Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

rsilvers · 2019-01-27 21:59:12

Can you guys please add a horizontal size compensation to the program? It is the one thing that seems missing. You just need to do an erode or dilate on the slices before saving - which you can do with OpenCV or ImageMagik. Between 1 and 3 pixels seems good for any resin I have tried.

This is not the same as scaling because this ring gauge and pin set was printed at the same time, and scaling would make them all grow larger or smaller. What is needed is an erosion.

See these:

Shahin · 2019-01-29 05:34:47

Based on the shared images on simplify, I do not think it is possible to do with simple resizing.
We need modification on slicer itself to expand fill areas only.

rsilvers · 2019-01-29 05:50:26

I know. It has to be an erode / dilate.

https://docs.opencv.org/2.4/doc/tutoria … ation.html

Shahin · 2019-01-29 09:48:52

I have put it in our feature list.

Shahin · 2019-03-29 07:31:32

So it need to be in horizontal 2D plane, right?

elshad66 · 2019-03-31 22:09:04

yes in 2d
This is a very very necessary parameter in jewelry.
I once year ago wrote about this, you answered that you need to re-disign on slicer
because some designers do not take into account polymer shrinkage,
for example, a prong is made 0.5mm, and after printing, the polymer shrinks and the prong is thinner
and I can not redo the design
If you give a scale, then the total size increases
in CW this parameter is called OutlineWidth_Outset(pix)

Last edited by elshad66 (2019-03-31 22:26:36)

qharley · 2019-04-01 05:03:03

I am also looking for this feature. When printing gears using more viscous resins the outer diameter of gears en up slightly large, while the gaps end up too small. It has to do with resin curing outside the exposed area.
While the right solution might be to find the right resin for the job, this feature will allow us to use the resin on hand for the same job.

Shahin · 2019-04-01 06:27:06

I am not sure if it will be useful for jewelry at all. As called functionality only erode piece in x/y axis. For gear case it is OK.

elshad66 · 2019-04-01 09:33:32

Yes, this is a very necessary parameter for jewelers.

Shahin · 2019-04-05 08:10:56

Added to the beta version.

macdarren · 2019-04-05 18:17:32

Thanks for the feature add.....I am going to to try it out ASAP.

I am wondering if something like this would address a feature I asked about some time back.

Namely on the burn-in layers I would like to erode the edges a bit to compensate for over exposure/light bleed.
By adding an erode box that applies only to burn-in section perhaps I could reduce or eliminate elephant foot expansion for models
that are printed directly on the bed (ie not supported.)

I originally envisioned this as something based on the hollowing process by removing perimeter lines....not sure how the erosion mechanism works but it seems like it might be what I need...

I need this as I print most of my models with a flat surface directly on the bed as it is quicker and gives at least one very flat surface to my
functional models.. currently I several labor intensive or error prone methods I use to get what I want.

I can edit plate images by hand, yuck... I can over expose all layers to reduce differences in burn-in versus normal and compensate the model in advance, or under expose the burn-in and risk detachment or post process to remove the elephant foot areas or lastly greatly increase some print times by supporting things and then sometimes end up post processing to get flat surfaces....

Shahin · 2019-04-05 19:16:56

Currently it affects all layers. I got your point and I believe it could be quite useful for users who print directly on platform.

It works based on following paper:
https://mcmains.me.berkeley.edu/pubs/DA … olygon.pdf

elshad66 · 2019-04-05 19:18:59

Thank you very much, you are a genius ))))
everything works fine
if you can add a button to this page ,, Add Plate,,
http://moemesto.ru/elshad666/files
if need to turn on
if do not need to turn off

Last edited by elshad66 (2019-04-05 19:22:18)

Shahin · 2019-04-05 19:41:17

Elshad,

Thanks to suggestions pages filled with lots of options even plate add, and it create barrier for new users. I am against adding new buttons except when it is necessity. I think instead of button two profiles could be used one with erode one without.

elshad66 · 2019-04-05 19:45:25

Yes you are right
I'll do it

macdarren · 2019-04-06 01:19:18

Thanks for considering this....look forward to to a burn-in erode beta....:)

And wanted to say thanks again for all the work you put into NanoDLP and NanoSupport!

Shahin wrote:

Currently it affects all layers. I got your point and I believe it could be quite useful for users who print directly on platform.
It works based on following paper:
https://mcmains.me.berkeley.edu/pubs/DA … olygon.pdf

macdarren · 2019-04-11 19:25:55

Any chance a burn-in erode or similar is coming to the Beta Release soon?

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.

Shahin · 2019-04-11 19:40:03

Development schedule is quite busy and I am in middle of pretty useful/large feature, hopefully we could have it soon.

macdarren · 2019-04-12 15:04:04

Thanks....I can imagine the work it takes to keep up with everything related to nanoDLP and then starting nanoSupport too...

Looking forward to all new features, big and small whenever they are ready....:)

Shahin · 2019-04-19 18:25:41

What is your opinion on having additional option which affect erode on all or support layer only? Or we should have something more advanced, like dynamic erode calculation box which could use layer number and fill area on that layer. I believe the first one is too basic second one is overkill

macdarren · 2019-04-27 05:57:53

pinging this to bring the burnin erode to the top of the heap....

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.

Last edited by macdarren (2019-04-27 06:07:59)

Shahin · 2019-04-27 15:54:26

A good idea. Personally I am not satisfied with how we setup profile. I am sure it could be totally different and friendlier.

macdarren · 2019-04-27 18:28:51

I think there is a general problem with slicers and how the the interfaces are set up.... nano is certainly no worse that others......and probably it would be a major effort to reconfigure which is why it is seldom done.

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.

Shahin · 2019-05-01 05:01:18

Added to the beta version.

macdarren · 2019-05-01 06:18:58

Yes!!!!

I'll be updating to latest beta ASAP....

Thanks so much for this feature and all the other good work.

nanoDLP

#1 2019-01-27 21:59:12

Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#2 2019-01-29 05:34:47

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#3 2019-01-29 05:50:26

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#4 2019-01-29 09:48:52

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#5 2019-03-29 07:31:32

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#6 2019-03-31 22:09:04

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#7 2019-04-01 05:03:03

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#8 2019-04-01 06:27:06

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#9 2019-04-01 09:33:32

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#10 2019-04-05 08:10:56

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#11 2019-04-05 18:17:32

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#12 2019-04-05 19:16:56

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#13 2019-04-05 19:18:59

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#14 2019-04-05 19:41:17

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#15 2019-04-05 19:45:25

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#16 2019-04-06 01:19:18

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#17 2019-04-11 19:25:55

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#18 2019-04-11 19:40:03

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#19 2019-04-12 15:04:04

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#20 2019-04-19 18:25:41

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#21 2019-04-27 05:57:53

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#22 2019-04-27 15:54:26

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#23 2019-04-27 18:28:51

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#24 2019-05-01 05:01:18

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

#25 2019-05-01 06:18:58

Re: Horizontal Size Compensation in the resin profiles...

Board footer