• 21 Posts
  • 669 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 29th, 2023

help-circle


  • You’re going to have a hard time beating $2/mo unless you roll it into something else like blackblaze ($100/year for unlimited storage), Microsoft office 365 ($100/year with 1 TB of OneDrive), etc. If your space is going to photos, the speed and responsiveness of Google photos far outpaces some of the alternatives (cough cough OneDrive).

    Self hosting is a viable alternative if you’re interested in having more control/local storage or if you are interested in this kind of thing and want to do it/dabble in it as a hobby.

    I personally built a NAS, which will take far too long to amortize vs just paying $2/mo. I chose this route because I value a local backup and because a NAS can a bit of a lifestyle product. “It can double as a server!”. Sounds fun, but I would want to build the thing I host which will also take time so… You could potentially build a NAS that will average out to $2 or less a month if you have spare parts or score some used parts cheap. Odds are that route could also be used for self hosting.







  • What OP meant was volumetric flow, not the extrusion multiplier. Volumetric flow caps the volume of plastic the slicer will ask your extruder to deliver per second. Fiddling with this value can help prevent under extrusion.

    What you did by reducing speed is similar, but you could run into issues if you were to modify extrusion width or layer height.








  • IMALlama@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzHAIL HYDRA!
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    We have a thin strip of mint that’s exactly what you described. Fresh mint all spring and summer is great for a variety of reasons, plus it smells good. That said, we’re constantly fighting runners trying to grow in every conceivable crevice. It tries to grow in the cement expansion joints and in the joint between our house and sidewalk by the door.




  • It’s normal

    This is disappointing. Not because it’s normal, but because so many photos of prints you see on the web extolling print quality are in ideal lighting. It’s misleading at best. I will say surface quality is oodles ahead of my old I3 clone, but this has always miffed me.

    I think it’s more visible the thicker your layers are

    I do tend to print in chunkier layers. Also thicker extrusions and nozzles…

    If you’re printing with ASA, perhaps you could use some light acetone smoothing

    It doesn’t really bother me as my prints are functional, but there’s always been this nagging thing in the back of my head regarding surface quality relative to what folks on the internet present they achieve. The photo in this post is guilty of this TBH. The print looks way worse on the bed thanks to a taller printer with top mounted lights resulting in a steep lighting angle relative to vertical surfaces. It’s like going on a picturesque trip only to find out that all the photos you’ve seen online take a lot of liberty with timing (ie super early/late in the day) and/or framing.