Exposure times testing (dial in your 3D printer resin) with the CONES OF CALIBRATION

[@ccatlett1984]

Version 2 of the Cones of Calibration will be available in the near future.

[@vogman]

Really? I look forward to it. If it prints faster, then even better!!!

[@limpfinger12]

Wonder when the near future is?

[@ScytheNoire]

I'm glad you are finally covering this. The worst thing about most calibration tests is that they are subjective. The Cones are far more linear and a simple pass-fail system.

[@vogman]

Absolutely. It removes guesswork from the equation 😁

[@Bakamoichigei]

I've been a hardcore evangelist for the Cones for like a year now. Normal exposure tests are great for dialing in the detail... But if you find that actual prints are failing because the parts are pulling off the supports, the Cones are the perfect test to find the proper exposure for _practical_ purposes. That's why I always do both types of tests, because as you said, the detail tests can be subjective; if it looks perfect to you, it may still produce underexposed support structures. The Cones give you that final level of calibration.

[@vogman]

Thanks for your input 😁

[@Bakamoichigei]

@@vogman Ever since I discovered the Cones, it's been my default recommendation anytime someone complains that only their supports are printing and the rest ends up on the FEP. There's such a narrow margin between subjectively optimal exposure for detail, and underexposure of supports. 👍

[@Emtbtoday]

I have just done this cone test in my mono 2 and if failed on both side's not printing cones yet it's printing parts and model's beautifully! Very interesting these results!

[@xStyxBleichx]

I think the thing I like most about the cones, is that it tends to catch failures. I have ran a number of test prints and being off is devastating and I need to get cured resin off my fep. I can't say I've had the same issue with the cones. They almost clean up after themselves. At least in my experience.

[@vogman]

Since I made the video, I've had one failure that resulted in FEP clingons, so it's possible, but yes, 99 times out of a 100 maybe, no clean up is needed, making them a useful tool 😁

[@VideoCesar07]

Great video. Direct to the point and well explained. If you pair this with the Cubes of Calibration you will definitely increase your chances of success dramatically. J3D explained that the Cones are definitely good for checking to find your minimum exposure as well as the tensile strength of the resin you are using. So if you print your the CoC and they print successfully at say, 3 secs but the thinnest cone seems to be TOO thin you may want to consider bumping up the exposure a bit if you plan on using thin supports anywhere to avoid potential print failure. Once you have that in I print the Cubes of Calibration to get an idea of the dimensional accuracy. I am not looking for perfection, just want to see if the parts that I print out with those settings will fir together, even if they are a bit snug. I prefer that to having to sand it down. If I feel I can't put them together without forcing them in I will reduce the exposure by 0.25 at a time until it fits. I will then print another CoC to see how the cones have been affected and make that estimate of what the thinnest supports I can use are.

[@UnratedPlayer21]

VogMan the absolute GOAT. Started printing for a month and your videos is what guide me through this journey. Absolutely love your content and the printing community. Bless

[@vogman]

Happy to help 😁

[@GoobertownHobbies]

I'm finally giving cones of calibration a try today, thanks for the info! 🙂

[@vogman]

Happy to help.

[@blubbb4143]

as someone who's eyesight is going a bit the normal flat type prints I can find it hard to tell the difference between small improvements in the textured corners the cones may be an easier method for me personally

[@vogman]

Trust me, I'm 100% sympathetic with the eyes situation. I generally hold these things 3 inches from my nose 😁

[@pgabrieli]

very interesting video, thanks as always. but I have a question: since one side is SUPPOSED to be failing, which this create a lot of floating blobs of resin in the vat, which you then have to clean up? thanks!

[@leonabc298]

Thanks, I’m keen to try this. But I’m wondering how this works and concerned we may end up with partially cured bits in the resin vat which could damage the FEP? Are the cones that don’t appear not exposed at all, or are they left in the resin as partially cured or broken off etc. anyone know?

[@askquestionstrythings]

as I understand it In addition to the exposure time, the Z lift distance and speed play into the overall results. you can have perfect print exposure for your UV lamp/laser and resin combination but have a z lift issue which pulls rips the layer off the print rather than properly pealing off of the FEP film. prints pulling off supports can also occur due to the z lift settings

[@vaughanza]

Thanks for a great video. Can you tell me if you have clean out the vat between prints of the cone test ?

[@kozaki12]

Photon M3 Max- Tough white anycubic resin. I'm struggling with some problems - it does not work properly ;/ Time of printing that you said is slightly different than my.... You said approx 40 min. but in my case that is around 3h... normal exposure 2.8s and burn in is on 28s(6 layers), speeds around 8mm/s. Exposure off setting is on 1s. I'm newbie in this stuff and now i don't know what else i can do... On this printer there is also an setting called "Exposure off compensation" and you can choose off or on. Now i set it to off because it buys me extra minutes from this printing (faster printing when its off). And now the main issue- when i was on 2.7s exposure one of the cones on success side was not connected with the bottom one, but the on failure side still are small cones on the top that should not be appeared in such settings. In my case time between normal layers is around 33s. I measure it this way - for instance layer 120 appear on printers screen then i push start button to measure time on my phone and i put stop when layer 121 appears on printed screen. Is there someone who knows what is wrong or it supposed to be this way... :(

[@Cakemagic1]

I know about the cones from a long time ago. I personally could never reliable dial in the correct exposure with it, but then again there could be a lot of factors that had an impact on it lol. I personally think my room temperature was just simply too cold back then and the resin I used just wasn't made for fine detail printing.

[@vogman]

The first time I tried, I had a complete fail. Then I realised my resin had been sat in the tray for a couple of weeks. Yes, it was well stirred, but it still failed. When I changed the resin for nice fresh stuff, the print worked. I think this shows how temperamental resin can be 😁

[@Callmebillybobjrthethird]

New to resin 3d printing and this is the easiest tutorial I’ve seen so far amazing work thank you

[@vogman]

Glad it was helpful! 😁

[@bigcheesedog2645]

When I got my resin printer, I had a bear of a time even getting a good calibration print, and then there was the vague is a or b better. The go-nogo nature makes it straightforward for a nube to judge. From your first guess, you know if you are over or underexposed and you have a gauge of how good or bad the guess was I do get your reasoning, and your reasoning is sound an experienced printer probably will see no improvement. For me, the clarity is worth the 40min print time, heck, I have had FDM prints that took days, 40min is a heartbeat. At some point, I may swing back to trying to get the UUVTools 6 exposures in 1 test print to work.

[@vogman]

Very true 😁

[@blueckaym]

Your video on calibration was crucial to me, at least after switching to a cheaper (and slower) resin, which I had to dial in (at first with the flat tests, and then finetuning it with the Cones & Cubes of calibration) in order to get good prints and good strength of my supports (I'm using quite light supports of 0.6mm, and I'm now experimenting with even thinner 0.18mm tips & 0.56mm columns). But since I'm about to make a DIY centrifuge and I need the strongest resin & process I wondered about how most resins need post curing with UV to get their maximum strength. But post-curing is actually not very efficient (unless you have mostly clear resin, into which UV can penetrated well enough). So I wondered - during printing each pixel in each layer is exposed to UV for the exact time we set, and we even set much longer time for the bottom layers, so ... why not increase the exposure time in order to get maximum strength during printing? Have anyone tried this? Any results?

[@shadowesmith2806]

Thanks Vog, I cant tell you how appreciative I am for your very honest approach to your YT channel and videos. Ive still got my new printer sat in my front room waiting to have all the items delivered so I can begin my journey into 3D printing. Im chuffed to bits I found your channel and you're a Brummie to boot! It doesn't get much better than that. Thanks for all you're doing and your no nonsense video's dude. Laters!!!

[@6axlepwr]

I want to thank you for taking the time to put this video together and share your expertise with us. I just purchased a Uniformation GK Two and used this video to print the flat Phrozen calibration sample. I used the Uniformation slicer. Very basic slicer and the calibration came out perfect. Then I used the Chitubox slicer and plugged in your settings and on the first print the Cones of Calibration came out PERFECT. Again, thank you!

[@mrshrp1621]

I been using this for awhile now and it help me every time , I got it spot on and ever print going well with help of this !

[@grosserboss]

I must admit that I'm a bit unclear about the mechanism behind achieving the perfect calibration using this method. The issue I see is that different resins have varying levels of strength, and it seems like this test exploits that particular property. Instead of providing feedback on issues like "blooming" or "underexposure" on the pixel level, it appears to primarily assess whether the material has reached the necessary strength to produce the cone accurately. While it may ensure structural integrity, I'm still curious about how it addresses other calibration factors. If anyone has more insight or can shed light on this, I'd greatly appreciate it!

[@Folly_Inds]

I think, as others might have suggested, The whole point of this is not to show you what is going to give you the most effective detail but what will give you the most consistent printing. This is the engineers best tests rather than the model makers best to test if that makes sense

[@ArsenGadzhikurbanov]

essentially as I understand this test should give you the thinnest non-failing supports =)

[@StumblingBumblingIdiot]

Nice video. Biggest problem I have with resin is dialing everything in. So much easier on FDM with most PLA being able to be printed at the same settings (at least in my experience). I wish there was a way to print multiple cones at once using different settings but I guess that would be impossible unless each section could be cured for a different length of time.....hmmmmm....I am going to have to research that! One thing - PLEASE everyone make sure you CURE those test pieces before throwing them away!!!

[@DUSKtillDAN666]

So what do you do if on the failure side there are still 2 cones that only printed a tiny bit but on the success side there is one set of cones that aren't quite touching?

[@self_taught_stuff]

i wasted allot of time testing exposure times of the Anycubic Colored UV Resin on my Mono printer and it turns out the exposure time highly depends on the ambient temperature. so if you want to be super precise and get the max accuracy out of your printer, you have to control the temperature of the resin. still haven't seen any printer with such functionality.

[@vogman]

Absolutely. I wouldn't be without my enclosure heater. Temperature is very important to success 😁

[@panagiotiselsisi7752]

I have nothing but good things to say for uniformation's support. If after-sales support is keeping you from buying rest assured they will do their best to help you. I know from experience...

[@MaheerKibria]

RERFs should become industry standard. That and allowing custom steping for each of the RERF zones. You could be fully dialed in in like 1 hours. Like you could do the thin phrozen test with like 0.4 s steps to get the ball park in like 10 minutes and then 0.1 or 0.05 stepping using the cones of calibration and be ready to go like 40 minutes later. Personally I think that would be the fastest and best exposure testing. especially if companies were smart about it and automated aa shadow so all of them would be labeled with the exposure time.

[@vogman]

I agree. I really think every company should supply a RERF.

[@luisbustamante5479]

This is genius and saves so much time trying to read and figure out what's going on with the regular tests. Now I wonder, will a perfect exposure result guarantee no print lines? I got a ton on a recent print o a fairly modular model after I thought I had dialed in my settings.

[@J3DTech]

This is a stress test that uses blooming and/or resin hardness to build strength to get a predetermined weight to print. It won't do anything for layer lines or stepping. The best way to get rid of them is lower your layer height and use AA.

[@BeyondFunction1]

I haven't gotten my feet wet with resin printing yet, so forgive what may be a stupid question. Given the small size of these calibration models, I'm wondering if it would be possible to batch print however many can be reasonably fit on the build plate, with different exposure times for each? Each layer would take considerably longer, but it seems there would be considerable time savings overall compared to printing them separately. The only caveat I can think of is that, if there's any UV leakage through the blacked out parts of the screen, that might skew the results.

[@krzysztofczarnecki8238]

Cones may not neccessarily give you the best detail, especially with some oddball resins (flexible, ultra durable...). It's just a measure of tensile strength of the resin - overexposed resin will have more tensile strength and will let the "fail" cones print. But so will a correctly exposed abnormally durable resin. I thought there was some gap between the fail cones and top that only fills when overexposed, but there isn't so it's just tensile strength.

[@antoniomromo]

Oh this may be exactly what I am looking for. I am terrible at noticing the differences in the flat phrozzon print files.

[@vogman]

It's tricky. It's like comparing 6 with half a dozen 😁😁😁

[@markmorgan8378]

LONG LIVE VogMan!

[@vogman]

Thanks Mark 😁

[@markmorgan8378]

I was first, that never happens. Great video though.

[@3DJapan]

I like the Cones but I also use the Star Ship.

[@stoinercraft6389]

the creator of this calibration model released v2 of this, it shorter as in height, so takes around half the time it takes to print (i'm guessing)

[@krisd9506]

Unfortunately, it doesn't work with non-brittle resins like Fast and Blu or transparent resins like Tenacious/Simple. I tried it with BLU and ended up bumping the exposer down a full second from Siraya Tech's recommended setting before I came across a post on their Facebook forum from someone else experiencing the same thing.

[@DanaTYang]

Thanks for mentioning this!! I’m using the fast abs-like navy grey, and I have one come not fully formed on one side, and failure side showing 3 pointy nubs. Was driving me mad!

[@cblum1242]

So I just tried dialing in my anycubic photon mono 4k with white "standard resin" from Inland. I used phrozen to determine that I wanted my exposure to be between 1.5 and 2 seconds and then used the cones of calibration to determine where exactly I should be. Unfortunately the cones brought me all the way down to 1.1 seconds at which point the phrozen stl is definitely not happy. Can anyone tell me what this means?

[@ewchi-m4n012]

What i always do is cleaning them with the wash and cure machine and after that rinse the prints on tap water, so the detail isnt getting lost as the alcohol with resin will be washed out of the model

[@balael9480]

Hello @VogMan, i just used yor method for calibrate muy prints: phrozen detail test + cones to find the perfect exposure time for my settings. But Phrozen guide recommmend to add +10% to "perfect" exposure time in small prints and +20% in big ones. Should we add that even cone test indicates lower exposure test?

[@joeargyle]

I'm not sold on these types of tests. I'm sure they work but they're not very convenient. As mentioned in the video, the process takes too long. I also don't like that this particular test is designed to fail. Seems like that might leave bits of cured resin stuck to the film or floating in the vat. No thank you. The best option I've found is UV tools multi exposure test. I you haven't used UV tools I'd highly recommend it. It's a free validation tool that allows for all kinds of modifications that are not possible in traditional slicers. Their exposure finding tool is easily my favorite. You set the exposure range and increments, it will then print all of them in one go. You get the added benefit of comparing the results side by side in a single print. It does take longer than standard calibration models but it's so much more convenient. The test prints can be fairly small depending on how many exposures you end up testing. It's not necessary, but a loop or some form of magnification will make determining the proper exposure a bit easier. Seriously check out UV tools, as a jeweler I've found it to be invaluable.

[@TheZombieSaints]

Wow that's a good test it seems, nicely done.

[@joshaconnor]

How are the top cones printing on the failure side without being attached to anything that lifts them off the build surface, or am I not noticing an attachment to something I'm not seeing?

[@ethansdad3d]

I like the objectiveness of the cones. Thank you for showing this to us! One drawback is that this test intentionally introduces floaties on the failure side, so you're going to be cleaning your vat after the test.

[@vogman]

Interesting. I haven't experienced the floaties issue, BUT I came at it from a known setting and worked backwards. All the more reason to dial-in with typical methods an then finish off with the cones 😁

[@TableFlipFoundry]

OH! No this is not true. The Cones are self cleaning! No floaties I promise.

[@cenciende9401]

Nope, you can clearly see that the top completely covers where the flat cones were, therefore they become part of the print. It's things like this which become obvious with experience.

[@mordj5247]

Hello, have had any chance at testing the mimaki color 3D printers ? The cast looks amazing.

[@peterdocter4659]

It works brilliantly!

[@mrglobul12]

Does the exposure setting for the printer need to match the exposure time in the slicing software? Can't find this clarification anywhere. My printer comes in at 15s, while the resin settings suggest +/- 2.5s.

[@israelmartinez4097]

I noticed when I take already pre supported models and make them smaller they fail. I know it’s cause the supports are smaller so question is if I slow the lift speed will that help to avoid the supports ripping off

[@lordbravura]

The cones didnt quite work for me (Saturn 2 with Elegoo ABS grey resin). My pristine perfect Phrozen XP test has 3,2 exposure, and on 2,8 it has blurry lines. With the cones i printed with 3,2 , 3 and 2,8 . On all tests it had sucessfull "positive" but on negative it had cones on the upper side. Not a clue on why that happen.

[@johngundlach1062]

Good evening/Morning. Question as I feel I've been chasing my tail for the day. When you say, "Increase base layer", or Decrease Base Layer" are you referring to the Burn Layer Settings? I'm using Lychee on a GKTWO (Best Printer there is) with Siraya Tech Navy Grey which I understand requires a 20% increase of most the settings. I'm trying to stick to one setting at 50 microns and dabble from there. Currently my Burn Layer is : Layers: 6 / Exposure: 35 / Transition Layers: 6 / Light Delay: 3 secs / and for the Normal Layers its running at 1.85-2.5 Exposure. Problem im having is still getting overexposure with the Siraya Tech test on the post and holes, and with the CoC test the Sucess side looks overexposed while I'm still showing 2-3 top cones that are failingish. Maybe im overthinking/ over perfecting the setting but just asking.

[@vogman]

It's easy to go down a rabbit hole with settings. Genuinely, pretty close is good enough. "Base Layer" refers to the first layer, the burn in layer as you call it. It's called different things in different slicers but it has the same job... to bake the print on the plate. ST Navy Grey has a reputation for being a bit awkward to dial in. I've struggled with it in the past and moved onto something easier - and much less smelly 😁

[@riz429]

Literally magic how the cones on 1.8 failure side form without any support…in the air. 4:10

[@vogman]

It is a clever concept. The cones are there to be printed... but ONLY if you overexpose. 😁

[@chriswebb9375]

They don't print in the air they printed attached to the bottom cones and then when the force to remove the cone exceeded the strength of the joint between the cones (effectively the tip of a support) it got stuck to the fep and no more height was added then when the roof started to print it picked that partial cone up and it carried on printing.

[@grosserboss]

​@@chriswebb9375 Thank you for this explanation.

[@connorjensen9699]

Wouldn’t the cones create little bits of cured resin in your vat? If the failure side cones don’t print, won’t the machine cure a ton of concentric circles of resin that aren’t secured to the plate because its still trying to print those cones?

[@inagerli]

Hi, i am a beginner with resin print. When i put my parts without support on the building plate , and and ich wash it and cure it on the plate, it should resolve itself from the plate because of shrinking ?

[@seriouslycoolful]

Excellent vid! I'm going to try this tonight

[@MakunaRGBIC]

Such a realistic view on the subject. Thank you.

[@vogman]

You're very welcome!

[@Hateweek1984]

Where do we change the exposure time...I have an photon mono X 6k....and there's 3 different exposure settings.. I'm new like 2 days in "new" apologies for my ignorance..

[@OZITOMAE]

i'm having issues with mine. where some cones on the failure show, but at the same time, barely any of the success cones are made well enough to connect. is there anything else that i should edit besides exposure time?

[@darthpaul8761]

Does this Work with elastic resin. Seem like once I dial in and get all cones on tje sucrss side I loose all of the detail on the top text. Almost as it it extremely over exposed

[@MrCitizen0]

Ive been trying to find settings for lychee slicer, but no luck. Im a brand new 3d printer user 😢

[@behamiltonsrful]

at 5:42 in the video, you are showing your previously preferred test, 3 different prints. Are you curing these at this point, or just washing them? Thanks, new Sub, love your videos, they are of tremendous help! EDIT : I watched for 10 more seconds and got my answer.... LOL

[@joseluis666666666]

I got the sides 2 sides perfect, What should I do?

[@logangravatt]

thanks for making informational videos vogman! What grit of sandpaper do you use to clean the leftover support resin off your rings?

[@vogman]

Normally 600 grit it enough. If you have something large to sand away, then step down to 240. If you want to polish up, then go to 2000. 😁

[@FlesHBoX]

I discovered the cones of calibration through a friend who picked up a mini 8k as his first 3d printer, and in the process of stumbling through learning how to set everything up, found these. I'm probably going to be ordering my printer after I get paid on the 15th (assuming I can 1. not spend all of my non-savings money between now and then) and 2. decide which one to buy, lol (still in a toss up between the Mighty 8k and Saturn 2... and that GK Two is calling to me, but that would probably mean dipping into savings, which I'm not 100% I wanna do just yet), and I've already got this bad boy downloaded, lol

[@vogman]

If fancy features and connectivity don't interest you, the S2 wins for me. The printing difference between these machines was impossible for me to gauge. I hope that helps 😁

[@FlesHBoX]

@@vogman Yeah, I'm generally leaning toward the S2. Right now the Mighty 8k is technically cheaper by a hair for me on Amazon, plus I prefer the Orange, lol. The heat recycling on the GK Two though is a great feature, along with everything else it offers. The big drawback on the Mighty 8k for me is the lack of carbon filter, and the GK Two seems to have the win on that feature. Gah! I wish I could make up my mind, lol

[@UzLooKsiZ]

I tried all the denominations to calibrate the Saturn 4 Ultra and nothing works. Can you help me.

[@xpim3d]

1.7 seconds curing?! o.O what resin are you using? tks

[@printrun5]

hmm…i have saturn 2 8k and elegoo standard grey resin. exp settings 3.5 sec. if i use 1.6 sec, wont even get a print. what resin / printer will get you 1.6 sec exp time?

[@OLucasQueJoga]

sounds simple enough, gonna give it a run right now!

[@vogman]

Give it a try 😁😁😁

[@OLucasQueJoga]

@@vogman I’m on my 5th try to make it perfect 😁 I’ll come back after I get it right. But I used the settings on the resin brand website and it was just terrible 😂 but so far I got way better results with the prints I made since yesterday! But still not perfectly calibrated 😁

[@stewbucher3892]

Enjoy your content, I have a question, do you need to add supports to the calibration test? No video I have watch explain this

[@vogman]

There's no need for supports. Just print it as it is 👍

[@stewbucher3892]

@@vogman amazing thank you

[@rattlehead05]

There's one more genius benefit to the Cones. If a professional model supporter benchmarks their work against the cones, then success on end user machines that have also run Cones is practically guaranteed, no matter how wildly different the exposure settings are. This is because the support cross sections and model contact points should be dimensionally accurate to the artist's original intentions.

[@vogman]

Interesting. Thanks for that 👍

[@rattlehead05]

@@vogman Thank you! My buddy was a Photon Ultra Kickstarter supporter, it sat useless for a year until I sent him your lift settings last month. Now he's printing like crazy!

[@vogman]

That's great to hear 😁

[@runklestiltskin_2407]

The cones of calibration are great.

[@vogman]

👍

[@admiralbees1690]

I hate dialling in resin. Hate it like you would not believe. Mainly because its so subjective. Despite the time these take, I think I'll be giving these a go.

[@vogman]

I'm the same, especially when it's a castable resin. So many hours lost...

[@perche26]

before I used to use this test but after testing many brands of resin, I have seen that the test is unreliable, for example with the siraya fast navy blue as I was reducing the exposure times, instead of disappearing cones, the ones on the failure side were still coming out all but curved, or with other brands stop coming out cones with very low times and then in a real life impression everything stuck to the fep.

[@nigel5823]

i used Lychee slicer resin setting work perfect just copied them over halot box works fine

[@vogman]

The resin settings library is useful. So far I've never found one I'm after. Just my luck 😁😁😁

[@muskls6877]

@VogMan What does it mean if you have both failures on the success side and successes on the failure side?

[@vogman]

You're over-exposed. 😁

[@wolfstarone294]

The download for the cones is damaged. I cannot get a complete download

[@BuiltNotBoughtUK]

Do you test with with AA and blur enabled? Will changing these settings after getting dialed in change the result?

[@vogman]

On any exposure setting test, I never use AA.

[@skrittar82]

You got me at fighting injustice

[@Liberanosamalo2007]

Hi! Have you tried to test it using multiple exposure test with uv tools? do you think multiple steps could affect the results on the cone test?

[@Folly_Inds]

That's what I was thinking, combine this with one of those build your own multi-time prints to test a whole bunch of times at once

[@3lcost3]

I gave up on this test way too long and even when overexposing never got all cones on the success side to connect but then I would get cones on the failure side

[@vogman]

It is slow, I agree. That's which I use the Phrozen XP tests first, as they usually take 10 mins or so ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/oIDNc2Z8p5JjpNE ). When I think I'm close, I use the cones, though even then as long as it's pretty good, I'm happy.

[@shortspanattractions8403]

@@vogman And what if my cones of calibration are perfect, but my prints still fail at places?

[@aunderiskerensky2304]

struggling with mine right now. first go round was near perfect on the success side, but had some micro cones on failure side. dialed down .1 and go again, and success side now has two cones not touching but still have some micro cones on the other side. now i'm fiddling with lift speeds etc.. frustrating as my first print or two went pretty well but now i'm having issues. this eco resin has been finicky too.. welp. print another cone and see what it tells me. i have a pile of these now all with exposure settings etc written on the bottom. i will find THE setting... i hope.

[@kettusnuhveli]

This has been exactly my issue! I found it best to just make sure that the success side cones are all connected and ignore the micro cones. I much rather have succesfully printed supports than "perfect" exposure. (I'm using Siraya Tech "Fast" Navy Blue resin)

[@thejoetandy]

Why can't we print multiple models with accumulative exposure across the models, in the same build plate? That has to be possible in some slicer. Calibration models all get 1.5 second exposures, each additional model from the first gets an additional 0.1 second exposure.

[@vogman]

The cones as a RERF... good idea.

[@ToxicChaos]

i think this is good if you calibrate the resin and you get get nothing more printed than the supports on the platform and the actual print model on the tank.

[@Rozwietr]

I always cure my thin calibration tests but they never bend... maybe you cure them for too much? 2-3 mins in cure station is enough

[@svaarcaldersson6628]

So I got ths to test out Ameralabs TGM-7, but it constantly fails. I don't know if its due to the elasticity of TGM-7 but going up higher and higher and it never seems to print the top cones.

[@vogman]

Interesting. That is a very flexible resin. I'm not sure why it would effect printing though. Did you have a good ambient temperature?

[@svaarcaldersson6628]

@@vogman about 25c. I decided to jump to 3 seconds of exposure before it formed cones one one side. So either ameralabs suggested settings are way off at 1.1s for sonic mini 8k, or this test does not perform well for tgm-7. Maybe both.

[@ValentinNadolu]

Would scaling the 3d model on the Z axis and making it smaller and faster to print still work as a good calibration method?

[@vogman]

I've no doubt they tried that... though I now hear their next version reduces time by 35%. So maybe...

[@TableFlipFoundry]

Unfortunately no. These have very precise dimensions and for good reason. The details of how and why are lengthy. TLDR: No you cant scale them. :(

[@ValentinNadolu]

@@TableFlipFoundry Thanks for clearing that up!

[@ffz95fa]

Can I use them for lift speed settings ?

[@vogman]

I don't believe so.

[@dan3dprint183]

The original idea of the cones of calibration its for pre supported models. They already have a version 2 and another calibration test they call Cubes of Calibration.

[@vogman]

I must look into that 😁

[@cenciende9401]

So... every single model which requires supports (the vast majority)?

[@chriswebb9375]

​@@cenciende9401 no, pre supported models ones which you do not support yourself. The success side mimics the size of typical supports so if they print you have a good chance with pre supported models.

[@jimg4585]

According to this test, I'm still overexposed at 1 sec exposure time/.03mm layer height on my sonic mini 8k (using 8k phrozen grey resin). That seems insanely low.. Should I be concerned about going lower?

[@jimg4585]

I started at 1.5, then 1.3, down to 1. Still successful on the proper side and cones forming on the failure side.

[@alfredopaez3538]

The cone test might be good for supports though

[@vogman]

Yes, the intention was for "pre-supported models" but ultimately we all print supported models, so its a worthy tool I think.

[@glanguish9390]

Cones of Calibration give more suggestion of succesful supports.

[@TheNerdArmory]

Why is mine both under exposed and over exposed.... sigh

[@Daszebi98]

how do you take 40 minutes too print thoose i take 2 hours AND 10 MINUTES using the elegoo jupiter Resin Printer with the Abs like Resin (not v2) what could cause that long time of them beeing printed ?

[@vogman]

I guess it's difference in resins and of course printers. Making sure the resin is warm also helps. But the biggest culprit will likely be your settings.

[@Daszebi98]

@@vogman thank You for the answer . Its crazy how the cones printing time difference can be that far and different i could only Print the cones in 40 minutes If i Put the Scale on 50% down but nedless too say that that Made the cones too fail. Interestingly i choosed a exposure time of 2.5 s on 50um layer height with 4mm Lifting distance 60>180 mm/m lift Speed retract Speed off 180>50mm/m and the cones sucsess Side does appear to have all cones printed. Still the failure Side builded Up 2 and a half cones. I tried then too lower the exposure time but IT failed printing on both Sides.

[@cenciende9401]

I'm happy with my D2 settings (basically copied yours lol), but for my as-yet-unused Jupiter I will probably use this!

[@vogman]

It's a worthwhile tool 😁

[@romanfreiter7943]

Hello. I am a novice but from watching a lot of videos, I am certain that you know what you are talking about. What 3D printer do you recommend in the $500-$600 range to create a multitude of 2.75"x1.5" prototypes of Roman Gods and Goddesses busts and later 10" statues for professional use (to be molded and replicated with rigid resin)? Many thanks upfront

[@tonywharton5220]

This looks like you would have cured resin left in the vat or floating around?

[@vogman]

They've said amongst other comments here that this doesn't happen.

[@tonywharton5220]

@@vogman Cheers Mr V. I noticed that just after I posted my original comment 👍

[@mizublackriver7021]

"Don't go in a rabbit hole" too late for that gov. But fantastic video! Thank you.

[@vogman]

We all do it 😁

[@patomaster95]

this print needs supports?

[@vogman]

No supports needed with this print 😁

[@herculeholmes504]

I am baffled as to how the Cones of Callibration work. Why do the cones print on one side but not the other??

[@mikleman996]

Mine just doesn't work regardless of the times used -___- Just get 5 on the bottom of each. :(

[@theguy5114]

I did and it worked haven't had failure but each machine is different even the same printers lol

[@sixnine2818]

Yeeeessss!!!!!! Finallly!!!

[@vogman]

What can I say... I'm slow to catch on 😉😂🤣

[@GregAtlas]

I still don't know why people don't just print a 10x10x5mm(height) cube and measure with calipers. Then maybe use a cone calibration test to confirm.