Is this a correct intrepretation and rewrite?
"A small gap here, compared to no gap, makes it easier to remove the support but makes the print a bit uglier."
Is this a correct intrepretation and rewrite?
"A small gap here, compared to no gap, makes it easier to remove the support but makes the print a bit uglier."
:oops: I've got quite tiny doubt about my own interpretation, but let's see what actually is meant by ...
Is this a correct intrepretation and rewrite?
"A small gap here, compared to no gap, makes it easier to remove the support but makes the print a bit uglier."
I think this interpretation is correct. If you have the small gap, printed lines above the gap will hang down a bit and make the print looking uglier at this spot. The alternative would be to have no gap at all. Then you will have to cut the support away with a knife.
Next suspected:
I'm not sure if it's generally just a matter of making porous support material, so that it can be removed easily later.
In "Distance X / Y (mm)" Cura tries to bring the support material as close as possible to the walls, without touching the side walls completely. Within the support structure, the selected setting changes probably nothing, but I have not yet been observed.
For Distance Z (mm) there is also a little problem with gravity. So if I, for example, Want to create a top or bottom, then I need a very fine mesh support material in order to obtain smooth surfaces. A contact with the surface to be generated is not avoidable. Therefore, I think the distance Z (mm) is actually trying to create the individual Z-layers of support material porous, so patchy.
Markus
Recommended Posts
mnis 11
I think it is meant that a small gap is better than none at all.
Without gap the support material is attached to the object and difficult to remove, but the associated surfaces are overall better.
With gap the support material can be removed easily later, but are at a greater distance are nearby surfaces uglier.
Markus
Link to post
Share on other sites