<p>I'm going to call this an XY problem, because if a model admits printing in vase mode except that you want it to have &quot;multiple walls&quot;, the problem is not actually needing &quot;multiple walls&quot; but a higher total wall thickness. In that case, you just increase the &quot;outer wall line width&quot; to whatever wall thickness you want. With a standard 0.4 mm nozzle you can print lines up to at least 0.8-1.0 mm thick, maybe even 1.2 mm. If you need thicker than that, use a larger nozzle.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-01T15:40:35.893Z
2024-02-01T15:40:35.893Z
R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE
<p>It seems like my fellow answerers didn't understand the question</p>
<p>What OP suggests (as I see it), is to do a continuous extrusion line for all layers. It should be possible, however difficult to implement programmatically</p>
<p>Let's say we have a pipe of thickness 1.2 mm - three walls of default 0.4 mm width</p>
<p>The nozzle starts on the outer wall, goes full circle and in the end moves to the middle wall. Goes another circle and moves to the inner wall. At the end of it, the nozzle goes up one layer and proceeds printing in backward order - inner-middle-outer walls. Never has to retract, make seam gaps, etc.</p>
<p>This may not work with variating wall thickness, but it sounds like a nice way to avoid seams on some models.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-04T14:39:21.707Z
2024-04-04T14:39:21.707Z
A Greenwood
<h2>Vase mode can't have two walls</h2>
<p>Vase mode creates one continuous spiraling pattern all over. Z is moving up <em>continuously</em> very slowly. There is no &quot;end of the layer&quot;, there is just a start point and an end point.</p>
<p>This is mutually exclusive with trying to print any single layer with more than one wall. The whole thing about Vase mode is the spiral pattern along the outer wall to have no seam or sudden moves up.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-02-01T12:37:47.053Z
2024-02-01T12:37:47.053Z
Trish
<p>I have seen a video (unable to locate) which may provide some resolution but it requires that you are the creator and have created the model in such a way as to incorporate this method. There may be model editing practices which can be used on someone else's model, but the skills required would match those of a creator.</p>
<p>For the sake of this answer, the model being printed is a simple cylinder and the base is ignored.</p>
<p>Consider the following: the model which generates the cylinder would have a 0.4 mm width wall, arbitrarily consistent with the nozzle size and not locked in stone. The slicer in vase mode performs in the normal, expected manner.</p>
<p>In the modeling software, excise a vertical slot at any point on the circumference of the cylinder. The slot creates a reversal of direction of the nozzle and as the print progresses, the nozzle returns again to the slot from the opposite direction. The slot width should be large enough to be seen in the slicer as a distinct interruption, but small enough that the extruded filament will join with the previous circuit.</p>
<p>This is approximately what you describe in your second paragraph. The result would have a wall thickness of 0.8 mm and would have a clearly visible seam at the location of the slot.</p>
<p>Alternatively, if you have greater skills and understanding than I, you may find <a href="https://fullcontrolgcode.com/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Full Control</a> to be a suitable solution. It is not modeling software, nor is it a slicer. One creates g-code based on parameters provided to the program which allows for models beyond the reach of conventional modeling programs. Images from linked site:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/m2LV0.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/m2LV0.jpg" alt="Full Control Gallery page" /></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-14T04:59:14.263Z
In your theoretical scenario, the printing head would need to basically stop and circle back around (as you mention "the nozzle returns again to the slot from the opposite direction"). The path I was describing would avoid that. It could do the outer wall and spiral into the inner wall, then when it gets to the "end" of that, it could simply move the nozzle up 0.16mm and print the inner wall and spiral onto the outer wall.
That would allow for the print head to keep the inertia up and not have to retract the filament at all. 
Hopefully I explained it better that time
J H
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-15T01:38:07.267Z
The method I describe would still work in the typical vase mode and should not have to retract, but I would expect there to be a change in velocity, simply by definition. This lack of applicability to your objective is why I included the suggestion of Full Control, although it's beyond my ability to provide details for use.
fred_dot_u
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-01T21:33:07.167Z
2024-01-01T21:33:07.167Z
fred_dot_u
<p>I was pretty fascinated with vase mode print results thinking it would be awesome if this could be done with at least 2 (or more) walls. Initially I was told that its not possible because the printer would start on the outer wall (or inner), then once that is completed, smoothly transition to the inner wall, and once that one is done, it would then need to move up 1 layer and move back to the outer wall - Thus creating the Z-seam.</p>
<p>But after thinking about it - that seems like something that could easily be solved by just <em>not</em> printing the inner/outer wall in the exact same order on every layer. The printer could just do the outer wall, then like usual, print the inner wall, then instead of retracting and moving to the same location the lower outer wall was created, it could just continue on to print the inner wall on the next level, then the outer wall. Then move up, outer wall, inner wall.. Rinse and repeat.</p>
<p>I <em>highly</em> doubt I'm the first one to think of this, but I didn't see any plugins or settings for this. I don't see why this wouldn't let several wall vase mode prints to be possible.</p>
<p>Question: Is there some flaw with the above logic? If not, is there a way to get that style of print (I use Cura/Klipper/Ender 3 S1 Pro).</p>

<creality-ender-3><ultimaker-cura><klipper><vase-mode><seam>
Is there a way to get a "vase mode" for multiple wall prints if you just change the order the walls are printed on each layer?
J H
# Is there a way to get a "vase mode" for multiple wall prints if you just change the order the walls are printed on each layer?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-01-01)

I was pretty fascinated with vase mode print results thinking it would be awesome if this could be done with at least 2 (or more) walls. Initially I was told that its not possible because the printer would start on the outer wall (or inner), then once that is completed, smoothly transition to the inner wall, and once that one is done, it would then need to move up 1 layer and move back to the outer wall - Thus creating the Z-seam.

But after thinking about it - that seems like something that could easily be solved by just *not* printing the inner/outer wall in the exact same order on every layer. The printer could just do the outer wall, then like usual, print the inner wall, then instead of retracting and moving to the same location the lower outer wall was created, it could just continue on to print the inner wall on the next level, then the outer wall. Then move up, outer wall, inner wall.. Rinse and repeat.

I *highly* doubt I'm the first one to think of this, but I didn't see any plugins or settings for this. I don't see why this wouldn't let several wall vase mode prints to be possible.

Question: Is there some flaw with the above logic? If not, is there a way to get that style of print (I use Cura/Klipper/Ender 3 S1 Pro).

**Tags:** creality-ender-3, ultimaker-cura, klipper, vase-mode, seam


---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2024-02-01. Score: 3

I'm going to call this an XY problem, because if a model admits printing in vase mode except that you want it to have "multiple walls", the problem is not actually needing "multiple walls" but a higher total wall thickness. In that case, you just increase the "outer wall line width" to whatever wall thickness you want. With a standard 0.4 mm nozzle you can print lines up to at least 0.8-1.0 mm thick, maybe even 1.2 mm. If you need thicker than that, use a larger nozzle.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2024-04-04. Score: 2

It seems like my fellow answerers didn't understand the question

What OP suggests (as I see it), is to do a continuous extrusion line for all layers. It should be possible, however difficult to implement programmatically

Let's say we have a pipe of thickness 1.2 mm - three walls of default 0.4 mm width

The nozzle starts on the outer wall, goes full circle and in the end moves to the middle wall. Goes another circle and moves to the inner wall. At the end of it, the nozzle goes up one layer and proceeds printing in backward order - inner-middle-outer walls. Never has to retract, make seam gaps, etc.

This may not work with variating wall thickness, but it sounds like a nice way to avoid seams on some models.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2024-02-01. Score: 2

## Vase mode can't have two walls

Vase mode creates one continuous spiraling pattern all over. Z is moving up *continuously* very slowly. There is no "end of the layer", there is just a start point and an end point.

This is mutually exclusive with trying to print any single layer with more than one wall. The whole thing about Vase mode is the spiral pattern along the outer wall to have no seam or sudden moves up.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2024-01-01. Score: 0

I have seen a video (unable to locate) which may provide some resolution but it requires that you are the creator and have created the model in such a way as to incorporate this method. There may be model editing practices which can be used on someone else's model, but the skills required would match those of a creator.

For the sake of this answer, the model being printed is a simple cylinder and the base is ignored.

Consider the following: the model which generates the cylinder would have a 0.4 mm width wall, arbitrarily consistent with the nozzle size and not locked in stone. The slicer in vase mode performs in the normal, expected manner.

In the modeling software, excise a vertical slot at any point on the circumference of the cylinder. The slot creates a reversal of direction of the nozzle and as the print progresses, the nozzle returns again to the slot from the opposite direction. The slot width should be large enough to be seen in the slicer as a distinct interruption, but small enough that the extruded filament will join with the previous circuit.

This is approximately what you describe in your second paragraph. The result would have a wall thickness of 0.8 mm and would have a clearly visible seam at the location of the slot.

Alternatively, if you have greater skills and understanding than I, you may find [Full Control](https://fullcontrolgcode.com/) to be a suitable solution. It is not modeling software, nor is it a slicer. One creates g-code based on parameters provided to the program which allows for models beyond the reach of conventional modeling programs. Images from linked site:

[![Full Control Gallery page](https://i.sstatic.net/m2LV0.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/m2LV0.jpg)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: In your theoretical scenario, the printing head would need to basically stop and circle back around (as you mention "the nozzle returns again to the slot from the opposite direction"). The path I was describing would avoid that. It could do the outer wall and spiral into the inner wall, then when it gets to the "end" of that, it could simply move the nozzle up 0.16mm and print the inner wall and spiral onto the outer wall. That would allow for the print head to keep the inertia up and not have to retract the filament at all.  Hopefully I explained it better that time  
> **username_4**: The method I describe would still work in the typical vase mode and should not have to retract, but I would expect there to be a change in velocity, simply by definition. This lack of applicability to your objective is why I included the suggestion of Full Control, although it's beyond my ability to provide details for use.  

---

