Hi,
I usually share some of my color lithophane prints. I print using a 0.2mm nozzle and with 8 colors/filaments or more in 200mm*150mm.
Some prints take more than 24 hours.
Why does MakerWorld reject them?
[Plate 1]: Slicing time of a certain plate exceeds the limit. Please simplify the model or use a larger slicing layer height.
I think they might have a time limit for execution in their system. However, you should be able to download the model to your computer and do the slicing there.
I think so too.
My issue is that MakerWorld refuses to let me publish the model.
As a result, nobody has access to it.
But I don’t understand why they impose this limit. I imagine that there are plenty of prints that must take more than 24 hours to complete.
The constraint isn’t related to the actual printing time, but rather to the time it takes to slice the model. You might want to simplify your model in Bambu Studio or any CAD software you prefer. (Reducing the resolution of your STL files) This should make it easier for the slicer to handle, and given the printer’s detail capabilities, it shouldn’t really affect the final result noticeably.
To give some context on to why they might be doing it, there are ways, like zip bombs and other attacks that a attacker would run, that, if not for the time limit, would cost Bambu a whole lot of money. It’s a balancing act of risk and functionality, but I’m sure that’s something they need and will adjust over time.
Are you using Arachne wall generator? I find that lithophanes don’t like Arachne much. How long does it take to slice it? Your project on github looks awesome, BTW.
Also, you might try slicing/printing with the much more common .4mm nozzle.Having printed a lot of lithophanes, I find the quality improvement of the .2mm nozzle is not really worth the extra print time. In the pic,.2mm on the left and .4mm on the right. 7.5 hr print time vs 4.25 hrs.
Hello Madmax,
No, I don’t use Arachne to generate my lithophanies. I use the “classic” wall generator.
But in your comparison, did you increase the resolution of your color pixels, with the 0.2mm nozzle ?
Because printing with a 0.2mm nozzle allows working with smaller pixels (0.4mm instead of 0.8mm).
Otherwise, it’s like comparing a 4K TV with an HD TV while watching a 720p video. Do you see what I mean?
I find that working with a finer pixel resolution helps to further reduce the “glow” effect, especially when the color touches white or transitions between white and black areas. This is noticeable, too, when dealing with fine text, such as on a movie poster, for example.
However, I agree that printing at 0.2mm increases the printing time by 4, and we may question the benefit at times.
In my desktop, 3m30.
The reason this print profile was blocked is that it exceeded the time limit for cloud slicing, rather than the print being too long. If possible, could you send us the 3MF file to support@makerworld.com, so that we can assess whether the performance of the slicer can be optimized for tihs case.
Hi Tanklet,
This is indeed what iChris had explained to me. I just find it unfortunate that a limitation in the cloud prevents the posting of an object. (I completely understand the need for limitations in the cloud side; that’s not my point.)
I’m simply suggesting that the system should still allow posting, indicating that the rendering is not available because the object doesn’t meet certain limitations, and that it’s only possible to download the 3mf file.
As a workaround, can I put the 3mf file in a zip to avoid cloud-side slicing? (I will try this.)
I will also send my file to support.
Thank you.
Indeed, it is possible to post the model without performing the slicing by putting the 3mf in a zip file. Therefore, I retract what I said since there is a way to post the model bypassing the slicing limitations. So, no need for additional workaround.
Thanks
Hi Gaugo,
Thanks for your response. I agree 100% with your statements and my testing does show an improvement with .2mm nozzles (left image is .4mm resolution and right image is .8mm resolution). However, to broaden the appeal for my Makerworld posts I decided to only post the .4mm versions, since most people don’t have .2mm nozzles or are unwilling to switch to .2mm for one print.
If you don’t mind, I would like to “pick your brain” since you obviously know a lot about color lithos. Your PIXEstl project is the only alternative to the “other” color lithophane generator that I have seen. It has some limitations that I haven’t been able to work around, like color palette choices and color layer depth. Will your algorithm reproduce the source image color palette with only the 4 CMYK filaments, or does it need additional colors? I would like to be able to post projects that only require the 4 filaments using one AMS. Thanks in advance.
Hi Madmax,
However, to broaden the appeal for my Makerworld posts I decided to only post the .4mm versions, since most people don’t have .2mm nozzles or are unwilling to switch to .2mm for one print.
I completely understand your choice to post in 0.4mm.
But to be honest, I create my lithophanies primarily for my personal enjoyment, to give to friends/family, or to test new approaches. I am aware that they are not intended for everyone. The same goes for my program.
And anyway, the 0.2mm nozzle is not the main obstacle for printing the lithophanies I post. Printing in 8 colors or more is a bigger challenge. Not everyone has 2 AMS or an 8-color ERCF system. I’m not picky about nozzle size 
.
If you don’t mind, I would like to “pick your brain” since you obviously know a lot about color lithos. Your PIXEstl project is the only alternative to the “other” color lithophane generator that I have seen. It has some limitations that I haven’t been able to work around, like color palette choices and color layer depth. Will your algorithm reproduce the source image color palette with only the 4 CMYK filaments, or does it need additional colors? I would like to be able to post projects that only require the 4 filaments using one AMS. Thanks in advance.
PIXEstL is based on an open system of color/filament palettes. By default, it consists almost entirely of Bambulab filaments because those are the filaments I use.
But the system is open. You can add/replace any filament from any brand and any color. However, to do that, you’ll need to calibrate your filament so that the program knows its different chromatic properties.
Similarly, the palette is calibrated for 0.1mm layers, but feel free to create a palette for 0.08mm or 0.12mm.
If you want to know more, I invite you to check the instructions on my GitHub or my YouTube tutorials (in French, sorry). I’ve specifically made a video explaining how to add a filament.
To answer your question about the 4 colors, the program will work with the number of colors you provide.
But it’s certain that the more colors the program has access to, the better it can generate and reproduce all the colors in your image.
Also, I can’t guarantee that the algorithm will be able to reproduce an image with only 4 colors. The “classic” CMYK pack can simulate many colors, but unfortunately not all.
For example, it’s not possible to achieve beige (skin color), black, or even mixed pale colors.
So, if your image has only vibrant colors, it will work.
If your image has only pale colors, it will work (just use a pale CMY, like ice blue, sakura pink, and pale yellow, for example).
However, if your image has a very diverse color range, the CMY will be limited.
The advantage of working with 7 or 8 colors (or more) is that the program can generate a sufficient range of colors to reproduce almost all shades.
But 4 colors can be sufficient; you just need to find the right images.
Moreover, it’s another advantage of my program. You’re not necessarily restricted to thinking in CMY : if you want gray, you can simply use gray filament. The same goes for beige and brown if you want colors close to skin tones. Same for Black.
For example, this lithophane is printed in 3 colors (white, black, silver), not following a CMY logic.
Lastly, know that my program also has an option to print in 7 colors with just one AMS. It’s not perfect, and it won’t be as good as printing in 7 colors with 2 AMS, but it has its merits.
Sorry for this lengthy message
Thank you for your detailed response. I really love making lithophanes and will try your program as soon as I clear some other projects.
Merci Beaucoup!
“As a workaround, can I put the 3mf file in a zip to avoid cloud-side slicing? (I will try this.)”
It is no need to put 3mf in a zip, just put the 3mf file to the Raw Model Files filed should bypass the cloud slicing. However, in this way, the 3mf file will not be considered as a Print Profile of the model, so users cannot print it on Bambu Handy App.
Since MakerWorld’s policies and requirements may change, it’s best to check directly with them for the most accurate and up-to-date information. If you are unable to find information on their website, try reaching out to their customer support or community forums for assistance.
Ive tried to send a ticket, do they respond?
