On Tuesday 04 August 2020 21:46:51 Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 August 2020 21:26:28 Chris Albertson wrote:
> > So the parts come out about 0.4mm to large no matter what size they
> > are. It is because of surface imperfection of is the side very
> > smooth and flat?
>
> Doesn't look that
On Tuesday 04 August 2020 21:26:28 Chris Albertson wrote:
> So the parts come out about 0.4mm to large no matter what size they
> are. It is because of surface imperfection of is the side very smooth
> and flat?
Doesn't look that bad.
> I would measure after doing a bit of sandpapering to true
On Tuesday 04 August 2020 21:11:56 Bruce Layne wrote:
> I agree with Chris. I want the CAD model to represent the actual part
> and not some fudge factor version of the part. If you don't want to
> tweak the dimensions of the CAD model and you don't want to try to
> tweak the printer settings wh
So the parts come out about 0.4mm to large no matter what size they are.
It is because of surface imperfection of is the side very smooth and flat?
I would measure after doing a bit of sandpapering to true up the sides.
With a milling machine the tool marks are scratches below the surface but
w
I agree with Chris. I want the CAD model to represent the actual part
and not some fudge factor version of the part. If you don't want to
tweak the dimensions of the CAD model and you don't want to try to tweak
the printer settings which can be tedious and difficult, you can easily
adjust the sca
On Tuesday 04 August 2020 16:13:52 Bari wrote:
I finally got around to measureing the 5x5 cube I did this morning.
X=5.31mm,10.40,15.45,20.58,25.55
Y=5.25,10.35,15.40,20.4925.62
Z=brim 0.70,5,61,10.54,15.57,20.43,25.39
The top 5x5 has a fat spot near its bottom that reads almost 5.9. Only in
X.
