It’s Friday afternoon and you have to get a print finished by Monday morning. At some point with your larger parts it may make sense to move to a different 3D printing technology.Curiosity is getting the better of me here… If you created the file in CAD, how is it you can’t export another Imagine you are me. It would be nice if there were other options. I agree with you on the complicated lattice. In this area I often use a Dremel rotary sanding tool to flatten the wavy areas and then go through a manual sanding process to make it look nice (320 grit dry, 320 grit wet, etc.) followed by finishing with a coat of mineral oil then wiping it clean. The underside of the part that meets the supports tends to build up resin by the supports and can be somewhat uneven (slightly wavy). For working prototypes, we use old standard tough resin (we have a bunch left over), but I’ve found it needs a lot of post processing. I’ve found that parts generally come out better in the black resin and require less post-processing, but the plastic is of course too brittle for working prototypes. We take the approach of first printing in standard black resin and performing preliminary tests with that part, then we move to the tough resin. You can avoid this by manually cutting the shorter supports or supports on delicate portions of part prior to using the bandsaw. Conversely, when they are an inch or less, the force of the moving bandsaw blade often breaks them off the part, but this can pit the part surface. I have found (while cutting off the raft) that when the supports are an inch or more in length, they generally stay in place on the part and have to be manually removed (but this is now much quicker and easier without the raft). You can cut off the raft and then work through other areas of the supports. I agree on the post processing and support removal, its really a chore that I dislike as well, but the power bandsaw makes it somewhat easier. I lower the density and then manually reposition or add supports where I think they look empty. I reduce both the density and point size prior to printing. It works great for parts off the Form 3, but parts from the Form 3L may require a larger model where the part can fit into the band cutting area. There may be no better solution, but I thought I give it one more try by being more explicit.Īny bright ideas, other than “don’t do that”? Thanks in advance. All my time is going to be spent in either removing supports in the print, or playing with alternatives. I’m never going to get the production I need. With 48 hour printing times, the trial and error of manual placement isn’t practical, since I’m only making a few of each model. I’ve been looking at the suggested alternative software, but they make support generation into a career. Slope and density and touch point size are at a minimum It would be ideal if I could simplify part of the lattice, eliminating some cross linking, leaving out the cross bracing (in part). But the choice is either too few touchpoints, or a lattice that is so dense it becomes a solid. The autogenerate in Preform prints successfully, and is quick (sort of) to generate the supports. Not all get one, and this works, but there are still a bazillion points, which generate a highly complex lattice underneath. To try and be clear, I need a lot of touch points, since the model is a bird with feathers, and each tip wants a touch point. Meaning a hack saw, metal shears, and needle nose pliers sort of a chore. This makes removing the structure a chore. The problem I face is that the underlying structure becomes too dense when I apply the right number of touchpoints. I’ve had success by cranking down the density, slope and touchpoint size to the minimum.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |