Simplify3D ver 2.0.0

[jmpreuss]

I can’t say this is a complete review but I can give my experiences as using this slicer over the past couple months.
First of all version 2.0 is a huge upgrade over the previous version. The 1.. series was not ready for primetime but now it feels like a finished product.
Pros
Extremely fast. It is a multi threaded slicer so it uses your computers full resources.
Meant to be an all in one tool. Does slicing, preview, model repair (haven’t used this so I don’t know how it compares to netfab), and machine control.
Layer by layer control of slicing parameters. You can have the first layer thicker that the rest. You can have higher infill in some layers of the print than others.
You can choose different parameters for different objects in the same print.
Different infill thickness compared to the outside (I haven’t used this yet myself).
You can choose to print a whole object, and then move to the next object (of course you have to be very careful that you have clearance and don’t knock the first object off printing the second). Related you can print each object a certain height before switching back to the other object on the build plate ( say you are printing at .1 and have this setting at 3mm you just saved 29 trips between the 2 objects).
You can save your entire slicing set up in one file for every object you slice.
For me this software has produced the nicest prints I have ever done on my MB (not enough data points for my SMC stuff).
Cons
Pricey, no trial.
It works differently from other slicers so there is a learning curve, plus there are a ton of parameters to play with.
I haven’t found how he does files and profiles to be intuitive.
Complicating the previous points is that the documentation is sparse, basically a quick start guide, a few videos, and hover overs in the dialog boxes.
The forums aren’t as helpful as this one.
Bottom line
For me the software is worth it. I first bought it last April and it wasn’t worth it then (his MB default profile had some serious issues) but the 2.0 version with the improved MB profile, included Max profile, and machine control for both made it my top slicer. Whether it is worth it for someone else I can’t say. There are perfectly good “free” slicers so that if you are happy with them why pay money. It comes down to if one of its unique features is a big benefit to you personally.
A couple of side comments. People at “another” forum I view seem to love this software once they use it. One person described it as “going from Microsoft Paint to Photoshop Elements”
The developer is very active on this software. I have met him in person and he does the Makerfaire circuit. I have no idea why he isn’t more active on his own forums or in the social media world, maybe his focus is purely on development and figures the product speaks for itself.
I can try to answer specific questions or if someone has a print they want me to try on the Orion to see how it comes out.

[Glacian22]

I also just picked up version 2.0, and so far it's really nice. I got it specifically for their editable support material (which is fantastic), but the ability to preview the Gcode line by line or layer by layer has turned out to be really useful too. It also seems to slice tricky geometry much better than Kisslicer, about on par with Cura.

All that said, damn it's pricey. If you're happy using free slicers, more power to you.

[mhackney]

Thanks guys and especially jmpreuss. I'm not particularly happy with any slicer right now. They are all pale in comparison to the CAM apps that are available for subtractive manufacturing (i.e. milling). Part of the challenge, admittedly, is the weakness of the STL format for representing parts. While STLs work great for milling since you do not have to be concerned with the internal structure of a monolithic hunk of metal, for 3D printed items, the internal structure is very important and the more tools/manual control we have over how that structure is defined and printed, the better!

Frankly, I don't even really care about the price, I can easily justify it if I was confident that I would get some utility from it. Usually in situations like this I contact the developer directly and ask and share what I've read. In this case, this developer just seems very amateurish.

[mhackney]

Well, they made a new blog post today: http://www.simplify3d.com/blog/

[artexmg]

Version 2.0.0 just got released and very preliminary testing and feedback points to a much improved software. I originally purchased it back in April to provide quicker slicing for my PTMNBN (at the time makerware was garbage and rep-g/skeinforge slower than watching the grass grow). It simply didn't work without a ton of trial and error from users and I gave up on it at the time.
With version 2.0 it has default machine definitions for the leapfrog creator, MB replicators, Makergear, and the Rostock Max. I have done a calibration cube on my Rostock using the default settings that came out better than the one I did in Slic3r and it seems to work on my "other" printer too (the initial software did not work at all before using the default settings). I need to do many more prints to give a more informed review but I am encouraged. I really want it to work well, I don't want to learn 2 different slicers for my 2 brands of bots. I just hope I can get the rafts (that I use infrequently but when I do I really need them) to work as well as the makerware one (yes MBI got one thing right, best rafting of any software bar none, with makerware but whenever I use it I feel like I'm hiring Amelia Bedelia just because I like lemon meringue pie).

Quick question, would you mind posting a screen shot with your X, Y and Z configuration? I just cannot get it totally right, the bed looks like 110% bigger.

Thanks!

[jmpreuss]

Quick question, would you mind posting a screen shot with your X, Y and Z configuration? I just cannot get it totally right, the bed looks like 110% bigger.

Thanks!

For the Max

For the Orion

[Eaglezsoar]

Thank you for posting those. You have helped out present and future owners of S3D.

[artexmg]

Quick question, would you mind posting a screen shot with your X, Y and Z configuration? I just cannot get it totally right, the bed looks like 110% bigger.

Thanks!

For the Max

MachineMax.png

For the Orion

MachineOrion.png

Thanks!

Well, you know, I had this very numbers and work well with small prints, but for larger pieces (+9 Inch), they get out of the print bed.
The reason is (I just figured out last nigth) because X and Y should be for a square contained within the circle of the bed, which is of a radius 280 (S3D set it to 260, but it is wrong).

This is X=Y=RSin(45°)

So, the rigth X and Y for Rostock Max should be 198.

Now I have the bed at 100% and not to 110℅

[Eaglezsoar]

Thanks for the corrected numbers. You have also helped out a lot of people.

[artexmg]

Well, here is a graphic of what I tried to explain in the previous post. I think is easier this way

This is how it was BEFORE. The X and Y are set to the Radius, hence, the square bed (see the square outside the circle?) is bigger than the actual Onix heated bed.

What I found, after experimenting with X and Y in S3D, is that it is expecting those values to be of a square inside the Circle of the Printing Bed, instead of outside.

I believe this confusion is due to the Repetier to have X and Y = Radius. However, Repetier asks, as well, for the Radius and makes its own calculations for the bed

Anyway, these are the parameters I have for my Rostock Max; they seem to work fine. Before that, using X=Y=260 my large prints were caught "out of the bed". No good for the belts, they got bitten by the pulleys when the Cheapskates fell down hard!!!

Here are the parameters that *should* work with Orion. I DO NOT own an Orion, so, I hadn't tested this values, so please, use caution the first time you go to the edges of X or Y.

PS. The Z value, of course, depends on your actual height. I guess it is always the same value for Orions.

[Eaglezsoar]

Does this mean that you can only print within the square area?

[artexmg]

Does this mean that you can only print within the square area?

No, not at all.

The square is just to calculate the correct value for X and Y, nothing else.

Good you asked, as it could be misleading

[artexmg]

Does this mean that you can only print within the square area?

I think this will clarify the point.

I printed a piece about 11" in its longest side; setting X and Y to 260mm, this is what I saw in preview. It seems that it fits really well and there is space to spare (about 1" each side).

But, when printed, this is how it was done (white circumference is the actual diameter of the Rostock Max=11", for those who are not familiar with it).:

As you can see, the piece is occupying the entire length of the bed, no space to spare!

Once I corrected the values for X and Y to get them *within* the white circle, I got the right size:

Maybe I'm being a little obsessed with this, but I just want to prevent others to get the printer go outside of the borders of the bed, as happened to me, with the undesired consequence of a GT2 belt being bitten hard by the pulleys

Cheers!

[Eaglezsoar]

Your concern and desire to help others is appreciated. Thanks for posting all you have.

[mhackney]

Looks like you are right at the limit of the max, pretty cool.

I see a couple of my little Rostock trays too! It would be great if you could post an "I made one " photo on thingiverse! Might help bolster my "innovative designer" image

cheers,
Michael

[artexmg]

Looks like you are right at the limit of the max, pretty cool.

I see a couple of my little Rostock trays too! It would be great if you could post an "I made one " photo on thingiverse! Might help bolster my "innovative designer" image

cheers,
Michael

You spotted those little helpers very well, they are handy indeed!

It is already properly posted in Thingiverse, thanks for the design.

[mhackney]

Great, thanks!

[Captain Starfish]

Nice example of how far out you can push them.

"I used to be a 3D Printer owner, then I took an arrow to the knee"

[heathenx]

Is there anything special that needs to be added the gcode starting script in S3D for the Rostock Max? I'm sitting at the defaults settings as of this moment.

[artexmg]

Is there anything special that needs to be added the gcode starting script in S3D for the Rostock Max? I'm sitting at the defaults settings as of this moment.

Nope, all what I want to be configured is done by the parameters on the User Interface. Unless you want to manipulate the GCode for something special (like a pause, for instance), you should be fine by using the UI.

Regards

[heathenx]

@artexmg

The reason I asked was because before my actual part print starts (the skirt around my object) my extruder is dancing around a bit and appearing like it's trying to extrude something right in the middle of the plate. Eventually, a little filament oozes out and then my part print begins right on top of it. It's hard to explain. Maybe I should video it tomorrow and post it. Must be some kind of user error on my part. I don't understand what the hell it's doing.

[xnaron]

I bought simplify3d recently after hearing some good things about it from friends. I asked Simplify3d for a demo but they refused. I figured that if it turned out to be crap I would fight hard for a refund. I have been fairly happy with KISS slicer but since it's been abandoned I wanted to a slicer that would continue to be supported and developed. I think Simplify3d is that slicer but only time will tell.

Out of all the slicers I have used (skeinforge, slic3r, cura, and KISS) Simplify3d has the most features. The ability to add and remove support manually is fantastic. I like the way it stores the settings in a factory file which can be unique to the stl or group of stl's. The gcode visualizations are also fantastic. For the most part I have been able to get prints on par or better quality than KISS. Cura and Slic3r were distant 2nd and 3rd for me. On some recent prints I am noticing some blobbing that I wasn't getting with KISS. I think this is because I had more frequent retractions in KISS. I think I can adjust the settings in Simplify3d to be similar.

I'm still in the getting to know you phase of this slicing relationship. That being said I am basically happy with the purchase. I don't mind the price if they are actively developing and improving it and it has a bright future. I bought it for its potential. However if this product was to be abandoned I wouldn't feel like it was money well spent. This is mainly because I already have a piece of unsupported (paid) software (KISS) that does most of what Simplify3d will do with similar quality.

I bought it before reading the comments in this thread and the comments on the simplify3d forums. Would I buy it now after having read it all? Yes. I have spent a lot more money on crap I never use. I am enjoying learning the ins and outs of it and to me it is by far the most polished slicing software I have tried. To me the experience was similar to buying Vcarve Pro (cnc software) only Simplify3d was much cheaper. Simplify3d's UI is nice and polished and it really feels like you are using a piece of commercial grade software.

Brendin

[Eaglezsoar]

I bought simplify3d recently after hearing some good things about it from friends. I asked Simplify3d for a demo but they refused. I figured that if it turned out to be crap I would fight hard for a refund. I have been fairly happy with KISS slicer but since it's been abandoned I wanted to a slicer that would continue to be supported and developed. I think Simplify3d is that slicer but only time will tell.

Out of all the slicers I have used (skeinforge, slic3r, cura, and KISS) Simplify3d has the most features. The ability to add and remove support manually is fantastic. I like the way it stores the settings in a factory file which can be unique to the stl or group of stl's. The gcode visualizations are also fantastic. For the most part I have been able to get prints on par or better quality than KISS. Cura and Slic3r were distant 2nd and 3rd for me. On some recent prints I am noticing some blobbing that I wasn't getting with KISS. I think this is because I had more frequent retractions in KISS. I think I can adjust the settings in Simplify3d to be similar.

I'm still in the getting to know you phase of this slicing relationship. That being said I am basically happy with the purchase. I don't mind the price if they are actively developing and improving it and it has a bright future. I bought it for its potential. However if this product was to be abandoned I wouldn't feel like it was money well spent. This is mainly because I already have a piece of unsupported (paid) software (KISS) that does most of what Simplify3d will do with similar quality.

I bought it before reading the comments in this thread and the comments on the simplify3d forums. Would I buy it now after having read it all? Yes. I have spent a lot more money on crap I never use. I am enjoying learning the ins and outs of it and to me it is by far the most polished slicing software I have tried. To me the experience was similar to buying Vcarve Pro (cnc software) only Simplify3d was much cheaper. Simplify3d's UI is nice and polished and it really feels like you are using a piece of commercial grade software.

Brendin

That's a good endorsement of the product.
Do you know how long you are allowed to download updates? Most software is either a year or longer.
After your endorsement I am certainly tempted to purchase it.

[Polygonhell]

Interesting I might pick it up to try.
I've been doing my try all the slicers thing again, and Cura 14 is now IMO better than KissSlicer.

[mhackney]

"Better" is always relative! I use the fill patterns to produce parts that are decorative. KISS has the fantastic round fill that gives a lacey look like this:

[img]http://mhackney.zenfolio.com/img/s5/v12 ... 0688-3.jpg[/img]
None of the other slicers do this. Slic3r has a hexagonal fill which gives a different effect. But Cura and S3D only have linear and/or concentric fill patterns. Even for parts that do not have the fill exposed, the translucency of most PLAs looks great with this fill pattern.