152/5000 Has anyone printed this figure? Dino Triceratops

I can not align this figure correctly. An error message appears. It needs more support.

I would point the head upwards at ~30°. You will also need to add supports with the tool right below your current menu selection on the screenshot you posted. SLA printers cannot build an object such as this without any supports.

It would help if you provided a link to the model, but right off the top, I would say, make sure it’s hollow first of all, then I would print it up side down, with the feet up in the air, and not much tilt in either direction.

Anyway, without actually trying it, I can’t provide any definitive feedback.

well, I was able to find a model just like yours, if not the same. I hollowed it out, added a breather/drain hole, and placed it on the build platform. The model was originally too large to fit the build platform so I reduced it to 65%.

Here is what it looks like with the supports.

1 Like

Supports on the back are kinda hard to clean, especially on a textured model like this, and are in a very visible spot. It’s generally better idea to print quadruped models with the legs facing the platform.

You can angle it with the head facing upwards, to reduce the number of support warts on the face (which is where people’s focus goes the most). Also, when possible, you can favour one side (e.g. the side that will be displayed) and tilt it slightly sideways to the other - that way you partially save one side of the body from the support warts too.

1 Like

Actually, for a model like this one, I would make sure all the supports are on top of the skin bumps (they should be anyway), but if not, you can simply edit the supports an reposition the support points.

The nice thing about the supports being on top of the bumps, is they can be easily sanded since they’re on high spots.

Not saying that’s not a valid tactic, but… How is manually placing about a hundred support points easier than just placing supports on the belly, where any bumps will never be seen?

1 Like

Sometimes, the obvious choice is not the best.

Without getting into the details, would you agree that having to sand a bunch of supports from hard to get to areas like between the legs and such is actually harder than doing it on an open area such as the back?

Here are a few snap shots of the supports, as well as the support points for this model, both upside-down like and right-side-up.

Support point for Up-Side-Down layout. Notice how easy they are to get to, and how few there are.

Here is the Right-Side-Up layout. Notice how many more support points there are on this layout, and how tucked in they are in areas that are hard to get to.

Your second example isn’t even close to what i’ve suggested, though.
I never said "lay it flat on its legs and just let her rip with the supports.

What do you think is easier and faster:

  1. Spending an hour manually positioning supports on the back
  2. Putting more supports in the hollow inside so it doesn’t collapse
  3. Spending even more time sanding the bumps on the back carefully so they don’t end up flattened (they’re not flat scales, by the way)


  1. Angle the object correctly, create supports in 1 minute
  2. Snip the supports on the belly with a scalpel not minding the bumps (because they won’t be visible, being on the forementioned belly)

I mean, if you think option 1 is worth it, go for it.
I admire your patience and amount of free time available.

Edit: Oh, and by the way, all those support points you didn’t put on the flanks (but that are included in the second example, which has exact same curvature in that area) are going to result in a print with very visible layer lines in those areas. Been there, done that.

The supports, as you see them in these photos, were generated by Preform automatically.

I did not edit the supports at all, I only clicked edit so you can see the actual connection points.

What I said was that it could be edited to make sure all the support points are on a high point (bump), but I didn’t do any edits whatsoever.

1 Like

Oriented the way i’ve described.
But at 100% scale.

Fits the build volume just fine.

Here is a cross section of the Triceratops body. Which one do you think requires more external supports?

Nice of you to include part of legs in that cross section :wink:

Ok, here it is through the middle without any legs. The point is, the body shape is such that it tapers to a pointed ridge (the backbone), so it has a triangular shape which requires a lot less support.

Anyway, the reason I scaled the model was to make it approximately the same size the OP had it when he posted the question. But I did set it up to the orientation as you did, but I end up with a lot more supports than you have. What settings did you use for your density and slope? Here are my settings: I use 0.45mm points as they are easier to remove and to clean. The rest of the settings are standard.

Density 0.8, same point size as you, base 1.25mm, everything else unchanged.
This is what i’d normally use for a hollowed out object of this type.

My shell thickness at 100% was about 1.25-1.5mm, forgot what i set it to exactly (yours seems much thicker, about 3mm?). You can get away with way less supports with a thin shell. About 1.25-1.5 has so far worked fine for items to be displayed, and even some large scan repros used as photography props.

The holes i put on the feet are because each foot creates a separate cup until they merge with the main body, The extra hole at the base of the tail is purely to make draining easier. Looking at it now, i should’ve put a small hole on the tail tip too.

Apologies if i come across as flippant, by the way.
I appreciate the discussion, and don’t mean to offend, even though my communication skills leave something to be desired sometimes :slight_smile:

No offense taken. I love these back and forth kind of things.

My model was hollowed out to 3mm, because I new I would reduce it to 65%, so the wall thickness would end up being about 2mm.

1 Like