Playing with different support settings



I am new to the Ember, and right now I am printing some test cubes to assess the accuracy of the machine. I first printed a 0.5 in cube using the automatic supports. The issue with that is that the bottom surface connected to the supports ended up somewhat concave up and not perfectly straight, so I wanted to test if the printer could do better/

So I went ahead and tilted my cube in the X and Y directions 45 degrees, hoping that this would fix my issue. I made my own supports, which I wasn’t sure would work due to my lack of experience. A picture is attached showing what my print looked like. Unfortunately, the print turned out very bad: the supports did not adhere well to the cube and the cube did not have any straight faces. I am concerned I didn’t add enough supports. Or maybe the orientation is not great for the Ember to handle. I am looking for some advice on how to find best print orientation and supports, and how to make good manual supports in case I need to.

Thanks in advance!

Has anyone been having constant problems with support attachment points with print studio

Making good manual supports in Print Studio is kind of hard. Is there a reason you didn’t use the automatic supports when you rotated the cube 45 degrees in X and Y?

More importantly, when printing geometries like cubes that are self-supporting, it’s easiest to not use any supports and just lay it flat on the build surface.


Thanks Owen! I didn’t use automatic supports because print studio just created 1 support in the tip of the base and that was obviously not good enough! I didn’t do the no-support yet option because I was scared of the cube not being able to come out easily or me scratching the piece when I try to remove it from the platform. But trying that seems like the next logical step. Thanks!


I think that’s because it’s a perfect cube, which doesn’t happen very often. But you can make it give you more supports by changing the support angle tolerance to 45 degrees or less in the Advanced Settings. But if it will work to let it lie flat, that’s much easier.

Note that there is a size limit to printing surfaces flat on the build head, at which point you’ll start to see the corners deforming upward. (This is due to the way the resin shrinks as it cures.)

For increased dimensional accuracy of square parts, you can also look into Pattern Mode. It’s a little complicated to set up, but it can be useful if you need tight tolerances and your parts are square. (If you’ll ultimately be making curved parts, there’s no need to use it.)


As Owen stated, for this type of geometry building flat off the build head is best (no supports).
Owens referral to the edges bending up can be addressed (providing the object is less than 64x40mm) by adding a raft around the part. A minimum of 3mm should be sufficient in most cases. This can only be done when you are modeling the part as PS does not have this as an option. I usually make my rafts about .2mm~.5mm thick and use a sharp razor blade to cut the edges BEFORE removing from the build head.
As for removal, again a sharp razor blade is best. Get it under one edge and peel up slow.

One other note on this type of part geometry: Turn your SeparationRPM values down to 1 or 2 RPM to give the tray more torque and to prevent jamming.

Searching for accurate Z-dimension prints

@scott_chabineau Would you show a screenshot of a raft? This sounds really useful.


Thanks for the input. I am interested in high dimensional accuracy of curved parts mostly so I will not use Pattern Mode. But it’s good info to know anyway


OK great - Did you use specific print settings for the draft which were different from the main part? I am not sure if PS allows you to do that. I can just imagine maybe some different settings would make the removal process smother and prevent jamming,


The raft is just an extension of the geometry. No change in the print settings for the raft slices.



Wow, very cool. Somehow I did not know about this technique, so thank you for sharing it.



Do you think you could share the Solidworks file for the example shown in the second picture? I guess the outside circle in the bottom is the raft, but I’m not sure. Did you use the razor to cut through the connection between the ~triangle in the inside and the circle in the outside? I am a little scared of damaging my part when I remove the rafts.


There is always a chance for damage during raft removal. One thing I haven’t played with much yet is just how thin the attachment can be to the model before you lose the benefit of the raft. If the attachment is 10 microns thick, then it should come off pretty clean. I usually run my attachments between 50-200 microns in the model, but this inevitably comes out thicker on the printed part.

tm16-0028-303 quater turn harris leak jig.SLDPRT (2.3 MB)


One other thing - I have started to always place relief geometry at inside and outside corners. I try to keep the raft only attached on linear edges. This model does not have these reliefs.


Great, thank you so much. I tried using a 0.15mm thickness layer but the results weren’t perfect (I saw a small improvement but I am waiting on a micrometer to confirm that). My next step would be to increase the thickness of this layer and see if that makes a difference.


While I didn’t do this on my part, I think the raft would work better if the largest sacrificial surface was attached to the furthest extents of the part. That’s where the lifting (warping) is the greatest.
In both our models, this ends up the thinnest since we created a circle. Instead, try using an offset sketch line to create an equal distance raft, then add reliefs to the inside corners.


Good idea!