When I run a preform job multiple times, I “scramble” the position of the parts. The reason for this is to more evenly distribute wear on the tray surface, such that the same part does not print in the same position each time. What I would love is a feature that keeps the parts oriented and suppoorted as they are, but rearranges them on the build platform so I don’t have to do this manually. I pack the platform fairly densely, so this can be a puzzle sometimes.
Does the “Layout All” button not work for what you want?
The issue is that the “layout all” button turns and changes the orientation. Certain thin sections (I very much push the capabilities of the machine in terms of detail–I am the first to admit), work better in some orientations. I’ve noticed that sometimes corners get rounded if a point is oriented a certain way, etc. What I would love is to be able to layout all, but preserve the orientation of my parts. It would also be great to be able to have a spacing setting on the layout all (so the distance between smaller parts could be closer).
Perhaps this is too specialized a request, and I totally understand that you do not want to add features that are pointless to the majority of folks.
The “Layout All” tool will only rotate things in the Z axis which should be non-impactful for XY orientation and support generation. Are you perhaps thinking of the “Orient Selected” tool rather than the “Layout All” tool?
Z matters to me. I keep the uphill side of my oriented parts (when viewed in layout) towards the wiper. This is a habit that holds over from my days with the Form 1, where I found the rocking motion made a big difference with distortion of fine parts. Even with the Form 2, I find that certain thin sections seem to do better based on how I orient them–I freely admit I “break the rules” in terms of thin sections and fine details–but achieve very high reliability at extreme levels of detail (parts as thin as .2mm, legible writing that is fractions of a mm, etc.). It’s also possible that it’s all in my head, but my tests seem to show direction still makes a difference with the Form 2, hence I’ve kept with the habit of incline towards the peel. I love the Form2–and praise it endlessly. You can see one of the models here, many sections and details beyond the advertised capability of the printer. It will look better when I get it into paint. http://randomrailroad.blogspot.com/2016/07/dick-kerr-12.html When the project is done I will share here. Hard to communicate how small these bits are. there is a razor blade in some of the images for scale.
And, I will be the first to admit it might be all in my head–I had great success with Form 1 based on the practices I use, if you think it’s obsolete with Form 2, perhaps I should do a more rigorous side by side comparison of a small part with the z rotated.
Those are some pretty incredible models. I definitely encourage you to keep “breaking the rules” and look forward to seeing more of your work. I understand why one would orient thinner details towards the wiper on the Form 1/1+. On the Form 2, because the peel motion is principally horizontal there should be a more equal distribution of force. If you’ve found that orienting towards the wiper works best, there’s no reason to do otherwise.
I think most users are looking to maximize efficient use of space with the layout all option which is why we opt to rotate things in the Z axis.