Hi everyone…!
My A1 Mini arrived 3 Weeks ago and I’ m absolutely happy…! Time to model my own 3D model now. For this i would need some Rectangel with rounded corners. Bambu studio offers the possibility to add rectangels with rounded corners under “primitive” but i can not find a possibility/option to ajust the radius of the corners… Any help or sugestion…?
Got two - Autodesk makes a 3D CAD program called Fusion that they allow hobbyists to use for free as long as you aren’t a business and don’t make more than some small amount of money (they specify at their website) using it.
In Fusion, drawing a cube and filleting the edges/corners would take just seconds and you can specify radii all day long. Not sure if you are looking for more software but Fusion can do all sorts of things faster and easier than trying to make Bambu Studio do CAD things.
Not sure how things will be on your printer, though. On my X1C, radiused corners can have printing issues. The reason is as layers get deposited, the overlap with previous layers changes with each layer and the overhang can get to be fairly large and unsupported so you can get wiggles and other issues depending on radius and other settings.
I think it’s just the nature of the beast with narrow extrusion widths when using the finer nozzles.
Instead of using radiused edges that can have issues at high overhangs, I chamfer the edges now which just bevels them with a constant angle. Seems to give much better prints.
And as long as recommending Fusion, if you need a good vector drawing program, get Inkscape by Adobe. Free. You can draw up things in Inkscape and extrude them in Fusion, export STL files (and others), and pull those into Studio for printing.
Good luck!
1 Like
I use OnShape, Fusion 360 and FreeCAD. All have free options. I would say that FreeCAD is the most user unfriendly interface. Fusion 360 has a very steep learning curve. But based on this 3D Specific video below from Teaching Tech a year ago, I defected 99% of my CAD work to OnShape.
Fusion 360 has a very dense interface with numerous detours and dead ends in their menus. One simple example is that you have two methods of patterns, solid and surface. Which one should you use? If you select one versus the other, you may find yourself going down a design path that forces you to backtrack and erase your previous hours work. Contrast that with OnShape’s simpler and less-nested menus and I became a convert.
Here’s a good video for tips on how to modify parts for 3D printing that will walk you through some of the questions you have.
I’ll also add that Fusion 360 runs locally on your own hardware, despite the fact that I have a very beefy gaming rig with a very high end graphics card, recalculating models is eminently faster with OnShape which is cloud hosted so all you need is a browser and decent Internet connection.
While I still use Fusion 360, I find fewer and fewer reasons to use it as time goes on. It has one nice feature whereby you can print directly to the slicer but that is a nice to have, not need to have.
If you want the full playlist from Teaching Tech, he does a great job walking you through CAD for 3D printing. He’s a high school teacher that we all wish we had that has a gift for simplifying the complex for all to understand. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGqRUdq5ULsMDOxmu10AGPDIOkzNYu7D7
3 Likes
Thanks for your answer, as i’m a absolute newby in 3d modeling i thought bambulab studio would be the easyest way to learn… I tryed bleder… but it’s a overkill…!
1 Like
Thanks for your answer and the youtube links… I’m a absolute newby in 3d modeling i thought bambulab studio would be the easyest way to learn… I tryed bleder… but it’s a overkill…! I’ll go throug the videos you posted, thanks…!
Glad to hear you’re enjoying your A1 Mini! For adjusting the radius of rounded corners in bambu studio, have you tried selecting the rectangle shape and then looking for options like corner radius or roundness in the settings? Sometimes it’s under the shape or properties panel.
1 Like
Thats what i was looking for… but i can not find a similar option corner radius or roundnes…?
I have the same question - how to adjust corner radius?
I did not find any solution yet… 
Did either of you bother to read this thread? The solutions are right there. What more do you want? If you’re expecting it to be baked into the slicer, forget about it. The original question is addressed through the use of CAD, trying to get the slicer to do it is like using a hammer to rip out a screw. 
As an example; Define what is meant by ‘Rounded Corners’. That’s a CAD function.
As Olias said BS is a slicer and the slicer is really just meant to take your model and “slice” it in to layers so the printer can print it. I know the slicers have added some basic modeling functions but it will really behoove you to start learning your way around a cad program. Tinkercad is free, online only and super simple. In Tinkercad you would modify the steps and radius to round the corners:
The Tinkercad people also make Fusion (which is pretty awesome)… in Fusion you would use the “Fillet” command:
This should get you started.
2 Likes
Thanks for your explanations… Just wondering why BS offers the possibility to add a “rectangle with rounded corners” as an option under “add primitives” and then you can not ajust anything…
1 Like
It’s a valid question, one which I don’t know if anyone has an answer as to why.
1 Like
While that may seem like a simple “ask,” it’s a substantial amount of code you’re requesting. First, how do you define “round”? In CAD, this is typically achieved by specifying a radius. Then there’s the added complexity that we’re working with a mesh, not a parametric set of lines. Sure, a cube begins as a basic rectangle with height, width, and depth, but once rendered, the next challenge arises: maintaining scalability in the code. Should the cube be defined once and scaled like any other object, or should users be allowed to redefine the radius upon scaling?
What happens if the object is merged or part of an assembly?
These functions are generally best handled in CAD. Implementing this would effectively mean developing a CAD-like function set within the slicer. It’s comparable to asking developers to turn a text editor into a word processor with full WYSIWYG control over font size, style, and placement—like the difference between Notepad and WordPad.
In truth, there are many other requested features that would be easier to implement and have a more significant impact. One feature frequently asked about in 3d Pinter discussion groups is for slicer programs to have the ability to align objects to each other instead of manually adjusting them via mouse trial and error. While that is also a large undertaking, this feature clearly would have more widespread use cases, as seen across 3D printing discussion forums. It would be simpler to implement, as alignment functions already exist within the “Arrange Objects” subroutine. Adding a dialogue box for alignment and allowing users to define alignment points—such as edge, corner, top, bottom, or middle—would make this feasible. But the question still remains; where do companies apply their finite resources? Do they fine tune their code for the purposes of making smoother prints or add object features.
The point is, a simple concept may appear straightforward until you start coding it.
If you feel strongly about this then you likely will get more traction posing the exact same suggestion in the Orca Slicer Discussion forum. They are far more likely to add a quality of life feature such as this than Bambu would. They have done wonderful things to the base Bambu Studio code and made it much more pleasant to work with than Bambu Studio. If you look at all the enhancements Bambu has added to studio, they lead in one direction, that is to promote Makerworld linkage so that they can eventually monetize us, the user. It won’t be long before we will have to click past ads to get to the slicer, whereas Orca allows you to bypass that sort of forced promotional information.
________________________________________
Orca Suggestion forum.
While there’s usually more to things than meets the eye, I hate these answers that just find a bunch of reasons why it can’t be done.
The fact is that the function to add a rounded “rectangle” is only marginally useful without being able to define the corner radius. The radius is crucial, and they just chose a random fixed value. Makes one wonder why they added the feature at all.
Yeah I hate that answer too. But unless you’re doing the coding or can suggest an algorithm to achieve the objective??? There are armchair quarter backs all over the world who who usually start of with phrases like “I have to believe…” or “It should be relatively straightforward…” It’s another matter when you have to figure out how to do it. It’s a completely different matter when the magic question of “Why” and “Should”.
Sure, with enough time and resources, one could modify this code. And one could also spend millions to train a Billie Goat to climb an Oak Tree but why not hire a squirrel in the first place? Same here, why try to get a function into the slicer that as @PrinterMcgee has shown, can be done in TinkerCAD, a novice-level program with just a few mouse clicks.
But frankly, what I find offensive about your post is that you took one line out of context and ignored the remainder of my post, which was meant to offer a path to get this into the wishlist column. That is disingenuous at best, obnoxious at worst.
1 Like