Slicing G-Code curves from solid (not mesh) geometry.
-
@bot said in Slicing G-Code curves from solid (not mesh) geometry.:
@gtj0 I did not generate a gcode file. A post-processing script would be required or something..
However, you can "simulate" the toolpath and see the preview of the toolpaths... they use the lowest resolution imagineable in generating the toolpaths. Not even close to approximating curves...
Tried to simulate but no dice on that either
-
So they didn't include a post processor capable of outputting gcode to print on the machines they even have profiles for?
I was able to slice a model for the Ender3Pro and simulate it, but... what post processor are you supposed to choose? The default gives an .NC files...
A .3MF isn't much use?
It doesn't seem too bad for a first release. It's definitely very FUSION360 like, if you know what I mean.
-
@Phaedrux said in Slicing G-Code curves from solid (not mesh) geometry.:
It's definitely very FUSION360 like, if you know what I mean.
Con-fusion ....
-
This post is deleted! -
Try this. Open the Machine Configs from the additive toolbar.
In the samples find a test machine, and drag it to your local folder so you can modify it.
Next, select the local folder, pick the machine and choose the post (1).This brings up the post library. Filter to Additive (2).
Then select one of the sample posts to use (3).
-
@Phaedrux said in Slicing G-Code curves from solid (not mesh) geometry.:
The default gives an .NC files...
thats fusions default extension for g-code btw; but weather or not compatible with RRF is another story.
-
@bearer Using an additive post will default to .gcode
-
Ahh, they have a "generic FFF" post process.. Gonna see what the toolpaths look like in s3d preview.
*not actually a robot
-
@bot I have a work in progress post for Duet3D hardware... it's still very rough.
Th Post is attached and here is a link to the github page for future developments: https://github.com/schneik80/ACME-REPRAP-F360Post -
@schneik80 said in Slicing G-Code curves from solid (not mesh) geometry.:
Try this. Open the Machine Configs from the additive toolbar.
In the samples find a test machine, and drag it to your local folder so you can modify it.
Next, select the local folder, pick the machine and choose the post (1).This brings up the post library. Filter to Additive (2).
Then select one of the sample posts to use (3).Thanks. That did it.
-
Dang the community moves fast. Thanks @schneik80! I'll check it out.
-
@bot said in Slicing G-Code curves from solid (not mesh) geometry.:
Ahh, they have a "generic FFF" post process.. Gonna see what the toolpaths look like in s3d preview.
no
G4G2in sight it seems? oddly enough the post has a setting for allow helical moves which seems less usefull unless they implement vase mode? -
@bearer not sure why you'd want g4, but if you meants g2 (curves) then, negative... not a curve in sight. And the resolution that it generates segments at is terrible. Even when loading a detailed mesh, it reduces the resolution. Facets galore. Sigh.
-
@bot said in Slicing G-Code curves from solid (not mesh) geometry.:
@bearer not sure why you'd want g4, but if you meants g2 (curves) then, negative... not a curve in sight. And the resolution that it generates segments at is terrible. Even when loading a detailed mesh, it reduces the resolution. Facets galore. Sigh.
haha, 5AM ... i definitviely meant G2:)
-
I'm back and forth in Fusion and Cura constantly when doing prototypes and I can't say the workflow has been an issue. Export STL, import and slice, send to Duet. Frankly it's a breeze compared to the obtuse setup of Fusion. The slicing is very slow as well, and cura isn't exactly fast. The gcode produced isn't anything to write home about. Pretty basic. Lacks a lot of the finesse options of Cura. Dealing with corner cases becomes the most important thing in my opinion. There's nothing there yet that could convince me to switch over to it, and I really don't think they have the commitment and depth of talent there to make it into a true competitor for the existing slicers. But who knows. If they give it the same attention they have given to CAM, there might be a time when it becomes pretty powerful. And I guess anything is possible with the post processing?
-
what he said (except less doubt about talent, but more so on comittment)gimme true arcs and we'll talk
-
Effort would probably be better spent moving away from vectors and to nodes. Have a few different classes of node such as a corner (or must hit) node and path nodes (with a variable must be within x). Then let the controller do the per machine settings rather than the slicer too far away from the coal face.
-
...of course what I have just described is one node with a value of 0 or something else...
-
Interesting and they added 3mf export (unfortunately only in the Manufacturing space)!
And I like this support structure:
-
@OBELIKS The support structures were hard for me to understand on a complex model. I had to walk away and laugh, because I thought it was outputting garbage. Seems the supports are trying to "anchor" down edges -- I suspect these supports are lifted directly from Netfabb, but I don't know I've never gotten results from Netfabb in the trial period they gave me.
