What the UP Studio should look like

Support for UP Software. To report a bug, post with a title [BUG REPORT]. To request a feature, post with a title [FEATURE REQUEST]
Post Reply
aesdaileblp
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 4:26 am

What the UP Studio should look like

Post by aesdaileblp » Fri Feb 26, 2016 3:27 am

This is not about the visual UI elements of UP Studio - those are irrelevant. This is about what the software NEEDS TO DO.

The attached IMGUR album shows all: http://imgur.com/a/OSVjK

I can't paste the images here directly, they are too big. You wouldn't see the detail at only 800pix anyway. :lol:

The model shown here is typical of the work we do - architectural models.

In order they are:
1. Slic3r 'basic' interface. Clean, simple. Press 'Export G-Code' to get your output. You can even do 'drag-and-drop' instant output.

2. PREVIEW MODE - this is the most important feature! External shells shown yellow, infill in pink. You can see exactly where plastic will be laid.

3. PREVIEW MODE - Layer by layer! This shows an area where this VALID file is producing some weird shapes. This print will FAIL. It's nice to know this before you print!

4. Plan view (preivew again!) of that area of failure - note the triangluar 'hole'. This is likely an interior facet, even though every STL checker I used says it's valid. Even Up 2.18 said no errors.

5. Print settings. This could be facied up with little pictures.. but it doesn't need it

6. Filament settings. very simple. Note temperature control! Very important - especially the first layer temp.

7. Printer settings for my Flashforge Creator Pro (Sailfish firmware)

8. Slic3r has two modes - SIMPLE for 'just print my job' and EXPERT for 'I know what I'm doing and I have a tricky shape to print'

9. Expert mode Support settings -far more detail than UP 2.18 & Up Studio

10. Preview mode showing 'Pillar' support mode. Support shown in green. Note 'messy' support around the failure area - this print would probably still fail!

11. Changing the support mode to rectangular neatens up the failure area. To my eye, this print would probably work, although at the expense of some fiddly support removal.

What all these images indicate is the importance of the PREVIEW mode, and the importance of detailed control of print settings. This is not to say there can't still be a 'simple' mode for 'it just works' printing, but the detailed control is vital for professional work.

Given that a trial of the UP software wasn't possible before purchase (download required machine serial number) and given that the Up software is the only way of printing with the Up Box, this is a major problem! A FREE piece of software is VASTLY better than what UP provide.

My suggestion is to not bother trying to recreate what Slic3r and others such as Simplify3D have already done - just allow the Up Box to be able to print the G-code output from these other applications. Continue with a very basic tablet-like application by all means - it's probably very useful for younger users, but for professional users PLEASE allow the use of 3rd party apps instead of Up Studio / Up 2.18
Adrian Esdaile
Senior Project Architect
Billard Leece Partnership Pty Ltd
Architects & Urban Planners
http://www.blp.com.au

User avatar
Tiertime-Jason
Posts: 286
Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 4:31 am

Re: What the UP Studio should look like

Post by Tiertime-Jason » Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:00 am

Hi Adrian,

Thanks for your suggestions, we will look into these possiblities.

The UP Studio is not only modification of UI, but actually restructured underneath to pave way for more functionalities. At this moment we hope to look into customers' oponion and see how can we incorporate them into our development roadmap. So you are welcome to take the survey if you haven't.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=55218

BTW, actually UP Software and UP Studio are free to download without the need to input serial number.
You can download and try them anytime at UP3D.com.

Regards,

Jason

aesdaileblp
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 4:26 am

Re: What the UP Studio should look like

Post by aesdaileblp » Fri Feb 26, 2016 5:14 am

Hi Jason,

Thanks for the reply.

I have taken the survey, and this post is to provide a visual example of what I meant by Preview Mode.

I really do mean it when I say the Up Box is the best 3D printer I have used - it really is great! I just wish we could use more powerful software with it, as intricate architectural models need fine control over how the support material is placed to be successful.
Adrian Esdaile
Senior Project Architect
Billard Leece Partnership Pty Ltd
Architects & Urban Planners
http://www.blp.com.au

User avatar
3DWP
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 4:00 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: What the UP Studio should look like

Post by 3DWP » Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:57 pm

Lately I have been using Simplify3D for testing purposes: that could be a great solution to a lot of request people are asking for.

If TierTime would allow the use of Simplify3D and maybe provide a profile or work together with them, Up users could choose to just use the Up Studio presets and options that work great most of the time - or import a sliced file by Simplify3D. It has lots of options people are looking for.

aesdaileblp
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 4:26 am

Re: What the UP Studio should look like

Post by aesdaileblp » Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:03 am

I completely agree - TierTime doesn't need to abandon the 'new user' get-you-up-and-printing-fast approach their software takes, all they need to do is provide the functionality that allows Simplify3D to work.

My home printer can be completely run by Simplify3D in the same way the UP software runs the UP Box. Simplify3D can send my file to the on-board SD card, start the print and run an onscreen monitor window. It can also write to a discrete SD card which I then use in my printer remotely - both methods work, and I'm sure the on-board method would work well for the Up Box.

Our office is now looking to buy a second printer - but I can't recommend the UP Box as our second one yet because of the issue with too much support material and not enough control of the slicing. It is proving far too time-consuming to pull the support away.

Compare with the far better support that free software like Autodesk Meshmixer creates; this is what we need.
Adrian Esdaile
Senior Project Architect
Billard Leece Partnership Pty Ltd
Architects & Urban Planners
http://www.blp.com.au

sahrchitect
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:29 pm

Re: What the UP Studio should look like

Post by sahrchitect » Mon Apr 04, 2016 10:20 pm

Seconded! User aesdaileblp lays out the issue very clearly: the UP software is so simplified in its interface that it becomes rigid and frustrating to more advanced users. Even for the simple users - printing raftless is kind of a joke, given that you have to trick the machine into a 2mm difference in Z height!

My models are made through Rhino and Grasshopper, sometimes being worked upon by 4 or 5 people before they get to the printer. Mesh errors are common, and the UP 2.18 is incapable of graphically showing me gcode so that I can pick up errors before they go to print. I have 3 UP Boxes for the office and I get a LOT of blowback for having chosen them. I only hope that the software is dramatically improved to do the excellent hardware justice. In the meantime, PLEASE consider handing the entirety of the software dev to Simplify3D, who have an excellent and flawless working system.

abear
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 12:50 pm

Re: What the UP Studio should look like

Post by abear » Tue Apr 05, 2016 12:51 pm

PLUS 1

I just I sent this email to my local distributor before finding this thread.


I've been running my UPBox for a while now and while I am absolutely wrapped in the hardware, but I frequently find the software extremely lacking.

Unfortunately, I have had the pleasant experience of using simplify3d with a XYZ DaVinci 2.0A (unfortunate hardware), so I know what "better" software can be.

Is there any chance tier time will ever allow Simplify3d to support UP printers?
Or is there any other "better" software I can use?
Or is there a new version of the printing software that will provide all the features below?
Or is there a hack/fix available to expose the UPBox to Simplify3d as a standard RepRap (or other supported) printer?

Some of the key features I'd really like and would use (already do with Simplify3d on the DaVinci)

•control over extruder and bed temperatures at various layers
•more control over the raft build (there is no need for a raft to build slowly or at high resolution, just because I want the part to be built slowly or at high resolution)
•more control over vertical AND horizontal shell widths (I NEED more than 2 extrusion lines on walls AND only having 1 outer extrusion line on the first layer SUCKS)
•more control over support structures and infill (Would be great to only build support or infill every second or third layer, this greatly improves build speed)
•the ability to pause a print part way though (i.e. at layer X or height X to insert nuts into prebuilt holes)
•the ability to change extrusion settings at various layer heights (very hand to build at .2 mm for a bust base, but then at .1mm for the detail of a face)
•more control over infill pattern and direction (selecting proper honey comb inside of rectilinear fills)
•layer speed control. I printed over 40 pawns for a chess set with the UPBox to learn I needed to print 9 at a time to get the layer time low enough to reduce the bad overhang issues, this could have been solved with a simple minimum layer time setting.
•1 raft per print, not 1 raft per part in the print, I have found the UP software overlaps the rafts of parts if they are too close together, which reduces the number of parts I can print at once.
•the ability to set or calibrate infill overlap of shell lines. I am finding the infill does not always contact and weld to the shell lines on one side. This makes my parts weaker and the shell often peels away (especially with the single line on the first layer).


The overall impression I have with the UPBox software after nearly 9 months of usage, is that it is focused on first time users (i.e. kids at schools) that will print a few things but not be repeat users as apposed to being focused for professionals or hobbyists who actually want to print lots of things for real use.

printman
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:44 am

Re: What the UP Studio should look like

Post by printman » Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:50 pm

I have never used Simplify3d, but now I can see that all my issues that have been arising with print strengths and infill, etc are due to the software constraints! These guys know what's up :lol: How can we solve this?

Matchpoint
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 10:50 pm

Re: What the UP Studio should look like

Post by Matchpoint » Fri Apr 08, 2016 9:17 pm

printman wrote:I have never used Simplify3d, but now I can see that all my issues that have been arising with print strengths and infill, etc are due to the software constraints! These guys know what's up :lol: How can we solve this?
once you use s3d you will be blown away if all you have been using is the UP software...the UP machines are so tied down....

tel
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 1:35 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What the UP Studio should look like

Post by tel » Sun Apr 10, 2016 11:41 am

Notice there has been an update to Up Studio. Cant see anything that has been changed so assuming its all under the hood.

Neal
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:26 pm

Re: What the UP Studio should look like

Post by Neal » Mon Apr 11, 2016 1:16 am

To abear's point about "•1 raft per print, not 1 raft per part in the print, I have found the UP software overlaps the rafts of parts if they are too close together, which reduces the number of parts I can print at once."

I believe that you can eliminate overlapping raft by hitting the "Merge" command before printing. This should allow you to position parts very close together without concern for overlapping raft.

I hope this helps you.

abear
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 12:50 pm

Re: What the UP Studio should look like

Post by abear » Thu Apr 14, 2016 4:02 pm

Hi Neal,
I'm using UP V2.18 and I don't see "Merge" anywhere.

Anyway, this is all mute, mr_x has his up code to gcode transcoder working for the up mini and it's only a matter of time (hopefully days) before it will be working with the UPBox! and other UP models. I can't wait to use Simplify3d against my UPBox! :D :D :D .
viewtopic.php?f=28&t=55250

As a side note, the only argument I hear in support of the UP software is the "great" support material algorithm and easy removal.
I say "Meh", I've had no trouble configuring easy support material removal in Simplify3d for any material I was printing with. It only takes a bit of tweaking for the material your using.

tel
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 1:35 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: What the UP Studio should look like

Post by tel » Fri Apr 15, 2016 6:38 am

abear wrote:Hi Neal,
I'm using UP V2.18 and I don't see "Merge" anywhere.
Its under the edit menu - last item

sahrchitect
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:29 pm

Re: What the UP Studio should look like

Post by sahrchitect » Wed May 17, 2017 6:41 am

I hope you found it - it's actually very useful.

Place stl files and right click Select All, then right click Merge. No more double up rafts.
abear wrote:Hi Neal,
I'm using UP V2.18 and I don't see "Merge" anywhere.

Anyway, this is all mute, mr_x has his up code to gcode transcoder working for the up mini and it's only a matter of time (hopefully days) before it will be working with the UPBox! and other UP models. I can't wait to use Simplify3d against my UPBox! :D :D :D .
viewtopic.php?f=28&t=55250

As a side note, the only argument I hear in support of the UP software is the "great" support material algorithm and easy removal.
I say "Meh", I've had no trouble configuring easy support material removal in Simplify3d for any material I was printing with. It only takes a bit of tweaking for the material your using.

Post Reply