Parametric Model Maker V0.10.0 - Multi-Plate 3MF Generation

[TooManyThings]

@PineappleBun_BBL I see the default view was switched to Assemble. Thank you! I have been able to deploy multi-plate support for my model. The previous STL download/split/arrange requirements of my model had always bothered me and confused plenty of users. Gridfinity baseplates are finally as turnkey as I wanted!

The ability to turn off auto-arrange/base plate size checks is also great. My tool generates 238x238 sized pieces which is work well now that I can place them manually. And actually, auto-arrange was timing out with higher plate counts anyway. Having to do apply the same setting for 36 plates on every script upload is a bit of a chore though.

[PineappleBun_BBL]

Glad to hear that. Your suggestion about STL also makes sense. We will improve it in the next version.

[QuiqueCrimson]

Great improvement!!!
Easy to use and works flawlessly

[QuiqueCrimson]

Updated my model. Easy to change to make multi-plate

Custom stand attached to the monitor

[QuiqueCrimson]

Could be possible to add the label of the plate in the mw_plate_n module?

[Knochi]

Is there a github or issue tracker for the Parametric Model Maker?

I would like to be able to configure the print profile for vase mode/spiralized contour.

And if we could set the layerheight and layerWidth from within the customizer… that would be awesome, cause some dimensions, especially when you use vase mode, have impact on the model dimensions.

[nuunien]

This is my first time using the Parametric Model Maker, currently creating a modular stand for filament spools (mostly for use in dryboxes).

There are some features I wished the maker would have, like:

The ability to put multiple objects on the same plate
Currently, we can only place one object per plate, meaning the user has to assemble all plates into one if per-object settings are required.

It would be helpful to be able to place multiple separate objects on the same plate, maybe using module names such as mw_plate_1_1, mw_plate_1_2, etc.

Better 3MF Profile Configuration
Currently, this is only possible in the PMM UI when submitting a model, but not when accessing the PPM via MakerLab.

It would also be helpful to be able to specify settings directly in the OpenSCAD modules, as comments (maybe even per-object if the above is implemented).

I’m currently missing the Seam Position and Order of walls settings.

[Lilac_Rage]

The ability to put multiple objects on the same plate
Currently, we can only place one object per plate, meaning the user has to assemble all plates into one if per-object settings are required.

Unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying, you can definitely put multiple objects on a single plate. If multiple objects are visible in your OpenSCAD preview, they’ll all be on a single plate.

[MalcTheOracle]

@PineappleBun_BBL, can we get the PDF of all the fonts available in the font it is named after, please?

I asked for this last year, and you said you were on it.

There is such a large list of fonts to review, and no preview in the UI.

Having a means to see what each looks like would help designers and users alike.

In an ideal world, this could be a live previewer!

Trying to find a similar font to replace one that the Parametric Model Maker doesn’t have is a time-consuming and labour-intensive process that wastes server time as your servers are rendering each test!

Update

I have just noticed it was @ypy who said yes.

You appear to be the one dealing with such things these days, though.

[migueljeronimoa]

In the past, before the new font components existed I inspected the library section in the web browser, then copy/paste the related code to chatgpt and asked it to scrape it and format it.
Then you can ask it about what font is similar to whatever font you want

[MalcTheOracle]

@MalcTheOracle

is a time-consuming and labour-intensive process that wastes server time as your servers are rendering each test!

As I said it is time consuming, rather than impossible.

I’m not a fan of using ChatGPT as in my experience it is wrong more often than it is right.

[RandomSmith]

I have an issue at present that I don’t know how to create multiple objects in a 3mf file in openscad -

i’ll use this made up example of a ruler that is too big for the bed so is generated into multiple parts:

Pseudocode:

loop 3 times - index
      mw_plate_ruler_part(index)

I end up with 3 things in the 3mf export on my pc using the openscad gui
but if I convert to parts in bambu studio I end up with 10 parts in my particular model. (still have to figure this out - could be connected to non overlapping shapes)

One way around this would be to use the multi plate 3mf generation feature but that looks like it is tied to static module names like

module mw_plate_1() {
    // Code to generate models on Plate 1
}

will need to try this out but suspect it won’t work

module mw_plate_ruler_part(index) {
    // Code to generate models on Plate n+1
}

[PineappleBun_BBL]

You are right. Currently, we can only do so with static modules.
We analyze if there are multiple plates before running OpenSCAD. So it is NOT a runtime feature.

[PineappleBun_BBL]

My suggestion is you can create 10 plates modules. Then you can decide if one of the modules creates objects or not in runtime.
Our system will filter out plates without objects.

[shaisegal]

How can i set the LayerHeight more precise for the profile configuration? Right now it seems there is only one digit after the point possible.

[BlackjackDuck]

I have been using this feature for several of my models (including one that was featured) and I’m no longer able to update my models that use this feature. I believe there was a bug introduced. I even tried deleting the file and re-uploading, but the old file still shows and when I attempt to upload a newer version, I get this error:

It shows successful validation, but there is obviously something going wrong because the image no longer appears when attempting to upload a new version:

I have some improvements I’d like to release on this featured model, but I’m not able to upload anything to this model anymore. Please help

[JJTechPrints]

@PineappleBun_BBL Materials race condition with mw_assembly_view(). Assembly view of multiple objects of varying color will more than likely fail to render color after clicking ‘Generate’. Suspect this is due to the assembly view not waiting for the material payload to arrive before rendering.

Code to recreate issue:

module mw_plate_1() {
    cube(10);
}
module mw_plate_2() {
    cube(10);
}
module mw_assembly_view() {
    color("blue") mw_plate_1();
    translate([20, 0, 0]) color("red") mw_plate_2();
}

What I see when I click Generate

If I then click ‘Plates’, then click back to ‘Assemble View’ I see

[PineappleBun_BBL]

Thx for reporting the issue.

We will take a look.

[user_1369964939]

I could really use the ability to set the bridge angle in the generated 3mf file.

Otherwise the slicer creates ridiculously long bridges (up to aboout how large the build plate is) that will cause failed prints. This prevents me now from publishing a model as people will simply run into trouble no matter how much warnings I give them to set it to 45º instead of the default 0º before printing it.

[Andy_E]

I have been involved in 3D printing for around seven years and during that time I have used many different platforms, slicers and user interfaces. But I honestly cannot understand the decision to make the Assembly View the default view on MakerWorld.

In my opinion, the Plate View should come first — not only for single-part models, but in general.

When I look at a model, the first things I want to know are:

• How are the parts arranged on the build plate?

• How many build plates do I need?

• How much printing effort is actually involved?

• How have the individual parts been prepared for printing?

These are the basic pieces of information I need before I even start thinking about assembly.

If a model needs to be assembled, I usually need assembly instructions or at least some additional information anyway. In that case, I see absolutely no problem with having the Assembly View just one click away.

At the moment, the order feels completely backwards to me.

First I am shown an Assembly View, even though what I actually want to know at that moment is what I have to print and how it is arranged. The Plate View, which I consider far more important, is hidden behind an additional button — and many users do not even notice that button.

On top of that, in most cases I can already see what the fully assembled model looks like in the model images. That is exactly what those images are there for. So the Assembly View often does not show me anything fundamentally new, while the Plate View provides information that is usually not visible in the normal model images at all.

For me, the more logical order would be very simple:

Plate View by default → Assembly View available with one click

The Assembly View is a useful additional feature. The Plate View, however, shows the actual foundation of the 3D printing process.

I want to be very clear about this: UI decisions like this make MakerWorld unnecessarily frustrating and, for me personally, increasingly less appealing to use. Not because features are missing, but because I feel the wrong information is being prioritized.

Please reconsider the default view. In my opinion, the Plate View should always be shown first.