#BehindThePrint 01: When Design Leaves a Mark

Behind the Scenes of Our Sandtable Creations

We believe 3D printing is not just about making individual objects. It’s also about bringing ambitious creative ideas to life.

One way we explore these possibilities is through our Sandtable Exhibition projects, large, intricately detailed miniature worlds created using 3D printing.

From architectural structures to entire themed environments, these projects bring together design, engineering, and craftsmanship to create visually compelling displays.

Behind these miniature worlds is a dedicated design team working carefully through every detail. From the overall composition to the smallest printed component, we continually refine our designs, solve unexpected challenges, and explore different approaches to achieve the best possible presentation.

And often, it’s the smallest details that require the most thought.

Throughout the development of these projects, we’ve gained valuable experience in 3D modeling, print optimization, structural design, and visual presentation.

We want to share that experience with you.

Through this series, we’ll take you behind the scenes of our Sandtable projects, exploring real design challenges, the decisions behind our solutions, and the lessons we’ve learned while striving for the highest standards in our own work.

Whether you’re just getting started with 3D printing or already creating complex models, we hope these insights offer useful ideas for improving your own creations and make your decision process easier.

And with every project, every experiment, and every refinement, there’s always something new to learn.

This Week’s Design Story: An Airport Control Tower

The initial Tower design.

For our first story, we’re starting with a seemingly small detail: the tall outer columns of a 3D-printed airport control tower.

Although the overall print quality was good, the white columns surrounding the tower developed noticeable horizontal layer lines. Some printed parts also showed layer shifting.

What initially looked like a print-quality issue turned out to be closely connected to the model’s structural design.

Layer lines, clearly visible on the surface

A Small Design Change, a Cleaner Print

Instead of immediately looking at the print settings, we explored whether the tower’s geometry could be contributing to the problem.

Indeed, we found an issue with the supporting connections between the outer white columns and the central structure. In the original design, these features connected only at certain heights.

In the revised model, additional support columns created continuous connections along the Z-axis (the vertical printing direction), making the slender structures more rigid.

The support of the columns before the adjustment

How the columns look after the design adjustment

This modification helped stabilize the outer columns without changing the tower’s overall appearance.

Old design: Only a small connection area

New design: the columns are connected over the full length

After the modification, the prominent layer lines were no longer visible on the outer columns in the resulting print.

But why Did the Original Design Cause these Problems?

To understand why this change worked, let’s take a closer look at the original structure.

The outer white columns were tall and slender, connecting to the central structure only at a certain height. This created two potential issues.

Uneven support made the columns more likely to wobble

The base of each outer column extended outward the side rather than being symmetrically supported. Combined with its tall, narrow shape, this made the column more susceptible to movement and vibration as the print grew taller.

Structural changes between layers contributed to visible lines

The outer columns only connected to the central tower at selected layers.

At these connection points, the geometry and stiffness of the structure changed. Different sections could therefore cool and shrink differently, potentially creating deformation and visible horizontal lines.

This helped explain why the imperfections appeared at particular heights instead of being distributed evenly across the printed surface.

A clear visual indicator that the issue stems from the design

How Did the Optimization Work?

The most noticeable layer lines occurred where the outer columns connected to the central structure at separate heights.

To address this, we focused on making the connections continuous rather than leaving the outer columns as mostly isolated tall features.

After confirming that the design change would preserve the intended appearance, additional support columns were introduced inside the tower. These connected the outer sections directly to the central structure throughout the print’s height.

Fully connected over the complete height of the model

What Can We Learn From This?

This airport control tower highlights an important idea in 3D printing:

Not every surface-quality problem needs to be solved through print settings. Sometimes, the geometry itself is the key.

When visible layer lines appear at specific heights, it’s worth checking whether the model’s structure changes at those layers.

A few things to consider:

  • Support tall, slender features. Connect thin vertical structures to the main body if possible to reduce vibration and movement during printing.

  • Avoid abrupt structural changes. Sudden differences in stiffness or cross-section between layers may contribute to uneven shrinkage and visible imperfections.

The airport control tower is just one small detail within a much larger 3D-printed miniature world. But it demonstrates how even a simple structural adjustment can make a noticeable difference to the final result.

Sometimes, a cleaner print starts with a better model.

More Stories Behind the Print

Every finished creation has a story behind it, from the first design idea to the unexpected challenges along the way.

Through #BehindThePrint, we’ll share those stories, the lessons we’ve learned, and the details that don’t always make it into the final showcase.

Have you faced similar challenges in your own projects? Share your experiences and ideas in the comments. We’d love to hear how you approach them!

See you in the next #BehindThePrint.

This is effectively a DFM process. Design For Manufacturing. There are a lot of really clever things that can be done to improve part quality just like this, but this is a REALLY good example.

For anyone reading this who isn’t aware, what that means is you make changes to the design itself to support the method used to manufacture the part. The good news is 3D printing is maturing rapidly in recent years and we are seeing large libraries of tips and tricks like this become available.

As with all things, it’s a learning curve and we can all lean on each other’s experiences and testing to improve our own designs.

I appreciate this post!

I would love to see a whole section added to the forum dedicated to this subject. Having a place to be able to discuss methods and solutions for better designs would be very useful. I am thinking less along the lines of trouble shooting discussions and a lot more talk leaning towards design philosophy exactly like this post! I have long wanted a place to discuss CAD design, but not software specific topics. I want to know how wide to make a wall of my model, not how to dimension it in Fusion!

This is perfect, much more of this and a place that others can also share when they feel inclined! This post and that really useful one about photography can be a great place to start.

I have long considered starting threads that are similar to this one. Never been all that sure they would be well received, given the behavior of certain groups of individuals who tend to befoul such threads. My 3D printing adventures have more to do with the design process than worrying over calibration settings. It occurred to me early on that if one begins with a well designed model, one that has been designed to the machine, that 3D printing is an uncomplicated and enjoyable process. But if one begins with a poorly designed model, one’s 3D printing experience can become very frustrating.

I have always found development stories to be compelling — books like The Soul of a New Machine, and movies like General Magic. Yet, it often seems that most people just aren’t that interested. Something about no one wanting to know how sausage is made. However, for some of us, the making of the sausage is where the fun is.

The beauty of Bambu Lab printers is not only their high quality, but also the consistency across the line and its accompanying eco-system, allowing designers a stable platform for which to design to. For me it has always been that if a print didn’t turn out as I had desired, I first look to alter the design to accommodate the machine, rather than frustratingly trying to force the machine to accommodate my design. I feel encouraged by this thread and will be posting my 3D adventures in the near future.

It would be nice if there was a category allotted for design discussions on the forum.

These in-depth technical design explanations are great, but are you sure wobbling was the cause of artifacts?

I’d love it if you supplied before-and-after 3mf’s so people could experiment and view the results for themselves in the slicer.

Always the fault of the people who correct your misconceptions or statements and never your fault for jumping into a thread and derailing it with claims of living in a rainforest and how humidity doesn’t affect you and nobody needs to dry filament while you use dryboxes in a dry-ish inside environment? Whew!

Those people?

Sure you want to keep bringing that up to blame others for your own transgressions? Why not let it go and represent your positions and conditions accurately?

Please, can we just drop this and move on? Either that, or get together and beat the living tar out of each other? I have observed you derailing any interesting conversation more often over the past while than I will attribute to anyone else. No one is perfect, and I have myself made the mistake over the past few days for acting like a troll, but at some point we need to just not keep doing whatever this is.

Exactly, those who have bought into the orthodoxy and blow a fuse when confronted with reality.

Which is the different direction that this thread seems intent on addressing. Instead of knee jerkingly thinking that one’s filament drying or plate cleaning practices are at the fault of failed prints, the alternate, and better way of looking at things is to evaluate the quality of the underlying model. It is a better practice to design to the machine, rather than trying to force a machine to accommodate a poor design. One just can’t dry their filament enough or set enough slicer settings to accommodate a poorly designed model or a loose belt.