I have a P1S running 1.08.01 and everything Bambu native - filament (PLA Basic), nozzles, beds, bambu studio (2.0.3.54).
I am printing outlet cover plates (US shapes) and embossing the circuit info into them in small, same-filament print (to be innocuous). I’ve been doing it with the default 0.4 nozzle and the 0.12mm high quality preset. It works decently, but the curved edges have very visible lines that are not completely even. First photo is an example. I did different presets and the 0.12 seemed best. Note that these print with the face (left in this photo) flat on the bed, so the curved edges are slight overhangs. This is OK, but not great, and I wanted to do better…
So I ordered a 0.2mm nozzle thinking the smaller lines would be less visible on the edges. But they came out a real mess. This is with the 0.2mm nozzle and 0.06 high quality preset. I also printed one with 0.10 standard preset and it was pretty much the same, maybe just a tiny bit less ragged.
To my eye even with a magnifier these lines all look identical (and it stopped at 0.05 and didn’t offer any further up). I’m told by someone on discord they all look wrong.
The detail in the embossed (embedded) looks really good, and the reverse side on the smooth area fair, not great, but the corners and edges are pretty poor as well despite on this side curving out, not an overhang.
Am I doing something wrong with the 0.2 nozzle? Was I supposed to do something to indicate it was changed other than telling BS in the printer settings and also slicer settings that it was 0.2 now?
I’m printing a benchy now and will post when it’s done.
Interestingly and somewhat contradictory, with the same presets I printed a benchy. I screwed up and left the door open however, which may or may not have contributed to it losing adhesion near the top. This is a half-size benchy from the one in Bambu Studio.
A fillet facing the buildplate will never look good, no matter the settings. After the first layer, you have almost 100% overhang, which just isn’t printable without supports.
So one solution could be supports with a suitable different material, e.g. PETG for PLA or the other way round. Or you use dedicated support filament.
What I typically do in such cases is a chamfer at 50° maybe even 60°. Then I do the fillet on the edge between the chamfer and the wall, so that the fillet goes down to the face, eating up the chamfer.
That way the fillet starts an angle instead of perpendicular to the front face.
I do, certainly in that rendering, but I don’t quite understand. In the 0.4 nozzle example the 1st (bottom) and 2nd layer are overlapping, not aligned. In the 0.2 they are almost aligned, so the 2nd layer’s first overhanging “brick” is unsupported entirely. But that’s not (at least not obviously) due to the size but the initial conditions.
When you go from 0.4/0.12 to 0.06 it SEEMS like everything would be scaled. In other words one should look like a magnified view of the other.
Is there some aspect of this which makes it not proportionally scaled?
I was wondering if it was a layer-to-layer adhesion issue, that the 0.2 nozzle’s output cools much more quickly and so can’t stick to the reduced surface area of the prior layer in the overhang?
Or in particular if this was something tunable – print speed, temperatures, etc.?
Regardless, based on other suggestions I changed from a curve to a fixed 60 degree angle rise, and with the 0.4 nozzle got much better results. Not perfect, but better. I’ve got a 0.6 nozzle in my cart waiting to accumulate enough for the free shipping and will experiment with that.
Instead of a bigger nozzle, you can as well increase the line width of outer walls in the quality settings. It has the same effect as using an actual bigger nozzle. So you can save the money and time.
You could also stick to 0,4mm nozzle and use even shallower layers, e.g. 0,08mm.
But whatever you do, a rounded edge on the buildplate will never print clean. It might become better with those measures but never good.
A continuous overhang of 60° is still asking a lot.
I typically try not to exceed 45°. What usually works is a steep angle like 60° for a few layers but quickly transitioning into a vertical, e.g. by putting a fillet above the chamfer as I suggested above.
If you want the chamfer then I would choose 45° instead of 60°.
Thanks for the suggestions, will try that, had not noticed I could increase line width, I assumed it followed layer thickness. I really need to go through every slicer setting.
I did try shallower and thicker layers, the 0.12 seemed to be a sweet spot.
The overhang angle – I remain confused on terminology, especially with slicer and several test prints being different. The 60 degrees is angle relative to horizontal, it’s 30 relative to vertical, so I think it’s fairly un-challenging. And it prints reasonably well, though the lines are still quite visible. I might give another go with the 0.2mm nozzle and that angled side.
The whole outlet cover is concave on the back side to provide room for the little stuck-out pieces of outlet, messy sheet rock, etc. If I print it face up instead of down that entire area would need to be filled with support, making something of a nightmare of removal. Though… I haven’t tried it. It may be worth a try. I just anticipate making a mess, maybe even breaking things like the screw holes, getting it to come off.
Ahh, ok. You are right, those angles are used very inconsistently. 30° against vertical should be absolutely safe. I read it the other way
There are two ways to completely get rid of layer lines that I know of:
1.) classical post processing, e.g. sanding, filling and coating your print.
2.) melting the surface to smooth it. E.g. polymaker sells a device and matching filament. I think it is called polysmoother. No idea how well that works and the price is quite substantial.
For me that is far too much hassle to consider it. But that probably is very individual.
