For example, I have some prints that supports are enabled for, and using the same PETG-CF as the model works great overall for the support interface.
But I want to use Bambu Support for PA/PET for the interface of a perfectly flat area early in the model’s layers, say layer 36 for example.
And for the rest of the print, I want it to use the PETG for the support material interface.
For these various objects, it would mean 1 filament swaps, instead 238, and the obviously huge increase in time that comes with that. For now, I just use the PETG as support and it works, but would be perfectly smooth using the support for PA.
Using the PETG as the support interface leaves ridges for these flat areas, and 238 unnecessary filament swaps would be ridiculous, not to mention messy. The printer does a horrible job wiping the nozzle for Bambu Support for PA/PET and this particular filament - it consistentlydrags the purges right back onto the plate and has to be babysat (I’m aware that there are some models out there attempting to address this issue). This is a 20 hour print, and babysitting it is not an option nor is it reasonable.
Yes, but it will do so for the entire model. I only want the special interface material for the two layer interface for the flat area of the model.
Two filament swaps, vs 238 swaps and most likely a messy failed print. Bambu’s Support for PA/PET is a stringy mess no matter what I do so far. I need to play more with retraction settings for it, but I don’t need the other 236 interface layers to have special support material anyway. The model is 1400 layers tall, and uses nearly the whole print bed; I even have to disable the exclusion zone for one piece of the model, and technically you can’t use the AMS with that disabled, so I also need to manually swap filaments.
Certainly a tricky situation. The only thing I could suggest to try would be to use a thin modifier (thickness you want the support interface to be) placed just below the flat part and set it to use the support filament. The PET support should only come up to the modifier. You’d have to make the interface gap zero and increase the interface density for the PET. In my mind it would work but I haven’t tried it.
That’s what I was thinking initially, but there are some contours to some stuff f these parts where it might be 10 swaps or so, and the shapes available would be really hard to implement in Studio.
While typing my reply to your post I just realized it might be easier to just draw an additional part within the CAD program that is mated right up against the surface and assign the support material to that object.