question about modifier mesh

[curasurf 5]

Let's consider slicing a cylinder of height = 100mm.

•  Layer Height = 1 mm
•  Top Layers = 1
•  Botton Layers = 1 

 

I want to suppress the Top Layer at height 99~100mm. But Top Layers for the cylinder must be set to 1, because my real model need it for lower range.

 

So I create a Cutting Mesh to modify the cylinder top (99~100mm)

• Top Layers = 0
• Botton Layers = 0 

 

But the Cura result is: One top layer at height 98~99mm (immediately below the cutting mesh) is printed for the cylinder.

 

How can I suppress the Top Layer at height 99~100mm, without getting new Top Layer at height 98~99mm? (Top Layers for the cylinder must be set to 1.)

 

Thank you for your help!

ttt.3mf

[KronosMagna 0]

I dont see any chance with Toplayers =1. You may need to confront the problem on another side. 

What do you mean by your real model? 

Without knowing the restrictions, why not construct a hollow cylinder? 

[curasurf 5]

19 hours ago, KronosMagna said:

What do you mean by your real model? 

Without knowing the restrictions, why not construct a hollow cylinder? 

 

Here the cylinder is only a over-simplfied example. "Real model" means for example a model having bottom/solid layers in middle heights (not the top layers and not the bottom layers).

 

What I talked about in the original post was that:

 

When a model is "cut" by a modifier mesh in Cura, "NEW" top/bottom layers would be added. This behavior is not appropriate. In S3D, when you print the height 0~50mm of a model of height 100mm, no top layers would be added at the "cutting plane" (at height 50mm).

Edited February 27, 2021 by curasurf

[curasurf 5]

Please let me clarify the question further.

 

Is it possible to use Cura to slice an oversimplified model as shown in the picture while ...?

• in the orientation as shown (don't rotate!)
• no top-most layers (=0) only at the top (other top layers not affected)

z-STL.stl

Edited February 28, 2021 by curasurf

[ahoeben 2,016]

3 hours ago, curasurf said:

Is it possible to use Cura to slice an oversimplified model as shown in the picture while ...?

In the sense that the top surface where you are pointing to is open, but the parallel plane further down is not?

 

No, I can not think of a way, other than setting the model to be sliced without any top layers, and forcing to print top layers for the lower top with a modifier mesh or additional geometry.

[curasurf 5]

25 minutes ago, ahoeben said:

In the sense that the top surface where you are pointing to is open, but the parallel plane further down is not?

Yes. Exactly!

 

25 minutes ago, ahoeben said:

No, I can not think of a way, other than setting the model to be sliced without any top layers, and forcing to print top layers for the lower top with a modifier mesh or additional geometry.

 

Do you think that it's possible by using modifier mesh? I tried it but failed, because a modifier mesh always lead to NEW top/bottom layers in the main model.

 

If possible, could you have a try? Thank you!

Edited February 28, 2021 by curasurf

[ahoeben 2,016]

Here you go:

 

Here's a project to see how I did it:

UM2_z-STL.3mf

[curasurf 5]

36 minutes ago, ahoeben said:

Here you go:

 

Hi @ahoeben   Thank you for sharing!

 

But I'm sorry to say that your approach is not generally applicable. In fact you created the lower "top layers" manually. Here what I presented is only a simplified model, and you can do it by hand.

 

If the model is a figurine or a real mechanical part, to manually creat every lower "top layers" is unaffordable.

 

Thanks again!

[ahoeben 2,016]

We don't disagree. I already said that modifier meshes could not be used for what you want to do. You are going to have to look for a solution per situation.

[curasurf 5]

21 hours ago, ahoeben said:

 I already said that modifier meshes could not be used for what you want to do. 

 

Yes.

Edited March 2, 2021 by curasurf

[kmanstudios 1,120]

I am of the school of thought: Make the object the way you want it to print.

[curasurf 5]

37 minutes ago, kmanstudios said:

I am of the school of thought: Make the object the way you want it to print.

 

You are absolutely corrrect to some extent!

 

Yes, very often, we should create the models in the way making the printing process easier. But this is not the excuse for slicing software not to do its job that could be done better. In many cases, the slicer can do more.

Edited March 1, 2021 by curasurf

[kmanstudios 1,120]

19 minutes ago, curasurf said:

You are absolutely corrrect to some extent!

Ummm, like 99.9%....

 

20 minutes ago, curasurf said:

But this is not the excuse for slicing software not to do its job that could be done better. In many cases, the slicer can do more.

So, you are asking for the slicers out there to envision every instance to compensate for modeling? At which point does the slicer become more modeling software than slicer?

 

21 minutes ago, curasurf said:

Hope that all these words are not offensive. I believe that the team is hard working, but the management is not willing to invest.

I do not see it as offensive, but slicers are trying to be the best at slicing, not model compensation. Things like mesh modifiers do their job very well as they are designed to do. Vary the infills, wall counts, voids, etc. I use them all the time for the purpose of modifying the way the existing mesh prints, not to compensate for modeling choices.

 

This has been an ongoing debate for a long time. And for many people I see, it is a reason for not working on solid modeling skills. Look at how bad many models are out there for the taking. Maybe someone will combine a modeling program and slicer, but until then, they are two separate skill sets. And, I for one would rather the slicer people focus on solid slicing to produce the best prints, with the best ecosystem for materials and not launch into endeavors that take away from that.

 

Just an opinion.

[curasurf 5]

19 hours ago, kmanstudios said:

I do not see it as offensive, but slicers are trying to be the best at slicing, not model compensation. Things like mesh modifiers do their job very well as they are designed to do. Vary the infills, wall counts, voids, etc.

 

As I use modifier mesh more, I find more limitations.

Edited March 2, 2021 by curasurf

[kmanstudios 1,120]

Agree to disagree.

[ahoeben 2,016]

15 hours ago, curasurf said:

Free means more expensive.

More expensive that what?

[nallath 1,124]

You can send me money so it's no longer fee (and thus cheaper for you ;))

 

Free is more expensive is a bit of a silly statement. S3D can't do these things either and does cost money. I'm pretty sure that Cura is getting more investments in terms of development time than S3D is getting. But just because you're not the one paying, it doesn't mean that no-one is paying.

[curasurf 5]

Hi @ahoeben @nallath   Thank you for your comments!

Edited March 2, 2021 by curasurf

[Cuq 206]

[curasurf 5]

Hi @Cuq  If you think my complaint is not appropriate, let me delete it. Thank you for remiding!

[Cuq 206]

Thanks for deleting your comment.

 

Yes, from my point of view, even if the comments are technically well-founded, I feal it disrespectful to the work and service FREELY provided by Ultimaker and the development teams working on the product.

Cura takes longer than others to get started ... Yes and ? in my case it's 15s while all the others takes 2 or 3s. It's true but what does 12s change in my life ?  And when a print takes 2 days to finish: 2 days =172800s = 11520 Cura start

 

There is no variable layer height yes, but PrusaSlicer, SuperSlicer, Ideamaker, IceSL, Craftware ... don't have  tree supports or don't have the right options to manage the supports, and many users complain about it. 

 

The software is not the best for you ? no problem, it didn't cost you a penny. And the list of other solutions to test and adopt is long (see the list above).  I don't know exaclty the real number of Cura user, but if you have a look to the different communities  on the social media and different polls made on these forums, Cura is always number one and most of the time there are ten times as many users in favor of Cura . If so many people are using the software when they have so many other possibilities there is certainly a reason ?

 

Finally I think that the development teams have a much longer experience on 3D printing than You and Me combined and they didn't wait for someone who discovered the product 2 weeks ago to come and explain what's wrong with it.

They are from my point of view aware of the problems of the functions that would be missing. And we don't master all the constraints that make the software like this.

 

We all would like to have OUR ideal software. But unfortunately this will never exists (Exept if you have enought knowledge to developped your own Slicer) . I  also would like to get the painted supports and painted Seam of PrusaSlicer, the possibility to manage variable layer heights, the mesh repair functions of Ideamaker, but this is not possible and if I wanted to make the request I think this forum is not the right place. A request on the Github,  argued is the most logical approach from my point of view.

Edited March 2, 2021 by Cuq

[nallath 1,124]

6 minutes ago, Cuq said:

Finally I think that the development teams have a much longer experience on 3D printing than You and Me combined and they didn't wait for someone who discovered the product 2 weeks ago to come and explain what's wrong with it.

They are from my point of view aware of the problems of the functions that would be missing. And we don't master all the constraints that make the software like this.

A bit of nuance here; We are not all knowing or infallible. By all means ask questions as to why something is the way it is. If we can't explain why we did (or did not) do something it's a sign that something should be done. These kind of challenges are what improves things. There is value in the remarks of those that are experienced and those that are new, but they tend to be on different "levels" (eg; I don't really look at the features intended for novices and i'm unlikely to notice certain quirks of the interface because i'm too experienced!)

Also, Cura does have variable layer height although it's only automatically settable (Enable "Adaptive Layer Height" in experimental).

 

The main reason that certain features don't get built is a "simple" matter of triage. We have a certain amount of resources that we can spend on things. There is always a much larger amount of features / bugs to build / fix. As such, we have to make a lot of decisions regarding what gets done. We try to make these choices so that we get the most value from the resources that we have.

 

The type of questions that we ask ourselves when doing this are (and not in that particular order):
1. How much people would benefit from this?

2. Who would benefit from this? (eg; Any user from Cura? People with Ultimaker machines? All people without Ultimaker machines?)
3. How much effort is it to build?

4. How much effort will it take to maintain?

5. Does it align with the strategy of Ultimaker?

6. Does it make things easier to develop / maintain other features?

 

It can quite often happen that we think that a certain feature would actually solve a certain problem, but that we think that not enough people actually encounter the problem. This is by no means saying that the problem isn't there or that we don't want to fix it, just that there are other problems that (in our views) are a more "efficient" way to spend our resources. Again; We could be wrong in this view, which is also why we try to talk to people in the community. I know it's a bit of an overused thing to say, but I mean it. I try to calibrate my assumptions as much as possible to ensure that we can make the right decisions. 

Anyhow; The post got a bit longer than anticipated, but it's good to share views like this. Please keep sharing your views and opinions. We're all here to make the product better (even if we can't always get everything that we want)
 

[ahoeben 2,016]

 

(if I am not painfully obvious, this is intended as a joke)

Edited March 2, 2021 by ahoeben

[kmanstudios 1,120]

😂😂