Відео

@@maureenherman1170 I'm very sorry to hear that, I hope your recovery is swift and you don't suffer any after effects.

The Home Depot page lists it as an "Acrylic coating" so I don't think it is PVC. But essentially yes, coated this acrylic coated sheet with the tested product to make it erase as well as a regular whiteboard.

Oh dang! 😮

That sneaky subscribe haha

It really is super useful, I spend a lot less time wandering around wondering where I set down my tape roll, lol. You can find it at: buildtestbuild.com/products/tape-roll-holder

@@gregorysember2164 I had to test the erasing somehow...... lol.

Is the tape holder with the tape and paper an item you 3D printed and is it up for sale?

@@petershue8757 The tape holder is something I invented and you can find it linked in the project blog under tools as the TapeHOLD Pro. The tape and paper holder system shown in the video is linked on the project blog under tools. The one shown here is made by Trimaco and they sell it as the Easy Mask. When I'm doing big painting projects I'll put two TapeHOLD Pros on my belt, one with blue tape and one with Frog Tape. I have tested that the handle of the Easy Mask slips in the loop of the TapeHOLD Pro and makes it super easy to keep accessible when climbing a ladder etc. 3M also has a version they sell as the Hand-Masker Dispenser. Links for all of the above are in the project blog. I've used both of those products and they are very clever, you load brown paper or a plastic film onto it and combine it with a blue tape roll and it makes dispensing super easy. I like to use Frog Tape for the crisp edge, and then rough in with the masking dispenser after it. I find it a bit hard myself to do a good clean tape job straight from the masking dispenser, if that makes sense. I don't believe that the Trimaco comes with a blade guard, which seems entirely unnecessary until it slices you open, don't ask me how I know. I'm working on a simple printable blade guard for that, so keep an eye out for that video once testing is complete.

You really live in your own little world don't you.

🤢 🤮 🤢

@@tiffofili it was a quick fix!

Thank you for the feedback. My concern with just making a cube under the overhang is that it would increase the surface contact and not release easily. Yes you could engineer the interface, but when I originally printed this part I had some difficulty getting the auto-generated supports off cleanly. That's what gave me the idea to share this video. Most of the time auto-generated supports work great with minimal effort, but in this circumstance because the overhang was so small and the through hole was so limited they were a bit difficult to pull off cleanly. When designing engineered supports I like to drop the file in the slicer and look at the actual path of the nozzle so you can see exactly how the feature will be built. For this particular feature the nozzle builds 2 outer frames and then filled in the zigzag. You want to minimize contact and have really good support. My solution to the challenge was a T shape where the top of the bar would be at the end which is needed because the frame is made first, and the vertical bar helps support the zigzag. After looking at the path of the nozzle carefully I felt that the additional second cross bar would provided some needed support with minimal additional time or material and give the best result. All that to say, for the cleanest support removal, the strategy is to have absolutely minimal contact and minimal support that is effective. This is a situation where a different support material like PLA with PETG could work really well... but with a bambu labs printers use a cut and purge system that generates a lot of poop. Not worth it in my opinion for the result because it has to be done on every layer. I probably would have gone down that path if I had a dual extruder printer. That's a bit of a long-winded answer to a pretty straightforward question, I hope the discussion addressed your question and you found it helpful.

@@buildtestbuild thanks for the detailed reply! I also liked your trick of using construction circles to keep two points at a consistent distance from a mid point. I normally shift click while applying a coincident container to snap the centers of two lines together, but the circle seems easier and more visible in the sketch.

It's tough to make an overall statement because it's so dependent on your part geometry. If at all possible don't fillet or chamfer until all other features are implemented. Pretty much all CAD programs have the ability to roll back features, and I use that option very frequently as I work through the process. The design process is a process and it's rarely entirely clean, especially when you are sort of figuring out how you want the part to behave. In fusion you can also move a feature into a later part of the timeline. I often do that with finishing steps like fillets and chamfers when I realized I need to go back and adjust features. If you are trying to chamfer for the build plate but you want to soften it with a fillat along the edge away from the build platform, in that case obviously you need to do the chamfer before the fillet. If you want to fillet corners, it's best to do that before chamfers, so like I said, it depends very much on your specific part, but I hope you find the discussion helpful.

@@buildtestbuild Thanks for your reply, it is definitely helpful. I too use the timeline to roll back and move my chamfers and fillets around. It is really when the geometry becomes complex that the orders of operations really matters.

@@melvynfit4846 thank you for the feedback

@@gevanvliet909 thank you for the tip!

@@younglink309 🤣 I'll add that to my video idea list!

Thank you for the feedback

Thank you for the feedback

Thank you for the feedback

Thank you for the feedback

I originally printed my tiles on a CR10, with a 0.4mm nozzle and I saw print times around 11 hours, when switched to a 0.6mm nozzle and adjusting wall thickness to match I got print times under 9 hours. These are with 9x9 tiles. However, with my X1 Carbon print times look like under 4 hours for a 0.4mm nozzle with 0.2mm layer height and under 3 hours for a 0.6mm nozzle with 0.3mm layer height (2 walls to match the total 0.12mm thickness recommended). Another commenter mentioned that he tweaked his settings a bit and was able to get print times under 2 hours with a 0.6mm nozzle in his X1 Carbon with minor artifacts that he was comfortable with. I did not print my tiles stacked, with the original ~9 hour print time it wasn't really worth it, but with print times closer to 3 hours it would be worth considering so you could run an overnight print.

That's a good idea, I need to look at engineering the break behavior further

@@CraigHollabaugh for this particular part it was cleaner to snap them off on a straight side, and it seemed to be sufficient to get 100% success rate... with this particular part. But in general if you need to add additional bed adhesion features I would expect that they would need to be added at the corners. In fact my first version of this part used corner tabs, but I decided to show it on the edges to share the idea that it MIGHT be sufficient and so depending on how much optimization you are willing to do is something to consider.

@@buildtestbuild thanks!

@@Knatte_Anka Good question. In the second half of the video I show doing the array in Fusion and also adding features to the frame to improve printing and make it easier to remove

You are right, I think I've fixed it now. If not please let me know and I'll dig into it further. I appreciate the feedback.

@@agarza6475 depending on your slicer you may be able to combine them there. I believe prusa and bamboo let you join 2 files to print as one 🤔 of course I would be surprised if you couldn't do the same in other slicers. Of course it totally depends on your workflow and what's most convenient for you.

@@pnt1035 glad you found the information useful. Thank you for the tips! Very good suggestions.

@@Timboykee I'm glad you found some useful information. And thank you for the tip!

@@WAINTDEIR you are right, I'll do that next time, and also set a "layerHeight" parameter as well!