A variable length chamfer will have edges that may be set to different distances from the original edge, allowing you to create a chamfer at a variable angle.See the first pinned post here for instructions on subscribing to the mailing list. A constant length chamfer will create a chamfer with edges equidistant to the original edge at the distance specified. OpenSCAD support is now provided by the Mailing List.Constant length chamfer or variable length chamfer.Selecting by face will select all bordering edges of that face. When selecting edges on the model, you have the option to select by edge or by face.Press OK to close the chamfer dialog and apply the chamfer.Select edges to chamfer by checking the corresponding box in the chamfer dialog or by selecting them on the model directly.Select the shape to chamfer from the dialog.There are several ways to invoke the command:.A dialog allows you to choose which edge(s) to work on as well as modify various chamfer parameters. Not a huge deal, but it’ll rattle more.Chamfers the selected edge(s) of an object. That should just make the top taller, which would work but might not help if the plugs aren’t fully in the plug cutouts. Very end of the cube creation body of the top section, change the 24 to… 25 or 26 I guess: // Body of the topĬube(+usr_var*2+usr_var*2, (ec+usr_var*2+usr_var)*num_cards+usr_var, usr_var+24]) If it’d be too bulky, as an alternative, you can change a specific value in the math. It’ll make the whole thing larger, but it’ll be more likely to succeed. You probably know that, so more for anyone that doesn’t who happens to be reading. Note, I’m calling it “walls” in quotes because it’s the same word Cura uses, but I’m using it a bit differently. Just changing the 2 to another number will make all the “walls” of the object larger, which might work around Cura’s … I’m gonna say obstinance because that feels appropriate. src KRL robot trajectory no Robot ExportKukaCompact, Robot ExportKukaFull. So, instead, if you already have OpenSCAD, you can just play with the wall variable, the 2 here: usr_var = [Ġ.5, // gap, Adjust to make the cards tighter or looser smf Simple model format Std Import: Std Export, Mesh Export. Even if it’d just be for that one print, it could require a lot fiddling about. I don’t like telling people to change their slicers, I bet you have Cura dialed in and switching to PrusaSlicer could be a real hassle just for one print. I know Cura is quirky, but it generally should be better than that… wonder if it’s a bug in the 4.8 version? That’s strange, because the slicer should be focusing on generating accurate dimensions and forgoing the strict “do this many thing”, in this case thing being solid top/bottom layers. It’s been ages since I’ve used Cura so I’m not comfy providing exact “Slic3r says X, Cura says Y” comparisons, but I think in Cura terms that’s 1.35mm walls, 0.8mm bottom, and 1mm tops.Īnyways, I’m guessing this means the bottom ( original) and my top are both ending up with the “walls” of the model being too thick, so the inner dimensions, specifically what is “above” or “below” the expansion card, is smaller than it should be? Which would likely mean, and would be difficult to see, the plug cutouts in the bottom are not fully encompassing the expansion card’s USB C plug? If both the top and bottom are doing that, it’d explain the gap. Ironing enabled on all top surfaces (PrusaSlicer’s finish with ironing is fantastic) Infill: 15% / Gyroid (not much empty space with 3 perimeters, infill percentage won’t really matter much) Luckily I saved a PrusaSlicer project file so I can refer back to my exact settings.Įxtrusion Width: 0.42mm first layer, 0.4mm top solid infill, 0.45mm all else Could be the earlier upload isn’t right but my browser is caching it as my updated version or something.Īnyways, check the Z height of the original file in your slicer, measure your print if you can, and if they are not within the Z accuracy of your printer you may have something wrong, else check the updated version below and let me know.Īaahh, good ol’ Cura silliness. I wonder if your slicer is configured incorrectly or your printer is not dimensionally accurate in the Z axis? I can’t imagine how it could be so far misconfigured or inaccurate, it’s clearly a large gap that I can’t explain otherwise, but it’s the only explanation I can think of assuming there isn’t some error else where, such as on my side. The reason I’m suggesting this is it does look like the STL I uploaded is the same I printed, and mine is very accurate. I used my digital calibers to check the one I printed (photo below) and it also shows as 26mm. Same as the re-rendered version attached here. However, before trying it, to maybe save you some time, I did redownload my earlier version, and checked the Z height in PrusaSlicer again. It seems to me that the issue is that Mankowski is a general and very slow algorithm, and perhaps there is a fillet algorithm that could be computationally simpler and faster. I’ve re-rendered it and I’m attaching a new copy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |