![]() ![]() Propellers and thin pieces with variable diameters.If we wanted to use a thickness of 2.1mm for example, I would make 4 passes of 0.5, and an additional pass of 0.1 to fill the gap, which would be a waste of time.Īrachne will spread that 0.1 between adjacent perimeters, avoiding the need for the additional pass. ![]() For example, if we use an extrusion width of 0.5, we can use thicknesses of 1, 2, and 3mm so that these walls are made with 2, 4, and 6 passes respectively. Until now, when making a box or housing with thin walls, such as the electronics box for our 3D printers, we had to use thicknesses that are multiples of the extrusion width we want to use. Type of parts in which it can be an advantage: It should be noted that it may have a trade-off, by using variable width it is possible that we may have more flow changes in some prints, and this may worsen the results in bowden 3D printers and/or with poorly calibrated "Pressure advance". Not only does it give more precise results, but we will also print faster. In this way, the extrusion width is not only linked to the nozzle diameter, but is also adjusted according to the geometry of the area to be filled, avoiding gaps and additional passes in many cases. This solution is fine, it works perfectly, but Arachne brings us something better: variable width perimeters. Until now, the perimeter generators used a static extrusion width, linked to the nozzle width, this generated in some areas "Holes", which could later be filled with additional passes if we activate "fill holes", these passes do have a variable width depending on the space left. What advantages does it have over classic perimeter generators? After configuring acceleration and jerk settings in the profile, I always get accurate print estimates.It is the new perimeter generator, developed by Ultimaker for Cura, and implemented also in Slic3r-based programs like Super Slicer and Prusa Slicer. Better print time estimatesĪnother really important benefit from using IdeaMaker is the print time estimates. I can slice a model twice in the same time Cura struggles to slice the model for the first time. It takes a long time to start, and slicing performance is not the fastest compared to other slicers. Faster slicingĬura is also a lot slower compared to IdeaMaker. IdeaMaker crashes from time to time, but at least I can be sure that my profiles are safe and I can easily re-slice a model without worrying something else broke. With Cura, I lost my profiles a few times and I was always nervous when updating. IdeaMaker never failed on me when I upgraded to the latest version. The main reason why I use IdeaMaker instead of Cura is the stability. It includes profiles for most of the popular printers and it offers a lot of customization. This is because Cura is an opensource slicer with good support for a lot of printers. Why IdeaMaker instead of Cura?Ī lot of people start their 3D printing journey with Cura. It’s a closed source slicer, but I don’t mind this considering it’s been more consistent and stable compared to Cura. It is designed to work with their Raise 3D printers, but it allows adding aftermarket printers with custom profiles. This is the software you use when preparing a model to be printed on your machine. IdeaMaker is a free 3D slicing software made by Raise 3D. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |