Greetings, thought I’d bring some thoughts related to vertical supports of tall, thin prints on bed slingers. That is, using the formations of tree supports as a guide to support placements along a vertical surface using the paint on support option. We will establish the “why” such a part orientation as layer direction. For fun, lets slice a vertical wall of 150mm long, 150mm tall & 4mm wide. Next, paint a dot (click on placement without the drag) at various vertical locations to extablish the trees’ base diameter to height ratio. Since the support algo will place the tree base as close to the print, we might establish a part & tree width per height requirement to determine the need for such structures. In other words, how tall could a wall be built before needing a vertical stabilizing support? May assist in start & end heights within the Speed Slow Down By Height option, designed for bed slingers.
What’s your experience say in vertical support placements on low stable prints? Avoid the dimension growth on small based, tall prints.
Custom supports are far better than trusting the slicer for many reasons. Even more on bed slingers as you can orient the part and its supports to minimize the impact of bed motion.
Many ways of doing this. If you create the support as a separate object in your CAD program, then you likely can get trivially easy and nearly invisible removal.
Edit: Here’s one of many approaches. This one from Clough42
Thanks for replying. Great vid by Clough42. Slant 3D did a vid recently where designing a part to be used as a support inside an overhang, inside the part. Purpose was for easy removal with near flawless surface finish. In clough’s example, my experiment would be investigating how wide the narrow section of support would need to be on a bed slinger? In this case, the support gains support from the length of contact the part has with the bed. I might suggest james support could have been narrower if designed narrow“wing” were added perpendicular to the support. Question is, how long the “wing” would be necessary for a particular height? Also, what size bed contact area would be necessary? On james part, additional tree supports were used. As the support needs were generated, a support contact area was formulated considering the height of the needed surface. I’m assuming the tree support design algo is the same for both styles of machines and that it works well due to a low failure rate of printing tree supports which don’t fall over due to bed movement or release from cooling shrinkage during a print.
