I’m trying to simplify my model. It says can’t because there is more than 1. I did have 2 I think, and exported it/them via creates tl as 1.
What can I do?
proj new ny Lower+Manhattan(2).3mf (7.4 MB)
1 Like
You keep saying 1, what does 1 mean in your context?
Do you mean you had two models?
Uploaded 3MF files are not currently working.
You need to share the model using another service like WeTransfer.com.
Create a link from whichever service and post it here.
1 Like
I thought I had 1 model. Bambu says there is more than 1, so It cannot simplify. I only see 1 model, not 2. I exported it to Fusion and there it says it’s only 1 model.
Just tried the prior version of the model, I got no 2 body message, but when I hit simplify, I get the model shooting way up the z-axis.
Without the model to test, the following is a guess.
- You have a warning about the model, saying it is not manifold
- This will cause an issue as the slicer may well get confused as models need to be manifold when navigating them
- It is possible to slice a manifold model in many circumstances, but calculating a simplified model will hit barrier and they will result in the visuals you see generated.
You should use the repair link in the warning message to see if it can be resolved.
If you designed the model, you should aim to rectify the cause. Depending on your CAD software, exporting as an OBJ rather STL file can sometimes miraculously fix the issue.
If your model isn’t the result of a merge of more than one part, the manifold issue is likely the reason for BS suggesting there is more than one model.
Neither of these things say “more than one model”. This says you have one model, Object_1.
It says Object_1 is larger than or offset from the build plate so some of the model would not be printable. It also says the model has 41K non-manifold edges. It’s this second thing that’s likely the issue. Click the “repair” link and then (if it succeeds), try your simplify step again.
Non-manifold edges are polygon edges that are not connected point-for-point with their adjacent polygon edges. The model may look OK, but geometrically it’s wrong. If you don’t have any really gross errors, it might even slice OK. But if all the object’s polygons aren’t fully attached to their neighbors, operations that modify the geometry (other than simple scaling) won’t be able to work correctly.
1 Like
I believe these were from the prior version test; no screenshots depicting the two-body message have been provided, as they were from the current version.
Yeah. Re-reading the OP’s post I see that he “fixed” the two object issue.
The problem with Simplify is still probably due to the large number of non-manifold edges.
Simplify attempts to reduce the number of triangles in the object mesh. My CAD program calls it “polygon reduction”. It does this by looking at the angle where adjacent polygons meet. If the angle is below some threshold, the two polygons are combined in to one (and the surface there becomes more faceted). So if the polygons aren’t actually connected to each other, these operations have no way to “understand” the geometric relationship between the polys being modified. Because of that, the simplification operation is going to make bad decisions that corrupt the model instead of simplifying it.
1 Like
Yeah, I said this originally when I broke down the problem, explained the likely reasons and suggested using the repair feature.
I also gave the tip that the OBJ format, if available as an export, may remove the manifold issue completely.
OK, I know I have a pathological object, but it’s the best scientific software can do at the present day, I think. I have an octant of a 4-D deterministic fractal volume dataset with three (X,Y,Z) color slicing planes and an isosurface. There are >1M polygons in the isosurface and the slicing planes are regular quad meshes. Simplify Model attempted to combine each slicing plane into either polygons which don’t render in the interactive window or it removes them completely … and it leaves non-manifold edges – not as many as in the original model – but, it still rather defeats any potential benefits in simplifying the model. Oh, well. That’s why I’m here. To do software development to try and improve our tools.
Repair before you reduce, or expect indeterminate results. “This book is missing half its pages, but translate it from English to French anyways”
Even better, when working with organically shaped objects and surfaces, use OBJ or step formats as much as possible like Malc mentioned.
This does something that should really be done in the CAD software.
It tries to remove triangles that it believes could be lost without causing too much loss of quality based on your settings.
Again, this is a guess as it has no idea what your intentions were for the model.
It isn’t designed to replace what could and should be done in the CAD software.
This is common; many of my models far exceed this.
It does slow down the living, but it doesn’t stop it.
I need to see a picture of this object to understand it better.