I'm convinced this guy is putting out all these videos on how to design and setup up models properly is so that his customers who use his print on demand services stop sending garbage prints to his company. lol
@bg4779 that is 100% correct. He even said it at some point, and in all fairness I think it is brilliant: helps the community, helps his company, and build a followage.
@@alexandermaverick9474 in my opinion the problem is that he often frames them as general truths for 3d printing.... His tips are often very specific to the use case of "print on demand" and actually make worse parts for one off purpose engineered parts
@TheScarvig there's also always a plug for the etsy plug-in. So I think it's trying to generate traffic to use their plug-in instead of making things yourself, and generating then business
@@TheScarvig these videos aren't billed as generally applicable to all 3d printing... They are billed as DFM targeted at additive manufacturing. All of this is about how to optimize parts for printing when you (the designer) will not have control over the slicer or the printer.
This makes sense for anyone using a Priting Service, as is the intention of this video. If that's not your case, learn your tools and how to do optimise your process. If you're not printing for someone else, there is no reason for you not to use your slicer settings.
There's virtually no loss in learning how to have your parts come out the most reliably independently from the slicer. Because afterwards if you need to use slicer settings for anything else you still have a more reliable part. And more margin for error. It still applies at home, you don't want to waste half a spool on avoidable mistakes.
@@orthotron I have to somewhat disagree. Slicers change when they update. Orca introduced a new version at one point and it broke my profiles in my farm and every part started failing. It added features not previously there and the defaults for those features were negatively affecting the outcomes. It also defaulted all my profiles to classic walls instead of arachne. It was quite a pain to have to go in and check and readjust every setting, for 2 different style printers, and half a dozen profiles.
Glue isn't always enough, slicer generated brims are generally just fine unless you are doing mass production. Also even mouse ears are sometimes put where they aren't needed. I just printed a few dozen rings using a modeled mouse ear and it worked great and there was no extra ears to pull off. It snipped off very easy.
@@spoon1272 sure. Me too. But the guys are often talking about manufacturing 3dp parts or designing for mass manufacturing those parts specifically with them. It took me some time too but there are really valuable information bits hidden here for home use too!
@@TheOfficialOriginalChadI mean, I'm pretty sure print settings matter the most. I just tune flow and the brim-object gap, then my brims come off easy.
@@TheOfficialOriginalChad I'm just saying that I haven't had a problem with brims produced from my slicer and I have printed off lots of different things.
The actual problem i've had with brims is the brim not being strongly enough connected. So anyway i use pads in the corners that could lift off, so they extend the lines off the part, like this method.
Yet another helpful video, thank you! Am interested in more tips about snap fit, hinges, and other compliant designs if you have any insights? I find myself testing and throwing away so many versions to get the subtle feel and clicks just right, very time consuming!
Never miss your videos, would love to see the follow up. Your discussion of engineered supports in a different video got me thinking. I recently released a video where I made an engineered brim and I used pull off tabs as the contact point to the part. Basically I engineered not just the brim but the engagement interface not unlike break off tabs used with CNC cutting machines. I also put a "pull tab" on the edge to make it easy to remove the brim from the build plate. I was thinking that a "pull off feature" could allow brims to be reliably ejected with your auto eject system. I'd be really interested to get your feedback on the technique as you see more prints every day than I do in a week. I look forward to your next video.
If I need a brim, I just add mouse ears. Orcaslicer does them and they are pretty good but still have the general attributes discussed at the start. If I'm designing the part I'll add them on if I feel the part will need them. In Orcaslicer they are an add on and a separate part of the first layer. But they work. Putting a chamfer can be really beneficial but not always easy with someone elses model.
Full bottom layer brim should print perfect, but looks like a pain to remove cleanly. Wouldnt want to remove one of these, why anyone would want to remove ten thousand??
I’ve never had any issues with slicer brims 🤷🏻♂️ Using Bambu Studio and quite often use brims on PETG and ABS parts especially if the part has little bed contact surface. What I’ve noticed is that the part of the brim that is right at the meeting point with the part (so, basically the outline of your actual part, where the brim starts) is thinner than the rest of the brim. I don’t even need to use a tool to remove that brim anymore, it pulls right off cleanly when the part cooled off. There is no reason to spend any extra amount of time to add brims in the design stage, when the automatically generated brims work flawlessly 🤔
with some prints and some filaments i use "THE WAFER" which is basically a one-layer all buildplate circle. on one hand its ~10grams of filament. on the other hand its consistently no warping.
What your talking about is basically a mix of a raft and a brim both you dont want and would then say to engineer out all points and isn't possible in a lot of cases
generated brims are easier to remove than modeled ones, cura better than prusa for one offs they are more than good enough but it makes sense to train people for mass production using your service have you published your default slicer setup somewhere?
I literally just modeled my own mouse ears and they were 3 times easier and less time consuming to remove. And I use Orca. I was also printing several dozen of the same part. The issue with slicer ears is that you don't have control over where they are generated. Not enough control at least. If orca allowed you to paint the part where you want brims that would be better but still not as consistent and predictable as cad drawn ears.
@@phasesecuritytechnology6573 IDK about any of the slic3r variations like prusa or bambu but, for me the cura brims don't even need a tool to remove they pull off clean by just pulling them off. You might be able to use mesh modifiers on the sections you want brim if you only want it on a certain section.
I appreciate the variety of options shown in this video. I'm curious about the rules for Slant's auto-eject. Chamfering is important for that? Is there a guideline for total surface area?
I don't know their guidelines but I have successfully ejected 250x140 footprint flat(~20 mm) parts printing PETG on a textured plate on an unmodified bedslinger. The biggest hurdle was shaking the part off the bed and outside the printer. The key was to wait until the bed cooled down far enough.
@@tymoteuszkazubski2755 no powder on the textured plate? My textured PEI is fine, comes off like PLA if i do it manually, but I'm pretty sure PETG has more than double the binding strenght of PLA (at least with no powder), and my belts were skipping even with pla that had too much contact surface area (waited until 29C° and 25°C)
@@tymoteuszkazubski2755 You're talking about your personal experience with popping prints off your plate, right? I believe Slant's printers have plow blade to push prints off the plate at the end of printing, for mass production. I'm looking for guidelines for that. There is this video about minimizing the bottom surface area, but there must be some surface area threshold for when it matters. th-cam.com/video/SZwXREFoWKA/w-d-xo.html
I've been using your sprues idea for quite a while, though I've been avoiding Mouse ears since you hadn't really mentioned them in that video; guess I'll be using those now as well
First of all GREAT and Helpful Vid! So I guess to add primitives in a slicer to add this brims on a manual way should also do the trick or? I mean i can add cylinder to my objects and so on. Of course this is not that handy as when you do it directly on CAD but at least you can do a some "babysteps" in the right direction in the slicer itself. Especially when you only have stl files
I found out on my ender 3 neo, using whatever brim width but brim gap 0,4 works perfectly (outer brim only). Yeah sometimes one side needs a little bit of work but basically a one minute job maximum.
Tune your brim offset settings in the slicer to hold the part but peel off without marring the part. Not all slicers are terrible. Some even have mous-ears included. Your techniques are valid, and engineered CAD for printing is a good design process, but saying that slicer brims are outright trash is just misinformation.
Maker's Muse has a lot of cool tips on this... They did a video where they designed a 3D Printer into a fallout 4 box of some kind. But they had the problem, in their design, of needing a screw hole, but not at the bed level, instead of was higher up... And you can't print the screw hole perimeter in mid air... So he put a solid layer right below the hole that is the exact layer height thickness he was printing at. And then it's just a regular bridge, and the screw hole and other features are built up from that. You could basically hand push the screw through at lower layer heights, and at heigher ones, just use a drill. Going from memory but I think that's right. He also did a weird tear drop shape on the screw holes for vertically printed surfaces to keep the profile of the circle "true", and in the correct position.
These modeled mouse ears are going to be handy when printing ASA. I just tried some and it didn't work perfectly but I have a feeling I just didn't do it right. I made a spru that stretched out 2 or 3 mm before the circle and the circle was therefore separate in a way from the part itself. What I got was warping at the edge of the part, the spru lifted as well but the disc at the end of the spru stayed put and was basically tethering the part down lol.
Can you add a gape between the part and the brim the same way has support ? Next time i made a part i gonna try this. Usually use default brim because got a deburr tool and it's magic.
@@roysigurdkarlsbakk3842 It performs the same function as what he wants, he basically wants a brim with a raft toolpath. -- Which you can get with just a raft. Since it's a throwaway bit of plastic anyway, who cares what the shape is? Functionally, it's a raft.
I really think this is poor long term advice, both for the community and your specific business. It might be needed for your business in the short term, but long term this will cause problems. The root of your advice, and it’s long term problem is: you’re adding tooling into your part schematic without distinguishing between the part and the tooling. There are a bunch of drawbacks there: 1. It makes assemblies more complicated in CAD. 2. You either can’t tune for a machine, or once you do it’s a different part and needs a revision for the next machine. And if that’s years and a different designer later… do they know what’s the actual part vs what’s tooling? 3. As you’re finding: it is difficult for your manufacturer to know what they can change (or need to post-process) vs what is an important feature (or in general, what is the design intent of various features) 4. That means automated processes (such as those found in slicers) can’t be applied, and manual processes may need additional back and forth with the designer to be applied. Put simply: this doesn’t scale well for large numbers of parts or machines, especially diverse machines. I agree this should be in CAD, but it needs to be distinct from the part. This allows the final contracted product to be clearly specified. Tooling to be manually suggested by the designer (including by machine!). And overrides, automated pre-processing, and other specialized processes to be introduced by the manufacturer. Conceptually I agree that a slicer should just generate gcode and have minimal custom configuration (speeds and feeds), but I’m not close enough to that code to know if there are micro-optimizations this would leave on the table. The ideal flow for me would be: design the part with manufacturability and a specific process in mind, properly set the tolerances, apply the material settings, then enter CAM mode, click auto-generate supports using a default profile, edit as needed, create a derived machine profile if needed, edit supports, export in a format that can differentiate between part and supports, send to slant, you inspect, optionally edit, slice, and print. Post process, check tolerances, ship. You have a problem with slicers. My problem is CAD is so far behind what slicers are providing.
Part modification and management can be easily solved by use of fabrication files or feature groups that aren't a part of the model displayed in the assembly. PS Slicers should offer significantly more control over the slicing process than they do now especially in terms of locally modifying print settings.
You could export two STLs also... That are supposed to be put at the same X/Y/Z position in your slicer as the model. That way you get the flexibility of multimaterial (i.e. soluble supports, bc that can work well with automation... or even be easier for end users to self process... or even if it's all PLA, you can have a key with the model that says "remove the white bits, leave the gray" or something.)
You guys should come up with a small symbol, that is easy to print even on a horizontal surface, that means remove this part. Mouse ears might be a little small to put the word "remove" on. Maybe a circle with a line through it, think ghostbusters.
You're literally describing Rafts. A common alternative to brims which exist for this exact reason. Usually you can make them peel away though to avoid post processing.
what I always run into is extruding any surface up into a pre existing body in fusion, it cuts out material from the body instead of creating that extra piece.
I've been doing this in slicer for years. Just create a cylinder shrink it to .2 tall and the required diameter. Position it and merge. You don't need a CAD program for this. Haven't tried to make a ring that way, but its probably doable. Edit: Only use this method if your printing it yourself. Don't send an unprepared part to somebody else for printing.
Instead a specific thickness for max brim thickness, you really should say no bigger than your layer height. For example: I tend to print as high as .64 with a .8 nozzle, and I could go double the max you suggested and still be only one layer.
Yeah didn't really get that part either. With good settings they come off super easily without any weird corners but still kep the part locked to the bed real tight.
@@kimmotoivanen yes I understand that, but that's not my question, which is why is one more difficult and time consuming than the other when they both need to be done manually.
It's backwards imo. Slicer brims are easy to peel off, and often times don't require tools to post process (if your printer is tuned and your slicer settings are well calibrated). I think the issue they have is that because they run a farm, they can't calibrate the slicer for any one machine, but it has to be generally calibrated for all of their machines (this is a software issue that can be improved imo). The result is that they cannot reliably print brims, and so they have to do more time consuming work trying to post process and "save" failed prints. Like if you do 1 minute of extra filling on an otherwise "failed" 5 hr prints... That time adds up, but it's still cheaper than reprinting. For them printing with a slicer brim is probably more work bc 1. They have to evaluate if the print succeeded, failed completely, or is it somewhere in the middle... 2. Still have to remove the brim (likely with tools either way), and 3. scrape off any extra failings from the brim being stuck to the part higher up or do any other by-hand labor involved in "fixing" the savable prints. For them, eliminating steps 1 and 3 to make prints more reliable on their machines and require less decision making making and post processing per part, does involve less work. For the rest of us... Just tune your damn settings and use the features as intended. (Disclaimer: I have no insider knowledge, and no relation to slant; this is just my hypothesis based on intuition.)
This is not entirely true. There are many things that can be done in slicer that can't be done in cad or are easier in slicer than cad. Slightly changing the gap between the final line and the part for example to make it separate easier. For sending the part to a print service with standard settings your points are valid.
I have started using this already, but I have a part that only has a small circle that sits on the bed and have struggled get it both removable and will hold the part to the bed.
Or just tune your printers... So that brims print correctly... Like, just bc you run a farm doesn't mean the gcode on each machine has to be interchangeable. Save the print project and build your farm software to slice on demand for the machine it prints from (cache it for that machine obviously). But then you can actually tune your printers to make them more reliable...
If I may suggest. Think you should just dive into the good stuff and do your exposition during and not at the front. You’re playing to a captured audience already. If we’re here we already want to know.
I think it has more to do with the way youtube works now, thumbnails and stuff. Ive seen other content creators change like this not because they want too but they have to to capture new audience.
No, thanks. I'll keep using Prusa Slicer's brim on every single print. No way I'll bother designing this when it gets generated automatically. I print on a mirror, without any adhesion product and il does the job perfectly fine to avoid edges lift. It just breaks off or is easily cutted off with a scalpel.
Yeah as with many slant3D videos, it's partly an ad for their services and partly a vid to make their work easier. I think for the 3D printing community as a whole those features would be really annoying. Why add them in CAD when you can add them in the slicer, both automatically or manually. It's mostly for his print on demand service.
So, this video kinda fails to acknowledge that a slicer generates instructions for the 3D printer that cannot be expressed by geometry alone. This means that there are details like brim distance, where you can tune the brim to be say 68-70% of your nozzle diameter, which you cannot do with geometry itself. At least not with full control and knowledge of the resulting g-code for the brim interface. And, with these things considered. I fail to see how this is anything other than just bad advice. "If you're printing a million". Like, is this a flex, or... At that point, this is not a good manufacturing process anyways.
I am looking for an on demand print farm and tried your website. It is awful. Others have all relevant information directly available but on your site I am only seeing random animations and confusing layout and site structures.
@@slant3d All sites. Also the main slant3d page. It is obvious that the webdesigner has little to no knowledge of marketing and webdesign either. The pages are not build for you instead for your target group. All the animations and gimmicks pull the attention away from your content. I cant remember much of your site like I do from your competitors. You should consult a expert in marketing instead of cheap webdesigners or doing it yourself.
Been printing for more than six years by now. Rafts are 100% better than brims in terms of reliability. Especially when working with highly shrinking materials. Rafts basically create an extremely adhesive surface under the model. On the other hand, using advanced approach and hardware is also beneficial. I use a CoreXY setup run by Klipper, which allows for using a virtual bed mesh, thus significantly removing warps and the need for brims. 3D printing has evolved a lot for the past few years actually. Today most issues of printing are properly adressed by companies, especially those who not only produce, but print themselves
Rafts are litterally putting your entire print on support material. This comes with all the downsides of support material like post processing separation issues and bad looking interface layers. Rafts were a bodged solution to bed leveling and adhesion issues of early printers. Modern printers with heated beds,adhesion coatings ,proper flat beds and even mesh bed leveling do better without rafts
I'm convinced this guy is putting out all these videos on how to design and setup up models properly is so that his customers who use his print on demand services stop sending garbage prints to his company. lol
@bg4779 that is 100% correct. He even said it at some point, and in all fairness I think it is brilliant: helps the community, helps his company, and build a followage.
@@alexandermaverick9474 in my opinion the problem is that he often frames them as general truths for 3d printing....
His tips are often very specific to the use case of "print on demand" and actually make worse parts for one off purpose engineered parts
@TheScarvig there's also always a plug for the etsy plug-in. So I think it's trying to generate traffic to use their plug-in instead of making things yourself, and generating then business
@@TheScarvig these videos aren't billed as generally applicable to all 3d printing... They are billed as DFM targeted at additive manufacturing. All of this is about how to optimize parts for printing when you (the designer) will not have control over the slicer or the printer.
Thier videos are just ads disguised as tutorials
I'm 10 year into 3D printing but I feel like a novice all over again. You rock!
Thanks for watching
This makes sense for anyone using a Priting Service, as is the intention of this video.
If that's not your case, learn your tools and how to do optimise your process. If you're not printing for someone else, there is no reason for you not to use your slicer settings.
You can learn two tools ok (CAD and slicer). Or 1 tool well. (CAD)
better to learn CAD than tinkering with the slicer. slicer can change when you change printers, CAD knowledge works for all printers.
@@xiggywiggsslicer doesn't change when you change printers. All major slicers work with both Marlin and Klipper
There's virtually no loss in learning how to have your parts come out the most reliably independently from the slicer.
Because afterwards if you need to use slicer settings for anything else you still have a more reliable part. And more margin for error. It still applies at home, you don't want to waste half a spool on avoidable mistakes.
@@orthotron I have to somewhat disagree. Slicers change when they update. Orca introduced a new version at one point and it broke my profiles in my farm and every part started failing. It added features not previously there and the defaults for those features were negatively affecting the outcomes. It also defaulted all my profiles to classic walls instead of arachne. It was quite a pain to have to go in and check and readjust every setting, for 2 different style printers, and half a dozen profiles.
This is what the brim distance setting is for.
Glue isn't always enough, slicer generated brims are generally just fine unless you are doing mass production. Also even mouse ears are sometimes put where they aren't needed. I just printed a few dozen rings using a modeled mouse ear and it worked great and there was no extra ears to pull off. It snipped off very easy.
As always, usefull tips and information. Thanks for sharing.
Glad it was helpful!
Love all these tip videos!
Great video man! Thanks!
Very helpful videos, learning something new and useful every time and it makes you think differently when approaching your new design.
I use Orca Slicer and their brims come of really easy.
@@spoon1272 sure. Me too. But the guys are often talking about manufacturing 3dp parts or designing for mass manufacturing those parts specifically with them. It took me some time too but there are really valuable information bits hidden here for home use too!
It depends on the part and how many you’re doing.
@@TheOfficialOriginalChadI mean, I'm pretty sure print settings matter the most. I just tune flow and the brim-object gap, then my brims come off easy.
@@TheOfficialOriginalChad I'm just saying that I haven't had a problem with brims produced from my slicer and I have printed off lots of different things.
The actual problem i've had with brims is the brim not being strongly enough connected.
So anyway i use pads in the corners that could lift off, so they extend the lines off the part, like this method.
thats the info and thinking I can REALLY appreciate. Ta muchly
Yet another helpful video, thank you! Am interested in more tips about snap fit, hinges, and other compliant designs if you have any insights? I find myself testing and throwing away so many versions to get the subtle feel and clicks just right, very time consuming!
I want the follow up to that!!! 🧑🔬
Love this channel, he's definitely one of the best on TH-cam.
Practical explications on techniques i never thought i needed to know. Thank you.
Never miss your videos, would love to see the follow up. Your discussion of engineered supports in a different video got me thinking. I recently released a video where I made an engineered brim and I used pull off tabs as the contact point to the part. Basically I engineered not just the brim but the engagement interface not unlike break off tabs used with CNC cutting machines. I also put a "pull tab" on the edge to make it easy to remove the brim from the build plate. I was thinking that a "pull off feature" could allow brims to be reliably ejected with your auto eject system. I'd be really interested to get your feedback on the technique as you see more prints every day than I do in a week. I look forward to your next video.
Multi layer brims can work great, if they are mouse ears with mouse bites making them easy to snap off.
If I need a brim, I just add mouse ears. Orcaslicer does them and they are pretty good but still have the general attributes discussed at the start. If I'm designing the part I'll add them on if I feel the part will need them. In Orcaslicer they are an add on and a separate part of the first layer. But they work. Putting a chamfer can be really beneficial but not always easy with someone elses model.
Awesome video! Very useful.
Full bottom layer brim should print perfect, but looks like a pain to remove cleanly. Wouldnt want to remove one of these, why anyone would want to remove ten thousand??
I’ve never had any issues with slicer brims 🤷🏻♂️
Using Bambu Studio and quite often use brims on PETG and ABS parts especially if the part has little bed contact surface. What I’ve noticed is that the part of the brim that is right at the meeting point with the part (so, basically the outline of your actual part, where the brim starts) is thinner than the rest of the brim. I don’t even need to use a tool to remove that brim anymore, it pulls right off cleanly when the part cooled off.
There is no reason to spend any extra amount of time to add brims in the design stage, when the automatically generated brims work flawlessly 🤔
with some prints and some filaments i use "THE WAFER" which is basically a one-layer all buildplate circle. on one hand its ~10grams of filament. on the other hand its consistently no warping.
Great tip for certain designs. I still need to learn how to use CAD 😁
enjoyed the video. made a few notes. would be interested in seeing more advanced brim shapes. great video thanks
Great video; super helpful.
Im interested in the multi thickness brim. Not thought of it before.
Can be accomplished more efficiently with a "raft", and/or "supports".
I usually just use a raft. On a larger scale, it’s not great because it uses a good bit of material, but they’re easy to remove and reliable.
What your talking about is basically a mix of a raft and a brim both you dont want and would then say to engineer out all points and isn't possible in a lot of cases
Did you watch the whole video?
@phasesecuritytechnology6573 ya is it not what he basically explained closer to the end?
generated brims are easier to remove than modeled ones, cura better than prusa
for one offs they are more than good enough
but it makes sense to train people for mass production using your service
have you published your default slicer setup somewhere?
I literally just modeled my own mouse ears and they were 3 times easier and less time consuming to remove. And I use Orca. I was also printing several dozen of the same part. The issue with slicer ears is that you don't have control over where they are generated. Not enough control at least. If orca allowed you to paint the part where you want brims that would be better but still not as consistent and predictable as cad drawn ears.
2024
Cura
pick one
@@phasesecuritytechnology6573 IDK about any of the slic3r variations like prusa or bambu but, for me the cura brims don't even need a tool to remove they pull off clean by just pulling them off. You might be able to use mesh modifiers on the sections you want brim if you only want it on a certain section.
I appreciate the variety of options shown in this video.
I'm curious about the rules for Slant's auto-eject. Chamfering is important for that? Is there a guideline for total surface area?
I don't know their guidelines but I have successfully ejected 250x140 footprint flat(~20 mm) parts printing PETG on a textured plate on an unmodified bedslinger. The biggest hurdle was shaking the part off the bed and outside the printer.
The key was to wait until the bed cooled down far enough.
@@tymoteuszkazubski2755 no powder on the textured plate? My textured PEI is fine, comes off like PLA if i do it manually, but I'm pretty sure PETG has more than double the binding strenght of PLA (at least with no powder), and my belts were skipping even with pla that had too much contact surface area (waited until 29C° and 25°C)
@@tymoteuszkazubski2755 You're talking about your personal experience with popping prints off your plate, right? I believe Slant's printers have plow blade to push prints off the plate at the end of printing, for mass production. I'm looking for guidelines for that.
There is this video about minimizing the bottom surface area, but there must be some surface area threshold for when it matters.
th-cam.com/video/SZwXREFoWKA/w-d-xo.html
I've been using your sprues idea for quite a while, though I've been avoiding Mouse ears since you hadn't really mentioned them in that video; guess I'll be using those now as well
you don't have to add mouse ears manually if you use orca slicer.
There are even Cura Plug-Ins for mouse ears...i thought every slicer had them. Currently using orca too.
First of all GREAT and Helpful Vid!
So I guess to add primitives in a slicer to add this brims on a manual way should also do the trick or?
I mean i can add cylinder to my objects and so on. Of course this is not that handy as when you do it directly on CAD but at least you can do a some "babysteps" in the right direction in the slicer itself. Especially when you only have stl files
I found out on my ender 3 neo, using whatever brim width but brim gap 0,4 works perfectly (outer brim only). Yeah sometimes one side needs a little bit of work but basically a one minute job maximum.
Tune your brim offset settings in the slicer to hold the part but peel off without marring the part. Not all slicers are terrible. Some even have mous-ears included. Your techniques are valid, and engineered CAD for printing is a good design process, but saying that slicer brims are outright trash is just misinformation.
How do you handle through holes, such as for screws or pins?
Maker's Muse has a lot of cool tips on this... They did a video where they designed a 3D Printer into a fallout 4 box of some kind. But they had the problem, in their design, of needing a screw hole, but not at the bed level, instead of was higher up... And you can't print the screw hole perimeter in mid air... So he put a solid layer right below the hole that is the exact layer height thickness he was printing at. And then it's just a regular bridge, and the screw hole and other features are built up from that. You could basically hand push the screw through at lower layer heights, and at heigher ones, just use a drill. Going from memory but I think that's right. He also did a weird tear drop shape on the screw holes for vertically printed surfaces to keep the profile of the circle "true", and in the correct position.
These modeled mouse ears are going to be handy when printing ASA. I just tried some and it didn't work perfectly but I have a feeling I just didn't do it right. I made a spru that stretched out 2 or 3 mm before the circle and the circle was therefore separate in a way from the part itself. What I got was warping at the edge of the part, the spru lifted as well but the disc at the end of the spru stayed put and was basically tethering the part down lol.
Can you add a gape between the part and the brim the same way has support ? Next time i made a part i gonna try this. Usually use default brim because got a deburr tool and it's magic.
Thanks! Give it a few weeks, and someone will add this to the modern slicers :)
It's already there. It's called a raft. 😅
@@BrainSlugs83 No, that's something completely different
@@roysigurdkarlsbakk3842 It performs the same function as what he wants, he basically wants a brim with a raft toolpath. -- Which you can get with just a raft. Since it's a throwaway bit of plastic anyway, who cares what the shape is? Functionally, it's a raft.
I really think this is poor long term advice, both for the community and your specific business. It might be needed for your business in the short term, but long term this will cause problems.
The root of your advice, and it’s long term problem is: you’re adding tooling into your part schematic without distinguishing between the part and the tooling.
There are a bunch of drawbacks there:
1. It makes assemblies more complicated in CAD.
2. You either can’t tune for a machine, or once you do it’s a different part and needs a revision for the next machine. And if that’s years and a different designer later… do they know what’s the actual part vs what’s tooling?
3. As you’re finding: it is difficult for your manufacturer to know what they can change (or need to post-process) vs what is an important feature (or in general, what is the design intent of various features)
4. That means automated processes (such as those found in slicers) can’t be applied, and manual processes may need additional back and forth with the designer to be applied.
Put simply: this doesn’t scale well for large numbers of parts or machines, especially diverse machines.
I agree this should be in CAD, but it needs to be distinct from the part. This allows the final contracted product to be clearly specified. Tooling to be manually suggested by the designer (including by machine!). And overrides, automated pre-processing, and other specialized processes to be introduced by the manufacturer.
Conceptually I agree that a slicer should just generate gcode and have minimal custom configuration (speeds and feeds), but I’m not close enough to that code to know if there are micro-optimizations this would leave on the table.
The ideal flow for me would be: design the part with manufacturability and a specific process in mind, properly set the tolerances, apply the material settings, then enter CAM mode, click auto-generate supports using a default profile, edit as needed, create a derived machine profile if needed, edit supports, export in a format that can differentiate between part and supports, send to slant, you inspect, optionally edit, slice, and print. Post process, check tolerances, ship.
You have a problem with slicers. My problem is CAD is so far behind what slicers are providing.
Part modification and management can be easily solved by use of fabrication files or feature groups that aren't a part of the model displayed in the assembly.
PS Slicers should offer significantly more control over the slicing process than they do now especially in terms of locally modifying print settings.
You could export two STLs also... That are supposed to be put at the same X/Y/Z position in your slicer as the model. That way you get the flexibility of multimaterial (i.e. soluble supports, bc that can work well with automation... or even be easier for end users to self process... or even if it's all PLA, you can have a key with the model that says "remove the white bits, leave the gray" or something.)
You guys should come up with a small symbol, that is easy to print even on a horizontal surface, that means remove this part. Mouse ears might be a little small to put the word "remove" on. Maybe a circle with a line through it, think ghostbusters.
🎵 Something strange, in your slicer settings...
Who you gonna call?
Ghost Busters!
I ain't afraid of no ghost(ing)! 🎵
👻👻👻
You're literally describing Rafts. A common alternative to brims which exist for this exact reason. Usually you can make them peel away though to avoid post processing.
Of course we're not all using CAD software but other modeling programs would work too.
what I always run into is extruding any surface up into a pre existing body in fusion, it cuts out material from the body instead of creating that extra piece.
I've been doing this in slicer for years. Just create a cylinder shrink it to .2 tall and the required diameter. Position it and merge. You don't need a CAD program for this. Haven't tried to make a ring that way, but its probably doable. Edit: Only use this method if your printing it yourself. Don't send an unprepared part to somebody else for printing.
Instead a specific thickness for max brim thickness, you really should say no bigger than your layer height.
For example: I tend to print as high as .64 with a .8 nozzle, and I could go double the max you suggested and still be only one layer.
Thanks to you I barely change slicer settings lol
How is a slicer brim REALLY difficult and time consuming to remove but a CAD brim not? Don’t both still need to be removed manually?
Yeah didn't really get that part either. With good settings they come off super easily without any weird corners but still kep the part locked to the bed real tight.
You have full control *where* it is. Try to print some flexi thing - with tens of joints - with slicer brim 😉
@@kimmotoivanen yes I understand that, but that's not my question, which is why is one more difficult and time consuming than the other when they both need to be done manually.
It's backwards imo. Slicer brims are easy to peel off, and often times don't require tools to post process (if your printer is tuned and your slicer settings are well calibrated).
I think the issue they have is that because they run a farm, they can't calibrate the slicer for any one machine, but it has to be generally calibrated for all of their machines (this is a software issue that can be improved imo).
The result is that they cannot reliably print brims, and so they have to do more time consuming work trying to post process and "save" failed prints. Like if you do 1 minute of extra filling on an otherwise "failed" 5 hr prints... That time adds up, but it's still cheaper than reprinting.
For them printing with a slicer brim is probably more work bc 1. They have to evaluate if the print succeeded, failed completely, or is it somewhere in the middle... 2. Still have to remove the brim (likely with tools either way), and 3. scrape off any extra failings from the brim being stuck to the part higher up or do any other by-hand labor involved in "fixing" the savable prints.
For them, eliminating steps 1 and 3 to make prints more reliable on their machines and require less decision making making and post processing per part, does involve less work.
For the rest of us... Just tune your damn settings and use the features as intended.
(Disclaimer: I have no insider knowledge, and no relation to slant; this is just my hypothesis based on intuition.)
The slicer brims are printed differently than CAD brims. His claim is that the tool path for CAF brims is superior.
This is not entirely true. There are many things that can be done in slicer that can't be done in cad or are easier in slicer than cad. Slightly changing the gap between the final line and the part for example to make it separate easier. For sending the part to a print service with standard settings your points are valid.
I have started using this already, but I have a part that only has a small circle that sits on the bed and have struggled get it both removable and will hold the part to the bed.
You really should bugreport slicers if you see a fault. That would benefit everyone.
Or just tune your printers... So that brims print correctly... Like, just bc you run a farm doesn't mean the gcode on each machine has to be interchangeable. Save the print project and build your farm software to slice on demand for the machine it prints from (cache it for that machine obviously). But then you can actually tune your printers to make them more reliable...
I have ideas for 3d printing, but I have no idea how to market them for sale.
At this point I’ll just design every auxiliary supports in CAD😁
That's not a brim, that's a raft.
Extrude down and it’s a raft, extrude up and it’s a brim. I didn’t catch a part where they showed a downward extrusion, but it may be in there 🤷♂️
*insert trump "wrong" gif*
@@SouthernWolff TH-cam should join EVERY OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICE, and allow picture and gif responses already! lol
"That's no brim, that's a raft baby, yeah!"
@@bg4779right!? We can't even put URLs! How are we supposed to rickroll anyone this way???
is this gonna be a 15 minute long video regurgitating how you make a brim and align it in your slicer like the other 2999 videos?
If I may suggest. Think you should just dive into the good stuff and do your exposition during and not at the front.
You’re playing to a captured audience already. If we’re here we already want to know.
I think it has more to do with the way youtube works now, thumbnails and stuff. Ive seen other content creators change like this not because they want too but they have to to capture new audience.
@@radderek007
Maybe a chapter for the intro and a chapter to hop in to it right away.
Superslicer
Follow up please
Follow up Please
No, thanks. I'll keep using Prusa Slicer's brim on every single print.
No way I'll bother designing this when it gets generated automatically.
I print on a mirror, without any adhesion product and il does the job perfectly fine to avoid edges lift. It just breaks off or is easily cutted off with a scalpel.
Yeah as with many slant3D videos, it's partly an ad for their services and partly a vid to make their work easier. I think for the 3D printing community as a whole those features would be really annoying. Why add them in CAD when you can add them in the slicer, both automatically or manually. It's mostly for his print on demand service.
Just mouse ears at shap corners.
I’d be keen to see the follow up please.
If you’re making “a million of these” you should be injection molding, not 3d printing.
9 : 48 for that ?
So, this video kinda fails to acknowledge that a slicer generates instructions for the 3D printer that cannot be expressed by geometry alone.
This means that there are details like brim distance, where you can tune the brim to be say 68-70% of your nozzle diameter, which you cannot do with geometry itself. At least not with full control and knowledge of the resulting g-code for the brim interface.
And, with these things considered. I fail to see how this is anything other than just bad advice. "If you're printing a million". Like, is this a flex, or... At that point, this is not a good manufacturing process anyways.
I am looking for an on demand print farm and tried your website. It is awful. Others have all relevant information directly available but on your site I am only seeing random animations and confusing layout and site structures.
Which site. Shopify or Etsy?
@@slant3d All sites. Also the main slant3d page. It is obvious that the webdesigner has little to no knowledge of marketing and webdesign either. The pages are not build for you instead for your target group. All the animations and gimmicks pull the attention away from your content. I cant remember much of your site like I do from your competitors. You should consult a expert in marketing instead of cheap webdesigners or doing it yourself.
to print without brims, use glue for bed adhesion
Been printing for more than six years by now. Rafts are 100% better than brims in terms of reliability. Especially when working with highly shrinking materials. Rafts basically create an extremely adhesive surface under the model.
On the other hand, using advanced approach and hardware is also beneficial.
I use a CoreXY setup run by Klipper, which allows for using a virtual bed mesh, thus significantly removing warps and the need for brims.
3D printing has evolved a lot for the past few years actually. Today most issues of printing are properly adressed by companies, especially those who not only produce, but print themselves
Rafts are litterally putting your entire print on support material.
This comes with all the downsides of support material like post processing separation issues and bad looking interface layers.
Rafts were a bodged solution to bed leveling and adhesion issues of early printers.
Modern printers with heated beds,adhesion coatings ,proper flat beds and even mesh bed leveling do better without rafts
@@TheScarvig I am not here to prove a point, just sharing some tips from my vast experience
When you know CAD and dont understand Slicer settings.
When you watch a video from *your* point of view and don't understand what it was talking about. There are options 😅
Is the circle a Brim or a Skirt? Is the Skirt a type of BRIM? Sorry and or RAFT.