Just for others that may not be familiar with the term, these features that you are referring to are called a counterbore. I've seen several approaches to this issue and this one is certainly interesting. If someone is looking to eliminate post processing of supports this method is great. For someone like me who isn't designing for mass production, using supports in these areas delivers a satisfactory result (if your support settings are tuned optimally). Nice video, to the point with zero fluff.
Thank you Kevin. I have heard of this trick but could not quite figure out how to execute it. Now, thanks to your detailed explanation, I believe I got it.
Think Cura has that built into there slicer that identifies where it can use a single bridge support layer for 90 degree overhangs like inside a pocked holes. This does mean you have to punch though to clear the hole. I've used the Prusa trick a few times. Recently on a desiccant container i designed with holes on top to fill and cap where inside the model and wouldn't be able to clear supports. It works great if your installing heat set inserts too. But i found that if it's used to capture/house a nut or screw head it gives it a cushioned area and makes the parts not feel as secure. LOVE IT, great video
Yeah, this method results in the fastener contacting a smaller area and only on opposite sides. That's not a deal breaker for a lot of 3D printed parts though.
This works fantastic for small holes, but I’ve found with larger holes (think 4cm or more) it still needs a bit more support. My current default version of this is to use a triangle and do as many pockets as is needed to get the final unsupported curved bridge perimeter down to a reasonable distance. Ended up doing 5 of them recently.
Pro tip for others reading.... you can also extrude on that hole and "plug it" using the thickness of the layer height being used. For example 0.2mm extruded joined plug in the model. The slicer will also treat the feature as a bridge, and since its only1 layer thick, it cleans up perfectly in post. Reason i say this, its a lot less steps to do it, as compared to these steps. It all accomplish the same goal anyways. Just a matter of how you would simplify the workflow.
You could look at it as you do a little bit of work in the model, or you do a little bit of work after you print it. Personally I don't like sacrificial layers. You do have to punch through it and then get some needle nose pliers and clean up all those little strings of plastic. I'd rather do a few extra steps at the end of creating the model and then every time I print it, no matter how many times I print it, it's clean and I don't have to do any cleanup after printing.
The parts for Prusa's printers are a good case study of 3D printing techniques in general - even if you don't own a Prusa, it's worth looking at the files to see what they've done.
In OnShape, I do this by referencing the rectangles to the circles by setting tangent constraints . That way I don’t have to worry about center points and dimensions. Sometimes you need a third layer at a 45-degree angle if the remaining unsupported bit is more than a mm or so from corner to tangent.
Prusa uses slanted surfaces nowadays. Instead of the pocket's bottom being a horizontal 90 degree overhang it has an angle, similar to what you'd do for a countersunk screw head. So it prints fine without supports while still stopping the nut/screw. If I remember correctly you can do that in Freecad with one of the parameters of the pocket/hole features, so it's a lot simpler too.
At some point you'll have to get your support settings fine tuned or go in with a counterbore drill, but not always. Maybe not even most of the time. I think a lot of the times we create counterbores or pockets for fasteners in 3D print models, we're just doing it because it's a convenient way to hold two things together, not out of any need for high precision or high tension. Or you could design for a different fastener if needed. E.g. eliminate the counter bore and use a button head screw or heat set insert. Create clearance for the screw head another way if needed.
Thanks, good trick to have in the back pocket. For me, I'll probably just leave the c'bore out of the design and use an actual counterbore, which will give a nice flat surface to better spread the load.
it really depends on the scenario, and there are many solutions to the problem based on the scenario. That solution is fine for a small screw hole. But this trick works really well for larger pockets like for a hex head bolt. Or in a recent mini spool I designed, I had a 15 mm cylindrical cavity that was 20 mm deep with a small screw hole at the top of it. This trick worked perfectly for that.
Actual instructions start at @3:00. TL;DR: 1: Select face inside bottom of hole. 2: Create new sketch. 3: (Optional IMHO) Turn on View Section. (Or just make your part ~50% transparent always like I do.) 4: Import geometry -> hole's inner circle. 5: Create centered rectangle. Width=Inner hole, Length=Outer hole. 6: Pocket by layer thickness. (Usually 0.2mm) 7: Repeat steps 1-6, only use a square that is the same size as the inner hole.
While it is easy to use pockets to create the bridge features the method also creates small "voids"/"caves" as it pockets the full rectangles into the object.
I have found that the tiny bit of droop that happens with the bridging kind of fills the gap. Try it out. Also, I did make a feature request, also for a teardrop hole function in the holes command.
Hi, if I need to make counterbore holes I make the bolt clearance holes square, the head clearance hole can be circular. Now there is no part with a radius left hanging in mid air.
That was worth a subscribe! Thanks for taking the time to explain how that works! A small question I'm assuming I'd want to redraw those if I was printing at .28 or .32 mm layer heights? Should be fine to print at finer heights though?
Yeah, if you're printing it at 0.28, you'd want the pockets to be 0.28. I think. I haven't tried to slice it at a rougher layer height to see how it behaves.
When you create models for public consumption, STL is the common format everyone can use. You can go into the mesh workbench and then into preferences and you'll have STL settings under import/export. You can increase the resolution a bit there. File sizes will increase, but still not as much as step files. Which I think are a readable text format. Step is a good format for sharing files between programs though, faces are preserved making the file more editable.
@loughkb all slicers that have been updated in the last two years can use STEP files now. STL are not as accurate as STEP as everything has to be converted back and forth from triangles vs STEP that has the actual values of the cad drawing. Both file formats are human readable. But please use the format that is working best for you.
Thanks for this, I'm learning freecad at the moment coming from sketchup and this was one trick I was a little stuck on. Do you have any tricks for teardrop holes? I've found them quite time consuming so far to do.
I see, for holes on the side of a model. Looks like it shouldn't be too tough. Make a circle draw a couple of lines connected to the circle and each other, trim edge and done. But I'll play around with it.
@@loughkb Yeah they're not particularly difficult but i'm positive there's a more efficient way to be doing them compared to my trial and error efforts so far. thanks!
Hello, I've no experience with 3d printing but am thinking about getting started. This might be a stupid question but, for the model in the video, couldn't you flip it 180 degree in XY plan and print the small diameter hole first. Wouldn't that give the same result?
That's fine if you don't have any features on the top side of the model. Often you have to orient the model for large features with overhangs, or to put the layers in a certain direction for strength on certain parts of the model. And in those cases sometimes you have to have screw pockets on the bottom or other pockets on the bottom.
Doing this in FreeCAD is a valuable skill ... but far easier is to do it in the slicer. In OrcaSlicer, look in the Bridging section (near the bottom of the Quality tab). See the "Bridge counterbore holes" setting? Try either partially bridge or sacrificial layer, at your preference.
This has been discussed in another comment. If you're producing models for public consumption, it is far better to do it in the CAD making the fixed part of the model. Then it doesn't matter who downloads it, what their skill level is, what slicer they're using. It will always print cleanly. I've done some experiments with orca slicer and the mentioned setting, and it does work well enough, but not quite as cleanly. Others have also mentioned the sacrificial layer approach. And it is another solution to the problem, but then you introduce post-processing after printing. You have to punch through the layer and optionally clean it up. Every single time you print the model. I think it's better to do a little extra work only once in the CAD program rather than doing a little extra work every print.
I'm completely new to this, my understanding from this video is "bridging" a straight tool path works and a "cantilevered" circular tool path doesn't work? How far can you realistically "bridge" over empty space? Thanks for the tip in advance.
In bridging, the printer slows the tool head down and extrusion, and cranks up the cooling fans so that the plastic is cooling and hardening as it's coming out of the nozzle. And then the movement of the head is controlled so that it is keeping just a tiny bit of tension on that extruded bead to hold it slightly taut against its anchor point and keep it up in the air. It varies printer to printer, but I have bridged almost 70 mm in the past. Realistically most printers have no trouble bridging 10 to 20 mm.
I recently imported a step file to FreeCad to create a parametric model of it. I think it was originally done in Fusion 360. Anyway it had these weird patterns in the bottom of counterbored holes. I said to myself "what's this crap? - must be a modeling error of some sort". So I deleted all of them and made a nice flat bottomed counterbore on all the holes - haha. Doh !!!
Really well-done tutorial! And great explanation of the theory. Looks like something you could make a macro for? In openscad, I could create a "Recessed Hole" function w/parameters.
Yeah there's probably multiple ways to do it in freecad. A python script would be one. I think there is also macro functionality that differs. I haven't looked into it that far yet. Still learning the program, it has layers upon layers of functionality and features, really kind of amazing.
I don't know FreeCAD functionality or the Pad tool, it looks to me like the sketched rectangle should also cover the hole, why doesn't it? I didn't notice you including the hole's edges in the sketch.
I was using a pocket tool, not a pad. Pocket removes material, so it would remove any material within the rectangle. The hole is already a hole, no material to remove. I imported the circles geometry so I had its center point. I was using a centered rectangle so it is coincident to the center of the circle not the edges. I just had to set the dimensions to match the diameter of the circle.
A sacrificial layer is what that's called. So do slightly less work in the model, so that you can do slightly more work every time you print the model. ;-)
Instead of having the hole go tru the shape, leave a 0.4mm so the pinter will be able to bridge and have a better finish. Example, your parts is 10mm, you need a hole of 10mm deep then, make the hole go up to 9.6mm deep. You want that remaining 0.4mm layer been facing the bed. No more support needed, if you need support, the print finish quality will be better. When finish printing, use a knife to clean the hole of the 0.4 mm layer.
You're talking about a "sacrificial layer", which has been discussed here already. Sure, that's one solution to the problem. However, that introduces post processing work after each and every print. So, a little less work when modeling, but a little more work when printing. Every time you print it. I would rather create a model that any user, of any skill level, with any slicer, can download and print without any supports or need of additional work.
I think you meant to say chamfer. Might work if the pocket size is close enough to the screw hole size. You could use recessed screws as well. There's probably many solutions to different versions of the problem.
Fillets don't work well on the bottom side of a print. They start at an extreme angle, so the first two or three perimeters are being laid out over open air and droop making a mess of it. Unless you enable supports, which is what we're trying to avoid. Chamfer's work better around the bottom edge of a print because they're usually at about a 45° angle, which most printers can handle.
I'm a bit of a noob when it comes to 3D printing, but I feel like you could just print the part with the counter bores facing up. Then you wouldn't need this trick. Again, I'm not really that knowledgeable with 3D printing. So, don't attack me too hard.
There are many times when you need to add pockets on the bottom of the model. And for other reasons the other parts would need to be printed facing up. This only applies when you have no choice but to have pockets on the bottom. A good example would be the bottom of the CW flea transmitter case that I showed in the video. The screw head pockets are on the bottom, on the top of that piece is a very large pocket to accommodate the PC board, and partial cuts along the edges to accommodate plugs from cables that connect to it. If I flipped it over, then I'd have those huge pockets that need supports.
That's basically the same as what support settings do in a slicer anyway. So then after you print you have to remove that extra material that is wasted. Which generates work every time that you print. If this trick is done, the model will print for anybody on any slicer on any printer without supports and without hassle. No extra work required.
@@loughkb Yes, but breaking off the cylinder and then hitting the edge with a countersink seems pretty easy and may produce a flatter bottom. My concern with year method is the flatness of the counterbore and uneven pressure which might fracture the part.
I haven't had any issues like that at all. And Prusa does this with their printed parts for their 3D printers. If there were any issues with that method, they would certainly avoid it or there would be all kinds of problems with their printers. Which there is not.
For a one-off that's fine. If you're making models for public consumption, you can't expect or require the consumer to use a very specific type of screw to that degree. You can, but that would narrow the audience slightly. And also I'm not sure where you would find countersink hex head bolts or any of the other number of types of pockets you might need to make.
Just for others that may not be familiar with the term, these features that you are referring to are called a counterbore. I've seen several approaches to this issue and this one is certainly interesting. If someone is looking to eliminate post processing of supports this method is great. For someone like me who isn't designing for mass production, using supports in these areas delivers a satisfactory result (if your support settings are tuned optimally). Nice video, to the point with zero fluff.
I have followed you for the Radio and now I have came back into the 3d printing hobby and here you are again !! awesome !!!
Thank you Kevin. I have heard of this trick but could not quite figure out how to execute it. Now, thanks to your detailed explanation, I believe I got it.
Very useful. Thanks for sharing this, I didn't know about this trick. I'll be using this alot.
My friend printed me your gear reduction for loop antennas .I got it in the mail today and installed it on my loop. It is absolutely amazing.
Glad you like it, which one? The single stage herringbone or the planetary transmission?
@ he did the planetary gear. it was the 16 to 1 .. can’t wait for your next invention. Thanks for your hard work and I’m glad you’re feeling better.
Think Cura has that built into there slicer that identifies where it can use a single bridge support layer for 90 degree overhangs like inside a pocked holes. This does mean you have to punch though to clear the hole.
I've used the Prusa trick a few times. Recently on a desiccant container i designed with holes on top to fill and cap where inside the model and wouldn't be able to clear supports. It works great if your installing heat set inserts too. But i found that if it's used to capture/house a nut or screw head it gives it a cushioned area and makes the parts not feel as secure.
LOVE IT, great video
Yeah, this method results in the fastener contacting a smaller area and only on opposite sides. That's not a deal breaker for a lot of 3D printed parts though.
This works fantastic for small holes, but I’ve found with larger holes (think 4cm or more) it still needs a bit more support. My current default version of this is to use a triangle and do as many pockets as is needed to get the final unsupported curved bridge perimeter down to a reasonable distance. Ended up doing 5 of them recently.
Pro tip for others reading.... you can also extrude on that hole and "plug it" using the thickness of the layer height being used. For example 0.2mm extruded joined plug in the model. The slicer will also treat the feature as a bridge, and since its only1 layer thick, it cleans up perfectly in post.
Reason i say this, its a lot less steps to do it, as compared to these steps. It all accomplish the same goal anyways. Just a matter of how you would simplify the workflow.
You could look at it as you do a little bit of work in the model, or you do a little bit of work after you print it. Personally I don't like sacrificial layers. You do have to punch through it and then get some needle nose pliers and clean up all those little strings of plastic.
I'd rather do a few extra steps at the end of creating the model and then every time I print it, no matter how many times I print it, it's clean and I don't have to do any cleanup after printing.
I too prefer sacrificial layers for one offs (I very seldom print my models more than a few times)
The parts for Prusa's printers are a good case study of 3D printing techniques in general - even if you don't own a Prusa, it's worth looking at the files to see what they've done.
Thankyou very much, I was struggling for a solution to this isssue 👍
In OnShape, I do this by referencing the rectangles to the circles by setting tangent constraints . That way I don’t have to worry about center points and dimensions. Sometimes you need a third layer at a 45-degree angle if the remaining unsupported bit is more than a mm or so from corner to tangent.
Prusa uses slanted surfaces nowadays. Instead of the pocket's bottom being a horizontal 90 degree overhang it has an angle, similar to what you'd do for a countersunk screw head. So it prints fine without supports while still stopping the nut/screw. If I remember correctly you can do that in Freecad with one of the parameters of the pocket/hole features, so it's a lot simpler too.
That would work but would make the part more sensitive to breaking from the wedging action of the angled head.
At some point you'll have to get your support settings fine tuned or go in with a counterbore drill, but not always. Maybe not even most of the time. I think a lot of the times we create counterbores or pockets for fasteners in 3D print models, we're just doing it because it's a convenient way to hold two things together, not out of any need for high precision or high tension.
Or you could design for a different fastener if needed. E.g. eliminate the counter bore and use a button head screw or heat set insert. Create clearance for the screw head another way if needed.
Thanks, good trick to have in the back pocket.
For me, I'll probably just leave the c'bore out of the design and use an actual counterbore, which will give a nice flat surface to better spread the load.
it really depends on the scenario, and there are many solutions to the problem based on the scenario. That solution is fine for a small screw hole. But this trick works really well for larger pockets like for a hex head bolt. Or in a recent mini spool I designed, I had a 15 mm cylindrical cavity that was 20 mm deep with a small screw hole at the top of it. This trick worked perfectly for that.
This is interesting, I will have to try it.
Actual instructions start at @3:00.
TL;DR:
1: Select face inside bottom of hole.
2: Create new sketch.
3: (Optional IMHO) Turn on View Section. (Or just make your part ~50% transparent always like I do.)
4: Import geometry -> hole's inner circle.
5: Create centered rectangle. Width=Inner hole, Length=Outer hole.
6: Pocket by layer thickness. (Usually 0.2mm)
7: Repeat steps 1-6, only use a square that is the same size as the inner hole.
Nice trick, thanks for sharing.
Thanks from Colorado
great trick, thanks for sharing
Great trick! Many thanks. I will use it.
Thanks Kevin...a nice trick indeed!
Thanks!
Nice trick! Thank you very much. 👍🏻
goated tutorial
great video mister! muchas gracias
While it is easy to use pockets to create the bridge features the method also creates small "voids"/"caves" as it pockets the full rectangles into the object.
I have found that the tiny bit of droop that happens with the bridging kind of fills the gap. Try it out. Also, I did make a feature request, also for a teardrop hole function in the holes command.
I personally use a chamfered countersink if the vertical dimension allows for the extra space. This eliminates the need for anything else.
Hi, if I need to make counterbore holes I make the bolt clearance holes square, the head clearance hole can be circular. Now there is no part with a radius left hanging in mid air.
That was worth a subscribe! Thanks for taking the time to explain how that works! A small question I'm assuming I'd want to redraw those if I was printing at .28 or .32 mm layer heights? Should be fine to print at finer heights though?
Yeah, if you're printing it at 0.28, you'd want the pockets to be 0.28. I think. I haven't tried to slice it at a rougher layer height to see how it behaves.
Good stuff and clear delivery. You should give exporting as STEP a try instead of STL. For tricky parts, it slices a lot better.
When you create models for public consumption, STL is the common format everyone can use. You can go into the mesh workbench and then into preferences and you'll have STL settings under import/export. You can increase the resolution a bit there. File sizes will increase, but still not as much as step files. Which I think are a readable text format.
Step is a good format for sharing files between programs though, faces are preserved making the file more editable.
@loughkb all slicers that have been updated in the last two years can use STEP files now. STL are not as accurate as STEP as everything has to be converted back and forth from triangles vs STEP that has the actual values of the cad drawing. Both file formats are human readable. But please use the format that is working best for you.
@@johang1293 Don't get me wrong, your original point is correct. Step files will result in smoother tool moves, better longer arc moves etc.
Unless there's a file upload size issue, might as well export as STEP, STL, and FCStd.
Thanks for this, I'm learning freecad at the moment coming from sketchup and this was one trick I was a little stuck on. Do you have any tricks for teardrop holes? I've found them quite time consuming so far to do.
If you can point me at a specific example of what you mean by teardrop hole, I'll see if I can figure something out.
@loughkb if you Google 'teardrop holes 3d printing" you'll see what I mean, they're a really handy trick when you have to print holes vertically
I see, for holes on the side of a model. Looks like it shouldn't be too tough. Make a circle draw a couple of lines connected to the circle and each other, trim edge and done. But I'll play around with it.
@@loughkb Yeah they're not particularly difficult but i'm positive there's a more efficient way to be doing them compared to my trial and error efforts so far. thanks!
Hello, I've no experience with 3d printing but am thinking about getting started. This might be a stupid question but, for the model in the video, couldn't you flip it 180 degree in XY plan and print the small diameter hole first. Wouldn't that give the same result?
That's fine if you don't have any features on the top side of the model. Often you have to orient the model for large features with overhangs, or to put the layers in a certain direction for strength on certain parts of the model. And in those cases sometimes you have to have screw pockets on the bottom or other pockets on the bottom.
@@loughkb Thanks for your reply. I now understand when this trick would be useful.
Doing this in FreeCAD is a valuable skill ... but far easier is to do it in the slicer. In OrcaSlicer, look in the Bridging section (near the bottom of the Quality tab). See the "Bridge counterbore holes" setting? Try either partially bridge or sacrificial layer, at your preference.
This has been discussed in another comment. If you're producing models for public consumption, it is far better to do it in the CAD making the fixed part of the model. Then it doesn't matter who downloads it, what their skill level is, what slicer they're using. It will always print cleanly. I've done some experiments with orca slicer and the mentioned setting, and it does work well enough, but not quite as cleanly.
Others have also mentioned the sacrificial layer approach. And it is another solution to the problem, but then you introduce post-processing after printing. You have to punch through the layer and optionally clean it up. Every single time you print the model. I think it's better to do a little extra work only once in the CAD program rather than doing a little extra work every print.
Try looking for a counter bore to find the hole.
I'm completely new to this, my understanding from this video is "bridging" a straight tool path works and a "cantilevered" circular tool path doesn't work? How far can you realistically "bridge" over empty space? Thanks for the tip in advance.
In bridging, the printer slows the tool head down and extrusion, and cranks up the cooling fans so that the plastic is cooling and hardening as it's coming out of the nozzle. And then the movement of the head is controlled so that it is keeping just a tiny bit of tension on that extruded bead to hold it slightly taut against its anchor point and keep it up in the air. It varies printer to printer, but I have bridged almost 70 mm in the past. Realistically most printers have no trouble bridging 10 to 20 mm.
I recently imported a step file to FreeCad to create a parametric model of it. I think it was originally done in Fusion 360. Anyway it had these weird patterns in the bottom of counterbored holes. I said to myself "what's this crap? - must be a modeling error of some sort". So I deleted all of them and made a nice flat bottomed counterbore on all the holes - haha. Doh !!!
Really well-done tutorial! And great explanation of the theory. Looks like something you could make a macro for? In openscad, I could create a "Recessed Hole" function w/parameters.
Yeah there's probably multiple ways to do it in freecad. A python script would be one. I think there is also macro functionality that differs. I haven't looked into it that far yet. Still learning the program, it has layers upon layers of functionality and features, really kind of amazing.
Could you use flat-head screws instead? The cone shaped recess for those would be easier for the printer.
Sure. There's many solutions to the problem. But this trick also works for other pocketed holes not just screw holes.
Tnx es 73
Why not just invert the block? Print the hole layer first to the desired number of layers the the bed on top then top it with the sides?😊
I don't know FreeCAD functionality or the Pad tool, it looks to me like the sketched rectangle should also cover the hole, why doesn't it? I didn't notice you including the hole's edges in the sketch.
I was using a pocket tool, not a pad. Pocket removes material, so it would remove any material within the rectangle. The hole is already a hole, no material to remove.
I imported the circles geometry so I had its center point. I was using a centered rectangle so it is coincident to the center of the circle not the edges. I just had to set the dimensions to match the diameter of the circle.
just fill the whole layer when the diameter of hole changes, so slicer makes a bridge, then drill that single layer after print
A sacrificial layer is what that's called.
So do slightly less work in the model, so that you can do slightly more work every time you print the model. ;-)
Instead of having the hole go tru the shape, leave a 0.4mm so the pinter will be able to bridge and have a better finish. Example, your parts is 10mm, you need a hole of 10mm deep then, make the hole go up to 9.6mm deep. You want that remaining 0.4mm layer been facing the bed. No more support needed, if you need support, the print finish quality will be better. When finish printing, use a knife to clean the hole of the 0.4 mm layer.
You're talking about a "sacrificial layer", which has been discussed here already.
Sure, that's one solution to the problem. However, that introduces post processing work after each and every print. So, a little less work when modeling, but a little more work when printing. Every time you print it.
I would rather create a model that any user, of any skill level, with any slicer, can download and print without any supports or need of additional work.
what if you make a 0.5 Fillet on the screw entrance inner hole? so that the edge will not be so abrupt...
I think you meant to say chamfer. Might work if the pocket size is close enough to the screw hole size. You could use recessed screws as well. There's probably many solutions to different versions of the problem.
@@loughkb Chamfer is a straight path, Fillet is a rounded path. Fillet is what I meant.
Fillets don't work well on the bottom side of a print. They start at an extreme angle, so the first two or three perimeters are being laid out over open air and droop making a mess of it. Unless you enable supports, which is what we're trying to avoid. Chamfer's work better around the bottom edge of a print because they're usually at about a 45° angle, which most printers can handle.
I'm a bit of a noob when it comes to 3D printing, but I feel like you could just print the part with the counter bores facing up. Then you wouldn't need this trick. Again, I'm not really that knowledgeable with 3D printing. So, don't attack me too hard.
There are many times when you need to add pockets on the bottom of the model. And for other reasons the other parts would need to be printed facing up. This only applies when you have no choice but to have pockets on the bottom.
A good example would be the bottom of the CW flea transmitter case that I showed in the video. The screw head pockets are on the bottom, on the top of that piece is a very large pocket to accommodate the PC board, and partial cuts along the edges to accommodate plugs from cables that connect to it. If I flipped it over, then I'd have those huge pockets that need supports.
Thanks, neat trick. Needs to be a tool in freecad for this. Had to cringe when you put spaces in file names.
How about just model a cylinder one layer thick that's the I.D. of the hole all the way up from the print bed for support.
That's basically the same as what support settings do in a slicer anyway. So then after you print you have to remove that extra material that is wasted. Which generates work every time that you print. If this trick is done, the model will print for anybody on any slicer on any printer without supports and without hassle. No extra work required.
@@loughkb Yes, but breaking off the cylinder and then hitting the edge with a countersink seems pretty easy and may produce a flatter bottom.
My concern with year method is the flatness of the counterbore and uneven pressure which might fracture the part.
I haven't had any issues like that at all. And Prusa does this with their printed parts for their 3D printers. If there were any issues with that method, they would certainly avoid it or there would be all kinds of problems with their printers. Which there is not.
@@loughkb Good point
bonsoir je n ai pas tout compris mais avec la video je pense avoir compris le principe est merci cela evite de mettre des echafaudage 👍👍👍👍👍
Also too bad that the hole tool in FreeCAD doesn't support creating this nor sacrificial layers.
Just countersink the holes and use flathead screws. They look better anyway.
For a one-off that's fine. If you're making models for public consumption, you can't expect or require the consumer to use a very specific type of screw to that degree. You can, but that would narrow the audience slightly.
And also I'm not sure where you would find countersink hex head bolts or any of the other number of types of pockets you might need to make.
👍🏻🛵
Thanks for sharing this trick.
Did they solve the mystery of the squaring of the circle ? 🤣
73 de F1SOC