Can we please make it so Z0 means on the bed in Studio?

Bambu Lab X1 Series Troubleshooting
21

Thank you for explaining that Josh, the split to parts seems to works great. Incidentally does Bambu use its own algorithm to split the parts based on the mesh? as doing it this way my 3 parts have now become 6, as it has split my writing into indivdual letters? It’s clever and all but could it result in problems if I’m relying on it and it suddenly can’t work out where to split properly?

Pivot points seems to be an explanation to the other issue I was having when I was importing as separate parts. If I had an object at Z0 in Shapr3D when I imported it into Studio it would be off in the horizon somewhere and -6.36 below the bed, you think okay if I change the value to 0 it will be on the bed. Well it then appears to be slightly above the bed? I don’t know why 0 doesn’t mean on the bed. So yeah, I have to bring it back to centre and then work out where it needs to go Z wise. These sort of things just end up getting frustrating when you’re doing it over and over, which is why I come and complain on here, and obviously then I get frustrated when people say they don’t have any issues. Whenever I do the same workflow in FlashPrint, if I have imported a multipart STL, it will have them assembled, but if I add parts later it will always put them on the bed, and always within the print area.

I get most of my complaints are quality of life stuff, but it would be nice if we could do things like snap to face to join parts

22

That is coming. It’s in the current beta if you want to try it out.

23

Oh man that’s good news that will be a godsend for me, I might install on my steam deck later and give it a whirl.

24

It’s combining everything into one mesh essentially when you bring it in, so when you split it up, it’s splitting it up based on the mesh elements, rather than their original breakup. Uh, hopefully that makes sense.

It can cause problems. I had a mesh where I had imbedded cavities, but it was part of a larger assembly. I couldn’t split it up to objects, because all those cavities would get split out, and I’d get the main issue we have here, where it drops the meshes to the bed and you can’t realign them. There was a way to work around that.

What file format are you using? .step? .3mf? .stl? That can cause a difference too, as like .stl is a much simpler format. I think it only stores mesh elements, and not mesh groupings. .3mf or .step would be preferred. I was doing some test, and they come in a little differently, but both come in more workable than a .stl file.

For the most part, I think there’s ways to make all of this work that makes it work right, but in the end there are things that could be improved, for certain.

Part of the pivot problem is something like this. If it retains the pivot the cad application used, then it can be off in a weird spot on larger models.

image
image702×700 98.7 KB

I don’t think it’s useful to center the pivot in the center of the bounding box though. I think it should always drop the pivot to the bottom of the bounding box on the z, that way we could avoid the annoyance of the Z being in some weird spot. I sometimes might want to drop a mesh .1 below the z for whatever reason, and it’d be easier to just put that value directly, rather than subtracting it from a weird height value.

The program could use some better mesh handling for how it brings things in. Might be useful not to drop things to the bed, but make it a button press, that way if you bring things split up, it can be easier to join them back into an assembly if need be. Maybe that’d be an option once it’s done importing “Drop to bed?”

Snapping will certainly be nice! I publish stuff on makeworld a lot, so don’t get into the beta software so much. I’m non-patiently waiting for these features to hit the main release :smiley:

1 Like
25

Makes perfect sense, it’s what I was getting at, if I start relying on Studio splitting and one day it throws a fit and doesn’t split right, I would rather go down the file format route to guarantee the split is native. I’ve been experimenting with 3mf exports and they seem to make Studio ask if you would like to import as multiple parts, so maybe I need to abandon STLs altogether. Only issue is (and I know it’s a lol app) TinkerCAD doesn’t support 3mf export and I have a lot of old designs still in there from when I first started designing.

The Z0 issue is real, and yes a ‘place on bed’ button is such a simple workaround. I actually thought I could try ‘lay on face’ but unfortunately it doesn’t work for parts.

Also with you on the beta releases, hence why if I do try it I would prefer to experiment on a different machine. Need stability for my sales.

26

Yes, I find this very annoying.

I have skimmed through the comments by everyone it is noisy.

I do find some of the BS design choices strange. I will focus on this one though.

The idea that the software anchors child elements of an assembly to the centre point rather than the plate is confounding.

With the print starting from the plate and moving up, the anchor point would have been far more logical to anchor to the plate. If you have many child elements all with different heights and starting from different z-positions, editing this in the slicer is very difficult and counterproductive.

Having owned a software company for 30ish years, we would have to consider that there are typically two schools of thought, anchor from the plate AND anchor from the centre of the combined assembly. Then, allow the user to choose which they prefer.

Something I would always say is; “If only there is a computer in the mix!”

Given how easy it would have been to add the option and the computer capable of the calculations, it is a no-brainer to provide the switch.

That’s great, but the toggle above makes a lot of sense. This would aid the problem, but, not fix it.

1 Like
27

Thank you :pray: I feel slightly less crazy right now!

28

How is saying you “can’t replicate” helping this conversation?

29

It rules out the tools that he is using.

I use Fusion 360 to design my STL and STEP files, and I have never experienced this issue either. So it appears to be an issue with those using Shaper3D or TinkerCAD.

My son uses TinkerCAD to make STL files also, but I have never seen this issue with him either. So that tends to lead us to the way Shaper3D creates the file. Do others use Shaper3D and have this same issue?

30

It’s nothing to do with the CAD software, it’s how Bambu Studio deals with models.

31

I understand that is your experience, and I have no desire to discount that.

I am simply looking for facts to try to help others and learn more about this issue.

Have you used other slicers? Do the other slicers not have these issues with the same files?

I understand that Studio does not handle your combined STL with multiple objects in it the way you would like it to. I am just trying to learn also.

I don’t save multiple objects into a single export/file. I always break up my files by object. Maybe that is why I have never experienced this issue?

1 Like
32

This problem only exists when you merge multiple objects into a single assembly and you wish to change the z position.

If you do not merge objects and then need to adjust a z position of one or more, you would not have experienced this.

For those that do, this is an incredibly annoying problem.

1 Like
33

Like I said originally, I always have separate objects too. The issue is how Bambu Studio deals with the files, and it deals with them the same for everyone. This thread was dead to me as I just work around the issue, no idea why it has been reignited

34

My bad, I see it was a snarky unnecessary comment that revived this thread and brought it to my attention.

Thanks for the information about combined files. I don’t do this, and will not do so in the future. Sorry to have reopened a wound that you experienced 3 months ago.

2 Likes
35

Haha don’t worry about it mate, wasn’t your fault you were just seeing an active thread :slight_smile:

The issue stems from if you load say a 10mm tall file into Bambu Studio and lay it on the bed the Z co-ordinates for it will be Z5. While it’s fine with simple stuff you can quickly figure out in your head, when you’ve got multiple files at different heights it can get really confusing. It’s because Studio uses the midpoint of the model as the guide instead of the base of it.

2 Likes
36

It didn’t seem like your normal comment, no offence taken.

37

Clarifying the OP’s point… The flush-with-build plate ‘z height’ of a part is at the middle of the part. So, if you have a part that is 8mm tall, when the part is flush/flat on the bed in Bambu Studio is shows the part’s z-height is “4.00” - this is very confusing and is dependent on the part and makes ZERO sense. If you use any other X, Y, Z coordinate system, zero is the bottom of the part, like in Fusion 360. My use case and ‘problem’ below… while I figured out how to calculate the z-heights it’s more confusing because it appears the z-height system seems to round down the number to the nears 0.10mm, or at least that’s what it displays… so instead of: 0.25/2=0.125, it shows “0.12”

Goal: I want to stack Honeycomb Storage Wall parts to maximize the vertical build space.

Problem:
I am stacking Honeycomb Storage Wall pieces to maximize the vertical build space. To do this I have to trick the slicer by importing every piece that stacks above the build plate as a “Modifier” and then once positioned above the bed, I convert it back to a “Part” (save) and then change to the appropriate filament type.

Height issues: I have to stack the 2nd HSW piece at “12mm” above the plate to make sure the 1st and 2nd piece are flush with each other. Since I am adding a layer-height separation part to be printed from PETG, then I have to add the Separation layer in between parts… this means, a 0.25mm tall part has to be at 8.125mm in z-height above the plate to actually lay flush on top of the first HSW piece. It’s mad. So, to stack parts you have to add z-height of all parts below+ (part height/2) = height above the build plate. What. The. Hell!!!

2 Likes
38

To an extent, you can do this. When you select the 4 way arrow to position an object, click the drop-down and select “world coordinates” instead of “object coordinates”. The only trick of it is that you’re positioning the center point of it, not the bottom. Take the height of the object (which you can see in the scaling object feature), divide it by two, and use that as the world coordinate, and you should have the object flush against the plate.

It could be better for sure, but this works.