 1]

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

 

[Daid 306]

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.

 

[jdudeo 0]

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.

 

[tonycstech 5]

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.

 

[jdudeo 0]

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.

 

[tonycstech 5]

i know enough about modeling, thanks.

i hate nurbs and splines, i love editable polys and booleans

 

[chopmeister 0]

i know enough about modeling, thanks.

i hate nurbs and splines, i love editable polys and booleans

How somebody can love both editable polys AND booleans is beyond me. :mrgreen:

 

[jdudeo 0]

i hate nurbs and splines, i love editable polys and booleans

A telling statement if there ever was one, this ain't worth it...

 

[tonycstech 5]

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.

 

[3d-magic 0]

Booleans can be useful sometimes, but most of the time gives a very ugly mesh. OK for 3D printing, hell for animation. ;-)

(Cinema4D user)

 

[chopmeister 0]

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.

 

[tonycstech 5]

I agree.

But booleans have more advantages then disadvantages.

3d Slicers are not picky on topology of your model, so u can use booleans and care less about it.

 

[jdudeo 0]

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.

 

[tonycstech 5]

I dont care what tool you use to eat your chicken, fork or bare hands.

I model almost everything from a box/cylinder or rarely a sphere. Just because my weapon of choice is nothing like yours, doesnt mean it wont make a kill.

 

[chopmeister 0]

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.

 

 

[Philsim1212 0]

I really want this feature too, for me; the ability to have the line by line gcode turned into an stl; being that Cura would auto model out each line/layer into an STL would be AMAZING for the ability to render what would appear to be a pre printed object for 2 things:

1: The ability with UE5 to have my games show with Nanite an in game object that appears to be 3D printed

2: Rendering capabilities with raytracing to see what a model would look like being made of different materials after it's been 3D printed.

Edited October 15, 2022 by Philsim1212

[Nosybottle 9]

@Philsim1212 People have had some success with an external tool for this, see the thread below. It's not exactly what you ask for (feature of Cura), but it might help