Seam: use scarf joint to minimize seam visiblity

[Noisyfox]

Implements #3211 by @vgdh directly in the slicer.
And similar idea from prusa3d/PrusaSlicer#11621 by @MichaelJLew

Todos:

• Fix the bug that the sloped seam will confuse the gcode preview to display incorrect layer numbers.

[Noisyfox]

I'll post a few comparasions later. Meanwhile, feel free to test for yourself once the CI build is completed: slop_test.zip

[superfloh247]

oh wow, the result is truly amazing!
seam nearly invisible or really invisible

[FuryriderX]

Alright this is really interesting. To get it to work properly (I think?) I had to make some extra changes - disabling wipe on loops and external loops, and also set the seam gap to 0. Left the slope settings default.

Settings in image - (printed in PETG, so its stupid hard to take a proper pic its so shiny)

Top - enable sloped seam, disable wipe on loops, disable wipe on external loops, seam gap 0
Middle - enable sloped seam, wipe on loops enabled, wipe on external loops enabled, seam gap 2%
Bottom - normal seams, wipes enabled, seam gap 2%

Love to see innovation like this and the flow compensation stuff.

[discip]

@Noisyfox

1. It would be great if we could get some pointers in the tooltip about what needs to be disabled or changed for this to work optimally.
   Like you did here:
   There is a way to completely eliminate the visible seam. #3211 (comment),

   or @FuryriderX above.

2. I'm not absolutely sure, but it seems that this idea was first published by @MichaelJLew here.

thanks in advance
kind regards

[MichaelJLew]

The tooltip should say that the perimeter to be optimised needs to be printed first. Usually that would be the external perimeter, but something else where the bore of a tube is to be optimised.

I think that the user should be given a choice of how long the scarf should be, with an entire perimeter being the longer extreme.

(2. Yes, I think my scarf seam suggestion was first, but vgdh's seems to have come up with the idea independently.)

[Noisyfox]

I think that the user should be given a choice of how long the scarf should be, with an entire perimeter being the longer extreme.

There is a "Slope length" option that do this, but slightly differently. Currently it applys the slope on perimeters that longer than this value, and do the normal seam otherwise. I think I'll update that so it uses the perimeter length as the limit instead as you described.

(2. Yes, I think my scarf seam suggestion was first, but vgdh's seems to have come up with the idea independently.)

I agree that you posted this idea on PS' github first, though here is the thing, I didn't know that until someone raised #3408, and at that time I've already played around with #3211 for a while, including that post-process script, that's why I called this feature "sloped seam". I hope you understand that I didn't mean to intentionally ignore your contributions. And thanks for what you've done to the community!

[MichaelJLew]

I never thought that anyone was intentionally ignoring my post, and don't really care much, as long as the feature is available.

Nonetheless, I do think that 'scarf seam' is a better name than 'sloped seam' for two reasons. First, scarf seams are well known to the large woodworking community and that name does not require a neologism. Second, 'sloped seam' would apply equally well to a sloping (i.e. non-vertical) arrangement of conventional end to end seams on a part. Users of the slicer will need to learn that 'sloped seam' refers to a particular usage of a common word, which is a less simple task than using a standard technical term, even where that term might be new to the user.

[SoftFever]

Look how wonderful things are brewing up in this community!

Call for more testing results/photos so that @Noisyfox can refine the parameters further! 👍

[Noisyfox]

Nonetheless, I do think that 'scarf seam' is a better name than 'sloped seam' for two reasons. First, scarf seams are well known to the large woodworking community and that name does not require a neologism. Second, 'sloped seam' would apply equally well to a sloping (i.e. non-vertical) arrangement of conventional end to end seams on a part. Users of the slicer will need to learn that 'sloped seam' refers to a particular usage of a common word, which is a less simple task than using a standard technical term, even where that term might be new to the user.

I see. I just googled it and seems it's called scarf joint (because when I googled "scarf seam" I literally got a whole page of scarf)? Maybe let's call this option scarf joint then?

[MichaelJLew]

Scarf joint seam works for me.

[Noisyfox]

Just to clearify, seam gap should not matter when this is enabled, as I've already disabled the seam gap for external perimeter when scarf is used. If seam gap does make a difference in your test, then that's a bug and needs to be fixed.

[FuryriderX]

Just to clearify, seam gap should not matter when this is enabled, as I've already disabled the seam gap for external perimeter when scarf is used. If seam gap does make a difference in your test, then that's a bug and needs to be fixed.

I realized after looking carefully at the sliced preview and changing the setting back and forth that that is the case. It is working as you intended. I'm just running a few more test circles to see what effect some of the other settings actually have on the print. I changed everything all at once to in the first test, not very scientific.

[Noisyfox]

It doesn't work as well for overhangs, though I think it's still a lot better.

[RnDMonkey]

So why does the scarf seam have to follow the curve of this hole instead of a vertical seam?

This is a good example of why it might be best to only apply scarf joint seams to perimeters that have no sharp "corners" to hide a standard seam in. Purely from a cosmetic standpoint, the scarf joint seem doesn't add any value if there is a sharp corner to place the seam in (barring pressure advance issues), so it should probably be reserved for perimeters with closed tangent chains.

[JJRPF]

hi! I am trying this out after seeing the teaching tech video about it. when I try to use it on build #1018, like on the video, I see this error when opening, after opening the file from the Artifacts area on that build.

Is there any way that I should do this differently.

[vgdh]

hi! I am trying this out after seeing the teaching tech video about it. when I try to use it on build #1018, like on the video, I see this error when opening, after opening the file from the Artifacts area on that build.

Try to use the latest 1033 build https://github.com/SoftFever/OrcaSlicer/actions/runs/8096108803?pr=3839

[JJRPF]

hi! I am trying this out after seeing the teaching tech video about it. when I try to use it on build #1018, like on the video, I see this error when opening, after opening the file from the Artifacts area on that build.

Try to use the latest 1033 build https://github.com/SoftFever/OrcaSlicer/actions/runs/8096108803?pr=3839

I got it to work with the command xattr -dr com.apple.quarantine /Applications/OrcaSlicer.app

I am going to use the newest one though.

[SoftFever]

Huge thanks to @Noisyfox for the fantastic work
We're lucky to have you!

A big shoutout to @vgdh and @MichaelJLew for coming up with this brilliant idea and the early-stage prototype. And, of course, a heartfelt thank you to everyone who participated in the testing and discussion, with a special mention to @psiberfunk for those incredible scientific experiments.

This PR has been merged. The feature will be available in the nightly build as soon as the CI/CD pipeline completes the build.

Cheers to all!

[psiberfunk]

I’ll update the printables post later today so people get less confused

[SoftFever]

@psiberfunk I remember you encountered this issue too.
It's hard to dig this long thread, do you remember or figured out what caused this issue in the photo?
For me, changing wall seq from inner-outer to sandwich mode solved this problem. I just want to double check

[igiannakas]

I think the solution was wider wall widths but I may remember wrongly - theory is you’ve got more flow to play with while tapering

[SoftFever]

I think the solution was wider wall widths but I may remember wrongly - theory is you’ve got more flow to play with while tapering

Yeah, makes sense.
Let me give it a try

[psiberfunk]

It’s a complex interplay of many factors @SoftFever . Are you using the optimized settings from my printables posting ? If not, start there !

[Gwaboo]

@psiberfunk, I'm guessing you are the guy behind the Pintables post and the excel sheet v2 right ? I made a multi material print that clips together (https://thangs.com/designer/BigBricks/post/Stormtrooper%20%2ANEW%20RELEASE%2A-819) but I ran into issuers where the seams stick out a good millimetre and is not following the geometry of the model, but just goes strait up. Also how do I read the settings from the 3mf file you provided ?, bcs. I can see the start and end of my seams pretty well, but it has to be my fault I'm pretty sure bcs. i dont know how to read you settings or if i have to print the file and see what works best for me...

1. seams sticking out
2. seams visible
3. how to read / configure settings

(to make it short and easy to answer)

[Gwaboo]

@SoftFever sorry but I don't see the files I have to download

[Bidulglloq]

Top : best seam I can get with regular seam
Bottom : Scarf Joint Seam (parameters below, Voron 2.4)

I specially wanted the wall print order to be Inner/Outer for best overhangs, and pretty satisfied with the results ;)

[MNisker]

Ok, so first comment on github, please let me know if I did something wrong :-)
Pictures show same object, round cylinder, samme settings, but cylinder rotated 45°
Rotating the cylinder more around shows quite a difference in number of seam-dots
Am I missing somthing here, it's round after all, shouldn't it be the same?
(object is primitive--cylinder with no infill or top layers.

[psiberfunk]

Ok, so first comment on github, please let me know if I did something wrong :-) Pictures show same object, round cylinder, samme settings, but cylinder rotated 45° Rotating the cylinder more around shows quite a difference in number of seam-dots Am I missing somthing here, it's round after all, shouldn't it be the same? (object is primitive--cylinder with no infill or

Yes it should all be the same , something maybe not right with seam alignment settings ..? Try painting the seam and see what it does

ideally this type of troubleshooting and comments would be done on the printables site , as its optimization and usage related rather than feature related : https://www.printables.com/model/783313-better-seams-an-orca-slicer-guide-to-using-scarf-s/comments

Since this Pull request has been merged, this thread should probably be closed @Noisyfox @SoftFever . I’m happy to try and support people over on printables . Can we close/lock the thread here so it doesn’t become a black hole ? Unfortunately the comment history feature in GitHub is not a great place to discuss this type of thing because it’s very difficult to search, and we will keep getting off topic with respect to R&D vs support requests .

[5axes]

New thread on this topic could be : #4317 with the new option Conditional Scraf Joint ?

[psiberfunk]

New thread on this topic could be : #4317 with the new option Conditional Scraf Joint ?

That’s probably the right place to discuss logic and testing and R&D, but probably not a great forum for support /help discussions .

[tsmith35]

New thread on this topic could be : #4317 with the new option Conditional Scraf Joint ?

That’s probably the right place to discuss logic and testing and R&D, but probably not a great forum for support /help discussions.

I added a discussion for scarf joint seams in General: Scarf joint seams

[psiberfunk]

I got really good results using PLA+ on my Ender-3 V3 KE, but with PETG it comes out like this:

I've enabled Contour and hole, and I've checked Scartf joint for inner walls. I forgot to change the infill setting, so it's printing infill:

Is it caused by the infill setting, or is there a different reason I get this result?

Same print on same printer with PLA+:

Any idea what to do about this?

You’ll need to experiment with tuning. See the printables post for tips

[vgdh]

I got really good results using PLA+ on my Ender-3 V3 KE, but with PETG it comes out like this:

Try to use 0.1 start height.

[Peterortiz94]

Hmm, I'll have to try a bit tomorrow with the spheres, I was concentrating just on the cylinders.

As far as the more thorough test - leaving staggered inner seams and wipe on loops enabled does not change the end result. Having 'wipe before external loop' enabled makes it look significantly worse, I would definitely recommend to disable it. And setting the seams to 'random' is a disaster, blobs and strings galore.

I'll try fooling with the rest of the settings a bit more maybe over the weekend. Awesome work!

The whole print in less than a second? I know that the Fflsun v400 was promoted as being fast, but that' incredible!
Seriously, I don't know what you mean, and I can't really see much in the photo. Do you mean to show that in then out works as well as out then in, or something else? What do the times refer to?

speed of the outer layer at 120ms instead of 50ms and if I don't see a difference at least in this piece using from inside to outside as always, and the speed the only thing that was lost is the brightness the rest is the same, I don't know the same with pieces more specific, more tests can be done

Hola amigo, como conseguiste la versiòn en Español? no la encuentrro, Gracias!!!

[kitkat0981]

not sure what im doing wrong here, but I tried build 3839 and have my settings as shown. There is no difference between 2 parts printed with version 1.9.1 (no scarf option ) and beta 2 3839 settings as picture. What am i missing here?