Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!border-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 17:28:50 +0000 From: DJ Delorie Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: 3D Printers References: <10cs7i9$pvtg$1@dont-email.me> <10ctn05$1671r$1@dont-email.me> <10cu8s4$1cb3e$1@dont-email.me> <10d046b$1qne3$1@dont-email.me> <10d1d91$26gs3$1@dont-email.me> <10d262t$2bk90$1@dont-email.me> <10d2hst$2e27d$2@dont-email.me> <10d3h9n$2oqkf$1@dont-email.me> <10d4lo9$2vuea$2@dont-email.me> <10d6fra$3honb$1@dont-email.me> <10d6o71$3jr48$1@dont-email.me> <10d8dfv$2e0c$1@dont-email.me> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 13:28:48 -0400 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:9AkC91d3hztF0dYrlQItT1itbP0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Lines: 44 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-JKrp5yYXD63Di7k97sVchJSraFhG2Nuh3mW+0rsuaJokm6AHLH47kGZJgyYsE3NytcGm3149EDhJdNs!29LUuQ5XI72Z3wV3V35gemu1P6O1aZUQKC2ex9IL9QwgeoT2/g== X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Xref: csiph.com sci.electronics.design:737070 Don Y writes: >> Yup, if they were up against the clear plastic. > > Your photo suggests that was the case. Did putting some air between > the "lens" and the target result in a "less transparent" result? > (it seemed like it could tolerate a bit of a gap without a significant > loss of clarity) The non-smooth top would distort the image the further away it was. Note: that test was on my first printer; I haven't re-tested with clear PETG on my newest printer with it's "ironing" settings, which are designed to smooth the top layer. The test I did was for a lens, which implies some polishing and smoothing. What were were testing for was if the inside was "lens-y" enough. >> I don't think it's a material issue, unless you can find a plastic with >> the same reflective constants as air ;-) > > But, are other materials *less* transparent than the one you chose > for this example? I don't know. >> It's so easy to regenerate a gcode file in the slicer these days, that >> the main factor is the "no need" part. Modern printers use fast 32-bit >> processors and nobody has bothered making the gcode smarter. Faster and >> smaller, sure, but not smarter. The parameters you want are in the >> slicer, just slice it again. > > I thought you just shipped gcode to a service bureau. If so, they > can't realistically make any changes to improve the print, right? Typically you'd ship the *model* to the service bureau, and they would slice it with recipies known to work well on their printers with their filament. They might even need custom gcode for their farm's automation. It's rare to share gcode because everyone has different printer and filament combinations, but it does happen in forums where there's consistency. Bambu and Printables share gcode for their specific printers, for example, but sharing the model is much more common.