[phoronixrly]

> Is there anything stopping us from having multiple solids per file? If not, I don't see the reason for another format.

I think TFA offered a pretty compelling argumentation why you should consider using 3mf for 3D printing and I think you glossed over it:

> 3MF provides a clear definition of manifoldness — it’s impossible to create a 3MF file with non-manifold edges, and there is no ambiguity for models with self-intersections.

Even this is enough of a reason for me to prefer using a 3mf if available instead of having to fix holes in a godawful mesh editor. "STL works everywhere" is true only if you consider incidentally non-manifold STLs as an issue with the software that produced them and not the format itself.

I would like to add another technical detail that I don't think is included in the article -- 3MF uses curved triangular tessellations to encode geometry. This means more accurate representations of geometries and smaller file sizes even with high detail.

[wronex]

I would consider that an issue with the software. Non-manifold models, or self-intersecting models, are not suitable for 3D printing. This is an issue with the model rather than the file format.

If 3MF somehow makes self-intersection, and non-manifoldness, impossible cannot we run STL files though the same algorithm to end up with a "fixed" mesh?

What happens if you try to save a non-manifold model as 3MF? Will it magically fix the issue or will it fail to generate the file?

[smaudet]

...yeah I have to agree... xml is a bit trash, STL works and I don't see how the file format itself can preclude invalid structures, and as others have pointed out the whole text versus binary means a massive slowdown and inefficiency...

The algorithms and the vector compressions could likely be salveaged, but the whole positioning as a 'replacement' to STL seems like red herring marketing, with lock-in to whatever stdlibs they are providing.

It would have been better as a standard binary format, there are a number of choices...