To try everything Brilliant has to offer-FREE-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/MandicReally . The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription.
Hey do you have any suggestions for a good 3d printer, just starting out and im thinking of the Neptune 4 pro but havent the foggiest what else I should go for. Would appreciate any suggestions!
If you are going to allow remixes it makes life so much easier, while you can edit a mesh it can really make it more difficult than it needs to be and can really mess up the aesthetics just trying to make even minor tweaks some times that would have been avoidable if working from the stp file. Now truly next level is making most variables a user parameter and providing the f3d so a tweaks can be done without even doing any modeling at all to adjust for fitment and clearances but that is really a step beyond and may not work on more organic models.
something feels criminal to me about how you dont have more subscribers. your production quality is absolutely incredible and overall your videos are awesome!
Much appreciated. I try not to worry about the numbers and just focus on doing what I do. It’s working… not setting the world on fire, but it’s working. Just got to keep plugging away.
Amen on #5 and #6. I can't tell you how many times I've downloaded a file and found out it's just impossible to print. I would add #7 - Post pictures of your actual prints so people know it will actually print.
If your intake manifold isn't manifold, you'd have fuel leaks and air leaks everywhere. Great tips for design. Another good idea is designing in break away supports in your models instead of relying on the user to figure out supports, that really helps.
Real pain having no STEP files included. And having `round object consists of 8 straight walls` STL quality model, that actually what you need but you can't get use of it at all.
I totally agree! These tips were obvious, but I didn't know how to properly orient the models right in CAD - however I do use PrusaSlicer and those few clicks can definitely yield some more Prusameters, the next time I upload my model!
I have released files with STEP and F3D files attached as well as I intend to release files with nothing of the sort. Why? Because sometimes your model is an aesthetic product, it's not meant to be changed as well as it is not meant to be done so easily(let's face it, editing a STL is not the end of the world once you know what you're doing). Cosplay props are the perfect example for this. It takes days of CAD work to make a good detailed model with all that was mentioned in this video(heck, I still have to fix the non-manifold part of my latest model), and you do it because you know you're going to get some money for it. But what if they want to edit it? Well, I can't stop them from ripping my STL into a STEP file; the same way I ripped it from a game extract file and fixed it, made it printable and even added room for LEDs and a battery pack. But giving that STEP file makes it so much easier for someone to change a few things on my model and release it as their own. It would be lovely if perhaps some website allowed this kind of thing and made it so you can buy a remixed version and both authors get their cut out of it. But so far, nothing like that exists, at least as far as I know.
@@MatrixRay19 If the mesh stays manifold, it'll be a solid. It's super-easy to fill holes, move a face by 10mm, remove or change the size of screw holes, make or remove dents to put magnets in, etc. Having the step file would obviously be better, but editing the STL in a program that manipulates meshes rather than math formulae is obviously going to be easier. Of course, once the STL no longer matches your STEP file, you're kind of stuck too, but if you downloaded an STL without a STEP and you need to edit it, use a mesh editor and not a CAD program. And of course if you *have* a STEP file, you should provide it - always include the most original version of a file you can.
@@darrennew8211 How deep is your experience in this subject? I'm asking because I've done it extensively and find it very "complicated" to edit a mesh the same way I'd edit a solid, I personally use F360 and Maya. I'd need to select multiple mesh faces in order to edit what would be a single solid face for instance; which in turn is very prone to breaking geometry on the surrounding edges. PS: I don't mean to belittle your opinion, I'm genuinely curious as to how long you have worked with this, I suppose experience makes it easier over time.
I got to the point where if the model said "I haven't printed it" I would just open fusion and make my own instead of taking that chance. Been burned too many times by the "yeah that looks fine". Another tip I would add, or additional context to the "print it" tip, I guess, is using planes to split your design to print tricky areas without having to print the entire thing. If you only care about that one cantilever, and it's 45mm on top of a square base, just split the body, or sink the print in the slicer and only print the part you are concerned about. I especially use this for anything that needs a toleranced fit, or movement.
That is a great point I didn’t include. I often print sections I’m concerned about as tests. Interference fit parts especially. No reason to print a full model just to see if one part works. 👍🏻👍🏻
Really great tips. I especially love seeing STEP files included in projects when I'm looking to remix things. I know it's a small audience, but I personally try to include my F360 source as well (if my timeline isn't too messy!) in the designs I share.
I design 3D terrain for tabletop gaming. I release my terrain in STL and 3FM. I use Sharpr3D and Nomad Sculpt. I make sure I save all my files in .obj, .step, and .x_t to future proof my growth in my 3D journey. Any recommendations?
Does exporting the STL from a slicer mess with the quality coming out of the CAD software? On a side note. I wish Fusion would allow the user to choose the orientation during export.
I have noticed no degradation in quality of the STLs exported from PrusaSlicer. Wouldn't have suggested it if I had. Personally do my re-orientation in Fusion 360, but how I do that was time consuming to explain and Slicer is generally easier. This may be the basis for a quick Short video seeing if Importing & Exporting STLs over and over again reduces quality...
@@MandicReally I use Cura and I'm unsure if there is any loss of quality in that slicer. I've also used Fusion to orient the files, but I found it to not be practical when you have a very complex design with joints and external parts, etc. A video testing the export from a slicer would be nice. If there is no loss of quality then that is for sure the easiest method.
You know you have found an intelligent channel when you also learn things from the viewer’s COMMENTS. Thanks to the OP and all the great, informative comments!
FWIW, when I edit STLs, I use Blender. Blender's a free mesh-based 3D modeling tool. Extruding the face of the STL 10 mm involves selecting the face and extruding it 10mm, because Blender is working with the mesh and not the parameters. Changing the size of a hole involves selecting the verts around the hole and scaling them to the size you want. Removing a hole involves scaling the hole down to zero size. Etc etc. Just one more tool in the belt. Also, 3MF is probably a better format than STL these days.
What’s up my 3DP vegan brotha! Great tips today! I’m a blender bro, so I use the 3D Print tool to fix non manifold geometry. Meshmixer has a decent repair tool as well. I just picked up a Neptune 4 pro.. I know you did a deep dive into to get wifi but I still don’t know how to make use of klipper on it, maybe I should rewatch that video, do you think you’ll do any more content on the Neptune 4 pro? I’d love to really dial this one in and streamline the settings and printer profile. Peace bro!
Sometimes I’m missing next to orientation (what is discussed) how much infill and are supports needed. It’s also these simple things that can help reduce waste so you can use the maximum of your filament. Also great video!!
Yep, I didn't want to drag this out but I always provide my intended Print settings with my designs. Whether supports are required, perimeters, infill, material choice (if it matters). I may do a follow-up video if folks are interested about more tips like that.
Another great approach is to put it in a 3MF file. I *think* that includes most of the settings, and certainly does if you're using the same slicer as the creator did.
@@darrennew8211 which is why I'm not a fan of 3MF. Sure there are some slicer settings that carry over, but not all do (from machine to machine or slicer to slicer). There are too many variables and ways they can go wrong. Leaving the slicer setup to the end user eliminates those variables and puts them on the end user. Sure it means they have room to screw it up, but less room to blame the creator for the errors. They still will, but I think my logic is clear. Not to mention the issue of going from PrusaSlicer to Cura and vice versa. 3MF is still too loosely controlled imo.
@@MandicReally I agree that if your goal is to not get blamed for errors, providing the raw files and text saying what to do with them is superior. I usually use 3MF because it's compressed by default and I can include orientations, placement, supports, etc for those with the same settings, then a piece of text reminding them to check the printer settings. :-) I'm not trying to make a living at it, though. The metadata definitely could use some better specification, I think. It looks like instead it's a directory with metadata for each slicer, rather than a common metadata everyone could use.
Releasing step files makes stealing IP so much easier though… Not that it can’t happen with stls but at least you’d have to go through the effort of reverse engineering 😅
How about uploading single part and then create a collection instead of one single post with 60stls in it. For example extruder fan holder for prusa instead of prusa mk whatever upgrade parts. It is Sometimes frustrating to find a part, and it is even worst remixing it and not being able to find it again to post the remix. BTW. Great job with your channel. Keep up the good work.
That slice your designs is very important, I usually slice and look for any problems , or any issues. I slice alter the parameters and slice again. And select the one I feel good about 👍
Basically 99% of users are not the brightest stars in the sky, requiring the designer to do all the thinking for them. And heaven forbid if you point out that the user has made a simple mistake...
I haven't sliced on my Mac in a while but I'm fairly sure it works in PrusaSlicer there too, unless something has changed. I'll have to go give it a test.
Thanks for the tips! I really wish all designers followed them, especially 2 and 6 (although 4 would be very cool but perhaps too much to ask). As you, I also design my models on Fusion 360 (mostly) and for some reason they always come oriented at 90° so the first thing I do after exporting them from F360 is to open them in MS 3D Builder (that comes with Windows), rotate them and save them. I know that all people have to do is rotate them in their slicer, and that is what people keep telling me when I complain about this pet peeve, but it is frustrating that people upload fantastic designs (that probably took lots of hours to develop) and then omit the final touch before publishing them. As for number 6, it did happen to me to download designs only to find they are unprintable (weird shapes that no amount of supports would make them print). A tell tale sign of such designs is the lack of photos accompanying the objects.
I started dipping into mesh modelling in Fusion 360, creating helmets for cosplay that'll fit so that first tip will help! I'm always looking to improve my design work.
Thanks for sharing this, and though I agree with all the tips, I do wonder why you did not mention using 3MF instead of STL... 3MF is a newer format, open-source, provides smaller output files, can include color, texture, scale information (and other metadata), can include thumbnail, provides a clear definition of manifoldness... I mean, it is seriously better than STL and most slicers have supported it just fine for years now!
Thank you, I had a quick rant about 3MF in this video but I cut it for time. 3MF has a lot of advantages, but none of them make sense for my work. There is no quality benefit at all. The ability to tag in metadata is honestly useless unless you are certain the end user is going to be using it in the exact scenario you did. Different filament? Printer? Slicer? The data is of no use. A 3MF from Cura doesn't work in PrusaSlicer & vice versa (as far as I'm aware). I prefer to leave slicing the design and all that comes with that on the end user. It is far too common for folks to download something and then blame the person who created it for their problems, so the more that is their responsibility, the less that happens. The best argument for 3MF currently is the growth of Bambu Labs where folks ARE using the same machines with the same capabilities. Or for folks like Prusa who want to encourage people to use their machines. My designs are downloaded by thousands of people with different setups that can't be accounted for in that way.
Thanks for the quick comments@@MandicReally, really appreciate it! 3MF is a de-facto open standard (like the open-office standards) and should work across all slicers. However, the metadata that each slicer adds is contextual, so you will have metadata that only Cura can understand, and same goes for Prusa. To me personally, the main advantages are in terms of smaller file size and the inclusion of the thumbnail preview (something that at least in Windows works very well). Granted, people can still get thumbnails from STL files in Windows Explorer if they have something like PowerToys installed (shameless plug, I wrote their STL and Gcode thumbnail extraction code!)
@@PedroLamas and STLs already thumbnail on Mac OS by default. I totally see the advantages of 3MF, it is just in that "muddy" phase of a new standard where folks need to get on the same page so we can really make use of it. IMO anyway.
STEP files really don't work for artistic prints. I wouldn't want to try to model a bust of Einstein in F360. And we have tools that'll edit STLs without problem, like Blender. Trying to edit a mesh of triangles in something like F360 is silly when a program that'll actually edit the triangles is around and free and fairly easy to learn.
@@darrennew8211 I have no clue on 3D art, but yeah I use 3D printing for mechanical parts and STLs are more than bad in this context. Im glad youre happy with them but wouldnt it be better if we both were happy in some ways? STL will never make me happy... so maybe another fileformat is needed
@@abwesend182 I have no objections to using whatever file format is closest to the original work. I'm not saying "don't use STEP." I'm saying "STLs are still useful in situations where STEP files aren't." They're different tools. I wouldn't want to give up PNG *or* JPEG.
I’ve been working with them since early on and they’ve always been really receptive to my feedback & instituted changes when warranted. Also I’m part of a program where I get paid for my downloads, while they are still entirely free to the public. Driving traffic to them and all. I don’t want to lock my work behind a paywall (except for early excess stuff). No other platform allows me to do that and make a living.
@@MandicReally that's awesome! I have always wanted to get a printer. I actually just did your other contest and designed the minion can holder. I am going to try to make it to errf!!!
There is zero benefit in relation to quality of the output model. All of the benefits of 3MF are metadata relative, which I like but also hate. Sure I can embed print parameters into a 3MF file, but what if someone's printer doesn't run well with those settings? I don't like that someone may get a bad print because they didn't tweak settings I embedded into the 3MF. Or 3MF from PrusaSlicer vs Cura are different and I cannot be providing multiple releases for every design & hoping folks import the right one.
3mf are great for file size savings especially with detailed sculpted files - about 1/4 the size of an STL. Plus you get a nice preview thumbnail of the model (on windows) You can also build tools that allow for multiple STLs set up in a single file that can be replaced by versions of that STL right within the slicer with no repositioning if things are set up properly. Printer data can be stripped out by opening the 3MF in compression software (the 3mf container is just a ZIP file) and deleting the config for the printer in the metadata before sharing. Both file types have their uses :)
I like them for prepainted models or if the is some particularly tricky supports but otherwise an obj would be a better alternative to pair with the stl. The biggest problem I can see is future support since the purpose of the 3mf may break with future software revisions.
