<p>The phrase "triangulation of the file is rather rough" is somewhat vague, but one can interpret it to mean that the surface is what is considered "low poly" in the 3D modeling world.</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/RarRO.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/RarRO.jpg" alt="low poly fox"></a></p>

<p>From <a href="https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:937740" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Thingiverse</a>, this low poly fox shows an intentionally reduced poly surface. I'm not suggesting that your models appear this distorted, but it may give a hint to what the service is referencing.</p>

<p>Consider to load your model into a program such as Meshmixer, which will show you the triangles in 'W'ireframe mode. If there are few triangles over a surface, you can get the aforementioned effect.</p>

<p>Meshmixer also allows you to increase the mesh count, possibly improving the surface and satisfying the requirements of the printing service.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-21T14:58:40.330Z
Regarding your last paragraph, that's like when the 2D poster printing shop tells you your 400px jpeg isn't sufficient resolution so you upscale it 10x and send it back to them. If the mesh is insufficient, you have to go back to the original source and produce something better, not "upscale" (add polys to) the bad mesh.
R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-19T14:54:13.713Z
2019-06-19T14:54:13.713Z
fred_dot_u
<p>Most CAD tools generate quite low-res triangulations. The ideal solution is to avoid using the CAD tool to generate them. For example, if the print shop can accept your CAD files directly, they may have other software that can triangulate them. For example, if the shop uses GrabCAD Print to slice your parts, that software can open CAD files directly, and produce much better triangulations than exporting from the CAD software. (In this case they won't be using GCP, which doesn't support the print technologies you mention, but it's just an example: some other vendors' tools have the same functionality.)</p>

<p>If you don't wish to send your original CAD parts, check if your tool can export Parasolid files (.x_t or .x_b). They contain the original boundary representation your CAD tool uses to represent geometry, but not the feature structure, constraints, or design intent.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-19T15:20:16.767Z
2019-06-19T15:20:16.767Z
Dan Hulme
<p><a href="https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/autocad-forum/stl-files-resolution/td-p/6591803" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This thread</a> and <a href="https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2016/ENU/AutoCAD-Core/files/GUID-2DF46705-EE9E-409F-86B5-ED391CE207DC-htm.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this article</a>, both on Autodesks website, suggest altering the <code>FACETRES</code> system variable to <code>10</code> to achieve a higher-quality .stl export.</p>

<p>Alternatively, you can use the <code>3DPRINT</code> command for <code>FACETRES</code> to be increased automatically, which will then offer an .stl export or to send the file directly to a 3D printing service.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-21T13:39:34.420Z
Hi - Thanks - I should have mentioned that facetres was already set to 10. I'll edit accordingly...
Strawberry
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-21T13:49:49.330Z
Maybe this applies?
https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/autocad-forum/autocad-2018-facetres/m-p/7466483#M902878

Other than that, I would try exporting to a "lossless" format such as .step and exporting the .stl from another software suite like Fusion 360 or FreeCAD.
towe
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-21T09:53:36.193Z
2019-06-21T09:53:36.193Z
towe
<p>In regards to a part that I'm having printed remotely (by two processes:- stereolithography and laser sintering), I've been advised by the 3d printing company that 'the triangulation of the file is rather rough'. </p>

<p>In this particular instance, it probably doesn't matter, but for the future, are there any tips to improving 'triangulation' when generating forms in AutoCAD?</p>

<p>Note, AutoCAD's FACETRES variable is set to 10. </p>

<print-quality><autodesk>
Improving triangulation on AutoCAD-generated stl files
Strawberry
# Improving triangulation on AutoCAD-generated stl files

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-06-19)

In regards to a part that I'm having printed remotely (by two processes:- stereolithography and laser sintering), I've been advised by the 3d printing company that 'the triangulation of the file is rather rough'.

In this particular instance, it probably doesn't matter, but for the future, are there any tips to improving 'triangulation' when generating forms in AutoCAD?

Note, AutoCAD's FACETRES variable is set to 10.

**Tags:** print-quality, autodesk


---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-06-19. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

The phrase "triangulation of the file is rather rough" is somewhat vague, but one can interpret it to mean that the surface is what is considered "low poly" in the 3D modeling world.

[![low poly fox](https://i.sstatic.net/RarRO.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/RarRO.jpg)

From [Thingiverse](https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:937740), this low poly fox shows an intentionally reduced poly surface. I'm not suggesting that your models appear this distorted, but it may give a hint to what the service is referencing.

Consider to load your model into a program such as Meshmixer, which will show you the triangles in 'W'ireframe mode. If there are few triangles over a surface, you can get the aforementioned effect.

Meshmixer also allows you to increase the mesh count, possibly improving the surface and satisfying the requirements of the printing service.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Regarding your last paragraph, that's like when the 2D poster printing shop tells you your 400px jpeg isn't sufficient resolution so you upscale it 10x and send it back to them. If the mesh is insufficient, you have to go back to the original source and produce something better, not "upscale" (add polys to) the bad mesh.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2019-06-19. Score: 2

Most CAD tools generate quite low-res triangulations. The ideal solution is to avoid using the CAD tool to generate them. For example, if the print shop can accept your CAD files directly, they may have other software that can triangulate them. For example, if the shop uses GrabCAD Print to slice your parts, that software can open CAD files directly, and produce much better triangulations than exporting from the CAD software. (In this case they won't be using GCP, which doesn't support the print technologies you mention, but it's just an example: some other vendors' tools have the same functionality.)

If you don't wish to send your original CAD parts, check if your tool can export Parasolid files (.x\_t or .x\_b). They contain the original boundary representation your CAD tool uses to represent geometry, but not the feature structure, constraints, or design intent.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2019-06-21. Score: 0

[This thread](https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/autocad-forum/stl-files-resolution/td-p/6591803) and [this article](https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2016/ENU/AutoCAD-Core/files/GUID-2DF46705-EE9E-409F-86B5-ED391CE207DC-htm.html), both on Autodesks website, suggest altering the `FACETRES` system variable to `10` to achieve a higher-quality .stl export.

Alternatively, you can use the `3DPRINT` command for `FACETRES` to be increased automatically, which will then offer an .stl export or to send the file directly to a 3D printing service.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Hi - Thanks - I should have mentioned that facetres was already set to 10. I'll edit accordingly...  
> **username_4**: Maybe this applies? https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/autocad-forum/autocad-2018-facetres/m-p/7466483#M902878  Other than that, I would try exporting to a "lossless" format such as .step and exporting the .stl from another software suite like Fusion 360 or FreeCAD.  

---

