Jump to content
Cura Connect | Survey Read more... ×
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/18/2018 in all areas

  1. 10 points
    Here's my entry in the contest, as the Netherlands are big in Logistics I decided to design a set of material handling equipment (MHE) I made 7 vehicle types, each with a variety in loads to carry, making a total of 22 unique pieces. Looking from top to bottom; NAT ; narrow aisle truck (man up) FLT-2T ; 2 ton electro forklift RT ; 1.6 ton Reachtruck OPT: orderpicktruck with 3 rolcages Tow ; Towtruck FLT-4t-; 4Ton Gas powered forklift FLT_10T ; 10Ton diesel forklift Print the files as they are, laying flat, I printed them quickly in PLA, using a 0.4 nozzle and 0.15 layer. You can find all files here on YouMagine, including a step file so you can make any changes in most CAD software, if you make any new variants please share them back.... https://www.youmagine.com/designs/material-handling-equipment-scale-1-100-architect-design-contest-vehicles and to promote the contest a bit I also uploaded here; https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2975986
  2. 8 points
    I just finished this. It was a multi-part print for ease of painting. Some of it I am not sure what happened...but hey, it is purty....And, I am unanimous in that 🙂 Test Render Parts Finished piece
  3. 8 points
    We did a 9 day print recently on the Ultimaker S5. I love how this turned out. Admittedly, that tail is so fragile, I'm a little afraid to breathe whenever I walk by it. We've got the S5 set up on a custom rolling cart we built with some built in storage areas. The STL is here: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:284409
  4. 7 points
    I'm Steve Cox, a member of the Utimaker Community. I'm an experienced engineer having spent many years in the automotive industry but I'm now focussed on the world of 3D technologies, specifically 3D product design and 3DPprinting. I'm an Autodesk Certified Instructor for Fusion 360, so many of the images in this post are taken from that design software but this post is not specific to that software but is about designing for 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing. This is a first of a series of blog posts in this area that will be focussing on how engineering is interacting with the latest 3D technologies. Additive Manufacturing (AM) and 3D Printing (3DP) - whilst the way they produce an object from nowhere can often seem like modern-day magic, the truth is that in many ways they are no different to any other way of making things. Every method that we use to manufacture things has it’s own rules that we need to consider when designing. These rules are known as DFM – Design For Manufacture. This approach takes into account the pros and cons of the chosen manufacturing method to produce a design that can be made repeatably, reliably and to meet the intended function and life expectancy of the product. This way of thinking when applied to AM (or 3DP) is now becoming known as DfAM, or Design for Additive Manufacture. In reality there are two aspects of DfAM, the first we will deal with in this post where we will concentrate on the use of DfAM applied to detail features of the design to ensure manufacturability. The second aspect is using DfAM at the conceptual design to realise some of the unique capabilities that AM has to offer, and that will be covered in a later article. The rules of DfAM tend to be slightly different for each type of AM/3DP technology. Here we will be assuming that we are using Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) 3DP but, for instance, in metal AM residual stresses build up in the part during manufacturing due to the high local energies applied by the laser or electron beam. These have to be taken into consideration if warping and possible early-life failure are to be avoided. So, in metal AM, the use of DfAM can involve designing out thick sections where heat build-up can be greatest. This is seldom a significant issue in FDM 3D printing. Two of the main DfAM considerations in FDM 3D printing are layer orientation and overhangs which we will take a closer look at here. Layer orientation When a detail design is being prepared for manufacture one of the first things to consider is the loads that will be applied to it, and 3D printing is no different. There can be potential weaknesses in 3D prints in the “welded” joints that exist between every layer which provide multiple potential crack propagation opportunities. So at the detail design stage the loading direction may need to be taken into account, which can in turn lead to a decision being made on the print direction to be used very early on and that will then set the tone for the rest of the design. In this particular case the stress analysis in Fusion 360 on a loaded side wall of a design shows that the peak stress occurs on the inside face of that wall near to it’s base which, if we were to print it in this orientation, will coincide with the end of a layer and hence one of these potential crack propagation sites : Which can lead to this : The better way of 3D printing this design to withstand this loading condition would be to orientate the printing direction by 90 degrees to ensure that the load is being applied along the layer lines rather than across them. The strength of a part with this layer orientation will be many times greater under the loading condition described previously, though the amount is difficult to objectively state since simulation software taking into account the layer construction of AM is still an emerging area of activity. So this is a DfAM consideration to think about at the very start of your design - what are the main load bearing directions and is it possible to optimise the design to ensure that the way that you will make the part which does not result in loads being applied across a layer? This is the single most effective step that you can take, but it may not always be possible to do that, in which case you need to employ mitigation factors into your design. The usual best practice in any design is, where possible, to add a fillet (or radius) at the base of the wall to counteract these high stresses. This reduces the local stress moves the higher stress point further up the side wall and is an optimal way of adding strength with the addition of minimal material. However, in AM/3DP it is often a better option to use an angled face rather than a curved face to achieve the same effect The reason for this different approach is that the "staircase" of layers in more uniform in the case of the angled face, whilst with a fillet radius the smooth blend into the base results in a longer first layer step which reduces it's effectiveness. So this is another aspect of DfAM where strategies used for other methods of manufacture may need to be subtly modified to make them most effective when using this particular method Overhangs Once the print direction has been selected then the design of overhangs, and preferably the elimination of as many of these as possible, can be addressed. Fewer overhangs means less requirement for support which leads to a more efficient print time, lower material usage and reduced post processing time for removal of supports This is the most obvious way to eliminate an overhanging feature : Things like this are simplistic and often easy to spot, but you may find that your design is more complex than this and there is a tendency to design from experience with traditional manufacturing methods and put in features that aren’t good for AM almost without thinking. For instance in this example of a flanged coupling the features with blind tapped holes for the connection have been designed with a feature that would cause no problem for a moulding process but produce an overhanging area for 3D printing (highlighted in red when viewed in Cura) With some re-examination it was possible to re-imagine these features like this which result in no overhang and hence no support. Rather than fill this post with lots of examples of individual examples of this kind of comparison my recommendation when engaging with DfAM is to regularly check your design in the slicing software as your design develops, looking for those overhanging areas using an inspection tool that highlights those areas, or looking through the layer stack for areas that look difficult to print. The layer stack should be something that’s looked at before every print as a matter of course and is also a great way of spotting issues at the design stage that you may be easily able to address. In Fusion 360 the ability to go from the design workspace to the slicer software (such as Cura) to check for printability can be done with a single click of a button, and without the need for any time-consuming exporting and subsequent importing of .stl files. This can make the iterative process of Design → Check → Modify → Recheck much quicker, and result in a faster convergence to an efficient design for additive manufacture The approaches we have looked at here are when DfAM is applied at the detail design stage and looks to address, and deal with, the drawbacks of 3DP/AM. In a future post we will look at applying DfAM at the conceptual design stage where the advantages that AM has to offer can really become very valuable. This approach can be much more powerful and result in designs that really do provide unique and extremely effective solutions that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.
  5. 6 points
    In my previous post on DfAM (Design for Additive Manufacture) I concentrated on how to deal with some of the design principles needed to ensure the manufacturability of a part using Additive Manufacturing (AM), or 3D Printing (3DP). In this post I’m going to concentrate on the way DfAM can take advantage of some of the unique capabilities that AM and 3DP has to offer. There are a number of different advantages available and we’ll look at each one in turn………… “Complexity Comes For Free…..” This is a statement that’s often made about AM/3DP. It’s not always completely true because dealing with complexity in this method of manufacturing can incur longer manufacturing times and sometimes, as the saying goes, “time is money”. However it's true that designs for this type of manufacturing method can be considerably more complex, yet still be feasible to make, compared with those designed for the more traditional methods of subtractive manufacturing, forming, or casting. One great example of design complexity is this Digital Sundial designed by Mojoptix : In itself this is a very clever piece of design that uses mathematical formula to generate the geometry which creates a digital time image from shadows cast by the sun. However, that geometry in some areas is so complex, with many thin internal walls, that the only feasible way of making this is using AM/3DP. In other applications this design freedom helps to realise complex cooling channels inside parts where efficient heat exchange is one of the key performance requirements. Channels can be provided deep inside parts where they are most effective, as opposed to being provided only where they can be manufactured. The result is that optimal functionality can be the focus for the part design rather than how it can be manufactured using traditional methods. The ability to make thin complex structures that are often “locked” inside parts is one of the aspects that is allowing the use of complex lattice structures for light-weighting of parts made using 3DP/AM. These internal lattices are similar to the internal structures that using infill in Cura produces, however the advantage of these more advanced lattices are that they can be created from understanding the stress analysis of the part as a solid structure. The lattices created can then be very dense in high stress areas and much less dense in lower stress areas, resulting in significant weight savings. Here’s an example of such a variable structure in a cut-away section of an advanced concept that I worked on for a marine pilot ladder I personally think that the use of AM/3DP for light-weighting is one of it’s most exciting possibilities and one that could play a key part in sustainability of design and manufacturing in the future. At the moment AM/3DP is being used for reducing weight in high value/low volume applications such as aerospace, but it the future I expect it to also provide this advantage in higher volume/medium value applications such as automotive. Light-weighting using AM/3DP is a subject that I’d like to return to in more depth in a future post. Multi-Material Prints With dual extrusion 3D printers such as the Ultimaker 3 and new Ultimaker S5 it’s possible to combine two quite dissimilar materials on a single layer. That gives the opportunity to create some interesting concepts that can be produced in a single 3D print. One example is this pair of pliers that I designed specifically as a dual material print. The main structural parts are in a rigid material (in this case PLA) and the central latticed core, which behaves like a pivot, is made from a very flexible TPE (thermoplastic elastomer). In order to get a good bond between the two materials I didn’t want to rely on material adhesion alone because of the shear forces acting across the joints between the two materials as they are operated. So in this design I incorporated interlocked mechanical connections between the two materials where those features were printed through the layers. This in itself was another example of DfAM, because understanding how the layers would be printed allowed me to design a robust, yet manufacturable, connection between the two dissimilar materials. In the future we will probably see 3D print heads that go beyond two materials to multiple materials, which will open up further new opportunities Part Consolidation Another opportunity using DfAM is to design what would be a multi-piece component to be manufactured in a single pass. This is called part consolidation and it reduces assembly time, and can also provide fully assembled parts that would be impossible to achieve through normal methods. The advantage of these are reduced inventory, reduced weight, elimination of assembly time and some design freedom, but they can sometimes have the downside of reduced levels of serviceability, so that needs to be a consideration. A good example of part consolidation is the antenna bracket below that was created by Airbus for the Eurostar E3000 communications satellite. This was previously a four part assembly with many internal fixings for assembly of the fabricated parts which was replaced with an AM single piece design, which also had the benefit of being both stiffer and lighter than the multi-part assembly it replaced. See this TCT Magazine article for full details Integrated Mechanisms Another opportunity that Part Consolidation can provide is the possibility to create integrated mechanisms that are multi-part assemblies with functional mechanisms that work straight off the printer. Perhaps one of the most famous is the NASA Space Wrench that was 3D printed on the International Space Station as part of their 3D Printing in Space investigations for supporting long-term exploration missions. In a weight-less environment it’s probably not a good idea to have lots of small parts floating around, so this was designed as a working wrench where the ratchet mechanism was created directly inside the part during printing. The first time the wrench is operated any small bonds between the parts are broken and the ratchet mechanism works. Another good example of an integrated mechanism is this Platform Jack that can be downloaded from Thingiverse Part Customisation Another key advantage of AM/3DP is it’s ability to take advantage of part customisation where every part made differs slightly to suit individual customer needs. Here DfAM plays a role in the area of Mass Customisation where a mass produced part is used with a customised 3DP/AM part to produce something that has the best of both worlds. Mass Customisation earbuds are a good example of this where mass-produced earphone drivers come together with 3D printed tips that have been created from a scan of your particular ear contours. This leads into the ability to satisfy something called “The Market-of-One”. This opportunity is where either mass personalisation, or a fully customised part, is a true one-off product that will perhaps never be repeated, but for which a commercial opportunity exists. In DfAM this customisation can be achieved by using a full parametric design approach where the key adjustable features in a design are defined in a parameter table such as this example below in Fusion 360 : This table allows new dimensions to be quickly input into the parameter table and the design then updates automatically to reflect these without the need for any additional design work. The customised design can then be rapidly output to slicing software for final preparation. In this way customised designs can be produced and prepared for manufacture in a matter of minutes. Have You Taken Advantage of DfAM ? The difference between what’s covered in this post compared with DfAM in my first post on the subject is that all of the above techniques need to be considered at the concept stage of designing. In this case it needs the AM/3DP mindset to be adopted right at the very outset. There's an example of that in this video made by HP which shows some of the above DfAM principles I've described combined into a very durable 3D printed part with a high service life It can be quite a difficult transition to make to take advantage of the freedoms that AM/3DP offer, and it maybe needs a degree of innovation and creative thinking to make the most of the opportunity. One of the things that is now starting to emerge are higher education courses and apprenticeships dedicated to the use of AM/3DP, and these will undoubtedly be useful in embedding these opportunities in the design-make workflow for the workforce of the future. At the current stage of DfAM we have merely scratched the surface of what we can do and I’m really excited to see how we exploit the advantages I’ve outlined above in the future. So, I’d be really interested to see and hear from the community how you’ve taken advantage of DfAM, and what your aim was ………….
  6. 6 points
    Howdy y'all. 🤠 I run the Texas A&M University College of Architecture MakerPlace (it's a mouthful... we just call it the MakerPlace) and we bought six Ultimaker S5s to further expand our printing capabilities here. Now we have eighteen UM3s, six S5s, two Fusion3 F400-Ss and three FormLabs Form 2s. There are also two industrial-type machines that I do not directly manage but often have to talk to students/customers about: Stratasys Eden and a 3D Systems Projet 460 Plus. We're (the MakerPlace) quite new still and the purpose of the space seems to change week by week. When first I started here, the MakerPlace had a FlashForge Dreamer, a MakerBot Replicator 5th Gen, a MakerBot Replicator 2 and a Cube Trio. Half of them were down at any given point and when it was time for finals, we had students wait up to 3 weeks to get their 3D prints because of how backed up we were. Right now, we serve the students of our college and the main way people outside the college hears about us is through word of mouth. We also have a few other services that any maker space should such as vinyl cutting, tool rental and tons of table space to work. In the future, I hope we will have more specialized tools in the space like an Inventables Carvey or similar. The college has two other spaces that encompass the rest of what students need to make projects: the Woodshop and the FabLab (AKA the Ranch). The Woodshop is a large space with hand tools and power tools galore with 7 laser cutters while the Ranch has the huge tools like a new HAAS CNC machining tool, 2 full size CNC routers, CNC plasma cutting, a CNC water jet and a small warehouse that faculty members rent for XL projects. Now back to 3D printing... In the Fall of 2017 we printed around 50kg and Spring 2018 we printed closer to 80kg. We mostly print in PLA or PLA blends with the occasional co-polyester or composite blend in there. We get a lot of our filament from a supplier down the street from us, Essentium Materials. They've been a fantastic partner to work with! We use an in-house built queue (the "Dashboard") and 3DPrinterOS internally to manage the 18 UM3s and we're waiting for the S5s to be integrated into their software. Students bring us their STL files that they modeled in Revit, Rhino (most popular), or SketchUp. Then we do a little consultation to make sure their 3D print will come out like they want it and then we queue them up. Most of the time, models fit on the UM3. But last semester (spring 2018) we found that we had a line out the (virtual) door for prints on the Fusion3 printers. Next thing I knew, the S5 was announced and I knew we'd be expanding this summer, so I pitched it. The addition of the six Ultimaker S5 3D printers not only gives us more printers to run more jobs on, but we also have an increased capacity for larger jobs that would normally have to queue for the Fusion3. We've had the S5s for around 3 weeks now and they've certainly impressed me. Here's some thoughts about a few things... "What's in the box": The packaging for the S5s was pretty nice, but I think the UM3 did it better with zip tying the linear rods together to prevent shifting that happened to two of the S5s I recieved. I had to realign linear rods on my last two machines which turns out is not that difficult but I still had to do it. The Aluminum plate is not included yet which is fine by me as we primarily print in PLA that only needs some purple glue stick on glass to print well. The Tough PLA that comes with the printer is really easy to print with and comes off the bed nicely. I printed several large things (around 18 hour prints) with no supports to begin testing how well it does for long prints and the material looks great. And it also comes with a 750g spool of PVA. I prefer the 350g spools as we live in central Texas and currently the humidity inside is 47%. (PVA (and PLA for that matter) does not like high-humidity environments.) It regularly goes above 50% and it's just lovely. 😆 On that note, I store filament in dry-boxes with a bunch of loose silica beads in the bottom which gets down below 15% RH. I don't know specifically how low it goes as the sensors I got on Amazon only go down to 15%! Ha. I also have a PrintDry system which I use to dry out filament that's left out for a few days. Print quality: I have seen and expect these to print very similarly to the UM3 on every front and every combination of materials (PLA/PVA/Breakaway/etc). We typically print at 0.2mm layers for speed but go down to 0.1mm layers as needed by the models. The Form2s print at 0.1mm regularly and go down to 0.025mm as needed. About 50% of the architectural models we print are massings printed at 0.2mm layers and around 80mm/s that the students print in white PLA and sometimes go sand/finish in their studios. We have had a small number of failed prints on the S5 so far, several of which were because of the bug in 5.0.13 firmware that caused some false-positives in the flow sensor. I have not had any clogged nozzles yet nor "spaghetti" parts. I do not consider these printers to be "fast" by any means. The Fusion3's default speed in Simplify3D is 100mm/s and I turned up the speed in Cura for the S5 to 70-80mm/s both at 0.2mm layers and turn up the temperature +10-15C. It makes a big difference. I haven't tested how fast they could print if I turned both speed and temp. up a lot, though. The students need consistency and I found that changing a few things in the "Fast" profile and basically renaming it "Super Fast" cuts off a lot of time and some material usage. Saves money and material! Features: Better bed leveling means the nozzles touch about 12 points on the build plate to get a better "picture" of the levelness of the beds. It does take a lot longer than the UM3. I have not had to manually level them yet, but I also didn't level the UM3s when I got them for several weeks. I anticipate the same for these guys. Filament flow detection and the new feeder mech. is super awesome so far. It's saved several prints from the end of spools. It's so easy to insert material into the new feeder compared to the UM3! No more hurt fingers due to super-strong springs! Just lift the little lever and slide the filament in. Love it. The Touchscreen and new menus are beautiful. It's like using a smartphone. The new menus have pictures of actions to take during, for example, changing filament and that's fantastic. Also I love the "Printer tasks" alert. But... we didn't necessarily buy these for any of these features. One of the main reasons we bought them is to keep our process as close to the same to save on time and effort. It is a lot more effort to switch to Simplify3D when we need to print something on the Fusion3 and change materials on it etc etc than to change machines in Cura. Sure we could easily set up Cura to run the Fusion3s but then each student worker will have to make sure we're using the same version of Cura with the same start/stop gcode, and other similar settings to ensure the jobs getting done consistently. It's much easier to not do that and have the "Simplify3D computer" to slice models for the Fusion3s. Irks... I've had a few strange things happen that were easily solved. Linear rods not aligned when 2/6 printers were delivered. This was solved by contacting support and them sending me a link to Ultimaker NA Support's articles (thanks @fbrc8-erin!). I used a set of calipers to align the rods with the frame. Firmware update bug. The 5.0.19 firmware update just happened and 3/6 of the printers hung on the update process. It had the screen that said "installing update" but stayed there for hours. I was told that this happens sometimes due to a bug and after about 10 minutes of being on that screen to turn off the printer and turn it back on then do the update again. I can confirm this worked and we're all good. Banding on the Z axis. This is probably due to the location of the printers and the materials being used, but I'm still going to mention it. We printed some really tall buildings with 0% infill and no top layers to save on material when I noticed how much the layer lines were showing. It's probably due to vibrations in the structure and I'm going to add some foam padding underneath the printers to solve this. Also, white PLA is really bad at showing these lines and that's what we mainly print in! Whew. That said, please let me know if you have questions about the MakerPlace or the Ultimaker S5 or something else in the post or anything that I missed. 🖐️
  7. 5 points
    This is an egg I made for my granddaughter to 'hatch,' UM PVA Egg with PLA surprise inside 🙂 Edit: You know I was out of it because I did not credit the creator of the Pikachu. I did create and set it up with the egg and PVA, but I did modify the tail a bit to fit inside the egg. But, I am not the creator of the Pikachu model. File name: Pikachu Deluxe Hug pose Creator: Geoffro (Geoff Wicks)
  8. 5 points
    ya des gens très motivé sur cette terre
  9. 4 points
    I am Stefania Dinea, an architect who mixes 3D printing, VR, parametric design and blogging daily and I will share some of my 3D printing tips & tricks with you. This series is my overview about the process and my work-around. Please feel free to comment and add. PREVIOUS POST: THE ARCHITECTURE OF 3D PRINTING - 01 TOPOGRAPHY THE ARCHITECTURE OF 3D PRINTING - 02 MASSING THE ARCHITECTURE OF 3D PRINTING - 03 TOLERANCES AND SNUG FIT THE ARCHITECTURE OF 3D PRINTING - 04 ENTOURAGE THE ARCHITECTURE OF 3D PRINTING - 05 HIGH RESOLUTION BUILDING FACADES THE ARCHITECTURE OF 3D PRINTING - 06 INTERIOR DESIGN 6 STL EXPORT FROM REVIT The most confusing thing that you need to have covered is exporting the stl. Starting with revit 2018.3 Revit had the stl export as an add-in, however for those of you who work in older versions here is how you go about it. Go to the X (the blue and white one)- to open Autodesk app store Search for stl and the following apps will appear: You will want STL exporter version x – corresponding to the version of Revit you own. Remember it will export all elements in the view – if you don't want to see something – hide in view, and if you want to see 1 element of out 1000, you can isolate in view. In the export settings, pay attention to the units the export is done in, that will play a major role when scaling in cura –and it will help you see where you are at. For the site I will use meters. Also, it will be good to be constant, if you start with meters, you need to keep it like that for the whole project so you don't get confused. CURA 1. SCALE We all know in architecture scale plays a big role – therefore this is another aspect that you need to pay attention to. Taking alternative 1 into consideration and our topography/massing examples we know the following: Our example file in x-y is 87x88 m I have exported, as I said using meter units instead of mm And in cura we will see the following: Also, one can use online scale converters such as: http://www.scalemodelersworld.com/online-scale-converter-tool.html We therefore can conclude that our model is in 1:1000 scale at 100% in cura And 200% will take us to 1:500 However, when we talk about site plans, a 1:400 would be desired therefore a 250% scale in cura would be ideal, however the site is a little too big for that, so, we will go back to revit and readjust with the section box. But first, you can use the scale calculator to see what maximum sizes you would need. So rescaling the section box, you get to print in scale 1:400 and fit in the building plate. This is all for this post, I am slowly moving into the Cura tips and tricks (better say my tips and tricks) - as usual feel free to say what works for you, what is your work-around in your main software or in Revit. Also guys and girls, what are your expectations for the summer - should I keep posting or should I take a break until august? up to you! NEXT ON THIS SERIES: 08 SINGLE EXTRUSION
  10. 4 points
    Thanks 🙂 This was what I finished up when I realized the date: Cannot get much further than than this from the challenge. 😂 Vehicles are next....got 'em started, just need to finish and make right.
  11. 4 points
    Hi, Adam, Impressive set-up! I'll share the photos with the rest of the fbrc8 team on Monday. I think rubber/foam feet should help act as dampeners on the Z-issues you're seeing. That many printers on a single rack probably has some cumulative effect. (My racks run with printers on 2 levels currently.) I did also want to let you know that after your initial feedback about the alignment issue occurring on 2 of you 6 S5s, we got that feedback to Ultimaker straight away, and the S5s are now getting zip-tied the same way the UM3s are. We take the feedback loop pretty seriously and are always looking at ways to improve and make sure the information we see out in the field makes it back to the appropriate departments.
  12. 4 points
    And, I got my case for the Sweetie Pie today...No more worries about dust :)
  13. 4 points
    The changelog for the firmware is usually uploaded in the blog section. But it just happened to be a little bit delayed this time. For your information, we're working on a better solution where all information can be found on the same page so that should become much easier to find then. But for the time being, allow me to share the release notes with you: Firmware: Translations. Updated all touchscreen translations, including German, Spanish, French, Italian, Japanese, Russian, Simplified Chinese, and Portuguese. Network setup freeze. Fixed a printer freeze in the network setup due to the network status being requested too often. XY calibration. XY calibration can now only start when both print cores have material loaded. When only one print core is used, there is no XY calibration warning. Active leveling fix. Fixed active leveling not always heating the second nozzle, and fixed a printer freeze in active Leveling when a single probe failed. Flow sensor. Improved out of filament detection to reduce false positives. Log files. Prevented the log files using all available disk space. Extended extrusion. Fixed an overly-long extrusion move after resuming a print. Clear build plate reboot. Fixed an issue where the printer would not accept new print jobs when the printer was rebooted with the 'clear buildplate' message. UI improvements. Several small UI improvements. Hope this helps!
  14. 4 points
    pour éviter le gaspillage de pva et les problèmes liés à ce materiaux je l'imprime uniquement (si possible) en interface de support comme sur la photo. les parties en rouge
  15. 3 points
    Here is a fun one that many probably have seen. It's a great way to print a cube with zero infill. Les
  16. 3 points
    That's news to me. I'd really like to look at the marlin code. Sometimes there are bugs and features and I like to do a quick look over the code to understand things. For example I've been curious about what the default acceleration and jerk settings are for the UM3. I think I know the answer (3000/20) but I'd be much more confident if I could look at the arduino firmware. Also I might want to help this sensor project and work on changing the firmware to incorporate tinkergnome's code and integrate that in with the python code on the UM3 somehow. So: can I get a copy please? a zip file? A git repository? anything would be nice.
  17. 3 points
    correct please definition of nozzles for Сura 3.4 [values] machine_nozzle_size = 0.6 machine_nozzle_tip_outer_diameter = 1.25 coasting_volume = 1.36 speed_wall = = round (speed_print * 4/3, 1) speed_wall_0 = = 1 if speed_wall <10 else (speed_wall - 10) speed_topbottom = = round (speed_print / 2, 1) then what is highlighted should be removed .... I have to Cura 3.4 works.
  18. 3 points
  19. 3 points
    I used to clean up head scans in maya or max, but they just arent geared for aggressive detail manipulation, so i switched to zbrush. I havent touched any other 3d app since. But i love sculpting and drawing anyways so i dont really care. cleaning up heads in zbrush is a breeze....if you have the reference photos that is to cross reference. Here is a head i made recently one of many....
  20. 3 points
    Any mechanical part will have tolerances so some things will vary from machine to machine. As far as I've seen (and i've printed with quite a few UM's) is that the variance is so small that adding a calibration is more likely to make it worse than better. I think most of these guides are written with DIY machines or chinese knockofs in mind. As in those cases the tolerances (and thus the spread) are much greater, such an calibration makes total sense. Although UM doesn't have perfect quality assurance (But then again, what company does have it?), ours is pretty darn good.
  21. 3 points
    I submitted PRs to allow the cooling fan number to be specified on a per-printer basis. https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/pull/3950 https://github.com/Ultimaker/CuraEngine/pull/797 Don't get too excited, these are unlikely to be incorporated for months (assuming they get accepted, that is).
  22. 3 points

    Version 1.0.0


    Here is my full size Velociraptor skeleton. Juste made for the challenge. Lenght: ~180cm Sculpted with Zbrush. Total printing time: ~392h. Printer: Ultimaker2+ Filament: PLA Speed: 30mm/s - 50mm/s Nozzle: 0,4mm Layers: 0,15mm Painting : acrylic paint (spray and brushe)
  23. 2 points
    Hey there, i have a wish for Cura, because i didn't four it yet. I want Cura to go automatically to Layer View after slicing. I hope thats possible. Thanks and regards Manuel
  24. 2 points
    @SteveCox3D Thanks for the writeup. I am interested in the FEA analysis in Fusion 360. Is it possible to test different infill settings for one part? I can imagine that it would very useful. Or maybe that would be a something Cura could do, given that there are now so many infill types.
  25. 2 points

    Version 1.0


    Functional low-cost photogrammetry 3D scanner, entirely built with the Ultimaker, the chassis split into four parts and finished with epoxy resin.
This leaderboard is set to Amsterdam/GMT+02:00

Important Information

Welcome to the Ultimaker Community of 3D printing experts. Visit the following links to read more about our Terms of Use or our Privacy Policy. Thank you!