Nabble has removed Mailing-list integration.
Posts created here DO NOT GET SENT TO THE MAILING LIST.
Mailing-list emails DO NOT GET POSTED TO THE FORUM.
So basically the Forum is now out of date, we are looking into migrating the history.
Never too old to learn - the last two evenings I've been getting an 86
year old guy started in openscad - over the phone. That's fun for him, juggling the phone, keyboard and trying to squint at the difference 'twixt })]. Anyway, hopefully we can find a better font than the default. Now, your chopped off tube. I redid it, the way i would do it, and the stl is fine. In the default slicer I use (superslicer) changing the layer height, and the nozzle size, reduced the artefacts. Also tilt it over so slant is more horizontal may help, but it'll then need supports. As Adrianv mentioned, the error is at the sharp edge, the bottom of the hole at the slanting top face. Tilting the model changes the path of the filament, but then you can get changes at the top outside edge, high point of tube. Depending what the final purpose of the item is, then you could print it with a few more solid top layers and sand it off. There are also a number of different slicers, that may handle this differently, but as you are an ex programmer, then you could edit the resulting G-code - it is not that complicated, just a bit tedious. It depends if the juice is worth the squeeze. 😁 On 16/01/2021 22:29, lleblanc wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks to all for the many answers. > > I'm with version 2019.05 and quite new to OpenSCAD, but as a (retired, if > one ever retires from that) programmer, I enjoy the code-like approach of > this design tool. > > I didn't know about the F5/F6 commands, I always use the Render button, that > corresponds to F6. > > My friend printed my STL and notes a small imperfection at the base of the > bevel (photo) - perhaps starting the cube left of the cylinder would help, > as was suggested. It was easier to start right at the cylinder edge since I > readily know what the intercept height should be without further > computation. > > Mirrycle.jpg <http://forum.openscad.org/file/t3095/Mirrycle.jpg> > > > > -- > Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org _______________________________________________ OpenSCAD mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org |
I put the model as posted here in PrusaSlicer and the slicing looks fine,
with no problems anywhere around the hole. Sounds like PrusaSlicer and superslicer should be pretty similar, so it seems strange that you get a different result. Here's how it slices with 0.2mm layer height: <http://forum.openscad.org/file/t2477/slice.png> mondo wrote > Never too old to learn - the last two evenings I've been getting an 86 > year old guy started in openscad - over the phone. That's fun for him, > juggling the phone, keyboard and trying to squint at the difference > 'twixt })]. Anyway, hopefully we can find a better font than the default. > > Now, your chopped off tube. I redid it, the way i would do it, and the > stl is fine. In the default slicer I use (superslicer) changing the > layer height, and the nozzle size, reduced the artefacts. Also tilt it > over so slant is more horizontal may help, but it'll then need supports. > > As Adrianv mentioned, the error is at the sharp edge, the bottom of the > hole at the slanting top face. Tilting the model changes the path of the > filament, but then you can get changes at the top outside edge, high > point of tube. > > Depending what the final purpose of the item is, then you could print it > with a few more solid top layers and sand it off. There are also a > number of different slicers, that may handle this differently, but as > you are an ex programmer, then you could edit the resulting G-code - it > is not that complicated, just a bit tedious. It depends if the juice is > worth the squeeze. 😁 > > > > > On 16/01/2021 22:29, lleblanc wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Thanks to all for the many answers. >> >> I'm with version 2019.05 and quite new to OpenSCAD, but as a (retired, if >> one ever retires from that) programmer, I enjoy the code-like approach of >> this design tool. >> >> I didn't know about the F5/F6 commands, I always use the Render button, >> that >> corresponds to F6. >> >> My friend printed my STL and notes a small imperfection at the base of >> the >> bevel (photo) - perhaps starting the cube left of the cylinder would >> help, >> as was suggested. It was easier to start right at the cylinder edge since >> I >> readily know what the intercept height should be without further >> computation. >> >> Mirrycle.jpg <http://forum.openscad.org/file/t3095/Mirrycle.jpg> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenSCAD mailing list >> > Discuss@.openscad >> http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org > > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > Discuss@.openscad > http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org -- Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/ _______________________________________________ OpenSCAD mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org |
In reply to this post by lleblanc
prusa and super are different forks of the same slic3r, afaik. They
leapfrog over each other wrt features, etc. I have just tried it in cura, it slices perfectly, apparently. However, there are reasons for differences, the slicer simply going up through the model in 0.2mm increments, say. But, first layer heights can be different, so it will hit features at different layers/part layers, and settings can be made to vary layer heights throughout the print. There are numerous adjustments that can /need be made, depending on what needs to be printed, and material being used. Slicers have different strengths and weaknesses, and in this case, the object looks as if it will print better sliced in cura, cf superslicer, in my case, without changing any print parameters. But, fundamentally, the stl file is good enough. I'm fairly certain, that if the op tried a different slicer and/or settings, he'd get better prints. fwiw, I've just had an auto-update reminder for superslicer, and it goes to prusa slicer update, so I guess you've just had an update too. On 17/01/2021 13:37, adrianv wrote: I put the model as posted here in PrusaSlicer and the slicing looks fine, with no problems anywhere around the hole. Sounds like PrusaSlicer and superslicer should be pretty similar, so it seems strange that you get a different result. Here's how it slices with 0.2mm layer height: <http://forum.openscad.org/file/t2477/slice.png> mondo wrote > Never too old to learn - the last two evenings I've been getting an 86 > year old guy started in openscad - over the phone. That's fun for him, > juggling the phone, keyboard and trying to squint at the difference > 'twixt })]. Anyway, hopefully we can find a better font than the default. > > Now, your chopped off tube. I redid it, the way i would do it, and the > stl is fine. In the default slicer I use (superslicer) changing the > layer height, and the nozzle size, reduced the artefacts. Also tilt it > over so slant is more horizontal may help, but it'll then need supports. > > As Adrianv mentioned, the error is at the sharp edge, the bottom of the > hole at the slanting top face. Tilting the model changes the path of the > filament, but then you can get changes at the top outside edge, high > point of tube. > > Depending what the final purpose of the item is, then you could print it > with a few more solid top layers and sand it off. There are also a > number of different slicers, that may handle this differently, but as > you are an ex programmer, then you could edit the resulting G-code - it > is not that complicated, just a bit tedious. It depends if the juice is > worth the squeeze. 😁 > > > > > On 16/01/2021 22:29, lleblanc wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Thanks to all for the many answers. >> >> I'm with version 2019.05 and quite new to OpenSCAD, but as a (retired, if >> one ever retires from that) programmer, I enjoy the code-like approach of >> this design tool. >> >> I didn't know about the F5/F6 commands, I always use the Render button, >> that >> corresponds to F6. >> >> My friend printed my STL and notes a small imperfection at the base of >> the >> bevel (photo) - perhaps starting the cube left of the cylinder would >> help, >> as was suggested. It was easier to start right at the cylinder edge since >> I >> readily know what the intercept height should be without further >> computation. >> >> Mirrycle.jpg <http://forum.openscad.org/file/t3095/Mirrycle.jpg> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenSCAD mailing list >> > Discuss@.openscad >> http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > Discuss@.openscad > http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org _______________________________________________ OpenSCAD mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org |
In reply to this post by adrianv
Watch out for "thin extrusion" / "single extrusion" / "thin walls"
settings. Playing in PrusaSlicer, I definitely get a difference at
that point in the model based on whether or not "Detect thin walls"
is checked. (To my surprise, I like the results better when it is
*not* checked.)
_______________________________________________ OpenSCAD mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org |
In reply to this post by adrianv
Convexity is to tell the renderer how 'deep' it has to look when
determining which faces are 'inside' and 'outside'. OpenCSG does some smart things by ignoring faces depending on the CSG
operation and whether the face is in or out. If it doesn't look deep enough it will either drop faces or show some
which shouldn't be there. Take this bearing with threaded holes, cut to see the insides: If you look from the right you have 8 transitions. If you look from above the threaded holes, 'lots' as you drill through
the threads. Nophead, this is the one with self-intersections and degenerate faces that had preview performance problems. My conjecture is the algorithm used to determine the surface gets confused with such faults, causing
it to do more processing. This is from a description of Goldfeather: "There are important constraints on surfaces used
for parity test- ing. Parity logic depends on no surface being interior
or exterior to the volume it represents. Also, all boundaries of the
volume should be covered by surface. This means that the surface
should be closed, and should not contain any holes caused by an
incomplete descrip- tion, such as missing polygons. Additionally, the
surface must not self-intersect, forming folds or loops." Link. The 'new' algorithm described (which I think OpenCSG non-goldfeather is
using) is more complex, with more opportunity for issues with bad geometry. > -----Original Message----- > From: Discuss [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of adrianv > Sent: Sun, 17 Jan 2021 08:25 > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [OpenSCAD] Bevelling a cylinder creates a void > > With lower convexity some bits are missing...but the missing bits aren't > "pixels" they are larger regions. I don't think any conclusion can be drawn > about how many pixels are drawn. It seems more like differing computations > are done to determine what to draw, and with lower convexity the result is > that the wrong stuff is drawn. > > > nophead wrote > > No idea but with a lower convexity some bits are missing, so I assume > > filling them in involves more drawing and that is why it is slower. > > > > On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 20:25, adrianv < > > > avm4@ > > > > wrote: > > > >> Why would higher convexity cause it to draw more pixels? Where would > >> these > >> extra pixels come from? > >> > >> > >> nophead wrote > >> > Presumably it has to draw more pixels. > >> > > >> > On Sat, 16 Jan 2021 at 18:59, jon < > >> > >> > jon@ > >> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Excellent experiment! Thank you! > >> >> > >> >> I wonder why it gets jerky if the preview time is always the same > >> >> > >> >> On 1/16/2021 1:55 PM, adrianv wrote: > >> >> > I did a little experimentation using the beveled cylinder as a test > >> >> case. It > >> >> > appears to display correctly with convexity 2 but wrong with > >> convexity > >> >> 1. I > >> >> > don't notice any difference in performance with convexity 1 vs > >> >> convexity > >> >> 10. > >> >> > With convexity 100 it's still hard to identify a difference. Maybe > >> a > >> >> very > >> >> > slight degradation? With convexity 1000 the model rotates jerkily > >> and > >> >> it is > >> >> > hard to control. > >> >> > > >> >> > I increased complexity by making a 10x10 array of beveled cylinders, > >> so > >> >> 100 > >> >> > objects. In this case a difference is very clear. With convexity 1 > >> it > >> >> > rotates very responsively (with incorrect display). With 2 it is > >> also > >> >> > responsive. With 10 there is a very noticeable lag with jerky > >> >> > rotation---it's hard to rotate the model. With 100 it's unusable. > >> >> > > >> >> > Note that the time to produce the preview is the same regardless of > >> the > >> >> > convexity value. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> OpenSCAD mailing list > >> >> > >> > >> > Discuss@.openscad > >> > >> >> http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org > >> >> > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > OpenSCAD mailing list > >> > >> > Discuss@.openscad > >> > >> > http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OpenSCAD mailing list > >> > > > Discuss@.openscad > > >> http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenSCAD mailing list > > > Discuss@.openscad > > > http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org > > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org _______________________________________________ OpenSCAD mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org |
In reply to this post by lleblanc
> when I do that, the top of the cylinder disappears into a (green) hole
To wrap this up. Disable View/Show-edges. > -----Original Message----- > From: Discuss [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Luc Le Blanc > Sent: Sun, 17 Jan 2021 03:35 > To: [hidden email] > Subject: [OpenSCAD] Bevelling a cylinder creates a void > > I'm trying to bevel a drilled cylinder, but I when I do that, the top > of the cylinder disappears into a (green) hole. I attached a > screenshot. The 3D printer-owning friend I sent my STL to says there's > a strange gap at the top. > > $fn=100; > > difference() > { > difference() > { > cylinder(h=39, d=13.69); > > // bevel > translate([-6.845,-15,18]) > { > rotate(a=[0,-56.89,0]) > { > cube(30); > } > } > } > > // bolt hole > cylinder(h=39, d=4); > } > > Of course, if I remove the bevel, the top of the cylinder is normal (yellow). > > Is this a bug? Is there a better way to bevel a cylinder? > > > -- > Luc Le Blanc -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com _______________________________________________ OpenSCAD mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org |
Leaving out the detail, but coming more from a 3 axis machining
perspective, my approach would be different. The first thing to do
would be to drill the hole right through the centre of the
cylinder. The drill would start from outside the cylinder (cutting
air) and go past the far end of the cylinder. A few reasons for
that- most drills have a pointed end, and even if using a slot
drill, or boring bar/whatever, if the depth of the drilling is
exactly the same as to the end of the material, is there going to
be a thin web at the bottom, or not? The same reason that an exact
diameter pin will not fit into an exact diameter hole, unless
there is some external influence. In order to get the exact bevel,
with a perfect finish, then the piece would be set at an angle,
and would be milled flat. There would most likely be hand
finishing/polishing whatever required. There are slight problems
to be solved in that approach concerned with holding the cylinder
at the correct angle. If the top surface is not level, (by more than one layer height) then the Hilbert curve top layer will show that. Another aspect, is that unless one spends maybe ten times the price you think that you need to, you generally expect too much from what you've got, unless you can compensate with patience - usual practical problems. ![]() -----Original Message----- From: Discuss [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Luc Le Blanc Sent: Sun, 17 Jan 2021 03:35 To: [hidden email] Subject: [OpenSCAD] Bevelling a cylinder creates a void I'm trying to bevel a drilled cylinder, but I when I do that, the top of the cylinder disappears into a (green) hole. I attached a screenshot. The 3D printer-owning friend I sent my STL to says there's a strange gap at the top. $fn=100; difference() { difference() { cylinder(h=39, d=13.69); // bevel translate([-6.845,-15,18]) { rotate(a=[0,-56.89,0]) { cube(30); } } } // bolt hole cylinder(h=39, d=4); } Of course, if I remove the bevel, the top of the cylinder is normal (yellow). Is this a bug? Is there a better way to bevel a cylinder? -- Luc Le Blanc _______________________________________________ OpenSCAD mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org |
I really don't understand the fuss. This thing prints just fine as-is in the
vertical orientation. I printed it myself just to make sure I wasn't missing something. I cut off the bottom to save material and printed it with layer height 0.2 mm and default PrusaSlicer settings and there is nothing wrong with it. Tipping the model over to make the bevel flat is going to be a disaster with internal supports needed. What am I missing? <http://forum.openscad.org/file/t2477/tube.jpg> -- Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/ _______________________________________________ OpenSCAD mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org |
In reply to this post by nophead
Default convexity 1 for primitives is reasonable but wouldn't it also be
resonable to auto bump that up by at least the depth of tree? It maybe enough by the maximum depths of difference and intersection. Just counting convexity 1 for primitives and then add one more for each difference or intersection. -- Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/ _______________________________________________ OpenSCAD mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |