Hello. I plan to make a long object (200mm) that I would like to split down the middle and use the dovetail option as shown in the image. However, one dovetail isn’t enough. If you have ever done woodworking, you know that you could add multiple dovetails to your work for greater bonding. In this case, I need multiple dovetail joints so this part can be taken apart at will, multipe times.
Can Bambu Labs create multiple dovetails on a split, or is it hard coded to limit to one. Thank you.
Yes it can be done but it’s a mess. Here’s the workaround. Colors are used purely for illustration. I don’t own an AMS.
Here’s the finished example. Note I didn’t take care to force the alignment in this example but this is the only way I found to do this. I’ll leave it to you to bang your head against the wall and spend the hours necessary to get each pixel to line up the way you want it. 
Now that I answered the question. Are you interested in the right way? 
Don’t use the slicer for what it wasn’t designed for!!! Learn CAD. The right tool for the right job and it’s free.(ONSHAPE, F360, FreeCAD etc)
Wow, that doesn’t sound fun. I am guessing you are going to say to create the dovetails in the CAD software. Does that sound correct?
I can’t bear the suspense 
Click on the shadowed print and all shall be revealed. 
Thanks. I tried FeeCad, and that is overwhelming. I have been using TinkerCad, but as the name implies, it’s mainly for tinkering. Fusion is rediculouly priced, although they have a free version. I played with Onshape and Skecthup and I have to make a choice an stick with it. I plan to commit myself to something starting next week. I am very PC literate and have leaned many PC programs, just not CAD. Any insight would be appreciated.
As a newbie I tried both OnShape and FreeCAD. OnShape left me scratching head a bit.
So I tried FreeCAD. At first I felt it was even more confusing and clunky and made me think of Eclipse (dev environment I hate with a passion).
But! Then I came across mang0 jelly YT channel (https://youtube.com/@mangojellysolutions) which is dedicated to teaching freecad from ground up and now i can find my way around FreeCAD.
I still get shudders from freecad UI whenever I remember that it looks like Eclipse, but in many ways I find it more lightweight than OnShape.
I just wish it was just a touch more polished and refined
If you guys want to get up to speed on using CAD for 3D printing, let me save you a lot of time. I still watch about 2-3 hours of CAD tutorials each week on everything from Fusion360, Sketchup, FreeCAD and OnShape. I have all those packages and recently added SolidWorks for Makers. However, it was this guy in Australia who broke the code. He is the High School teacher we all wish we had. He has a gift for explaining the unexplainable. You’ll see what I mean when you watch just one of his tutorials.
At any rate, I strongly urge everyone to look at his assessment of all the CAD programs for 3D printing. It should be noted, that’s all this guy does is 3D printing. So each of his lessons are very specific to CAD and 3D printing not CAD itself.
If you think you’ve explored the landscape of 3D Parametric CAD packages and just haven’t found your groove, this guy’s videos will fix that.
Here’s the playlist of his 3D CAD tutorials. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGqRUdq5ULsONnjEEPeBxxStEsobDKAtV
I suggest that you view the first two. Then after that, it doesn’t matter which order you watch them in. I’ll admit, I’ve not gotten through all of them myself but a good majority over the last two years.
As I stated, I have five CAD packages and a very powerful gaming rig with an NVIDIA RTX 3080 Ti and a 12th Gen Intel CPU, all M.2 drives, and fast memory. So, hardware is not an issue for me. However, in my view, there is no equal to OnShape when it comes to 3D printing CAD. It just works every time. It runs inside a browser with zero compromises, never crashes, and does not require high-end hardware.
Of all the free CAD subscriptions, it is the least of a slew of “asshole” companies that tend to use bait-and-switch tactics or, after you’ve used it, put a key feature behind a paywall—like Autodesk has done with all of their products. The only “gotcha” is that your files are public domain in that they are all visible. But to me, unless you’re doing something proprietary, you don’t need the paid version. And if you want to conceal your work, just give the files a cryptic name, and nobody will ever find it, even though it’s public.
Ah. Yes. I have watched a dozen or so of his videos, but not the ones you suggested. He is fantastic and I will watch those you pointed out soon.
I plan to create some projects for sale. It would be discomforting to know I won’t own any of my creations. I think Fusion has a similar option with a 1000.00 threshold. I don’t know why none of these companies have a pricing tier for small potato makers like us. They would get more people to pay if they were at all reasonable.
I still have to make a choice and stick with it. Both my laptop and desktop are workhorses that have over 64GB of memory, terabytes of NVME storage, and dedicated graphics that can render the largest video project with ease. I think CAD would be equally snappy.
As usual, thank for your thorough response and suggestions. You are a true asset to the community.
Well actually, in OnShape, you still own the design. In other words, you get to sell your design to whomever you want. It’s just that you’re also making it public and giving away right to prohibit someone else from making the same product. But this is easily remedied by just not naming your parts with and obvious name. In other words, will all of the millions of other files in Onshape, you would be hiding it in the open. Someone would have to know the name of your file.
Now contrast that with Fusion360. If they find out that you make more than $1,000 with any of you’re designs. Your Free Account will be locked until you pay for the professional version which is in the thousands. Nice guys aren’t they.
With SolidWorks for makers, it’s an in between business model. They let you make as much money as you want but the models are in a locked format that prohibits file sharing. Once opened in that version, you can’t even switch back to the paid version. So if let’s say I took a model from work in the Enterprise license and opened it in my free license on my home system, that file can never be opened again other than by my account on my personal SolidWorks license. All these software companies are D*icks! It’s just a matter of degree. I do think that Autodesk though is going to a special hell for some of their predatory tactics.
On the subject of FreeCad. I really want to like that program but put simply, it’s a klugey science project that has never been fully finished. I mean first off, they just finally released 1.0 after 15 years of beta. I get it, it’s open source but C’mon. Then combine the fact that you can get your design into a corner that you can’t get out of. Their user community is full of a bunch of arrogant academic types who won’t answer your question but they will ridicule you for asking it in the first place, a really toxic forum. And people complain about this one.
I keep FreeCAD on my system solely because it does a few things with STEP and STL conversions that the other programs don’t do as well in their free versions. Fusion360 as an example has prismatic conversions which looks slick but is only available in the $800 personal version whereas FreeCAD’s translation tool is close enough.
While on the subject of the $800 Fusion360 license. I almost took the plunge at the end of 2023 and tried to buy it. They went from $280 to $680 in one year. Talk about predatory, Then they had to backpedal and reduce the price. Why would I trust them after that? I also found it’s load times to be a joke and the fact that you have to update your package every month otherwise they won’t let you open the software. To me it’s just a toxic user experience overall. SoldidWorks is much worse experience, the product is a bloated pig, but at least they only charge $90/yr.
This is one of the reasons I’ve become such a huge fan of OnShape. I fire up my browser and in seconds the model I was working on is on my screen where I left it. Even if I lose power or Internet, I never loose my work. Also, they have time-based rollback feature which the others don’t have. So if I want to go back two hours in the timeline I can. I don’t have to use the history tree. It also has unlimited redo(CTRL-Z) history. Or at least I have never reached their limit.
That said, I still have trepidations because OnShape is owned by PTC who has a rich reputation of being predatory but at least for the last 7 years, they have left OnShape alone.
“Security through obscurity”
Fusion360 started moving more and more features from the free version to paid version. And some features from paid version running locally to cloud exec that requires purchasing tokens, e.g.: simulation. As such I wouldn’t trust them in long term.
I know I am late to the party, but I would like to suggest you attempt to learn CAD. The most challenging thing that I have experienced in learning the language of CAD. I don’t think the program itself is all too difficult. but learning to sketch in 2D and “extrude” in 3D with the proper terms since that’s how the commands are listed in the app. I found a really good YouTube streamer who teaches ppl using a very detailed but not hugely boring lesson plan in chapters. I believe it was for Fusion360. the other benefit is, once you learn one, you’ve learned them all (minus the nuances to specific apps). Then you can determine for yourself which program works better for you. I think all of the CAD apps are the same with the exception of Blender. That is for modeling things and people, not shapes and structures. Good luck on your journey.
I ended up using OnShape for all my modeling. I found it the most intuitive of the bunch and while I am nowhere near proficient, I have been able to create everything I could think of - so far. Thank you.
Thanks for the follow-up post. It’s great to hear you’re hitting your stride with CAD. That moment when something goes from an idea in your head to a model on-screen and then into your hand is hard to beat.
And you’re right - one does not need master-level CAD chops to make functional parts. A lot of people overestimate the skill barrier. Onshape clicks fast once you get used to the workflow.
On the CAD front, FreeCAD finally hit its 1.0 milestone after 22 years. Better late than never. It still has some rough edges, but it’s become genuinely useful, especially for STL-to-STEP conversions, where it beats almost everything else I’ve tried.
It seems everything I look at could be made better in some way since I got into this hobby. The functional uses that have gone from vision to reality never seems to end. It’s a very rewarding thing to make something out of nothing. Even with the occasional print disaster, or wasted filament due to a poorly designed prototype, it’s still been a blast. I even made a little side hustle from printing some things that have so far paid for the hobby.
I would be remiss though if I didn’t say that the p2S was an unnecessary upgrade. The P1S did everything I asked of it and more. Plus it was quieter, less finicky and used less power. Had I had both side by side for a month or so I’d never had made the upgrade. The 14 days BL gives you for returns simply isn’t enough time to do a real evaluation. Of course, they know that.
I also use Onshape moreso then the others. I have fusion360 and Solidworks, I prefer Onshape hands down.
I have found a way to do it in Bambu Studio, but it’s a fiddle compared to doing it in CAD, if you know how.
Using the dovetail cut tool, you can slice a teeny sliver off the edge, leaving just the tail, or the socket. The problem with this is that you’ll need to adjust the model to allow for this. You’ll have to note the dimensions of everything, so you can reproduce both sides of the joint precisely, and place the joint precisely.
Note that I have not printed this, but in Bambu Studio I have made a four piece slab with a dovetail on two sides of each of the four pieces.
Since I can easily do this in CAD, and think working out the tolerances for your printer, then doing it in CAD might be easier.
