Hi Marcin,
That was meant to be a positive comment, not a negative, after understanding the number of layers has actually increased.
no worries, I’ve just quoted you as you’ve posted useful information.
As far as I can see, no one gave solid reason to restore it. Z-Suite now generates more top layers than you were able to put manually before, pillowing effect is gone. I'm trying to meet you half way but you are not helping at all - all I can see that you've got missing option. You've got now more top layers, which means better quality, stiffness, infill is not visible. Why would you like to lower amount of top layer for example?
As far as I can see it took a while but meanwhile your'e leveled to the companies attitude.
Pillowing is an issue that came up with newer versions and has many possible factors that cause it. Instead of requesting customers to give you evidence about something or explain you why things should not be removed (having consistent printing parameters among several versions is something pro users request from pro products) you better should think about how things developed the last two years. Users go back to 2 year old Z-Suite versions to get better prints.
Back on the topic: I know better than any Z-Employee how many layers I want for bottom or top surfaces for my prints and since this is a plain fact, no Z-Suite version could ever beat this with an automatic setting. Actually one of the main reasons to set lower layer count for surfaces is also speed. Imagine a larger flat surface that is of no importance (not viewable, no strength needed), the automatic mode could add hours(s) of print time for nothing. For this I set a better compromise between a higher infill and less top layers. Actually the situation could be easily cleared by just giving more options like a more granular infill setting and / or infill shapes, but no need to discuss this (I am always able to print what I want to anyway).
Back on the topic: I know better than any Z-Employee how many layers I want for bottom or top surfaces for my prints and since this is a plain fact, no Z-Suite version could ever beat this with an automatic setting. Actually one of the main reasons to set lower layer count for surfaces is also speed. Imagine a larger flat surface that is of no importance (not viewable, no strength needed), the automatic mode could add hours(s) of print time for nothing. For this I set a better compromise between a higher infill and less top layers. Actually the situation could be easily cleared by just giving more options like a more granular infill setting and / or infill shapes, but no need to discuss this (I am always able to print what I want to anyway).
Thats exactly what I wanted to ‘hear’, thanks
Can I get that model (Zcode + stl), please?
Sure: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_T8NBYRQzZWSHFHMGpmU1BJODA
It is visible at zsuite preview also.
and just reminder.. there is still support generation bug. I wonder if you are doing something about it. Why it is not fixed yet? Support worked great before 1.7. Why don't you just restore it from earlier version?
http://forum.zortrax.com/index.php?/topic/2714-z-suite-v17-support-bug/
http://forum.zortrax.com/index.php?/tracker/issue-74-z-suite-adds-support-on-top-of-flat-surfaces/
Sure: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_T8NBYRQzZWSHFHMGpmU1BJODA
It is visible at zsuite preview also.
and just reminder.. there is still support generation bug. I wonder if you are doing something about it. Why it is not fixed yet? Support worked great before 1.7. Why don't you just restore it from earlier version?
http://forum.zortrax.com/index.php?/topic/2714-z-suite-v17-support-bug/
http://forum.zortrax.com/index.php?/tracker/issue-74-z-suite-adds-support-on-top-of-flat-surfaces/
Oh, I didnt realize its HENIO :) Already got it from my co-workers. I'll take a look at it but it seems thats a bug, indeed.
As for additional support, it has been fixed:
Oh, I didnt realize its HENIO :) Already got it from my co-workers. I'll take a look at it but it seems thats a bug, indeed.
As for additional support, it has been fixed:
If support has been fixed can you tell me why it still generates it wrong like on a picture? In previous versions at same 3d model was ok.
3905
Second question. After All These opinions in this thread will there be a hot fix for the top layers available again?
If support has been fixed can you tell me why it still generates it wrong like on a picture? In previous versions at same 3d model was ok.
Try turning off Smart Bridge
Try turning off Smart Bridge
Ok, but don't think it should be ok with smart bridge too? These holes are identical so why on one hole there is support and there isn't at second?
Smart bridge eliminates support on horizontal hole which dosn't need it. Also I'm sure that at more complex geometry there are bugs like this too.
Ok, but don't think it should be ok with smart bridge too? These holes are identical so why on one hole there is support and there isn't at second?
Smart bridge eliminates support on horizontal hole which dosn't need it. Also I'm sure that at more complex geometry there are bugs like this too.
Smart Bridges has a limit of ~8mm dia. Both c'bores are ~8mm. This puts the c'bores on the 'edge' of Smart Bridge
If you scale the part to 90%, both c'bores are now less than 8mm, smart bridges works for both.
If you scale the part to 110%, the c'bores are now over 8mm, smart bridges turns off.
Smart Bridges has a limit of ~8mm dia. Both c'bores are ~8mm. This puts the c'bores on the 'edge' of Smart Bridge
If you scale the part to 90%, both c'bores are now less than 8mm, smart bridges works for both.
If you scale the part to 110%, the c'bores are now over 8mm, smart bridges turns off.
Still it's a bug because it prints round ring in the air (red color on picture) before it make a bridge. So it shouldn't make bridges for holes like these even if Smart Bridges are on for other parts of the model.
3910
