Thought of that too (supports “pulling” back a layer in its place, essentially), and it does seem like there are lines around the spot where support attaches in a lot of these cases, but there are clear instances where that’s not happening either. E.g.
You’re right, it’s possible the overall exposure is low (perhaps in an attempt to fix the original blurry features issue) and making the prints too soft, however, that would make the smallest and least supported features the most succeptible to this issue, which isn’t really what i’m observing.
There’s also instances where this doesn’t happen at all, and there’s way way less support, and features are even thinner and more fragile and/or have thicker cross sections. E.g. all the resolution test prints we all did in various threads of this forum.
Then there’s this print:
where there were no layer lines at all, despite minimal support and size of features, but there were odd irregularities on the back of the head (which i think might be just laser diffusion, as that part was facing the platform).
I’ve directed them to the forum posts like mine and the others that are showing this same issue. Hopefully that will help instead of me downloading and saving photos and attaching them to every support email communication I am having with them.
Something along those lines is my guess, yeah.
It doesn’t just stir, it also decouples the tank (or, rather, the film) off the rollers via the movable right tank rail (that’s the really loud BZEEEEEEEeeeeEEEEE you hear every x layers).
That IS interesting… but I still don’t get what it could mean. I mean LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF SUPPORTS. Especially on the print furthest to the left. NO WAY adding more will make one DAMN bit of difference. I have sent all the relevant info I could to Formlabs. I don’t expect to hear back until at least Monday, as they said they are closed Thursday and Friday. So that’s awesome… another big block of time wasted with my brand new printer. Maybe I’ll print a few more random things I have printed before just so I can show them they are all bad again. Grrr…
So after tons of back and forth support has gotten back to me and confirmed the waviness/layer shifting is a legitimate issue that they now recognize and are working on. Unfortunately the timing of when to expect it to be resolved is… unknown.
I went ahead and printed some very fine glasses frames that I have also done on my Form 2. These are in 1/6 scale an in general these frames are only 1-2mm in thickness in any given spot, and the Form 3 handled them perfectly. And as a matter of fact there are some very fine details (not visible since I didn’t take close ups) that the Form 3 resolved BETTER than the Form 2. Now, I can’t say there isn’t waviness… the glasses may be too fine structured to SEE it, even if it is there. But if they can iron out the kinks and THIS is the sort of thing I can expect, I’ll be happy.
Agreed, nice prints. It’s somewhat reassuring that a few of us, randomly, are getting surprising results that are actually positive with the F3. I’ve been dealing with the wavy layer shifting now for a while trying to print jewelry. What resolution were the glasses printed at?
I have been printing glasses with the Form 2 for awhile now. I generally manually orient them, usually tilted upward at 45 degrees and then sideways at about 15 degrees. Then I have the autosupport generator do it’s thing using 0.4 size and 85%. Then once autosupport is done I go in and adjust, since it is usually pretty bad about placing supports over small details and along areas that would otherwise be hard to remove them from.
I only ever print glasses in clear, for a couple of reasons. The main reason is most of my miniatures glasses are meant to replicate real glasses, which are very often translucent… so the clear is perfect for this. But a huge benefit is because the clear cures the very best, you can usually get away with smaller support points and I have little to no concerns that the print will break free from supports.