Prusaslicer: [Feature request] Infill in SLA mode

[port513]

Version

1.42 Beta1

Operating system type + version

Booth Windows and Linux

3D printer brand / version + firmware version (if known)

SL1

Behavior

Make the model hollow with drainage holes or make the model hollow with open bottom.
And a few other things important to SLA-printing, don't want to use more than one software if not needed so to speak.

_Is this a new feature request?_
Yes

[bubnikv]

SLA hollowing with drainage holes is in the planning, however not for this release.

And a few other things important to SLA-printing, don't want to use more than one software if not needed so to speak.

We will also implement the few other things important to SLA-printing once you share these with us.

[port513]

This is my wishlist

1. Hollow model with or without draining holes solid or open bottom on the model etc.
2. Estimated resin used
3. Best printing orientation (option to do this automatically)
4. Auto bed arrangement after supports added
5. We need to be able to add price for the resin so Slic3r PE can calculate the cost to produce the object too. Can't find that for resins at the moment.

[Maeyanie]

Item 2 is already present.

For my own wishlist:

1. Infill options (in addition to hollow). Same idea as FDM, to add structural rigidity and to better support the top of the print. This won't save as much resin as it does filament, since some liquid is trapped inside when it gets capped off. But it should still help greatly with bed adhesion and would save some resin, especially with taller prints.
2. "Export to STL" including SLA supports. Less widely useful, but would make it possible to do some fine-tuning of the result with Meshmixer or similar software. Done, thanks!

[bubnikv]

Do you have a suggestion of an SLA slicer that we may learn from? What
patterns are used in the industry?

On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 4:59 PM Maeyanie [e-mail] wrote:

I'd also love to see infill options instead of purely hollow, similar to
FDM, to add rigidity and better support the top of the print. This won't
save as much resin as it would filament, since some liquid is trapped
inside when the top gets printed, but it still helps greatly with bed
adhesion would save some, especially with taller prints.

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/prusa3d/Slic3r/issues/2054#issuecomment-479933383,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFj5IxAfLlJH_B1rqVMMwK07yR9Eb2PPks5vdhM7gaJpZM4cVUb7
.

[Maeyanie]

The only ones I know are Formware, which does lattice infill, and NanoDLP, which does honeycomb. Most of them just offer hollow, or nothing.

The lattice is the better of the two since it leaves space for resin to drain, where the honeycomb captures it, but it's also more complicated to implement since it's not just the same pattern on each Z level.

I'd think many FDM infill patterns should work to some extent, though... rectilinear wouldn't work all that well except at high densities because of the bridging, and cubic wouldn't be great because it would be constantly trapping resin, but a lot of them should be fine.

[bubnikv]

I found a screenshot from Formware, such an infill is quite simple to
generate. I installed NanoDLP slicer, but I did not find a way to generate
any infill structure. A screenshot would be welcome.

[image: image.png]

On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 11:48 AM Maeyanie [e-mail] wrote:

The only ones I know are Formware, which does lattice infill, and NanoDLP,
which does honeycomb. Most of them just offer hollow, or nothing.

The lattice is the better of the two since it leaves space for resin to
drain, where the honeycomb captures it, but it's also more complicated to
implement since it's not just the same pattern on each Z level.

I'd think many FDM infill patterns should work to some extent, though...
rectilinear wouldn't work all that well except at high densities because of
the bridging, and cubic wouldn't be great because it would be constantly
trapping resin, but a lot of them should be fine.

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/prusa3d/Slic3r/issues/2054#issuecomment-480216191,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFj5IzV4syGhjvTDqGOhLp-nptT2aho9ks5vdxv-gaJpZM4cVUb7
.

[Maeyanie]

NanoDLP's UI is rather simplistic, this is the most useful "screenshots" I can provide. It's pretty much identical to a FDM honeycomb infill, just a different size because a pixel is far smaller than a nozzle.

Config:

Results (25% size to not be huge):

[bubnikv]

thanks. the lattice infill makes sense, while all the other fdm infills don't as they do not allow the resin to drain.

[Maeyanie]

Yes, the lattice is ideal for exactly that reason, so if it's simple like you said it would be great to have... but even vertical cells use less resin and reduce FEP adhesion compared to solid fill, while being stronger and more supporting than completely hollow, so are better than nothing.

[bubnikv]

I don't agree that vertical cells are a good idea. You don't want to face
the wrath of our customers having uncured resin entrapped inside these
cells and cracking the print, having the uncured resin spilling all over
the place.

On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 9:26 PM Maeyanie [e-mail] wrote:

Yes, the lattice is ideal for exactly that reason, so if it's simple like
you said it would be great to have... but even vertical cells use less
resin and reduce film adhesion compared to solid fill, while being stronger
and more supporting than completely hollow, so are better than nothing.

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/prusa3d/Slic3r/issues/2054#issuecomment-480531001,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFj5IwVg9iWVF9Ej1svzjOgcLWavB69jks5vePTfgaJpZM4cVUb7
.

[Maeyanie]

In my experience the post-cure solidifies the trapped resin, so it hasn't been a problem. But I guess with thick walls, particularly opaque resins, or certain geometries it would be an issue, and the stuff generally isn't healthy to get everywhere, so that is a good point.

[port513]

Still no option to hollow out a print in latest PrusaSlicer, is this a work in progress or do we have to use a second software for this?

[bubnikv]

it is a work in progress and you have to use a 3rd party software for that.

On Fri, May 17, 2019, 06:22 Lord Ulf Henrik Holmberg <
[email protected]> wrote:

Still no option to hollow out a print in latest PrusaSlicer, is this a
work in progress or do we have to use a second software for this?

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/prusa3d/PrusaSlicer/issues/2054?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABMPSI3ZQZU42RITDBHDNW3PVYXJRA5CNFSM4HCVI352YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODVTWBVY#issuecomment-493314263,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABMPSI3OSRN7ME4UN56BV43PVYXJRANCNFSM4HCVI35Q
.

[port513]

it is a work in progress and you have to use a 3rd party software for that.
…
On Fri, May 17, 2019, 06:22 Lord Ulf Henrik Holmberg < @.*> wrote: Still no option to hollow out a print in latest PrusaSlicer, is this a work in progress or do we have to use a second software for this? — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2054?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABMPSI3ZQZU42RITDBHDNW3PVYXJRA5CNFSM4HCVI352YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODVTWBVY#issuecomment-493314263>, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABMPSI3OSRN7ME4UN56BV43PVYXJRANCNFSM4HCVI35Q .

I can see that but it will be there soon? SL1 is released and that is a really important piece for a good slicer.

[Maeyanie]

It's fairly simple and quick to do in Meshmixer beforehand, so wouldn't say it's a huge problem to not have... it would be handy, though, for sure.

[verner33ob]

Just found this post.
Industry standard is Magics Materialise.
Other software for inspiration would be Autodesk Netfabb, ChituSlicer, Unyk and Creation Workshop can also create Support. Right now i don't have time, but i extensively used and tested all these programs and know how they create there supports and what the pros and cons of these softwares are.
So in my head i have the perfect support generation software.
But yeah, i think, to write a list of everything i found out about those programs, will most definitely be a too big novel for a simple post on github :D

[Maeyanie]

According to https://youtu.be/hZ3Dp7pwroA all Materialise Magics supports is different variations of "hollow." If that's the industry standard infill pattern, I'm not impressed.

[verner33ob]

The video just shows the boolean operators and the hollowing. That has nothing to do with support generation. But those functions are damn good and fast in this program. Also repairing of models is.

[Maeyanie]

Edit:
Sorry, I think this was just me misunderstanding. When you used the words "industry standard" I figured you were trying to answer the question earlier in the thread about what the industry standard infill patterns were, rather than suggesting something about supports. Apologies for the confusion. :)

[verner33ob]

I'm also sorry, i was confused and basically answered the question asked about other silcers and also one from another thread :D Sorry. But yes, these programs are also used for the inside supports. I just wanted to throw them out here for the developers here, to see what other programs do.

[bubnikv]

A nice infill would be a complement structure to a gyroid infill as somebody suggested somewhere (sorry, I forgot the source).

Hollow model with or without draining holes solid or open bottom on the model etc.

That is in the planning for PrusaSlicer 2.2 release.

Best printing orientation (option to do this automatically)

We have some implementation, but it is not perfect.

Auto bed arrangement after supports added

Do you need that? You should not care too much if the pads or the supports intersect, on the contrary, they will hold better.

Estimated resin used
We need to be able to add price for the resin so Slic3r PE can calculate the cost to produce the object too. Can't find that for resins at the moment.

That is quite an omission. We should fix that. @YuSanka would you please put it on your list? Thanks.

[milkowski]

Gyroid infill seems the way to go since it allows resin to get out and also is structurally strong.
My request would be to have an option to add supports only in necessary places in auto-support option (where the cross-section plane has disjoint areas) since now support pillars appears on unnecessary places especially on high long objects that are structurally rigid by itself.
Also it would be great to support feature similar to Photon-S Resin Exposure Range Finder as described here https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3818364 (with simple base template like https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3788554)

[mylife4aiurr]

Why cant we hollow or make drain holes yet.

+1 for this feature

[xiteer]

I really appreciate all your hard work on PrusaSlicer!

Plus 1 for:

• Resin Cost Calculations
• Hollowing and Drain Holes

[lukasmatena]

Hollowing and the suggestions by @port513 are now part of 2.2.0-beta.

I think I will rename this issue and leave it open because of the discussion on SLA infill. Please, don't mix any other topics in here this time. Thanks.

[AndrewFarley]

+1 on the lattice infill. Would be great instead of the insane internal supports that currently are generating when hollowing. Hopefully the spacing/infill percentage of the lattice infill is configurable.

EDIT: I just figured out if I auto-generate supports before I hollow then there are no internal supports.

[r-a-i]

+1 on lattice infill. I am using it on the new version of ChituBox (they call it Grid3D) and the cross beam patterns print well, provide excellent drainage and structural stability. It also looks pretty cool on clear prints.