I am aware of all of these arguments. And, as I said, there is an element of truth in many of them (except perhaps the "laser burn" argument, which I believe to be just silly, at least in printers with replaceable FEP films). I clearly stated that there are cases in which tilted models are wise and sometimes necessary.
My claim isn't that these techniques aren't valuable, but simply that they are grossly overused and the arguments for them seriously overblown. From reading the Internet, one would conclude that this is the only reasonable way to print. But, it just ain't so. Anyone who has carefully experimented with plate printing (and followed your advice on how to do it, which is spot-on) understands how useful this technique is and how successfully it can be applied to primarily rectilinear models. I have had many situations in which shapes that failed when tilted worked just fine once they were properly reoriented to be orthogonal to the print plate.
I agree with your description of when tilted printing is helpful and why. But, it seems a little confused to simultaneously argue that one should "just tilt the print slightly" as a matter of routine while also making the blanket statement that these printers "don't print large flat areas well", suggesting that one needs a laser engraver for flats. Except for size, my experience is that pretty much anything that can be done with a laser engraver can be done as well or better with a resin printer, when used properly. And, the size problem is about to be significantly mitigated with the Elegoo Saturn.
I don't want to have an argument. I just want to encourage people to experiment for themselves and not to take Internet conventional wisdom as gospel.
