# Minimum Feature Size Test **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [February 26, 2015, 4:39pm UTC](https://forum.formlabs.com/t/minimum-feature-size-test/3805 "2015-02-26T16:39:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 74
**Author:** ![ChristopherBarr](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex025/user_avatar/forum.formlabs.com/christopherbarr/32/645_2.png) [@ChristopherBarr](https://forum.formlabs.com/u/ChristopherBarr)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2015, 11:57pm UTC](https://forum.formlabs.com/t/minimum-feature-size-test/3805/74 "2015-03-06T23:57:34Z")
> [@Ante\_Vukorepa](#): > > Fine \<------ Universal ------\> Coarse Also build-platform z-height step would need to change in relation to slider position as well, and it may not be a linear change, which ups the complexity a bit. But you’re right on about the ‘variable’ slider kind of control mechanism. Analog feeling, not with clunky steps in the slider, and where clicking anywhere in the slider path moves the slider there, not flipping surprisingly it to a preset spot 😄 Actually, your idea was mostly already requested a plugin to this feature request: > [@Mark slice layer ranges for various optional behaviors](https://forum.formlabs.com/t/mark-slice-layer-ranges-for-various-optional-behaviors/3033/2): > > Throw in the ability to tweak the curing (laser power +/- percentage) as an advanced option somewhere (Fine Tuning?) and i might not look at another SLA printer again Maybe they’re working on it as we speak. --- _[View the full topic](https://forum.formlabs.com/t/minimum-feature-size-test/3805)._