Question about printing.

I just got involved with Thingiverse with two 3d models and something I have always wondered is how do you make a solid core model? I use Cinema4D for my 3d work but this seems to be the same across all 3d programs I have ever tried (XSI, 3dsmax, Maya, Modo, Lightwave, Blender) on a very basic level.

So, my question is how do you guys print with a solid body if the 3d model is hollow and no way that I know of to fill it in? I know a waste of materials but for some of the stuff I plan on doing with my printer (I will release my work on Thingiverse) I will have to have a solid body. Is it something you are doing in the slicer program?

For someone not understanding the question I will give an example. Make a box and dive your camera in that box and it is hollow only the illusion that it is solid exists.

Yes, this is a function of the slicing program. You can specify the wall thickness (perimeters and solid layers) and the density of the body of the part (infill between perimeters and solid layers).

Check Richrap's blog post.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

Perfect, and I had a suspicion this was done via the slicer program as nothing I have worked with in 3d had this capability though I would kill to have.

Now, a side question is for infill is a honeycomb pattern still the strongest requiring the least amount of material? I ask because I see a lot of different patterns on that page.

Thank you.

My guess would be yes as it has the most contact between the infilled layers.

Personally I don't infill much any more. Getting stronger/more efficient parts with more perimeters and solid layers and less infill. Also honeycomb infill takes appreciably longer that rectilinear infill adding at least 10% to print time, possibly more.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

akhlut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My guess would be yes as it has the most contact
> between the infilled layers.
>
> Personally I don't infill much any more. Getting
> stronger/more efficient parts with more perimeters
> and solid layers and less infill. Also honeycomb
> infill takes appreciably longer that rectilinear
> infill adding at least 10% to print time, possibly
> more.
10% more time and I bet a lot more strength. If I were just doing a statue or something I wouldn't care either way but for gears, and mechanical things that will have stress I have to.

I have to be honest ... I've never had a problem if you ruse a solid modelling programme rather than a surfacing one ..... eg Rhino makes 3d surfaces (always hollow) Solidworks makes solids ...... I know this sounds self explanatory .... and I have the luxury of having access to a seriously expensive bit of CAD software .....

I'm afraid I'm a bit useless on this point but thought I'd throu in my two penneth..


Tim

... AFAIK in fully parametric CAD-programs it's a specific value - every part has an outside and the inner volume is predefined as solid with a specific material (interesting for calcuations of material, time and other milling parameters).

In CAD's working with triangle meshes this is defined by the normal vector of every mesh - the positive direction defines the 'out' side and affects the visibility of the specific meshes in the renderer ...

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

See, this is where the rub is because if I have a model I have done in Rhino (forgot to mention that one) or Cinema4D or w/e how do I get it to be a parametric object?

I tried AutoCAD and absolutely hated it as well as Solidworks.