> G3 continuous corners mean that the print head experiences smooth acceleration while printing such corners.
Axial acceleration is the key here, not just acceleration, that however does not matter if the controller does not output feedrate profiles with smooth acceleration to go along with it.
In a small 100x100mm box, with a 12mm fillet, G1/G2/G3 corners already have a visible 0.5mm difference. What gives it away is the lack of a hard transition between the flat surface and the corner, that's very noticeable on a reflective surface.
On the mechanical side, I think the effect they refer to also comes down to that transition line - going from a straight line immediately into a curve (G1) which adds lateral forces, vs easing into that curve over a few more steps which avoids jerking the print head.
Even if the difference is small, it can be very visible because of how light is scattered on the surface. This causes visible transitions when the splines intersect the sides. Depending on what you do, it might or might not matter, but there is a visible difference.
I cannot test, but I would think that it would also be felt with the fingers. Of course, it matters only if the surface is smooth enough in the first place.
reminded me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achim_Leistner
I gave that object to a dozen people without explanation. Only one of them was a designer. All of them preferred G3 after comparing corners by look and touch for a few seconds. Honestly, I was surprised that it was this unanimous; I deliberately made the difference small.
While dreaming up Apple-like objects I quickly discovered 3D-printing them with good surface finish is nearly impossible. Best we can do is Mac mini-like flat tops. Like most other manufacturing methods, its limitations heavily influence the design.
I was one of the backers and I was sooooo looking forward to an affordable home SLS printer. They'd done some incredible engineering, too, in service of getting the price point down to where it was.
Scaling up was going to be a massive challenge for them, but damn, I wish they'd tried instead of phoning it in early.
(Mind you, I'm sure Formlabs paid them handsomely. Would I make the same decision under the same circumstances? I honestly don't know. So far be it from me to judge them, but man do I wish someone would do something about Formlabs' ridiculous prices and monopoly over that space.)
I'm sure they've tried. From what I recall they've had serious reliability issues on the preview units. So I'd be skeptical if it would have even turned into a successfully delivered Kickstarter. They would have to deliver on that first before even concerning themselves with how to scale up.
So maybe they didn't even get handsomely paid in the acquisition, but were given an option to save face.
Most of the hobby grade printers are FDM, it's unlikely we'll evolve beyond the limitations of layer lines being a few tenths of a mm. UV resin printers however aren't ridiculously expensive and they have small enough layers that it's completely doable.
(is plural of radius radiuses? or radii?)
include <BOSL2/nurbs.scad>
$fn=16;
back(400) cuboid([200,200,100],rounding=50,edges="Z");
pts=subdivide_path(square([200,200],center=true),8);
linear_extrude(100) polygon(nurbs_curve(pts,2,splinesteps=$fn/4,type="closed")); G0 Positional Continuity: The surfaces touch without gap, but there may be a sharp corner. Example: the corners of a cube
G1 Tangential Continuity: G0 but additionally the surfaces have the same slope (are tangential) at the point where they touch. Example: adding a circular fillet to the corners of a cube
This is where most basic CAD modellers would stop. The problem with just putting a cylindrical or a spherical fillet in a corner is that you basically go from a flat surface (zero curvature) to a surface with some curvature on a whim. If your surface is reflective that means you go from a flat mirror to a strongly distorting one instantly, this will visually appear as a edge even if there is none. Curvature btw. is just the reciprocal of radius (1/r)If we talk about forces (e.g. imagine a skateboard ramp) you go flat (no centripetal force) to circular (constant centripetal force) without any transition inbetween. In effect this will feel like a bump that can throw inexperienced skateboarders of their feet.
This means tangential transitions often do not cut it.
G2 Continuity: In addition to being G0 and G1 you additionally ensure the curvature is the same where both surfaces meet. This usually means instead of going from a flat surface into a circle you go into a curve that starta out flat and then bends slowly into a radius.
Now the curvature of a curve can be drawn as a curvature comb. You basically take the curvature at any point of the curve and draw the value as the length of a line that is perpendicular to the curve.G1 is if the perpendicular lines at the ends of the two curves align. G2 is if the curvature comb at the end of the two lines additionally has the same height (indicating the same curvature at the transition point).
G3 is basically just ensuring that the two curvature combs are tangential at the point where they meet. G4 is ensuring that the curvature combs are not only tangential, but have the same curvature. G5 is taking the curvature of the curvature...
By this point you may be able to sense a pattern.
- Why roller coaster loops aren't circular https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Kzl2suBE2w - Highway Engineering: Track transition curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_transition_curve
A truncated sine wave? (insofar as sine waves are their own derivative, shifted by 90 degrees, so if I'm doing my math right they would theoretically be G∞-continuous)
In the end the position of the elevator is 3-continuous (why is it called G3? in France we call this C3). And the apple corner is just a graph of the position of an elevator wrt time. Mind blowing
Snap (or jounce), crackle and pop are 4th/5th/6th derivative. They're probably less of a problem.