Stop uploading separate profiles for parts of a model

[Qjo]

Just want to rant a little bit and provide the proper way of uploading a profile for your models that have separate pieces.

When uploading your model and 3mf, put all the parts of that model on separate plates in the slicer, name them, set the plate print profile settings in the object tab of the slicer, and upload everything in one single 3MF. Do not separate the models objects into separate print profiles. I’ll give an example of this here.

this model has 2 different pieces and also different orientations of the pieces. Instead of uploading a single 3mf with all the pieces on different plates, they have uploaded separate 3mf profiles for each piece. This goes against bambu’s print profile upload guidelines. Number 10 of the prohibited practices. Also, if you’re going to provide the STL files, provide all of them

I’ve seen many creators upload profiles like this, I’m guilty of it in the past too and am currently working on correcting those profiles, and maybe they just don’t know yet but I’m here to bring light to this issue. I, and maybe you too, don’t want or need to download multiple different files just to print one thing. Put them all in one 3MF (print profile) and put the separate objects on separate plates. When printing from the app, you can choose which plate to print. When opening in studio, you can also choose which plate to print. Uploading separate profiles for separate objects is 100% unnecessary.

the only other reason I could see someone doing this on purpose is to try and get more downloads for more points.

Hope this sheds some light on proper print profile uploading practices!

[TeamPuddlePuppy]

I agree with you. It is annoying

[skyrippersystems]

Don’t tell me what to do.

[TeamPuddlePuppy]

chill out man, there is no call to be that way

[skyrippersystems]

Sorry. Just having a little fun. Please feel free to tell me what to do. Maybe I’ll listen?

[MalcTheOracle]

@Qjo

the only other reason I could see someone doing this on purpose is to try and get more downloads for more points.

This doesn’t happen.

It may have done a couple of years ago, but the changed it then. Circa April 2024.

The process now is only the first action on any model is ever counted.

If you download a model, that is counted or if you print (using Handy) that counts.

If you download then print, the download counts, not the print.

If you print then download, the print counts, not the download.

If a user downloads 10 times and prints 15 times, only the first download is counted.

Main point

To your main point, this is actually part of the rules for profiles.

You skipped the “if there are options, those should be in different profiles.”

This rule hadn’t always been there are up even now isn’t overly clear if it is guidance or reportable. There isn’t a report option for poorly laid out profiles.

Why don’t people do this?

It is the duration value shown.

If you put all options in the same profile, it shows a blown out tine to print that puts people off.

Conclusion

Should things be tidier, yes, do they have to be, no.

If users took the time to read and review they would know what is expected.

I prefer tidy, but tidy doesn’t always work best.

If the designer looses out, that is on them.

[JJTechPrints]

What about variants? Where there’s a small change but it might affect all build plates. I.e. if you create a model that uses m3 screws but want a screwless variant that uses rectangle magnet inserts instead.

Wouldn’t a separate profile be more meaningful to the user? Rather than duplicate all of the build plates, which also inflates the estimated print time and print times do matter to a lot of users when considering if they will print a model or not.

Some will say it should be a separate model if it’s not the same geometry, but I disagree. I think it’s up to the designer how they want their profiles laid out, and in most cases a designer isn’t trying to gamify profile downloads, which Malc mentioned above isn’t even possible anymore due to Makerworlds new way of calculating stuff.

[Josh-3D]

I’m breaking my next couple of projects up into multiple print profiles. Although, I have reasons.

For my crane, everything is just, there’s so many parts. So I’m breaking it up into main sections which the build instructions will follow along with. (There’s more print profiles, for the boom tip, boom base, 40ft boom, 20ft boom, and hook blocks.)

I’m doing that with my matte box too. There’s the main body, the lens mount backs, and the filter trays.

To me it makes sense to break things up some like this. I guess still within I’m not like giving a print profile for each filter tray type, but each profile profile is suppose to encompass a sub-section of the overall project, with the goal of helping the end user focus on one section at a time. Particularly with like the crane, which is a lot of parts. By breaking things down a little further, I’m hoping to help keep things organized. For myself and others! Like if I want to print another 40ft boom section, I just load up the 40ft boom profile and boom, there I go.

Alright, well, that’s not the same as what that guy was doing with that snail, haha. There’s no reason to have the snail/slug and shell seperated. I do think there are times though when a breakup of the print profile isn’t such a negative.

I guess the other point is, very large print profiles can bog the system down a bit when uploading to Makerworld, can time out, fail, whatever. It’s rare, but it happens… haha. Actually I haven’t seen that happen lately, so maybe they’ve improved things.

(edit to add) I hope my approach is fine here. I’ve gone back and forth a little on it, how I want to handle it. This post got me commenting because it’s a topic that’s been on my mind. Like I don’t think I’m falling to the issues that Qjo is stating, but I’m also in my own little world over here, so.

[MichaK]

Is it possible to create a 3mf file with:

Plate 1: using a 0.4 nozzle

Plate 2: using a 0.2 nozzle?

How do I realize this?

Micha

[MalcTheOracle]

Nope.

The nozzle size (at the time of writing) is per project.

So, 0.4 nozzle profiles are are separate entirely from 0.2 profiles.

[R3d-Five]

Dude, no.
Just printed a R2D2 cyberbrick. If the head hadn’t been a separate profile I would have lost it.
There were a ton of small parts, all one of the same 2 colors. Maker decided (rightly) to break the two parts up. The head and body had the plates separated by color and a few of the parts looked alike. As well he even separated the instructions into body/head to make sure all went well. I would not have wanted to have those together.

[TeamPuddlePuppy]

it’s fine. no problem at all

[Josh-3D]

@RetroSharky

Well, that’s a pretty bad pick

Is it though? Why is the shell broken up from the snail?

The snail body and shell should be part of the same print profile…? Then you’d have different print profiles for the right and left variations?

[EinUrElf]

I disagree with Qjo and also believe there are plausible reasons why a model sometimes needs to be split into multiple print profiles.

Because:

• Some global settings in Bambu Studio are not available in the object tree for the part. (Speed/First Layer and First Layer Infill)

For me, this is one of the most important parameters.

• For clarity, because the model has many individual parts.

A simple example:
A PLA model consisting of a square and four delicate cylinders.
Square dimensions: 200x200x5mm, cylinder dimensions: 3x15mm.

Settings I would use:
Build plate: Smooth PEI or SuperTack
First layer speed and First layer infill: 50 and 105mm/s for the square and 10 and 10mm/s for the cylinders.

Not possible in a 3mf for this scenario. (At least, I’m not aware of any way to do it.)

And I also don’t want to print the square at 10 and 10 mm/s on the first layer because it takes unnecessarily long.
I would definitely be concerned that the cylinders printed at 50 and 105 mm/s on the first layer would be blown off the build plate.

Therefore, I think it’s perfectly legitimate to split a model across multiple print profiles.

[Qjo]

@RetroSharky

Presumably, I can’t speak for the designer, of course, but the idea was to print the shell using completely different filaments and printer settings

I explained this in my original post. You can have different settings applied to different plates and even different objects on the same plate. This is not a valid reason to have a separate print profile.

As for getting people in the app on board, you can pick what plate you want to print from the app. If the designer has it setup properly, then there’s no issue.

[Qjo]

@EinUrElf

Build plate: Smooth PEI or SuperTack
First layer speed and First layer infill: 50 and 105mm/s for the square and 10 and 10mm/s for the cylinders.

Not possible in a 3mf for this scenario. (At least, I’m not aware of any way to do it.)

You can absolutely do this and set those speeds independently using the objects tab.

edit: no you can’t

[Qjo]

@MichaK

Is it possible to create a 3mf file with:

Plate 1: using a 0.4 nozzle

Plate 2: using a 0.2 nozzle?

This is a valid reason for a separate print profile. It’s not possible to have 2 different nozzle sizes within the same print profile.

[Qjo]

@JJTechPrints

What about variants? Where there’s a small change but it might affect all build plates. I.e. if you create a model that uses m3 screws but want a screwless variant that uses rectangle magnet inserts instead.

Wouldn’t a separate profile be more meaningful to the user? Rather than duplicate all of the build plates, which also inflates the estimated print time and print times do matter to a lot of users when considering if they will print a model or not.

variants should also be within the same profile upload. The end user would simply pick the plate they want to print. People need to stop worrying about what the overall estimated time says and pay attention to what the plate print time says.

Just like my spool spacers I have. I have 8 or 9 thickness variants in that profile upload. The user who needs to print one would simply pick the plate with the spacer thickness they need.

[Josh-3D]

@Qjo

You can have different settings applied to different plates and even different objects on the same plate

Yes, this. Like all the settings there can be set for a specific object, they don’t even have to be on separate plates. I don’t think it makes things less confusing or easier. I had to slow down and look carefully to make sure I understood what was going on with everything between the printer profiles, especially since the imagery is so similar to each other.

Not that it’s like some great mystery or that difficult, but it would make things cleaner and more straight forward to have 2 print profiles instead of 4

@RetroSharky

It’s always easy to judge something, but very few people take the trouble to take a closer look.

I took a closer look, several times, as this discussion has gone on. Just because we don’t agree doesn’t mean I haven’t been looking at it, opening it, checking out the model, the different profiles. I was even looking at the A1 mini plates, trying to think like, is a A1 mini plate even needed? So. (The snail on the A1 mini sized version is broken up into pieces to fit the A1 Mini’s bed)

[Qjo]

@MalcTheOracle

You skipped the “if there are options, those should be in different profiles.”

What do you mean by this? If there are different options those should still be the same profile upload, just on different plates. The only reason there should be a different profile is if there are settings that cannot be applied at the same time in the same profile like mentioned earlier with different nozzle sizes.