Posted: 7/17/2026 11:54:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: mvintx][Edited]
|
I have been trying to figure out how to set up my support interface so it lies between the support and FTN 4.5 PCC. When I enable filament for supports, it places the interface between the bed and the support. I thought interface was supposed to be between the two objects. These are the settings recommended at Bambu Wiki;  This is what I get when I apply those settings;  Can someone please ‘splain’ this to me? |
|
Doesn't the model already have the built in supports? If so, the slicer isn't seeing those as "supports", rather just as part of the model, so it's thinking the bottom of the built-in supports are actually the bottom of the model and what you're trying to support with the generated supports. IIRC, you just print this as it is, no slicer supports added. |
|
Yes, the supports and object are one. I was thinking that using an interface between the support and the main body would make removing the supports easier. I'm not sure how easy it will be to separate the two considering it's being laid down slow and hot like the rest of the suppressor. While driving to take my trash out I got the bright idea that splitting into objects would separate the support from the main body but that didn't work either. Once again, saved by the "undo" option. Wonder if anyone here has printed a FTN PCC or rifle? Sure would like to hear from them about the experience. |
|
IIRC they designer left a small space between them, like a manually added interface top Z distance, so that they should just snap right off the model. If your print settings for flow rate and all that are dialed in as they should be, then it should work just fine as is. |
|
That particular can has the supports modeled as a single piece so the slicer doesn't recognize them as supports. It thinks it's the actual model. I printed ftn4.5 9mm pcc in PA6-CF and those built in supports warped like crazy even at 68C chamber. I ended up removing them in CAD and using organic supports instead and it came out perfectly. If you don't know how to do this I can email you the file later tonight or this weekend. Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By D_Man: IIRC they designer left a small space between them, like a manually added interface top Z distance, so that they should just snap right off the model. If your print settings for flow rate and all that are dialed in as they should be, then it should work just fine as is. Originally Posted By D_Man: IIRC they designer left a small space between them, like a manually added interface top Z distance, so that they should just snap right off the model. If your print settings for flow rate and all that are dialed in as they should be, then it should work just fine as is. Originally Posted By mvintx: Yes, the supports and object are one. I was thinking that using an interface between the support and the main body would make removing the supports easier. I'm not sure how easy it will be to separate the two considering it's being laid down slow and hot like the rest of the suppressor. While driving to take my trash out I got the bright idea that splitting into objects would separate the support from the main body but that didn't work either. Once again, saved by the "undo" option. Wonder if anyone here has printed a FTN PCC or rifle? Sure would like to hear from them about the experience. Originally Posted By D_Man: IIRC they designer left a small space between them, like a manually added interface top Z distance, so that they should just snap right off the model. If your print settings for flow rate and all that are dialed in as they should be, then it should work just fine as is. I'm not at my PC but I don't remember there being any gap. The outer tube and the support was a single piece so I separated them in solidworks. |
|
Originally Posted By D_Man: IIRC they designer left a small space between them, like a manually added interface top Z distance, so that they should just snap right off the model. If your print settings for flow rate and all that are dialed in as they should be, then it should work just fine as is. You could have something there. Guess I'll try a print in PLA and see how it works before I use a more expensive filament. Thanks for your input. |
|
Originally Posted By Blob: That particular can has the supports modeled as a single piece so the slicer doesn't recognize them as supports. It thinks it's the actual model. I printed ftn4.5 9mm pcc in PA6-CF and those built in supports warped like crazy even at 68C chamber. I ended up removing them in CAD and using organic supports instead and it came out perfectly. If you don't know how to do this I can email you the file later tonight or this weekend. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/160722/1000019599_jpg-3796669.JPG At this point in my experience, that capability is beyond me. But I would certainly like to learn. Need to sign up for Solidworks if that will do. Thanks for the offer. |
|
Originally Posted By Blob: I'm not at my PC but I don't remember there being any gap. The outer tube and the support was a single piece so I separated them in solidworks. I've modeled manual supports into a large part before and had it physically attached, but it was with one wall layer thickness and I left gaps to act like perforations. It was for a long cantilevered part up off the bed and was the only way to stop warping prints, and they would snap right off after printing even easier than generated supports. |
|
BTW I wasn't a big fan of the included end cap for the thread adapter so I made my own with a flange to sandwich the aluminum tube against the front flange. The stock adapter threads didn't fit anyway because there was no clearance modeled in so i had to fix that too. Attached File Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By Blob: BTW I wasn't a big fan of the included end cap for the thread adapter so I made my own with a flange to sandwich the aluminum tube against the front flange. The stock adapter threads didn't fit anyway because there was no clearance modeled in so i had to fix that too. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/160722/1000019658_jpg-3796681.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/160722/1000019684_jpg-3796682.JPG I'll agree the FTN thread adaptors are not the cleanest approach. Your end cap is very clean. I plan to use the SLR taper mount blast shield so it will thread on to the muzzle device instead of a direct thread. Not sure how I can incorporate an endcap to that design. I signed up for a Solidworks account...we'll see what I can do with it. There is also a suppressor file without supports...I'll try adding supports manually and see how it prints in PLA/PETG. Thanks again. |
|
Back at my PC now. Here's a better view of the thread insert I modified and how it sandwiches the sleeve in place. The original insert doesn't do that so the sleeve just kinda floats around wherever wants as the epoxy cures. Attached File Attached File I cut a little bit off the crests of the threads and added some more clearance along the flanks to give the JB some room. The included adapter didn't even begin to screw in. Attached File |
|
I was mistaken about the built in support. There is a gap modeled, but it is touching the tube in several places so there is only one solid body which is probably why I was thinking there wasn't a gap. Either way, it should be a separate body so the type can be changed in the slicer. Attached File Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By Blob: Back at my PC now. Here's a better view of the thread insert I modified and how it sandwiches the sleeve in place. The original insert doesn't do that so the sleeve just kinda floats around wherever wants as the epoxy cures. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/160722/Screenshot_2026-07-17_160449_jpg-3796778.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/160722/Screenshot_2026-07-17_155742_jpg-3796775.JPG I cut a little bit off the crests of the threads and added some more clearance along the flanks to give the JB some room. The included adapter didn't even begin to screw in. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/160722/Screenshot_2026-07-17_160117_jpg-3796777.JPG Very clever...they look like ACME threads. And you can do that in CAD, huh? Great idea to make more room for the JB Weld. Had to send Solidworks my DD214...guess they have to verify it before they let me sign up for the discounted price. |
|
Originally Posted By mvintx: Very clever...they look like ACME threads. And you can do that in CAD, huh? Great idea to make more room for the JB Weld. Had to send Solidworks my DD214...guess they have to verify it before they let me sign up for the discounted price. They're not acme but they're not standard 60 degree Vee. But yeah you can make threads in cad. Hell you can make just about anything in cad. |
|
Just wanting to learn as I am still new to stuff like this. Why print that in that specific orientation? Why not vertical? Small footprint making for a high chance of it falling over? If that is the case, why not just completely horizontal instead of at a angle? Again, just wanting to learn. |
|
Originally Posted By Jeeps-And-Guns: Just wanting to learn as I am still new to stuff like this. Why print that in that specific orientation? Why not vertical? Small footprint making for a high chance of it falling over? If that is the case, why not just completely horizontal instead of at a angle? Again, just wanting to learn. |
|
Originally Posted By Jeeps-And-Guns: Just wanting to learn as I am still new to stuff like this. Why print that in that specific orientation? Why not vertical? Small footprint making for a high chance of it falling over? If that is the case, why not just completely horizontal instead of at a angle? Again, just wanting to learn. Originally Posted By Jeeps-And-Guns: Just wanting to learn as I am still new to stuff like this. Why print that in that specific orientation? Why not vertical? Small footprint making for a high chance of it falling over? If that is the case, why not just completely horizontal instead of at a angle? Again, just wanting to learn. From the designer: A suppressor experiences two forces: axial, pushing away from the firearm, and radial which is outwards from the center A printed suppressor will always be weakest layer adhesion, which translates to layer lines A vertically printed suppressor will have strong hoop strength, or resists outward expanding pressure A horizontally printed suppressor will have strong axial strength. A baffled suppressor that is printed vertically would need axial reinforcement. An example would be the shush puppy. it uses threaded rods to hold it together I find that using external reinforcement, it is easier to reinforce hoop strength as opposed to axial. It is true that 22 designs can be printed vertically and survive without reinforcement. When you get to higher pressure cartridges, then you benefit much more from the extra reinforcement. Then there’s another factor which is weight and heat. I’m a stickler on weight, not only for handling the firearm, but also because a heavy suppressor can be a risk of the droop failure. Basically the threading weakens from heat and the entire suppressor starts to droop until there’s a baffle strike. Having an external shell also helps prevent a droop failure. That is why my FTN.3 rimfire is still designed to be printed horizontal with an external shell. Not because it needs it to handle the blast, but also to prevent droop failure. |