correct...I use -0.3 to reduce elephant foot issue on burn in layers of models printed directly on the platform
If you use -0.3 (negative) for reducing - I`m wrong
Positive value makes object smaller and negative - bigger?
Is there a different way to get the Beta?
It does show in blue on the dashboard that there is a newer version available but since there is no internal updater
in linux using wget is all I know how to do.
I'll be updating to latest beta ASAP....
Thanks so much for this feature and all the other good work.
]]>There is a natural desire to separate things into layers like machine, material, and model again nano does this as do most FDM slicers.
Then there is some realization that some parameters need to be in multiple categories so we move to overlays and over rides.
This starts okay but soon blooms into something that is confusing.
I have no super great answer however my take is that instead of overriding things from different layers what we really need is a way
for things to interact with other configuration parameters.....in some sort of a hierarchical way with the final print on the top and maybe the physical machine at the bottom.
So some prints need specific features enabled or adjusted to work the best...that needs to be set at the top print level where the need is known but it should be derived from
features set at lower levels....lower levels allow and set limits and defaults the upper levels can adjust within the limits.
Take as a simple case the burn in erode....the need for this arises from a choice the person printing has made...but the capability and to some degree the level of erosion is determined by
the material and that is affected by other choices about normal cure times and base layer count and cure time parameters.
I don't want this reply to turn into a design study but it seems like using a mechanism where things propagate up and set limits which are then presented to the layer above and eventually the user (and an advanced vs regular v novice user level switch to further filter what options show) would be a reasonable way to go....since slicing is really the last step before a print starts and it is impacted by changes made at any level in the hierarchy then it really can't be done until the very last step....
What I keep coming back to is that everything is variable and can potentially change for each print.....there are some universal settings true, but often much is dictated by the model or the user...to get the perfect print.
Obviously we can set every parameter every time for every print.... but also we can't have pre-built profiles for every situation (this is where nano falls down I think)...so we need some sort of tree that allows only as much control as the user desires to be accessible from the top of the interface, but plenty of flexibility as you move down the tree and then a mechanism for saving a full or partial set of configurations that is locked to the print job but can be used for other similar jobs.
So that was maybe more than two cents worth....and I want to again say THANKS for all the work that is done by the nanoDLP developer(s) it makes the life and prints made by makers and hobbyists and even pros much better.
]]>And to answer the question....I assume erosion has to be done in the resin profile as it affects the slices....I think ideally it would be in the add plate like the new Z offsetting as it would be used only
for models that sit directly on the plate...I think.
I agree a calculation box is probably overkill.......
I'd have to try it a bit but my own experiments make me think a box in the burnin section that was called 'Erode Burin Layers' and just had a mm or maybe pixel count would suffice.
My experience, which is limited I know, tells me that dynamic burnin and even dynamic cure is really not all that useful....for me controlling peel has been more critical...I print mostly engineering parts where I need a flat top and bottom surface which is why eroding burnin layers is important.
I don't think most will need to dynamically adjust burnin times as the whole point is usually to cure solidly...
Once you do a test with a fixed burnin cure and 'ideal' layer cure you should
have a pretty good idea of how much spread you get on the burnin layers and how much needs to be eroded.
I would add an option to the normal layer erode to have it start at a specific layer as eroding burnin or support layers is probably not wanted anyway.
It could maybe just be forced that normal erode does not include burnin layers but a start layer offers a bit more flexibility.
Question might be what happens if the two erodes overlap...do you get double erosion or what....I think burnin erode starts at layer one and ends at last burnin layer that is it...it serves a specific purpose.
Normal erode starts at a given layer and overides burnin erode if they overlap.
Looking forward to all new features, big and small whenever they are ready....:)
]]>Getting ready to do some on the bed prints and would love to use / test any feature that might reduce my need to post process or hand tweak things.
I haven't tired it yet but was thinking I could slice with with and without erosion then swap out the burn in layers to create a hybrid image set,
to see how well something like this could work with a simple erode burnin layers setting...part of the trick is to find how much erosion I need for a spefic resin and burn in / vs normal cure times.