Being able to add single, manual supports for small areas that need support would be fantastic.
Similar to Simplify 3D.
I'm sorry if this is a duplicate, but I could not find anything in search.
atlemo
All 29 comments
+1
thesec
on 9 Oct 2017
+1 and .. these days we can only chose either touching built-plate supports or everywhere but we cannot chose supports which are only inside the model. I miss this option daily.
Thisismydigitalself
on 9 Oct 2017
It's not the best way to do it (ux wise), but have a look at the anti-overhang meshes. They work in a similar way as the infill meshes.
nallath
on 10 Oct 2017
This feature requests pops up every now and then. It's not on our roadmap currently, as many people still prefer automatic supports (slice & forget), and pro users sometimes model their own supports when creating the original mesh.
The suggestion by @Thisismydigitalself about supports that only touch the model is another discussion and should be fairly easy to implement.
ChrisTerBeke
on 10 Oct 2017
How about a model touching auto-support with the option to remove parts of it.
Seems a fair compromise and close enough to a fully manual support 馃憤
thesec
on 10 Oct 2017
Slightly off topic, but Chris, doesn't modelling the support mess up the skin (because the support then becomes part of the skin)?
DDDirk
on 10 Oct 2017
I've seen people design specific tree structures to support their models (like DLP supports). Another example would be the small support structures in the Ultimaker robot print (between the hands and legs).
ChrisTerBeke
on 10 Oct 2017
Making custom supports is not really an option in a lot of cases where you receive an STL from a client, and you're not able to spend hours creating support meshes, which in turn won't be read as support and get the benefits from support settings in Cura.
atlemo
on 13 Oct 2017
Manually modelled supports is off-topic, lets do not climb that tree any further :)
thesec
on 13 Oct 2017
+1
Blaster1920
on 19 Oct 2017
Needs to be implemented. Not having this feature makes Cura kind of useless for many prints!
garv3
on 8 Feb 2018
How so? I literately never felt the need to use it.... Can you give some examples where it would help you out? Maybe there's another solution (read: simpler to implement) that will also get you there.
ChrisTerBeke
on 8 Feb 2018
It helps in optimizing filament usage, getting the support where you actually want it, ...
I already added a - possibly simpler to implement - step to fully manual supports last October: allow to remove parts of the automatically added support.
thesec
on 8 Feb 2018
Removing supports can already be done by setting the mesh type of for example a cube to 'remove supports' and placing that cube where you want to remove the supports. we're working on a plugin to make that workflow a bit easier (e.g. creating the cube automatically).
With regards to filament usage / placing supports, I personally still don't see the added value between fully automated supports (which could be improved) and manually designing your support in CAD software for specific use cases. Again, that's just my own opinion.
ChrisTerBeke
on 8 Feb 2018
You can actually add manual support. Load a model (i.e. a cube), then in custom mode select Mesh Type "Print as support"
jackha
on 8 Feb 2018
You guys are totally crazy.. Just try Simplify 3D: manual support totally customizable in less than a sec.. Add a cube then copy it etc etc? You'd triple the slicer set-up time.
Blaster1920
on 8 Feb 2018
It's fine to have an opinion about all of this, but calling us straight out crazy seems a bit overexcited...
Also Cura and Simplify are totally different slicers/code bases, so just because they currently have it means it's something we can implement in a respectable time frame.
ChrisTerBeke
on 8 Feb 2018
Will give the mesh type "remove support" a try. Getting that into an easy workflow sounds "almost there" to me.
On using CAD for support generation - in my opinion - that completely mixes up concerns: while I design in CAD and might test the model itself for production usage it is the slicer where the model is placed, added support to ( not part of the model ) and sliced for a optimum result.
thesec
on 11 Feb 2018
Our project manager removed this from our planning, saying he doesn't think it's important enough. I don't know if he actually read the ticket before removing it from our planning though...
Ghostkeeper
on 21 Feb 2018
Doesn't sound like a very agile team ... more like 80ies and waterfall? ;P
thesec
on 23 Feb 2018
Actually it is a very known practice in Agile to clean up the backlog with stories that no longer seem relevant. This is called backlog grooming. It also doesn't mean it can't re-appear if it becomes important again.
ChrisTerBeke
on 23 Feb 2018
There's no "project manager" in Agile.
thesec
on 23 Feb 2018
Actually he is the product owner, not sure why project manager is mentioned here.
ChrisTerBeke
on 23 Feb 2018
Now we have Agile :))
thesec
on 23 Feb 2018
This has been a request for a long time: https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/386
superjamie
on 18 Apr 2018
@superjamie thanks for recalling my bug report. Yeah, I think it's important enough but regarding the manual modelling in CADs, it's not enough. Support structures have different densities, different ways to be constructed than the part itself, e.g. with (or without) a support interface, and the same support structures might be printed different ways depending on the printer (e.g. one extruder versus dual extruder with dissolvable support). So, it's really not a substitute; many geometries _require_ intrincate support to even be printed without collapsing.
I fully understand that it is very difficult to implement properly and that there are interface limitations for that. But the way it is implemented in Simplify3D, CraftUnique Craftware and Ideamaker Slicer really seems to be the quickest and more efficient, although for some corner cases the overlapping polyhedrons could have an edge.
Patola
on 18 Apr 2018
Oh I agree with you! The recent Support Blocker feature in Cura 3.3 gets at least part of the way there.
I more meant to say this Issue is a duplicate of your original so this could be closed.
superjamie
on 18 Apr 2018
regarding the manual modelling in CADs, it's not enough. Support structures have different densities, different ways to be constructed than the part itself, e.g. with (or without) a support interface, and the same support structures might be printed different ways depending on the printer
That can already be remedied by printing select models "as support". See the Mesh Type selection in Per Model Settings.
fieldOfView
on 18 Apr 2018
I more meant to say this Issue is a duplicate of your original so this could be closed.
I agree. Let's close this one as duplicate of #386 and keep the conversation together with the rest a bit.
Ghostkeeper
on 3 May 2018
Related issues
konvoj
路
3Comments
timherrm
路
3Comments
Nemernemer
路
3Comments
tomoinn
路
3Comments
mubarak111nsu
路
3Comments
Most helpful comment
+1 and .. these days we can only chose either touching built-plate supports or everywhere but we cannot chose supports which are only inside the model. I miss this option daily.