I frequently have to print a range of different parts each with different geometrical features. So far, I generate each part's optimum printing parameters manually. To be able to print such parts more efficiently, I am planning to create a "library" of individual geometries, each with its unique set of optimum printing parameters.

The issue I am facing here is in combining all the different geometrical features when slicing. (The geometrical features are individual STL files of different geometries). Slic3r does not seem to merge the meshes of adjoining or overlapping solids, making the joints between each different STL mechanically weak that can be snapped by hand.

I wonder why such meshing is not possible. I realise that if each solid on the plater is assigned different printing parameters such as layer height or infill pattern/density, merging would not be possible, however if we keep such incompatible parameters constant for all solids, and only vary, say, printing speed and the number of perimeter shells, merging should still be possible.

Is the only way to enable meshing of different STLs into a single solid by modifying the code of the slicer?

Thank you in advance!


1 Answer 1


Try using Autodesk Meshmixer. You can edit STL and OBJ files live and save changes. Additionally it has a feature where you can arrange parts on a printbed in the software and save the whole bed contents as a stl or gcode file. It can then be imported into a slicer software as any other model output.

The software is free to use. http://www.meshmixer.com/download.html

  • $\begingroup$ If I understand the questions correctly, it asks to nest items in a manner similar to the Russian dolls but with differing shapes. I agree that Meshmixer may give you the best option, as you can specify an origin for each model, then move them to a single point. You would be able to export the model as Eagl3 describes, with air gaps and appropriate spacing. It may take some experimenting within the slicer, examining layers, etc, but the answer above is viable. $\endgroup$
    – fred_dot_u
    Commented Jun 6, 2017 at 0:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .