That’s an adhesion problem, not a support problem. If the model didn’t print the first layer, it clearly didn’t get to the supports. You should make sure the bed is nice and clean by using warm soapy water or isopropyl if you’re careful. All surfaces need a clean after a period of use. Whilst this model (which I didn’t design, I only made it available on more printers) has structural issues, it doesn’t have a problem printing.

Nein, es liegt nicht an der Haftung, das Problem war, dass ich ohne Überprüfung deines Profils blind links gedruckt habe. Es war kein Support in dem Druckprofil eingestellt. Ich glaube dir, dass es gut druckbar ist, aber anscheinend hast du das falsche Profil hochgeladen."

As you can see, having started a print from the Bambu Handy app using the identical profile you used, I’m already further along without any issues in adhesion to the bed.

You release that normally when someone other than the designer (me in this case) creates a print profile we are using the identical model as produced by the designer and simply making it print on more printers than the designer did? In this case I also made a colour change, painting the eyes a second colour (black when I printed it). Rarely if ever does a profile creator make any design alterations beyond any occasional paint choices. In this case, due to the significant number of complaints to the original designer (again, not me) about the free-floating vertical head pin that wasn’t connected at the bottom, only the top, I made the decision to add a ‘part’ in Bambu Studio that connected the bottom of the head to the bottom of the pin. This re-enforced the connecting head pin, something I made clear mention of in the two different profiles I made with this additional support after the first two profiles that only extended print support to all Bambu printers that the designer hadn’t supported (plus the coloured eyes). I did not design the original model, nor did I choose the connecting ring and pin design, the only thing I did was make it more accessible and provide a structural merge-point at the head from a free-floating element. I printed a number of these and at no-time did the tail or any other part come loose or fail, let alone the tail. I can’t understand how it would as despite it the less than stellar choice the original designer made in the articulation joints, there wasn’t any surface contact with the bed issues that would cause any lack of adhesion and the quality of the shapes were smooth and accurate. In the past I’ve had designs fully or partially detach from the bed if I hadn’t kept up with a regular removal and warm water and soap clean of the print plate. I wonder if this could be the issues as no one else has made any comments describing a lack of tail adhesion. I hope you now understand that whilst I spent my time, effort, materials and electricity bringing a popular design to all of Bambu printers with an optional flourish of colourable eyes, I didn’t design it and shouldn’t be held responsible for design choices I clearly wasn’t involved in. 3 stars are a kick in the teeth for my efforts especially given the efforts I went to to address the massive complaints about the head connection which is far more than others even consider doing. I hope this message finds you well.

Why didn’t you choose the ones marked ‘reinforced’? I am not the original designer, I created print profiles to allow the model to be printed on all available Bambu printers and painted the eyes on one. Having printed the model myself and the reading comments on the actual designers profile that the head pole wasn’t even attached at the bottom, I took the time to do something very rare on someone else’s model, I attempted to mitigate the lack of head strength by using Bambu Studio to add a ‘part’ and create a physical connection in the model at the base of the head to the base of the heads internal vertical pole. I then uploaded clearly denoted at added notes to explain this to allow people to choose between a profile that lets you print a one-to-one copy as the designer intended or one with additional reinforcement (not a remix or a brand new design). I shouldn’t be held responsible for design decisions the actual designer made. I simply tried to help the community by making it more available with optional colourable eyes and even went to the troubling extending where plausible, some strengthing ability. I then went further and explained this in the profile names and descriptions. I’m not sure holding me responsible for design decisions the original designer made is fair, especially when I tried to mitigate the most common complaint by doing more work, printing more designs, wasting more filament and electricity. I’m sure you’ll agree that had you of selected the one clearly marked as reenforced, you would have faired better. Doing everything I did and having no control over the design decisions (I’m not the designer), 2-stars is a kick in the teeth.