I’m having an issue that I’m not understanding if it’s me doing something wrong or if it’s a bug.
When I add a modifier with the goal to change the number of walls, instead of changing tit in the affected are of the model only, it also draws the modifier shape and creates the walls for it.
This is not the intended use case, I just want the model affected without adding this walls, can someone please help if this is a bug or just me missing something that changed meanwhile?
I think you are talking about an issue that has been rectified, although I am not sure it it has add it into the latest studio build.
The original way modifier wall count differences were applied was to use the modifiers shape as part of the change. It essentially p, carved the modifier out of the overlapping portion of the model forming walls where the edges met.
This would mean a square appearing in the model if that was the overlap.
The new algorithm version, does what you would expect it simply changes the number of walls within the overlapping parts.
This change doesn’t appear to be a setting though, this is disappointing as the issue you detailed allowed for some advanced patterns to be generated which subsequent to the fix will not be possible.
Example of a “feature” that benefits from the original method.
I would like to see a toggle that the user can choose which technique is used.
In this case I would expect to have the object affected and nothing added.
To actually add something, was my understanding that it should be with the “add part” feature.
But please look carefully to the preview, it’s very odd, it only built the full modifier of the structure in one side, the other is only in top and lower parts of the modifier that it set the modifier perimeter also.
Once you’ve cleared that error, then do as @MalcTheOracle has stated. Upload a screen grab focusing on the area you are not happy with. Make generous use of the layer slider to reveal problem areas. Once we can see what you see, then we can better help you.
I have downloaded you model so after you’ve done the above diagnostics, I can offer better insights.
BTW: With 3081 non-manifold edges on that model that has 1,501,083 vertices, depending on your computer, this repair may take a few minutes. So go get a cup of coffee(Tea I suppose if you’re from the UK) and come back in a few minutes.
That to me is a red flag!!! Why would one stated that a model with non-manifold shapes be left alone? That is asking the slicer to figure out what to do with the holes, it will produce unpredictable results.
May I assume that the model maker used Blender or TinkerCAD? See if they can output the model in a STEP file that alone will tell you a lot about the source.
OK. I now understand what the model maker was doing. Not to be too picky but I have no choice. The model maker needs to go back and fix this model. This is just sloppy CADmanship to be honest.
I still am unclear as to what you are not satisfied with on your model though since your image doesn’t really note what areas are not to your liking. But if I were to hazard a guess based on your previous post, I’m guessing you want the range modifier to apply to multiple heights? Is that correct?
If I further examine your model, I’m unclear to what your objective is with the range heights. You have changed the top and bottom shell layers to one but that range of 18-54 millimeters doesn’t have any horizontal surfaces to affect that. Then you changed the speed too? What was the objective?
Likewise in your second range modifier you changed the wall looks to 2 but the problem there is that the wall is so thin, there isn’t more than two walls to begin with.
So, if you disable the cube modifiers you’ll understand how de model looks without them.
I’m trying to add reinforcement points, because the printed model get’s week on those points. The 2 vertical modifiers are to add strength and avoid the part to move.
The horizontal one is also to add strength because it gets into a bad printing due to long overhangs.
The layer high mod from 18 to 54mm is to add top and bottom layers in the back in the side holes you see.
The layer high mod of the 1st 2mm is to add an additional wall to reinforce the gluing of the parts.
This is a very difficult print, has a lot of overhangs printing with one wall only by design, it’s really easy to fail.
I’m already slowing down the print as much as possible, but parts still flex and causes issues.
I also tried to add suports, but they never work inside the model I don’t know why…
I think I see what you’re trying to do but it’s just not possible with the way this model has been imported. Perhaps visual would be easier to understand.
This is what you model looks like in the slicer before it has been repaired. Notice all the holes, that’s a non-manifold object which your trying to add modifier. That simply won’t work.
What I think you are looking to do is use those to cube modifiers to make a brace. The problem is that your model has a layer(Top Cap) in the design that is so thin, the slicer is ignoring it even though it shows up in the rendering. The slicer is designed to do that even when I reduce the layer height to 0.08
I did some remeshing of your geometry just to see if this might help. It’s obvious that your model is being exported as a hollow object and that is causing you a lot of issues. However, look at this 3MF and try to see if plates 3 and 4 might be better suited for your needs. The problem is that the top lid is not being rendered because of defects in the model geometry.
The file is too large to share via This forum. This is the first time I’ve used limewire in 10 years so proceed at your own risk.
Plate 3 is your model but repaired and simplified to fewer vertices. Plate 4 is the next step where the model was remeshed in Meshmixer. Unfortunately, Garbage In/Garbage Back. You can’t create pixels and arcs from nothing so there isn’t a top layer when this slices. That’s the fault of the model.
Well, 1st of all, thank you very much for all your effort, really appreciated.
Just to mention, the part intentionally doesn’t have top and bottom layer, so it’s hollow.
Simplification is also not desirable, as it reduces the resolution.
"
The problem is that your model has a layer(Top Cap) in the design that is so thin, the slicer is ignoring it even though it shows up in the rendering. The slicer is designed to do that even when I reduce the layer height to 0.08
"
This part I’m not understanding.
The model is sliced with precision resolution at 0 and also slice gap closing radius at 0 to avoid loosing the thin parts.
If I would left the default values here, part of the structures would get lost.
Where do you see something being lost exactly?
I’ll check your re-meshed ones, once again, thank you very much for all your effort.
Regarding your last question, I once asked them about it.
They told me the initial models were done with 3DS Max, but this one is from 2021, so probably falls on the recent options they mentioned, Blender and Rhino.
Don’t really know the exact one used, they don’t provide the actual design files, only exports from prusa slicer and simplified 3d.
That’s weird, I clicked on that link too and got the same result.
I tested it on a different machine and different browser. Here is the link in plain text. Copy and paste into your browser and see if that works. https://limewire.com/d/879059c6-5ccf-48ea-9f37-41ae7e8dd770#Xhjq_A8cnZ-Ti25I9mR5Jc3kO_pRVpVIWt6XKQgUmP8
Alternatively, this is the QR code that limewire generated. I tested that too.
I noted it in this screen grab. On the left is your model on the right is the repaired model.(Click to zoom full res) Note that there is a solid surface
I suspected as much. There’s nothing wrong with those CAD programs for architectural design or organic modeling. Blender, in particular, is not a CAD program per se but has one of the most advanced sets of capabilities for a free and open-source program. I’m still surprised they don’t charge for it. However, all of those programs focus on drawing and modeling objects on screen, where pixels matter. If I had a dollar for every Blender output that created an open manifold that was posted here…
I’m not bashing those programs, but when it comes to 3D printing, they produce files that are often problematic. What you’re experiencing is exactly what I mean. These programs fall under surface and polygon modeling, whereas Onshape, SolidWorks, and Fusion 360 are part of parametric solid modeling (MCAD). You’ve now seen firsthand why polygon modelers struggle to output clean STL meshes, even though their advocates claim superiority. That’s fine for rendering for Game Design or animation, but when it comes to real-world of GCode X, Y, Z positioning we all know, Details Matter Very Much.
But don’t take my word for it, ask the slicer to slice an open-manifold STL and you’ll see what I mean… oh wait… you already did.
If precision and printability are the goal, there’s no substitute for using a parametric CAD program. What’s more, they’re free for non-commercial use.
) and come back in a few minutes.
The model maker needs to go back and fix this model. This is just sloppy CADmanship to be honest.
