- #Simplify3d 4.0.1 vs slic3r looks better how to#
- #Simplify3d 4.0.1 vs slic3r looks better software#
- #Simplify3d 4.0.1 vs slic3r looks better code#
If you want to add variable layer height, a pause or anything else, you create a different process, which can have a different profile (FFF setting), but I've only got one in this sample part, so the Process option is a single colour. If you want to make sure the two colour part is going to be OK, or the right nozzles are going to the right area, you check the Toolhead option. The real strength of Simplif圓D is its flexibility, and visualisations, which are really useful for checking out your print. The picture is just a couple of samples (not the best 0.8 on right, 0.3 on the left, all done at the same time.and AutoMaker is definitely lower quality than these at slower speeds.Įnjoy the pictures further update, the Layer 2 bug only affects the two model prints with each model using a separate nozzle for each, so I have made two different profiles for this, a Robox QuickFill using combo left or right nozzles on a single part, and another using left and right nozzles individually on separate parts.
#Simplify3d 4.0.1 vs slic3r looks better how to#
It is also a good development tool for understanding how to improve your printed models, but to do this properly, there is a lot of tweaking to suit the shapes in your model, as the 'torture little' test shows, one setting definitely doesn't work for all, and in this case, there will be some cooling option, move printhead away at the top of these parts etc, that I haven't enabled. Only now am I getting some good results, and it's fun using a 0.8mm nozzle at 0.2mm layer heights, or placing two identical models on the print bed, and using a 0.3mm nozzle for one, and the 0.8mm for the other, and trying to optimise things for each, or even adding permutations you can't with AutoMaker.
#Simplify3d 4.0.1 vs slic3r looks better software#
I have got profiles for the DEV1 head, and I have moved my QuickFill variant into a better place, after learning how their software works, but you do spend a lot of time doing this, and it's a genuinely thankless task, as there is next to no interest from anybody that could add some proper input, but that's getting the norm for anyone now, which is a huge shame, as people are missing out. I'm should consider myself lucky to date, I've only cooked one DM head using a development profile (theirs can you believe it), but I have noticed some quirks on my travels, lock ups, firmware overrides, SmartReel losing comms, that Simplify cannot do anything about, which would worry some of you, especially when you switch the Robox back on and get a plethora of worrying messages. That said, this software and some others Cura 3.2 & Slic3r PE really do show up AutoMaker and how far behind mainstream printer host & slicing developments, especially in slicing flexibility, and realtime visualisation, and if I was working in that neck of the woods, I'd be making some different decisions to up the game in that department.
#Simplify3d 4.0.1 vs slic3r looks better code#
Like all things when you start digging you find oddities, like where is the active extruder tag, token or place name whatever it's called, or how can you control a Robox with the state of that Custom Command panel, and the Machine Control Interface, which frankly is a mess, so as bad as some of the UI details are in AutoMaker, there are others that are worse.Īssuming the gcode is OK, the best way for most of you use this software is to save your files to disk and use the Automaker Preferences tab, and drop files into the Transfer and Execute Code box, and at least you can stop everything and use the normal AutoMaker macros to Abort etc. I've had email discussions about a few things, and they don't seem to be on the same wavelength, re Robox firmware requirements, and what it expects to see, and they are developing a Dual Material version, because they have a Robox in their development office. There is one at layer 2, but I've got around it, with a post process, which isn't ideal. They will say not, but you have to look at the gcode generated, compare it to what a Robox expects and go over it for bugs. As far as I know this is the same as the one we tested recently.this is 3rd party software so damage resulting from it’s use to produce gcode to run on Robox must be at your own and others, there is definitely some risk with this too.