raft generation bug?

[RudolphRiedel]

Version

1.41.1-beta win64

Operating system type + version

Win10

Behavior

I have a smal object that needs a raft and I would like to print a few of these, I tried six.

Now the problem is that Slic3r does not generate a single raft for the six objects but six smaller and interlocking rafts:

The result is that the first raft segment is printed and from the second onwards it is only a mess on the printbed.
How do I tell Slic3r to print a single raft for all the objects combined?

[bubnikv]

It is a known limitation of current Slic3r. It calculates the support structures per object,
see #316

[RudolphRiedel]

To workaround this I could arrange the objects manually further apart, okay.
Or is there a way to auto-arrange the objects with the rafts not interlocking?

I can not find an option to change the size of the raft, just making the first layer smaller would workaround this as well.

On top of that, probably OT for this issue but something I observed when examining this.
Is there a way to see how a single layer is planned out? A slider scroll all steps for the currently displayed layer?
With that I could have seen before printing that Slic3r tries to print across the already printed lines.

[jkavalik]

I think I found a workaround - arrange the objects on the plate any way you need, then "Export STL.." - it stores the entire plate as a single stl file. You can then load that, enable rafts and it will generate single raft for all the items as single object.

[RudolphRiedel]

Nice, that works, thank you!

It only looks a bit funny:

But at worst this costs a few seconds extra.

[RudolphRiedel]

Just came back here by accident, tried this with 2.1.0 again and the first layer is still a mess without further steps.

[RudolphRiedel]

I just checked the 2.3.0 alpha 4 and raft generation with multiple objects still is broken.
And to add to that, the new "Fill bed with instances" leads to raft generation outside of the bed.

[bubnikv]

Duplicate of #4517. Let's keep #4517 open.

[RudolphRiedel]

sure, it looks better to close the older issues