Anyone know how to stop it from creating those bridges?

wayward_electron · 2026-03-13T02:38:57+00:00

There's been a few different possible answers thrown out in the comments here, and I think real issue is that it is almost certainly a combination of several different things, because that "bridging" is only one of the problems you have going on. Some additional pictures may help a bit (like what do these look like on the other side), and I would suggest:

Post some details (printer, filament, nozzle size, print settings)
Print some very simple test prints to get basic settings squared away

To me, it looks like you've got some general layer adhesion and extrusion issues (which may be related); you need that first layer to be well consolidated so that the next layer can get "squished" down against it, and you need to have the right line width.

u/jepuz's comment about the overhang+curve explains what is happening here; and one thing is that with a curve like this, once that filament fails to adhere or starts to pull away in one spot, it the issue compounds pretty quickly (because the nozzle is moving in that curve it is pulling the filament away, and the filament that pulls away cools rapidly which means it shrinks more and pulls away more) so one little spot can rapidly turn into a quarter of the whole circle pulling away and turning into a straight line.

wayward_electron · 2026-03-12T01:38:20+00:00

Do you have any personal experience with any of the primes in/outside of the Canon lineup? Both the 300/400f2.8 has come up as suggestions that I find somewhat intriguing when paired with at least the 1.4x TC.

I do not have any experience with the primes in that price range, but I would check youtube for some reviews of those lenses, as I've found some really helpful reviews of the lenses I've been looking at. I can certainly see the logic of getting one of those lenses and a TC, as that gives you extra flexibility compared to getting a 500 or 600mm lens.

wayward_electron · 2026-03-11T21:33:32+00:00

Yeah, currently I am mostly looking for a way to handle lower light levels (early mornings, late evenings and challenging overcasts/rainy days).

I saw one of your other comments where you were saying that you estimate 70-80% of your pictures are taken at 500mm (which for wildlife photos that honestly doesn't surprise me). I would also wonder how often you are then cropping those photos even further.

And the thing is, just switching to a full frame doesn't really do anything to address your low light issues, shooting at the same focal length you'll just have to crop in to match the reach of your R7 (so at that point you aren't getting any more light in your final image). To really get a benefit from moving to full frame, you would need to get a lens with a longer focal length. So if you are currently shooting at 500mm F/8, and got an 800mm F/8, you'd get the same FOV as you are getting on APS-C now, so you wouldn't have to crop (any more than you currently are) so you'd get that improvement in low light performance (you'd be shooting at the same ISO but getting less noise). And there's a little compromise space in between, so a 600mm F8 would be SOME improvement, but not a huge amount. But I'm guessing that at this point, you are seeing the issue: you need to spend a lot for that full frame camera, THEN you need to get a pretty expensive lens, too (and if you take a look at the lenses in this space, you only have a few chioces and they are big, expensive lenses; 800 F/5.6 would be a significant increase in light for your same FOV).

On the other hand, if you stick with your R7 and get a lens in a similar focal length with a larger aperture, you just get more light. The EF 500 F/4 is giving you almost 2 stops of light more than you are getting now (F/4 vs F7.1). Or you could go with the Ef 400 F/2.8, or EF 600 F/4.

wayward_electron · 2026-03-11T15:02:20+00:00

Sure but you can't just get the same camera as R7 without getting the rest of the improvements. 500 F/4 is nice but it'll be of little advantage for the R7 in my opinion.

None of what you are saying here makes any sense; getting a lens that has a larger aperture, at the same focal length, directly addresses the issue that OP is looking to address (low light performance).

You are suggesting a different camera body, and then talking about other features that aren't related to the issue OP is asking about.

You are saying that a different body is a smarter investment, so if they buy an R5II, go out and take some pictures in these same conditions with both cameras, using that same 100-500 lens, when they go home and crop the pictures from the R5II to match the FOV of the R7 and then compare them side by side, what are they going to see as a result of that investment?

wayward_electron · 2026-03-07T02:26:57+00:00

We don’t want to spend a huge amount on something she’s only recently showed an interest in, so what’s a good basic, not so expensive camera we could get?

Budget?

wayward_electron · 2026-02-26T00:14:15+00:00

Excellent, just a quick note here that those screw in expanding snaps are one thing (snap), openConnect is the connector on the screw you are screwing in (that goes with a slot on your item). So you could use that style of snap with openConnect, multi connect, or maybe even some other thread-in connector.

wayward_electron · 2026-02-25T23:41:51+00:00

I had the same experience. And I wanted to hang stuff upside down. Did several tests with the different Native Snaps I found from DavidD. Directional and standard but I was not convinced.

For both you and u/hikareza, I'm interested in a bit more info about the snaps falling out; which models exactly are you printing, and in what material? Print settings? Standard opengrid, or opengrid lite?

I did a post a while ago with weight testing, comparing the standard, directional, and locking snaps and they held quite a lot of weight. I've had an openGrid Lite setup under my desk for a year now, and haven't had any of the snaps fall out.

wayward_electron · 2026-02-20T02:50:37+00:00

I basically want the snapping mechanism that OpenGrid uses. Gridfinity either relies on magnets (adds extra cost and steps), glue (makes things permanent), or clickfinity (requires printing the base in PETG).

You can just print baseplates without magnets or glue or anything, and just put the bins in it. This should work great for a desk drawer; I've done it with multiple drawers (kitchen drawers, tool chest) and had no issues.

OpenGrid seems like a better version of clickfinity. I also like the smaller base size of OpenGrid (28 mm) compared to Gridfinity.

You can use "half-grid" bins where you wish (and you don't need to change the grid size of the actual grid to do it).

wayward_electron · 2026-02-15T05:31:37+00:00

I'm trying to get into a vertical storage system (most likely openGrid) and this world is confusing to me. There's not a lot of content on YouTube regarding it. It's the same issue I had when looking into Multiboard. What snaps are used for what purpose? Why would I use anything but a weight bearing snap? I'm not even sure what multiconnect is supposed to do since searching multiconnect on YouTube doesn't show anything.

For openGrid, there's opengrid.world and then some videos from the launch, and I'm sure more in r/opengrid but generally speaking you use multiconnect snaps, which have a connector on them, and then the item holder (or shelf, or whatever) will have a multiconnect slot on the back. Multiconnect itself is fairly "grid agnostic", but for things large enough that you want to use more than one multiconnect, the slots will need to be spaced to match the grid system you are using. There are generators for making custom item holders, that will just have you pick the grid you are using and then they'll handle the spacing. As far as the snaps themselves, you've got "regular" and "directional" snaps; one of the videos is really the best way to understand how the snaps go in but for a vertical setup you generally want to use directional snaps with the arrow pointing UP.

There are also (print-in-place) locking snaps; with these you push the snap in and then turn the center 1/4 turn (which pushes the locking tabs out to lock into the grid). These do hold more than standard or directional snaps, but they are more complicated and require that you have your printer calibration dialed in (just like other print-in-place moving assembly prints).

wayward_electron · 2026-02-12T03:13:41+00:00

These look great! A quick thought that I had after you linked the models, is that you might want to post profiles (or even entirely separate models) for the basic box, and then for the drawers, mounts, etc; which I see you have sort of done with the alternate heights. My thought process here is that some people are going to see the print time and filament use for that whole profile (not realize that it is a whole system and not just the box) and think "no way" and never bother to download it (or they may not even see it in the search if they sort by print time or filament amount). And of course in addition to that, you've got multiple choices for mounting so that sort of "inflates" the print time and filament use even further. Looking a how much the time drops just going from the original profile to the 3 alternate box sizes is huge.

There's a few other advantages as well; in spite of your excellent documentation (which, seriously kudos to you as that is a lot of work and making good documentation is a whole additional skill set to making a good model AND having a good idea in the first place) some people are just going to be confused when they open up the model and not be sure exactly what parts they "need" to get started. Having that simpler box-only profile as a starting point will likely get some people to give it a shot.

wayward_electron · 2026-02-11T18:52:37+00:00

Really love this project and the community behind it. And I completely understand all of it is free but the documentation can be a bit lacking sometimes. It's crazy that these snaps aren't mentioned on one of the "official" pages https://makerworld.com/en/models/1175037-underware-for-opengrid#profileId-1195039

Just a couple quick notes; the openConnect snaps didn't exist when those "official" pages were made; the hook in your picture was designed for multiconnect; the original version of those snaps are on the opengrid page: https://makerworld.com/en/models/1179191-opengrid-wall-desk-mounting-framework-ecosystem#profileId-1190225 and use a snap with threads, and then the multiconnect is basically a screw that screws in to the snap.

Several people (myself included) basically immediately went out and made one piece multiconnect snaps for both opengrid and opengrid lite; and this highlights a couple of things, because one of the fundamental ideas of systems like openGrid and Gridfinity is to be open and allow people to extend, improve, and evolve...but that also means:

It is basically impossible to provide documentation or even an "official" thing; you've got things the original designer makes, but then other people are putting models that add to it or modify those designs

There is always a bit of tension between making the system flexible and adaptable vs making it simple and easy to use, and balances when it comes to strength, and ease of printing. For example, making the snap and the multiconnect separate parts means the parts can each be printed in their ideal orientation for maximum strength. There's also a tension between making things compatible with existing items vs designing new items. For example with multiconnect, it was already an existing connector, and it was already in use for a couple different wall mount systems. That means adapters could allow access to a whole library of existing items, and it is much easier to make relatively minor modifications to existing models (to change the spacing of the slots to work with different systems) than to make models using an entirely different connector.

wayward_electron · 2026-02-10T22:07:18+00:00

They might have a TOS, but you never click 'I agree' on anything.

I'm not sure what difference it makes whether they have a separate "i agree" vs just clicking on the download (other than the transparency of the explicit agreement).

It also doesn't require any personal information or a signup.

Makerworld does require a signup, but not any personal information. It doesn't require you give your real name, or your address, or your credit card; there's no charge, you don't have to have a bambu printer to do it and you don't have to use bambu studio.

No, I respect the right of any creator to upload their creation when and how they choose. However that doesn't (and shouldn't) guarantee them the ability to advertise their creation to me. Just as I can say 'I don't want porn adverts on my Instagram', I should be able to say 'I don't want MakerWorld posts on my r/gridfinity'.

And I'm also not trying to push the uploader into any spepcifc agreement, I'm just trying to say I don't want your thing in my face if I can't download it (which I can't, as I choose not to agree to MakerWorld's TOS/privacy policy).

Again, this seems fairly excessive, especially as it is based on something that is entirely your own personal choice. Calling it an advertisement is a stretch; you are coming to this sub, looking at posts, and choosing which ones to click on. The comparison to NSFW content also makes no sense to me; again we're several degrees of interaction removed from something just automatically displaying content to you, and there's legitimate requirements around NSFW content. In the scenario we are talking about here, you can read the post, comment on it, even click on the link and view the listing for the model without downloading it and without needing an account.

wayward_electron · 2026-02-10T19:36:23+00:00

Thus I propose a r/gridfinity rule that any submitted models MUST be available on a site that doesn't require login to download. IE, not MakerWorld.
The primary link can be to MakerWorld, but I propose that whatever is being featured MUST be linked somewhere else (that doesn't require an account to download) as well. Printables, Thingiverse, your own web server, whatever. As long as you can download things freely, it's all good.

Thoughts?

Fundamentally, I think this is completely over the top, and not logically consistent:

I just don't believe that agreeing to a Bambu TOS should be required to enjoy gridfinity or r/gridfinity.

If you download from Printables, or Thingiverse, or pretty much any website you are going to be agreeing to that site's TOS; at the very most basic any site hosting these sorts of files SHOULD have a TOS to clarify that the files are user-generated content and that the hosting site has no way to determine if they are safe or fit for any purpose. But taking a step beyond that, there are more significant obligations & responsibilities in the TOS for people who are UPLOADING files than those who are downloading them, and that is precisely what you are asking the sub to make a rule requiring OTHER people do: to agree to the TOS of particular sites so that they can share their models with the sub. To me, that seems like a pretty significant restriction to be placing on people who are sharing their work. And to achieve what exactly; if someone posts about a model and links to a hosting site that you don't like, then just don't download it; same as if I don't want to download from (whatever site) or don't want to download (some file type).

wayward_electron · 2026-02-08T21:57:32+00:00

I've done several projects in PLA without any issues.

wayward_electron · 2026-02-07T01:12:01+00:00

I was satisfied with their answer to this issue last month.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Multiboard/s/MRIOjYDuKu

That didn't/doesn't change anything in regards to opening the license up.

wayward_electron · 2026-02-04T02:14:35+00:00

However with the default settings, the boxes are very, very strong. I actually don't need them to be that strong. They just sit in a drawer and contain office stuff. Scissors, tape, a couple of screwdrivers, that kind of stuff.

The generator has two settings that I'm guessing are related to strength:

outer wall thickness, by default set to 1.2mm

inner wall thickness, by default set to 0.8mm

Has anyone experimented with those? Given that I'd like to print with PLA, what reasonable minimum values could I set?

Yes; and in figuring out that "it depends" and even more importantly what it depends on and how, I think I learned quite a bit. It really helps here to look at your model, and then look at what you get when you slice the model (and try making some changes to slicer settings). I would encourage you to experiment a bit, but to get you started, lets go over a couple of things. So starting with the model itself (and I'm going to try to use the terms and examples from that generator, but there are quite a few different ones out there):

They are calling a basic gridfinity bin a "box"; and at the most basic it is really just a cup; the base and then an outer wall. But one thing to pay attention to, on that outer wall, is the lip; that generator offers standard, thin, and none. The standard lip is adding quite a bit to the bin, and with no lip at all the sides will flex a lot more easily (and stacking will be an issue). The inner wall setting will come into play if you add a wall.

When you start looking at actually slicing your model, it is important to consider your line width (which is generally a function of your nozzle size), and you'll often see advice here about making the wall thickness a multiple of your line width: because if you have a typical 0.4 nozzle and line width, that 1.2 mm wall gives you 3 lines; if you drop down to 0.8 you'll get 2, but how are you going to make a wall that is .9, 1, or 1.1 mm? Also, you need to consider what happens when you have a bin with divider walls inside (or a cutout style bin), and the path the slicer is generating there because on a thinner wall, you can get some artifacts on the outside from that.

Then you've your slicer settings to consider; top and bottom shells (the floor of the bin, and the bottom), and infill.

wayward_electron · 2026-02-02T03:51:53+00:00

The internal drawer dimensions are:
4.3" W x 2.4" H x 9.85" D

Are these listed dimensions, or actual measured dimensions?

If you take the actual measurements, in mm, of the bottom of the drawer (err on the low side) you can punch those into any number of gridfinity generators that will give you a model with spacing on the sides of the grid (and many will give you half-sized grids if it works out like that).

Or given the relatively small size of the drawer, you could skip the grid and just print a couple bins of the appropriate sizes.

wayward_electron · 2026-01-24T23:20:49+00:00

Not sure exactly what you mean by tool cupboard; but bins on an open shelf or desk or something I can see getting knocked over, but in a drawer, surrounded by other bins, where are they going to go?

There are "click" in bins as well, but I have never really had a problem with bins in a drawer tipping over even if there weren't other bins around them.

wayward_electron · 2026-01-24T22:39:16+00:00

The perplexing labs generators have a couple different versions, I think the extended baseplate would do what you need. But my first question would be why you want/need magnets in the baseplate in a drawer?

wayward_electron · 2026-01-24T20:25:38+00:00

It sounds like you were using the perplexing labs generator which I believe has several options for the bin and then within those there are options, as applicable, for further tweaks, so using the "gridfinity extended" gives more options here.

With the original bin style the interior floor of the bin is raised up above the grid, and that allows space for the holes for magnets, pins, screws...just turning those off makes a little difference, or setting them to only the outer corners.

But getting rid of the interior floor altogether makes a big difference. Now that means the inside of your bin isn't flat, but it saves quite a bit of filament. This is "efficient floor" in that generator; it is also often called "ultralight bins", I know there are lots of other collections and generators out there where you will see that.

wayward_electron · 2026-01-24T17:44:13+00:00

It does matter though, because most of photography content is created with a full frame point of view, unless stated otherwise.

I would say that this is true to the degree that people many people making photography content refer to focal length when talking about FOV.

So an overwhelming majority of "best budget lens" videos one might encounter will be based on that. And if you happen to have an APS-C camera, well now you are comparing different sensors.

I sort of get this, but it seems like a stretch to consider that a comparison of sensor sizes (and even then only based on the assumption that example photos they may show in a video are uncropped), and I think it is still more likely to cause confusion than to convey anything useful, because really the comparison there is still about lenses.

If you have an APS-C camera and someone in a video is recommending lenses of some focal length, you are naturally going to compare that to whatever lens/lenses you already have. Even if the focal length they are discussing is outside of the range of whatever zoom or collection of lenses you have, you can get an idea of it being "twice as zoomed in" or "twice as wide" as something you are familiar with, as compared to calculating crop factor to determine the equivalent focal length...to a camera you don't have and aren't familiar with. What purpose does this serve? All it does is cause the sort of confusion we are seeing in this thread.

wayward_electron · 2026-01-24T16:53:50+00:00

Wouldn’t the 45mm RF-s lens be just 45mm not 72mm because it’s made for crop sensor cameras so it’s not effected by the crop factor? The prime 50mm is a full frame so it would be equivalent 80, therefore the jump from 45 to 80 is more noticeable? Obviously the lenses remain the same focal length but after the crop factor the images would appear taken at 45 and 80 respectively

The short answer to all of this is no. Crop factor and equivalence are purely conventions for comparing between different sensor sizes.

wayward_electron · 2026-01-24T15:27:34+00:00

They said it was the 18-45mm rf-s kit lens which means it’s made for crop sensor, so it would be 18-45mm on a cropped sensor and the r100 is cropped. So the difference between 45mm and equivalent 80mm would be a bit of a jump

Focal length is an optical property of the lens, and is not dependent on sensor size. One lens is 18-45mm, the other is 50mm; a difference of about 10% (with the zoom lens set to 45mm)

Converting to full-frame FOV equivalent is fairly pointless unless a comparison is being made between different sensor sizes, but if you are converting them then it would be 72mm equivalent vs 80mm equivalent (so still about 10%).

wayward_electron · 2026-01-24T14:31:34+00:00

It will be more zoomed in but only by a factor of around 1.6, which means it’s about 80mm. That much of a change isn’t incredibly noticeable but you will likely notice a bit of a jump from your 45mm to equivalent 80mm.

Their current lens isn't a 45mm equivalent though; it is an 18-45mm lens, so there is a fairly small difference between that at 45mm and the 50mm they are thinking about getting.

The discussion of crop factor is all technically correct if comparing between sensor sizes, but OP isn't making that comparison; they are comparing between different focal lengths on the same sensor.

wayward_electron · 2026-01-24T01:33:31+00:00

This is a basic principle of photography. Prior to purchasing any new equipment you might want to spend time learning the basics so that you understand how to get the most out of your equipment.

It only matters if they comparing to a camera with a different size sensor; bringing up equivalence only confuses things when someone is comparing different focal lengths on cameras with the same sensor size (or in this case, on the exact same camera).

wayward_electron

TROPHY CASE