Orientation Assessment

in this example part, we will go through the following steps to determine the best print orientation for the application auto orient for orientation assessment docid 2yr4oft lo0mohucloiqo assess the orientation assessment docid 2yr4oft lo0mohucloiqo goals against the auto orientation and adjust as desired assess the orientation assessment docid 2yr4oft lo0mohucloiqo implications of the orientation orientation assessment docid 2yr4oft lo0mohucloiqo and repeat the assessment as needed to find the optimal solution, balancing all the factors for production follow this link to review the orientation and supports that affect print success, design, and cost print success orient the default orientation for this temple of an eyeglass frame stands the part up on end supports are needed for an overhang and for stability during printing default auto orientation design issues to consider critical feature the frame hinges must fit together without interference from the support nubs the location of the supports work well fall within the clearance zone of the hinge hidden from view when the frames are worn critical feature cosmetic surface the majority of the frame is a cosmetic surface cosmetic surface that must look nice but also feel nice for the wearer of the frames the support nubs left behind by the bar supports present two issues two issues a small bumpy patch that may not be the surface finish wanted a rough surface that may not be comfortable behind the ears for the wearer cosmetic surface solutions to consider address the support nubs to address the issues presented for the cosmetic surface, a few options can be explored texture texture finishing finishing embrace the bumpy texture and apply it to the whole frame to blend in with the support nubs ( shown with dimples n, 0 4 mm depth and 1 0 mm tile size ) incorporate a finishing step in assembly to remove the support nubs change orientation try a different orientation ; a shorter part height works well for fence supports, which breaks closer to the surface the nubs left behind by fences do not present a comfort issue being so close to the surface applied to the top edge of the frame, they can be a design feature for the frame change orientation cost after assessing the design implications, we have two potential orientations running a quick cost analysis can help advise on the optimal production solution tall orientation orientation option parts per build material per part print time per part labor tall orientation 42 6 6 ml 6 6 ml 7 7 min 7 7 min part washer \ support removal \ finishing if desired short orientation 10 5 5 ml 5 5 ml 7 min 7 min part washer \ support removal \ finishing if desired estimates shown from an m3 printer other printers will vary due to build size, or on an m2 printer (which has the same build volume as an m3) (opens in a new tab)due to m3's force feedback feature that usually yields faster print times review both orientations are viable options the short orientation comes out ahead on print time and material usage per part, but getting more parts out per build may be preferred in production to process fewer builds overall both have a similar post processing workflow, so cost does not appear to be a notable differentiator (unless it is decided that finishing is not needed on one of them) how else can you choose between the two options? run a test print of each and assess the post processing workflow, surface finish and assembly decide if one option can forego finishing, thus saving labor time verify how the front frame of the glasses should be oriented assembly, fit and function may perform better if the hinge is oriented the same way in all parts