Page 2 of 2

[FEATURE][IM-3.3.0]Ironing

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:14 am
by carver0510
Title: Ironing
Description: Cura offers and Feature called "Ironing". It smoothen the top layer and makes cubic or flat prints look much better. (Like seen in this Video https://youtu.be/CzW45MphcK4)
Version: 3.3.0
Operation System: MAC OSX
Reason: Due to you are making printers also for printshops or companie, which offers their prints to customers, it would bring a big effort for them, because the parts look much cleaner and so the customer will come back and order again. And when there are many prints, the companies - maybe - will buy another machine ;)

Re: Software Report Format

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2019 12:04 am
by Vicky@Raise3D
Thanks for your suggestion. Will add this idea into developing list.

Re: Software Report Format

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:35 am
by fischer99
[FEATURE][IM-3.3.0] Keep Nozzle Inside Model (with Options)

Feature Request:
Title: Keep Nozzle Inside Model
Description: When printing certain models it is preferable to keep the nozzle withing the already printed area. The current features and combinations thereof do not appear to force this behavior.

When enabled, the nozzle would remain withing the boundary of the already printed model.
Options related to this feature would:
1. On (Whole Model) ** nozzle stays within the model boundary for the duration of the print job**
2. On (No Top/Bottom) **nozzle stays withing the model boundary, except for outer skin surfaces where it may travel outside and z-hop to avoid travel lines and scarring**
3. OFF

Version: [3.3.0.2343]
Operation System: [Win10]
Reason:
For example, when printing curved lithophanes with a fixed seam location, it is preferable to keep the nozzle within the printed surface to improve image quality and eliminate stringing while the nozzle moves to back the starting position of the next layer.

Another example is when printing PETG, keeping the nozzle within the already printed area also reduces blobs and zits on outer surfaces since the they would be more likely to be deposited inside the print rather than on an outer surface.

Re: Software Report Format

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:50 pm
by Vicky@Raise3D
fischer99 wrote:[FEATURE][IM-3.3.0] Keep Nozzle Inside Model (with Options)

Feature Request:
Title: Keep Nozzle Inside Model
Description: When printing certain models it is preferable to keep the nozzle withing the already printed area. The current features and combinations thereof do not appear to force this behavior.

When enabled, the nozzle would remain withing the boundary of the already printed model.
Options related to this feature would:
1. On (Whole Model) ** nozzle stays within the model boundary for the duration of the print job**
2. On (No Top/Bottom) **nozzle stays withing the model boundary, except for outer skin surfaces where it may travel outside and z-hop to avoid travel lines and scarring**
3. OFF

Version: [3.3.0.2343]
Operation System: [Win10]
Reason:
For example, when printing curved lithophanes with a fixed seam location, it is preferable to keep the nozzle within the printed surface to improve image quality and eliminate stringing while the nozzle moves to back the starting position of the next layer.

Another example is when printing PETG, keeping the nozzle within the already printed area also reduces blobs and zits on outer surfaces since the they would be more likely to be deposited inside the print rather than on an outer surface.


It may not be the same option, but we have an option called Avoid Travel Through Holes. Does it meet you needs or it still have a lot difference compared to what you are looking for?

Re: Software Report Format

Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2019 4:18 pm
by fischer99
It still has quite a bit of difference. i've tested with that option checked and unchecked.

thanks

Re: Software Report Format

Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:19 pm
by Vicky@Raise3D
Would you like to advise the main difference between this option and your needs?
Thanks for your patience.

Re: Software Report Format

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:21 am
by fischer99
Vicky@Raise3D wrote:Would you like to advise the main difference between this option and your needs?
Thanks for your patience.


I've added pics as examples. I have the "Avoid Traveling through Holes" option checked on both prints. You can see that the nozzle travels in a straight line to the next point. On prints like this there is a high potential for scarring of the outer surface and blobbing of material where the nozzle crosses an outer perimeter. Keeping the nozzle inside the already the printed surface reduces blemishes on cosmetic surfaces.

Thanks or your consideration.

Marc

Re: Software Report Format

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:12 am
by Vicky@Raise3D
fischer99 wrote:
Vicky@Raise3D wrote:Would you like to advise the main difference between this option and your needs?
Thanks for your patience.


I've added pics as examples. I have the "Avoid Traveling through Holes" option checked on both prints. You can see that the nozzle travels in a straight line to the next point. On prints like this there is a high potential for scarring of the outer surface and blobbing of material where the nozzle crosses an outer perimeter. Keeping the nozzle inside the already the printed surface reduces blemishes on cosmetic surfaces.

Thanks or your consideration.

Marc


Thanks for your explanation. We will consider how to improve this in future versions.

Re: Software Report Format

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:14 pm
by fischer99
Title: Z-hop only at solid parts does not work on all top surfaces of a model
Description: When z-hop only on solid parts is enabled the expectation is that the bottom and any top surfaces z-hop will be enabled. I have found that if a model has multiple top surfaces (like a staircase), z-hop will not be performed on all top surfaces. I have included pics of a model with basically 2 top surfaces at different levels. This shape is similar to a wrist watch where the top of the band is a "top surface" and the "face" of the watch is also a top surface. I found with this particular model that z-hop only at top surfaces will occur on the "watchband" area, but not the "watch face" area.
Version: 3.3.0.2343
Language: English
Operation System: Win10
GPU: Intel HD Graphics 520
32bit or 64bit: 64
Screen Resolution: 1920x1080
How to trigger the bug: Load any model with multiple top surfaces at difference heights, enable "z-hop only at solid parts"
Expected Result: All top/bottom surfaces should be affected by "Z-hop only at solid parts" when enabled.
Real Result: Only the first top surface encountered has the feature applied
Attachment: gcode, data, & images are attached.

Re: Software Report Format

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:46 am
by Vicky@Raise3D
Thanks for your report! Will forward to software team.
We will fix it in future versions.

[BUG][IM-3.3.0] Vertical Offset Down Layers not Working

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:54 am
by carver0510
Title: Vertical Offset Down Layers not Working
Description: When using Support Type "Normal", I can't use vertical Offset Downlayers. There are always 0 Layers between the "Down Surface" and the Support Structure. When using Support Type "Pillar" it is working as it should.
Version: 3.3.0
Language: English
Operation System: MAC OSX / Windows
GPU: different
32bit or 64bit: 64bit

Support_Bug.jpg

Re: [BUG][IM-3.3.0] Vertical Offset Down Layers not Working

Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:33 am
by Vicky@Raise3D
carver0510 wrote:Title: Vertical Offset Down Layers not Working
Description: When using Support Type "Normal", I can't use vertical Offset Downlayers. There are always 0 Layers between the "Down Surface" and the Support Structure. When using Support Type "Pillar" it is working as it should.
Version: 3.3.0
Language: English
Operation System: MAC OSX / Windows
GPU: different
32bit or 64bit: 64bit

Support_Bug.jpg


Would you like to share use the STL, Gcode and Data files which can show the issue you meet?

Re: Software Report Format

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:05 pm
by DeX
To improve the efficiency of collecting software problem, maybe you better should add a Report or Feedback ability into IM? =)

Re: Software Report Format

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 9:29 pm
by Vicky@Raise3D
DeX wrote:To improve the efficiency of collecting software problem, maybe you better should add a Report or Feedback ability into IM? =)


We do have left an entrance under Help in ideaMaker linking with our support system. Please feel free to reach to our technicians about your thoughts of ideaMaker. They will update all the feedbacks to developing team to discuss.