[low priority] Mount Helper part is not oriented optimally for printing

[cHemingway]

Thanks for this project, its been great fun working through the prints, and there is lots of guidance for most parts.

However, I noticed the [Mount Helper](Optional/Mount_Helper/stl/mount_helper v2.stl) part is designed with teardrop holes, but these do not match its default Z orientation, nor are they the right way up for fastest printing (the largest flat side should be on the buildplate I think).

If we could turn the hole around, it wouldn't need supports. TBH I'm not sure if the hole is even needed? I don't see it being used in the video.

Tagging @fred3105 as he uploaded the file. Do you have the original CAD? I would be very happy to contribute an updated version if you can provide it, even the STEP file would do.

Print times on my Prusa Mini+ with a 0.6mm nozzle, 0.4mm layer height as follows:

Here is the original orientation with supports, 2.5 hours:

Here is it in an optimal orientation, with no supports, 1.15 hours

[dmosher42]

If I remember correctly, Prusaslicer loads STL files with the same orientation as the STL file, not necessarily the optimal orientation for printing. The way you reoriented the part seems to be optimal, as this is a part that is only used to help with assembly.

I believe that the diamond holes are there because the part is a derivative of a motor holder part, which also has those diamond holes.

[fred3105]

Hey @cHemingway,

I sent the step file to the email address on your GitHub profile As @dmosher42 mentions, I simply added a plastic block to the small elbow piece, nothing fancy,

You're more than welcome to improve it

[cHemingway]

Thanks for the CAD!

Remodelling it to remove the holes (I kept all other dimensions), it actually only saves 15 minutes (1h31 to 1h15m ~20%) with organic supports. Less of a saving than I expected

However, if I make the base a bit thinner (6mm instead of 10mm) this saves another 10 minutes, so its nearly down to 1 hour from 1.5 hours. I don't know why the base is quite that thick, seems like thinner might work.

I can put the new CAD in a pull request if you like? I will print it out first and test it if so.