Optimize layers for uniform distribution using the gravity packer
Apply multiple packing methods, including the gravity packer; analyze and optimize part placement by checking for collisions; and compare the outcomes of multiple packing methods using a slice analysis.
Transcript
00:03
After using a slice analysis to verify the placement and distribution of packed parts in Netfabb,
00:09
you may find that the packing method does not achieve the expected distribution of layers.
00:15
In this case, you can apply a post processing method to further optimize an already-existing packing result.
00:24
In this example, the Monte Carlo packer was used on the parts shown and a slice analysis was performed.
00:33
When Recalculate is used to view the area printed at a specific layer height,
00:38
you can see that this results in 1,907 slices, with a maximum of up to 154 square cm being printed at once,
00:48
and a minimum of 19 square cm.
00:52
Ideally, you want to achieve a more uniform distribution of layers for optimal printing,
00:59
so after clicking Export as CSV to save these results for comparison, the next step is to try a different packing method.
01:08
First, delete the current slice analysis.
01:12
In the Browser, select all of the slices, press Delete, and then click OK to confirm.
01:22
Next, duplicate the build so that you can look back and compare packing methods.
01:28
In the Browser, right-click the workspace and select Clone this Workspace.
01:34
In this example, a custom menu was created for easy access to packing tools.
01:41
With this menu selected, click 3D Packing Gravity.
01:46
This packing method minimizes gaps in packing.
01:51
In the 3D packing – Gravity dialog, ensure that Pack all parts is selected, and then adjust your Performance.
02:01
Here, leave this set in the middle between Accurate and Fast.
02:06
Set the Distance between parts to Medium, and the Part rotation to Arbitrary.
02:13
In this case, keep the Distance to side walls (XY) set to 5.00 mm.
02:21
You have the option to select Preprocess starting positions.
02:27
However, in this case, leaving this option de-selected will allow you to start from the current positions.
02:34
Click Pack Platform.
02:38
The progress bar displays the progress as the parts are packed using the gravity packer.
02:44
Once complete, you can see the difference in how the parts are packed, with a priority on minimizing visible gaps between parts.
02:54
The Part-Height is now 8.31% compared to 9.36% in the starting example.
03:02
Even though the packed height has increased and the part-height has decreased, this may result in a more efficient packing process.
03:11
Now, you can use collision detection and the Interlocking Test, and then perform a slice analysis to assess the layers.
03:20
Select all the parts, and then, in the custom menu, click Collision detection.
03:28
The red X in the context view indicates that a collision is detected.
03:35
Click Update.
03:39
Then, pan and zoom around the build volume to find any collisions.
03:45
Here, you can see a collision identified by the area of red.
03:51
To remove the collision, in this case, one of the parts is selected and moved in the Y- direction by 3 mm.
04:01
The green checkmark indicates that the collision is resolved.
04:06
Next, click Interlocking Test.
04:10
In this example, there are no interlocks that need to be fixed.
04:16
Now, perform a slice analysis.
04:21
Select all parts, and then click Slice Parts.
04:27
In the Slice Parts dialog, enter a Layer size of 0.1, set the Start to 0, and Leave the packed height as is.
04:39
Click Start.
04:42
In the Browser, with Slice Analysis selected, you can see a much smoother graph than in the first example.
04:51
Here, there is a smaller variance between the maximum and minimum areas.
04:57
Again, click Export as CSV to use for comparison of the two outcomes.
05:04
Now you can apply multiple packing methods, including the gravity packer,
05:10
and compare the outcomes of multiple packing methods using a slice analysis.
00:03
After using a slice analysis to verify the placement and distribution of packed parts in Netfabb,
00:09
you may find that the packing method does not achieve the expected distribution of layers.
00:15
In this case, you can apply a post processing method to further optimize an already-existing packing result.
00:24
In this example, the Monte Carlo packer was used on the parts shown and a slice analysis was performed.
00:33
When Recalculate is used to view the area printed at a specific layer height,
00:38
you can see that this results in 1,907 slices, with a maximum of up to 154 square cm being printed at once,
00:48
and a minimum of 19 square cm.
00:52
Ideally, you want to achieve a more uniform distribution of layers for optimal printing,
00:59
so after clicking Export as CSV to save these results for comparison, the next step is to try a different packing method.
01:08
First, delete the current slice analysis.
01:12
In the Browser, select all of the slices, press Delete, and then click OK to confirm.
01:22
Next, duplicate the build so that you can look back and compare packing methods.
01:28
In the Browser, right-click the workspace and select Clone this Workspace.
01:34
In this example, a custom menu was created for easy access to packing tools.
01:41
With this menu selected, click 3D Packing Gravity.
01:46
This packing method minimizes gaps in packing.
01:51
In the 3D packing – Gravity dialog, ensure that Pack all parts is selected, and then adjust your Performance.
02:01
Here, leave this set in the middle between Accurate and Fast.
02:06
Set the Distance between parts to Medium, and the Part rotation to Arbitrary.
02:13
In this case, keep the Distance to side walls (XY) set to 5.00 mm.
02:21
You have the option to select Preprocess starting positions.
02:27
However, in this case, leaving this option de-selected will allow you to start from the current positions.
02:34
Click Pack Platform.
02:38
The progress bar displays the progress as the parts are packed using the gravity packer.
02:44
Once complete, you can see the difference in how the parts are packed, with a priority on minimizing visible gaps between parts.
02:54
The Part-Height is now 8.31% compared to 9.36% in the starting example.
03:02
Even though the packed height has increased and the part-height has decreased, this may result in a more efficient packing process.
03:11
Now, you can use collision detection and the Interlocking Test, and then perform a slice analysis to assess the layers.
03:20
Select all the parts, and then, in the custom menu, click Collision detection.
03:28
The red X in the context view indicates that a collision is detected.
03:35
Click Update.
03:39
Then, pan and zoom around the build volume to find any collisions.
03:45
Here, you can see a collision identified by the area of red.
03:51
To remove the collision, in this case, one of the parts is selected and moved in the Y- direction by 3 mm.
04:01
The green checkmark indicates that the collision is resolved.
04:06
Next, click Interlocking Test.
04:10
In this example, there are no interlocks that need to be fixed.
04:16
Now, perform a slice analysis.
04:21
Select all parts, and then click Slice Parts.
04:27
In the Slice Parts dialog, enter a Layer size of 0.1, set the Start to 0, and Leave the packed height as is.
04:39
Click Start.
04:42
In the Browser, with Slice Analysis selected, you can see a much smoother graph than in the first example.
04:51
Here, there is a smaller variance between the maximum and minimum areas.
04:57
Again, click Export as CSV to use for comparison of the two outcomes.
05:04
Now you can apply multiple packing methods, including the gravity packer,
05:10
and compare the outcomes of multiple packing methods using a slice analysis.
