Fillets are Sexy but Chamfers are BETTER (For 3D Printing...)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2024
- 3D Printing is a fantastic creative tool however, due to the layer by layer process, some geometries turn out better than others!
Get the File Here - gumroad.com/l/...
Get the latest Slic3r Prusa Edition Here - www.prusa3d.co...
Support Maker's Muse on Patreon
www.patreon.co...
50 3D Printing Tips and Tricks - gumroad.com/l/...
3D Printing Essentials - www.amazon.com...
I mean, I know chamfers are better, but that's cutting corners.
Why are you like this!?
I regret that I have but one upvote to give
I think you meant splitting hairs, cutting corners means saving time, but i won't be pedantic about it ;+}
I get the joke, but it works better pertaining to machining because you're actually cutting corners off. :P lol
Lol
Thanks for this well-rounded video on the subject of fillets vs chamfers. I like the angle you took here. You really cornered the issue in this multi-layered problem.
The pun overload haha
@@MakersMuse I want to make it my goal on literally every new upload
What else do I do when I'm waiting for printer parts 😁
I object
i think you got a point.
@@geniumme2502 No, this thread is pointless, as we are talking about fillets and chamfers rather than geometry.
I see this type of object like a deck of cards. A chamfer looks like you shifted the cards very evenly vs just kinda spread out at all different distances.
Great video, as always!
Perfect analogy! Wish I used that when explaining to clients how the FDM parts would look when I printed on demand... "why does it have all these layers!" ...
There's another really good reason to use fillets. On a structural section it leaves more material, so will be stronger. This is particularly true for thinner wall sections where a chamfer could seriously jeopardise the structural integrity.
Also, a tiny fillet (1 or 2 mm) can soften a sharp edge very nicely, almost invisibly. A chamfer just looks ugly in a lot of cases.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with using variable layer heights and support when it's needed. They get around all of the issues of chamfers on horizontal edges. I wonder if we give too much priority to getting a fast print at the cost of aesthetics and structural strength, but I'm pretty sure we have all been guilty of it.
Part of the issue here is the way you are are using chamfers - as a short cut to shaping a part. I think of it as an edge treatment, not as a way to quickly shape a part (though I'll keep it mind for rush jobs ;-)
not necessarily, leaving relatively sharp edges will create a stress riser at that point. Although to be honest I don't know which effect is stronger, at least in plate construction it is common to place fillets on pretty much every corner, not just to break the edges and allow for the router bit in internal features but also for strength.
Well said Chris.
@@fergusoddjob If you're adding a fillet to internal edges that is true. In that case you are adding to thickness and strength. We don't often do that in FDM though - it adds complexity to the design, though it's something that I would consider when it's really necessary. The golden rule for maximum strength is the leg length of an inside fillet should be at least the same as the thickness of the material.
As far external fillets on thin wall sections, the loss of strength with a fillet that is too large will always be much greater than loss of structural strength due to stress notches.
Remember with FDM the layer boundaries themselves are stress notches, so it's pretty hard to get away from. Chamfers do help here as well though - by spreading the stress more evenly over more layers.
The vertical edges will be fine with fillets, it's actually better to fillet than to chamfer a vertical edge so that it doesn't slam on the brakes when making that edge, but slows down nicely. Helps against ghosting in my experience.
There is the option for the bottom to have a hybrid where the bottom part of the fillet that is > 45° is replaced with a chamfer. That avoids overhang issues but is of course a bit more work when designing.
But why would you choose to change the shape of your model when you could simply change the resolution at which that part is printed? I don't understand why you'd want to sacrifice form for construction?
@@Martial-Mat my printer has a hard time printing steep overhangs even with small layer heights (curling and/or droop)
@@Martial-Mat time is the main issue here, for those working in the field or having numerous projects running or those who are prototyping it is very important to produce the max amount of units in a certain time, or to prototype more frequently ... you get the idea
Layer height is one of the biggest time killers there - So there is a special view and intent that he didnt discuss in this video :)
for individuals with more time and less projects this may all not matter
@@geniumme2502interesting. And what is that view/intent called?
@@Martial-Mat The real world
I suppose if your really need chamfers you could fillet the underside first to the maximum overhang angle your layer height allows, then chamfer the upper edge of the facet to a radius that meets the lower edge. That would stop the chamfer going over the overhang limit.
Yeah absolutely. I think Cura even has a setting to apply something like this to .stl files right in the slicer but haven't played with it.
I think in this case I'd make a compound fillet that approximates a chamfer... mixing facets & curves fucks with my OCD.
On bottom corners, I have been chamfering, then filleting the upper edge of the chamfer for quite awhile. It solves the overhang problem. I don't tend to do real big chamfer/fillet, something like 5mm. I always do it on large parts, it makes a nice lip to help pry the part off the build plate.
A nerfing channel commenting on a 3D printing channel? Seems to make sense given what the hobby is like today.
WOW! I wish Cura's adaptive layer interface was like Slic3r -whoever(s) designed that part of the UI deserves a cookie.
Hey Angus great video! I'm a mechanical engineer and just want to say fillets can be better than just x_y plans for FDM printers or design in general (strength wise). When a load is applied on a part with a sharp angle a stress concentration is formed. Fillets can are able to transfer this stress concentration to the surrounding parts better than a chamfer will be able too.
Great information. Thanks for sharing, Angus. =D
Nothing a little spray putty and sanding wouldn't fix though, right? ;)
Excellent explanation. Clearly explains some problems I had with early prints but didn’t understand. Thank you!
Most of my cases for various electronic projects: fillet on 4 sides and chamfer around on the top and bottom faces.
Yep that's what I generally do!
Good job ! I was working on a model in fusion 360 and changed my fillets after watching the video. I find myself spending time to make the model look pretty and stop thinking about the printing process.
Fillet everything! do you wish to send a crash report?
Ouch.. too relatable :(
You think that's bad try making a 3D golden ratio (where it stays a golden ratio on x Y and z).
Hahaha!
@@FireFox64000000 Could you describe this 3D golden ratio in a bit more detail, or better yet, link to a pic? I'm not quite picturing it yet.
@@polychoron it's already a safe assumption that my inability to do that is in fact at least half the problem. Basically if you've ever seen a lily impeller it's that.
The real key is to "design for 3d printing", if that's what you're using to make your part. I'm super-pleased with myself on a box design where I was able to get a nice curve on the sides, but kept it well within overhang limits. I used a truncated cylinder on its side, intersecting with a sphere (end caps) and 2 planes (top and bottom surfaces) to make a nice dice box that everyone thought looked like a case for glasses. Think of the sides like the shape of parenthesis... "(" and not a full 90 degree bend.
I design all my parts without round buts whenever possible
Mostly because of aesthetic reasons but not just because of printing ... I like the way flat bevels look even in the editor ... I'm a low poly kinda guy
Same here
This is great! In the back of my head I've known this, but it wasn't something I always did. It makes perfect sense, and this was a perfect video to describe it.
Magnificient topic. I've loved fillets too but I'll probably use more chamfers from now on and almost totally avoid them on the bottom!
I use fillets all the time. The trick is to just use small radius ones. Large radius fillets on large layer heights without support can definitely be a problem but more reasonable small fillets, especially with smaller layer heights, are great! I also like to chamfer then fillet the chamfer.
I didn't even know this, but apparently I've been using chamfers consistently ever since I saw the first fillet fail on me. Thanks a ton for the info and knowledge!
Champion vs Champagne... you might just have started a great debate! Another useful video... I must have a closer look at variable layer height. Thanks again.
yeah, for 3d printing, chamfer all the way, for cnc machining, fillets are your best friend. Both allow for reduced areas of stress for the part:)
So if you want every model to look like it was carved out of stone in the 14th century, go with chamfers, but otherwise, take 30 seconds to tweak your layer heights, or orient your edges so that fillets are vertical not horizontal? Right, got it.
Incidentally Angus, you could could make exactly the same argument for ANY part of the model that has a very long gradual curve in the z plane. You'd have been FAR better to make this video about all the ways to mitigate the problem, rather than simply declaring "Fillets bad".
You could use multiple processes in S3D as well. I ran into this printing a set of braces for my CR-10, they are solid enough, but the radius has little layer adhesion on the outside shell, just loose individual extruded filaments, making it look terrible. I hadn't thought of dropping the layer height in that section.
Thanks for the great tip!
Would be great, if you print that cube again with that variable layer heights and compare that result with that one from before.
hehe good choice showing the Philippe Starck juicer in a video about sexy design that isn't always useful :)
Woah woah woah... both have they're place. I laughed because yeah, I over fillet things but sometimes It just looks much nicer on trays and things. Multiple processes in S3D for adaptive layers, done... doesn't take an age and doesn't look like shit.
Amazing vid Angus -- I'll definitely keep that in mind for future designs. Fun fact: RUclips ad algorithm is crazy; it gave me a 2-minutes ad on Coronary Artery Disease -- that's right, CAD -- before your vid! Hahaha! Cheers!
In my opinion chamfers or fillets used for aesthetics should be as small as possible, just enough to get the visual effect right. When printing, sometimes the orientation must be selected to favor good quality in key features, sometimes resulting in longer printing times.
If I remember right, fillets and chamfers are used for more than just blending things together; there is a strength consideration for implementing fillets and chamfers on inside edges as you are including additional material.
Your shirt looks like the saved from the bell intro. :)
Wow. A engineer changing his design when he actually has to make his own designs. More of them should do this haha
Angus, i think this video was poorly titled.
When you said chamfers are "better" I was looking forward to in depth analysis including use cases and strength compsrisons.
The title should have benn "chamfers LOOK better than fillets". This video is really only useful to beginners who haven't yet figured this all out on their own.
I understand his approach though, he isn't an engineer, this is the kind of question to Stefan on CnC Kitchen channel
Why not just use a tiny chamfer profile built into the part of the radiused profile where the overhang is drastic?
What happens when you print that object balanced on a corner? That will obviously create a ton of support structures, but all the chamfers and fillets would all be of a consistent quality.
Not the best video from Angus, the message is a mixed bag, clearly how things look and print on a FDM printer is directly affected by the layer height, this is mentioned in relation to using variable layer heights. But the fundamental info from this should be if you want to print with big layers (like 0.3) then expect some some trade offs, and vertical radius quality is one of those. This video leads with the indication FDM are not good at fillets. The reality is if you print with a 0.3 layer you will likely be on a 0.6 nozzle which means you are going for speed over quality and should expect compromises across the print. From the outset it would have made much more sense to say this problem goes away with smaller layers due to the vertical step required on a bigger layer requiring a bigger horizontal jump with causes quality issues. Drop the layer height and the horizontal jump is less so the problem goes away, but if you need to print for speed with big layers you will have some issues with curves. Strange video really.
I got to agree, a +- 0.1mm layer is absolutely neccesary to get any smooth roundness on your object. 0.3 is just not gonna cut it, so it's a weird setting to base the video on. Ofcourse he remedied it with the variable layer height, but the point is kinda moot since you shouldn't expect great looking results from 0.3.
0.2 is usualy already referred to as a draft, 0.3 is clearly meant for speed, not nice rounded edges.
Agreed, and the fillets he tested with were huge compared to the layer height.
His advice doesn't really fit all use cases. I've printed parts to be used as molds with smaller fillets (up to 10mm) with no quality issues at all. The fillets in a mold are functional, so it's not a great idea to omit them.
There's nothing particularly special about fillets compared to other curved geometry. The general advice should be to look at the scale of any curved feature and see how big the run over rise is going to be for any step in layer height, and reconsider the geometry if it's too large.
Angus for us, you are just like a fillet, you look awesome (no bullying intended) please keep Impaling our Créativity
oh man you and your hair are so beautiful
On the side of a part it is an advantage to use fillets over chamfers, because it allows the printer to use much smoother acceleration/deceleration moves.
A chamfers has 2 hard edges, so the printer has to decelerate before it even gets to the chamfer, basically stop on the first edge, then accelerate into a different direction, decelerate and stop again on the second edge, and then finally accelerate on the actual face of the part.
This takes a little bit more time (especially if you have very conservative acceleration settings) and can cause ringing artefacts (especially if you have very agressive acceleration settings)
Wheras a fillet has a very smooth transition from one direction to the other. So the printer can move at maximum print speed until the point where the fillet begins, then from there on this axis of the printer can slowly decelerate until it stops at the point where the fillet ends. At the same time the other axis can slowly accelerate until it reaches maximum speed at the point where the fillet ends, and then just keep printing the next face of the part.
This means that (on the side of a part) printing fillets is slightly faster and leaves less artefacts.
Of corse on top and bottom of a part chamfers are better, for the reasons you showed in the video.
Would be interesting to see a FDM optimized Fillet. One that knows the layer height, and can adjust the curve to be more aesthetic.
Loving the mullet lol
One way i sometimes get around this problem is start with a chamfer and then use a fillet on the upper edge. Not a true fillet but will print nice.
Realize the real problem is the slicer. It is printing the surface as though it is the interior. After layer 1, it should be printing layer 2 with at least 1 shell right over the layer 1 edge shell and the further extension of that area as a solid, it is part of the surface, and it should be insisting on support where it's too far out until it gets to the 45 degree angle part. really a 45 there would make it sqrt of 2 so 1.41, it should really print both walls over layer 1 to meet minimum thickness of the walls. The under side 'surface' of that fillet has 0 thickness where the interior is showing, the slicer is making a complete error in the STL to layer conversion. The 'outside' curve of this surface should have a corresponding 'inside' surface that follows and keeps the shell thickness to 2 wall thicknesses minimum. Completely a limitation of the slicer, the printer is perfectly capable of doing this correctly. But that said I generally prefer chamfers as well, a lot more straight forward and for a lot of applications the fillet makes little difference.
What about using non-planar printing for fillets?
Thanks Angus!
Helpful video, thanks Angus!
I would argue that fillets/rounds are better than chamfers in the x-y plane for the simple fact that chamfers can ghost but fillets generally can't. Though, that's more of a machine issue.
First of all thank you for your video... thumbs up!
But I do think the title is a bit generalizing and tends to tell us to put away fillets, while it only applies for the cases pointed out:
printing fillets with layers stacked along the z-axis and without supports .
However, printing along the XY-axis in top view:
• Fillets are not only smooth and sexy, but do great and don't have these problems.
• Little fillets are always welcome on 90° and even 135° big chamfer corners in XY view for precision parts.
Just let these little fillets have a radius of at least 2x the nozzle opening diameter, because in XY view 3D printers do no sharp straight corners.
The surfaces nears such points will expand outward and little fillets help you prevent that.
Damn, I'm SO old school. When I learned, we used the terms "fillets" (inside rounded) and "rounds" (outside rounded). Now, "fillet" means either. :-(
Us young kids get confused easily :) I'm sure the term is still used though there's probably a few differences between engineering and design fields.
@@MakersMuse - Yeah - I think the terms were consolidated when CAD programs became the norm. They didn't want to have to program two terms when one would suffice, I guess.
@@MakersMuse Yes, fillets are a very specific thing - a way of relieving stress risers between two or more intersecting surfaces, and is the surface described by rolling a sphere of fixed or variable radius around those surfaces.
Rounded edges and corners are the inverse, and not the same thing at all!
This was a mathematically hard problem for a long time to do in CAD, and still challenging.
Blender unfortunately still doesn't do it properly, and leaves cusps that need manual attention :-(
Please try to keep naming consistent!
half the the aesthetic argument is in the is the amount of wall lines used. you wouldn't get the looping look from the top layer fill if there were say 3 wall lines for example
For bottom edges, I like to do chamfers and then fillet the edge that doesn't touch the build plate.
If you use a chamfer distance of (2-√2)*r for a 45° chamfer on a 90° edge with r being your desired fillet radius, the fillet will still be tangential with the base plane and you just removed the steep bottom overhangs.
Variable layer height is just my favorite feature in Slic3r and Cura over the last couple years. I've gone from waiting forever for .1 or (ugh) .05 for detailed models, whether or not they need it all the way up, to just defaulting to .3 in many cases and letting the slicer do the work (in Cura's case).
Edit: And yeah, I was practically screaming in my head about VLH for half of the video.
So you don’t have to worry about this if you are using SLA/DLP, right?
Much finer layer heights so not as big a deal, but it can still be visible on top and bottom surfaces.
The problem essentially scales with layer height. So this was a.. 10-15 mm, looks like, radius round over. Let’s go with ten. Printed at 0.3mm layers. At 0.1mm layers (whether or not you print the rest of the print that way) a roundover of 3.3mm radius will have that same type of stepped appearance (just smaller). If you’re doing SLA printing with 0.03mm layer heights, the problem will look that bad on a roundover that’s 1mm in radius.
Good stuff, interesting and informative as always.
Nice video!
But, what if you use a curve fillet instead of a tangent one? Would be there any differences on the results?
Best regards from Brazil!
See 1000 iq plays are filleting chamfers
As a true hardcore fillettéer I refuse to acknowledge your logic and wisdom. I will never give up my fillets. NEVER I TELL YOU. But damn you make good arguments
Bowie? Is that you? You look so young!
As a big fan, that is a huge compliment.
nice trans flag in the background
I recently used a combination of both that seems to work, at least on a small scale. I placed a fillet above a chamfer that I used on the bottom edge of a print. It makes the transition a bit smoother, and not the obvious edge, that the chamfer, alone, gives your print.
A thought... in looking at the slice of the variable layer height, it's looking like it's filling in enough detiai to carry the overhang, if it were on the bottom. Thoughts?
Great observation. Makes so much sense. Thanks for sharing! : )
If you dimensions on your Cube were different the print on the Fillet would of come out better/different IMO, good vid tho thanks.
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!! I hate it when someone tells me something that I've been trying to deny...
You might want to tune your extrusion settings, that top layer is way under extruded.
“Mr MakeAnything? We need to talk...”
The top fillet would be quite a bit nicer even keeping 0.3 but with more than one perimeter. You probably did that on purpose to make the problem more visible :-)
And the bottom one would too benefit from smaller layer height, just as the top does. That being said, yes, fillets are overrated and overused.
Interesting. However, I am a function-over-form designer so I use whatever has the combo of best strength, fastest print time and least material use. One thing I love about 3D printing is that you can chamfer or fillet most everything and unlike machining, you don't add cost.
What if you model the fillet in, sand down the grooves, fill with bondo, and sand again? Then cast the piece in an alginate mold and make resin copies.
.3 is just too coarse for fillets (or any roundness on top) i guess, I've been getting very nice fillets at .1 and .15 layer height.
As a sketchup peasant, I use chamfers anyway
I find myself doing chamfers to make models easier to sand... and once you sand it, it will actually smooth out the model too. And with fillets, it forces you to use very low layer heights like .05mm
everything also depends on the radius of your fillets. The ones in your example are gigantic, when rounding of corners or edges with fillets with radii in the order of 5 mm or less the overhang and the stepping on the top will be not severe for normal layer heights.
Chamfers instead of fillets? HE’S A Heretic!!! BLASPHEMOUS HEATHEN!!!!
Can you fillet... Can you fillet... Can you fillet...
Why on earth does not Simplify 3d have that neat layer height manipulator that Prusa has had for years now ? Annoying when a free program can have such neat features when a paid premium software wont bother including it.
Nice vid, but you should have included inside corners!
Next time! Bugger
@@MakersMuse As I know you are a Solidworks fanboy, like I was/am... Solidworks started a makers campaign, looks like they are following up Fusion. Google "Solidworks for makers" and check it out. I am not affiliated with them, but I am also starting my own company in designing stuff. Not sure if i can post links here: www.solidworks.com/solution/business-segments/makers
Fillets rule. Oh wait.. Angus -- I want to make an inflatable 3d printed basketball that bounces. I'm thinking about how it could be done. TPU and a check valve for a start.. :)
Check out XYZ Aiden, he's done loads of work on 3D Printed pneumatic soft robotics and a good place to start! ruclips.net/channel/UC1ts2Ar2cVWYCac-KAaTrWQ
@@MakersMuse Yeah, checked his channel already. Seen his check valve. Seen references to your water holding work . Can't find any bouncing balls yet though. :)
I'm a noob, I don't know what TPU means, I don't even have a printermajigger yet. So take my words with some salt. But I'd think the horizontal layers would be bad for inflatables like basket balls that need to bounce & therefore contain variable pressure... the layers would split apart. I think you'd have to invent a new type of printer that works more like rolling a (hollow) ball of yarn. Barring that, a cell structure might help... an inner hull connected to an outer hull with supports... I don't know why I think that would help... it might make it too stiff to bounce.
Wait what?! chamfers look alot better then fillets in my opinion. I guess that depends on what it's for, but I usually prefer chamfers, aesthetically.
I have a few 3D printers and I like the idea of variable layer height. I know you can kinda so something similar in S3D with processes, but is there a way to do variable layer height as easily as slic3r PE, but with something other then a prusa i3?
Our ancient enemy - Gravity !
Well obviously it deprnds on which plane. On x/y using fillets will give you better results since your hotend mass does not stop in a sharp corner and you cant make a sharp corner with a nozzle anyway. On x/z or y/z i tought this was one of the first things you learn since its just logic?
Manual adaptive layering can be done by using a separate process for the layers involving the complicated geometry. Then go back to your bog standard layer setting. Surely if the infill can be managed this way so can the layer height.
But, but, but - muh purty fillets 😀. I find that inside corners fillet fairly well - even on my crappy Wanhou. Outside edges = post processing.
For anything 2.5D it's fine! :P I didn't even go near the topic of internal fillets to remove stress risers etc but I think that's beyond the scope of most 3D Printing hobbiests. Is the wanhao tracking along OK now? I always have more parts... lol
The gantry parts are pretty good - its the bed. It needs levelling every print (sometimes by quite a bit) and the bed is domed up in the middle. Seriously thinking about making a new bed with an after-market heater and a magnetic build surface.
This is kind of off this video subject, but I just got an email from Simplify 3D. According to the email, they are going to start charging the users that bought Simplify 3D to upgrade to ver 5.0. No prices yet. Did not expect that.
It's something I haven't thought about before, but it was a simple idea that can be efficiently conveyed in a 3 minute video. 10 minutes explaining something that we pretty much guessed at 2:35 was a bit excessive.
(Less than that for me because I ran it at x1.75 speed, partially for that reason :) )
Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us, though!
I wish Fusion 360 allowed us to constrain the "fillet overhang". Maybe by making the bottom if the fillet non tangent to the horizontal surface
Huge thanks! I gonna use fillets in animating and shamfers(?) In real-life, but you can sand it down so...
I use fillets all the time with adaptive layer hight turned on and it prints perfectly.
Do a search on the designs of that shirt. All I am. Saying about that. But great video as always. Thanks Angus.
I've only been using CAD with 3D printing for a few months and I've come to the same conclusion: Chamfers > Fillets
Can you do your slicer trick in Cura? Unless someone corrects me, I can not find how to do it. There was something about older versions splitting the model and there was one about bringing in the same model duplicated and applying different settings to each one. Angus, maybe you can make a deal with S3D, if used for hobby and we drop your name, we get it for half off. Or if used for hobby and we subscribe to your channel. :-)
Variable layer heights? Wow I learned something new.
You can still get some rounding in. You just have to cut it off at 45-60 degrees. This does actually give you quite a lot of the shape (45 degrees is actually about 70% of the height). Not really suitable for engineering but for aesthetics, it can be good enough.
Print quality and surface finish is a big and often subjective discussion. It would be nice to have a set of prints that yield actual measurements to tweak printing parameters. I posted a very simple print for thread geometry accuracy that results in a measurement number. Indirectly surface finish is included in the measurement. Just food for thought.
www.thingiverse.com/thing:3390910
Cheers
-Peter
seems like the top chamfer is a software problem, when it curves in, the internal structure peeks through. to me a thicker "outer wall" could fix that(though i'm not sure, i don't have much experience in cad, but my knowledge in software suggests that would work).
For small objects designed to be held in the hand, like the case I designed for the Lantian Mini High Sensitive 2.4G Frequency Spectrograph display I uploaded to thingiverse, I print at 0.10mm or 0.05mm and the curved edges come out nicer because they're on the top+sides of the prints.
Yep for sure, with super fine layer heights the stepping artifacts are less obvious - but you can still see it even on resin prints at 50 microns if you look hard enough ;) MUCH cleaner result though.
First saw some small (20x10x10mm) resin 3D printed parts about 10 years ago, the detail was amazing.
I realised I'd reached the limits of printing small things with my Prusa i3 Mk3 when I tried to print some replacement battery covers for my old Nintendo Game & Watches, even 0.05mm layer height isn't enough, need a resin printer but that's too much just for a few battery covers :)
It happens a little too often that you cover a niche topic right after I encounter it in practice (within hours!). Last time it was about oval-shaped holes, now variable layer heights to mitigate "stairing". I know about selection bias, but it does feel like God plays loaded dice.
Have you ever experimented with the "Non-Planar Layer FDM"?
Hey Angus, do you have some tips for mechanical tolerances(there is some automatic tool in solid works that do it for example ?
And resistance to stress(I don't know how express what I want), make the 3d printed part more mechanically stable as possible.
What about for structure? When I have a thin wall perpendicular (orthogonal?) to a flat surface, it'll just snap off if I don't do something to reinforce the joint. My experience is that a chamfer is weaker than a fillet. I may need to do some test prints.