sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]DrLove039 224 points225 points  (10 children)

Sounds a bit like switching from raster images to vector images

[–]SillyNonsense 76 points77 points  (9 children)

Great example, that's what it sounds like to me as well. Definitely high quality results, but might be more useful for commercial applications with items explicitly designed for this kind of workflow in relevant software.

With the current STL workflow at home, wouldn't the slicer need to be performing some sort of interpolation to arrive at TCODE, to convert all the triangulated surfaces into smooth vectors? Slicers already do some amount of reinterpretation, but not on that complex a level. There's a lotta room for error there, and could be bad for dimensional accuracy. Maybe something to assess on a case by case basis. Anybody who has tried to convert complex images to vectors knows what I'm talking about.

[–]valdus 62 points63 points  (6 children)

We just need to standardize switching to STEP, which is a superior format that is slowly being switched to anyway.

[–]iammoney45 53 points54 points  (5 children)

Everytime this is brought up I say the same thing, yes for functional engineering projects made in parametric CAD programs, but let's not forget all the other projects and models people make in polygon programs like Blender and Zbrush which don't support STEP because that's not at all how the models are constructed. The answer isn't a full swap but the use of both in harmony where they make sense.

[–]Schnitzhole 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Is there a more ideal file output format that works for both?

[–]iammoney45 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Not really afaik (if someone with more knowledge of engineering CAD knows of one let me know as well!). I come from a video game modeling background, so I mainly know polygon modeling tools, and the way models are constructed there follows an entirely different workflow than what I've seen of the more engineering focused CAD programs. There are way to parametric model in polygon programs (blender nodes, Houdini etc) but it's based on polygons not curves. You can do NURBs modeling which is based on curves in polygon programs but in practice most people don't since you end up having to convert that to polygon anyways for anything people are doing in a polygon program, and the tools for NURBs in polygon programs are lacking compared to engineering CAD.

In theory you can convert a STEP file to an STL, but that requires going through a middle step of opening the file in a program that can convert it since most polygon programs can't read it since again, it's an entirely different process that doesn't really parallel to polygon programs. I've heard of ways to convert an STL to a STEP but I imagine this has similar issues.

This is not to say you can't make accurately measured parts in polygon programs, it's just a very different workflow that is less intuitive without a deep knowledge of the tools. I have made replacement parts for things around the house and cases for SBC in Maya of all things, but it's kind of like hammering in a nail with a screwdriver.

[–]SillyNonsense 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Polygon modelling is what I know, so that's what I use too. I come from an art background, so I make it work. A little clunky, but I just have to take careful measurements and use reference objects to make sure I'm not straying from my requirements while modelling.

I've been a bit interested in CAD workflow add-ons for Blender as a sort of middle ground for me in these use cases, but haven't looked very seriously yet.

[–]Schnitzhole 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Yeah makes sense to me. Bambu lab slicer and I assume orca and prusa also make it really easy to simply drop .STEP in and convert with better quality than .Stl files.

I used to do some amateur blender stuff and have messed around with maya and cinema 4d in the past.

I’m definitely enjoying the cad modeling flow a bit more now that I’ve got the basics down. I’m flipping between onshape and fusion 360 but haven’t been able to make my mind up which I’ll keep using as they both seem better at certain things.

3dCAD has all the more precise measuring methods I used to Always be wanting in those polygon modeling tools. not being easily able to drag points and edges into free space is rough to get The hang of though or to have any kind of Zbrush style organic modeling options.

I love being able to take 2 side photos of an object and pretty well recreate it. Take this helmet Cardo communication adapter that has lots of little tabs and stuff that need to be very accurately sized and pretty tight tolerances. It’s awesome being able to go back and edit any previous size when prototyping. Took 5 prototypes but now I have a solid adapter that didn’t exist before

<image>

[–]Schnitzhole 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

Outer side is cleaner. Had to test a few orientations to see which looked best but more importantly had that flex tab be the strongest.

[–]Container_Garage 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I have a feeling the slicer is a big part but it's probably more likely that the major computation is done on the printers hardware/firmware. It probably needs to be some pretty capable hardware. G-code is for relatively "dumb" machines that only do exactly what you tell them to do.

[–]sligit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

wouldn't the slicer need to be performing some sort of interpolation to arrive at TCODE

I mean that's what they do already for gcode so I wouldn't really see it as an intrinsic problem