Live data from Hacker News

Non conventional 3D Print challenges (GCode)

fullcontrol.xyz

11–20 of 28 posts

Re: Non conventional 3D Print challenges (GCode)

#11
post #3

Usually you try to avoid overhangs but this experiments makes you realize of the true limits of the 3d printer. I'm gonna try the Pin Support Challenge next weekend. https://www.instagram.com/p/CjVvw5xjt2o/

PLA gets so much stronger when annealed. Would it be within the spirit of the challenge to print this upside-down so that it can support the sphere, but only after annealing? Or you could anneal the pillar with a small heater as you print it.

If you’re actively heating the chamber to anneal the plastic why not just print in PETG or polycarbonate?

Re: Non conventional 3D Print challenges (GCode)

#12
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PLA gets so much stronger when annealed. Would it be within the spirit of the challenge to print this upside-down so that it can support the sphere, but only after annealing? Or you could anneal the pillar with a small heater as you print it.

Oh my God I didn't even realize this was a thing. Thank you and there goes my evening! :-)

Just note that it will also shrink the print.

Re: Non conventional 3D Print challenges (GCode)

#13
please read and understand any third-party gcode before running it on any machine, anywhere.

While I understand the need for it in this case, there are a lot of good reasons why the slicer/cam suite is supposed to be intimately meshed with the machine and environment itself.

Re: Non conventional 3D Print challenges (GCode)

#14
post #9
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So does it allow you to do things that slicers wouldn't do? Or use tricks that slicers wouldn't use? Like inline assembly is used in programming? I am confused about how this helps with printing those parts shown on the website.

Yes and no. Several of these could probably be done with a proper model and "vase mode" in a normal slicer. However, others are simply not possible in a normal slicer because slicers limit you to planar layers and moves. So for example the pin-support challenge cannot be done in a slicer because they would try to slice the pillar into many individual layers with retractions and moves instead of continuously extruding…

> not possible in a normal slicer because slicers limit you to planar layers and moves

That might change, I saw this about 'conical slicing' recently:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=1i-1TEdByZY

Re: Non conventional 3D Print challenges (GCode)

#15
post #6
post #5

So what's FullControl? Modeling software? Control/driver software? I'm not very versed in 3D printing and I can't really understand their "about" text.

It's a bunch of Visual Basic behind an Excel spreadsheet, that helps you generate gcode directly, rather than via CAD/slicers. That gives a level of control that is awful and wonderful. There are a bunch of youtube short videos with demonstrations. I'm interested in printing small parts containers very fast ... just open topped boxes ... and am looking forward to trying this with big nozzles.

That sounds horrific.

Re: Non conventional 3D Print challenges (GCode)

#16
Main benefit with this approach of G-code generation is the control over every vector of your G-code. With conventional slicers you are left with planar cross-sections of the 3D mesh and can't control the extrusion path itself. With fullcontroll.xyz you can edit every point and its properties like speed, extrusion values or non-planar coords.

I've been developing a similar add-on for Blender called nozzleboss. https://github.com/Heinz-Loepmeier/nozzleboss It lets you use Blenders modeling tools to create toolpaths directly and export to G-code. It has an importer as well, that lets you edit existing G-code with Blender, e.g. using sculpt tools to deform G-code paths. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoM8-Xdh9w8

Using Blender is nice here, because you have access to so much modeling tools already and don't need to code to generate G-code (though you could, Blenders python api or geometry nodes is very well suited for that). The add-on uses vertex colors to store meta information on every segment of the G-code, so you can paint on extrusion/speed multipliers or color itself very intuitively. (Different colors in FDM printing are usually done by segmentation of the mesh into different parts, which can be difficult. Though PrusaSlicer introduced multi-material painting recently, so if you are interested check that out.)

Re: Non conventional 3D Print challenges (GCode)

#18
post #17

No Prusa mini support. I hope it will be added soon since this way of printing could be very convenient for certain parts of a model.

My understanding is that the gcode files on there right now are just samples. They are working on a Python tool that will let you generate any gcode (for any machine).

Re: Non conventional 3D Print challenges (GCode)

#19
post #6
post #5

So what's FullControl? Modeling software? Control/driver software? I'm not very versed in 3D printing and I can't really understand their "about" text.

It's a bunch of Visual Basic behind an Excel spreadsheet, that helps you generate gcode directly, rather than via CAD/slicers. That gives a level of control that is awful and wonderful. There are a bunch of youtube short videos with demonstrations. I'm interested in printing small parts containers very fast ... just open topped boxes ... and am looking forward to trying this with big nozzles.

> It's a bunch of Visual Basic behind an Excel spreadsheet

While true for the original FullControl, I've understood they are currently working on a new version in Python, and presumably that is what was used to generate the gcode that's on the website right now.

Re: Non conventional 3D Print challenges (GCode)

#20
post #3

Usually you try to avoid overhangs but this experiments makes you realize of the true limits of the 3d printer. I'm gonna try the Pin Support Challenge next weekend. https://www.instagram.com/p/CjVvw5xjt2o/

PLA gets so much stronger when annealed. Would it be within the spirit of the challenge to print this upside-down so that it can support the sphere, but only after annealing? Or you could anneal the pillar with a small heater as you print it.

The bonds between layers get stronger when annealed. I don't think it will make much difference in this case since there are no layers in the pin.
Post reply on HN