Design for Printability: Use Slicer or custom designed support geometry?

What slicer support settings, or custom designed support geometry do you use for low floating features (e.g. 1.2mm above bed)?

Ideally I’d design and print in a way that avoids Supports being needed. I respect how all of Ryan’s parts manage this.

But, what to do though if Supports are needed for reasons, and you want to minimize post print cleanup time, while maximizing print reliability/quality?

Have been using Slicer’s regular organic tree support, but that doesn’t work well for low floating features, so, especially for shared models, am leaning towards including intentionally designed features to mitigate risk of someone’s slicer generating bad support structure.

For example, and what sparked this rathole, I recently made a cover plate with bed adhered perimeters, but with boss and other features floating 1.2mm above the printer bed. Post print cleanup seemed to take longer than it should have, it didn’t need to be pretty, just needed enough clearance for mating parts. So, one edit was to increase tolerance so sloppy clean up of support structure didn’t overly interfere with final assembly.

Default grid based support in Orca 2.3.1 looks ok, but narrow width for rib neck (top layer) would be nice…

Cura 5.11 (fwiw is notably better than 5.9 but still) creates an elaborate lattice with nice initial layer brim, but, the overall lattice doesn’t support inner walls as well as OrcaSlicer’s strategy…

Recently stumbled onto neat Without a Trace: 3D Printed Supports That Remove Like Magic tips for designing intentional support of overhanging with sprues (?) to balance print time support, material, time and finish quality. But, didn’t stumble on to similar tips for pure horizontal overhangs. Obviously, I’ll find something as soon as this post is sent…

1 Like

Honestly before you overthink it I’d try a a couple of prints using the default slicer support generation- they’re much better than they used to be.

2 Likes

:slightly_smiling_face: too late… And, I agree… am currently installing (ugly inside, but) good enough to use 2nd test part printed yesterday (Cura). Cleanup took long enough that I started getting curious about better options. Trying Orca for next print/design.

That design will work quite well with a manual material change- basically print solid blocks of say PETG then print in PLA just check the tool path gap. But Iagree with the standard slicer comments.

1 Like

4 Likes

I would love it if you would try the old sharpie trick!

4 Likes

that is awesome, especially the machine being able to do the “painting”

me being OLD and used typewriters, what about, Liquid eraser, or do they call it makeup fluid now?

1 Like

Another reason everyone should have a Prusa XL in their spare bedroom! :wink:

3 Likes

I need to make a bunch more money before I can afford a prusa!

I have 2 enders yet!

Or a Core One L!

1 Like

Well yes, but not until there are some “print with fluid” tool heads!

1 Like

One could just about imagine a sharpie holder in the form factor of an INDX tool…

2 Likes

Compact INDX hopper/piezo style ink/glue/resin extruders would be neat.

1 Like

Ended up making a fusion 360 add-in to generate “snake” support…

Still tweaking (e.g outer line segments should land slightly inset under “floating face” outer skins, curves should extend past “floating face” skins, etc…).

Am sharing progress incase someone’s seen, done or is interested in design time break away support?

Started creating out of curiousity, and as an opportunity to learn more about automating geometry tasks. Was supposed to be a short time boxed effort… but ego won’t let me stop until a reasonable ‘done’ milestone is achieved.:man_facepalming: That said, I’ll gladly stop if this has been done already by someone?

4 Likes

Stick-to-it-ness. Watching with considerable interest.