Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/26/2021 in all areas

  1. Yes, I do fully understand the concerns about waste; I am pro recycling too. But the recycling process itself should not cost more energy and resources, and produce more waste, than making new things. Otherwise it would be a lose-lose situation: you would get inferior products at a higher environmental cost. A 100% recycled cardboard item had to be made fresh in one of the cycles before, before it can be recycled. That first-make is what costs lots of trees. Further, both fresh and recycled cardboard and paper consume huge amounts of energy and fresh water: the paper/cardboard has to be cut, mixed with water into pulp, heated, stirred, treated chemically, pressed into sheets, and then dried. The water of the pulp is highly polluted afterwards, and thus needs purifying, which also costs energy. I don't know the total balance, but I would not be surprised if the total environmental cost of cardboard is far worse than that of plastic. So, production of paper/cardboard might cost more oil for heating and purifying, than the production of plastic. According to Wikipedia, it takes 200 tons of hot water to produce 1 ton of paper. If the water is recycled 10x before being wasted, it still costs 20 tons of fresh water for 1 ton of paper. And the waste-water pollutes rivers... The advantage of cardboard is that if thrown in a river, it rots away soon because it consists of wood-fibers, contrary to plastic. A similar difficult question is which plastic to use? Plant-based plastic such as PLA, or oil-based such as ethylene, propylene, styrene, ABS,...? The plant-based seems more environmentally friendly at first glance. But it requires food-products. So, first, forest has to be cut to make room for crop, and then that crop is used for making plastic instead of for making food for people and animals... Another similar question is that of glass versus plastic: glass bottles can be recycled, yes, while plastic ones can't. But it takes at least 100x more energy to produce glass than it takes to make plastic. So, even if the glass bottle can be recycled 5 to 7 times (max), it still costs 15-20x more energy than a plastic one. Also, the empty glass needs to be transported and washed, which also requires lots of energy. We need to consider the whole cycle, including the hidden energy- and environmental costs in the factories. Which are often difficult to estimate. But there is hope: in the past weeks Stephan from CNC-kitchen (Youtube) has been experimenting with shredding old plastics, and extruding fresh filament from it. He seems to have good results with it. That would be a first step. For home use the cost is way too high, but for research departments and schools having a lot of printers, it might be a solution, and it is very educational too. And maybe in the future we can go to a feeder that works directly with pellets, instead of filament. So you would only need one big 50kg-bag of pellets, and then add your own colors and additives. That would be a hybrid between injection moulding and 3D-printing. It will take 5 to 10 years, but I could see things moving in that direction.
    1 point
  2. If only Creality would actually use all that profit from their best selling printers to invest into creating profiles for Cura instead of leaving it up to community members and Ultimaker to fix those problems. I understand that you are frustrated, but I hope that it's clear to you that we are the wrong people to be frustrated with. If there is a bug in the interface that breaks things for all printers, we will gladly have a look at it. If it's just a third party printer that has weird settings, you will need to contact them instead.
    1 point
  3. As others have written already, it is incredibly convenient when combined with a material station (and multiple printers) for the S5. Personally, for spools which I "load and use to completion" (such as DPA or PVA support material) I usually don't bother adding an NFC tag to them -- there's not much being time saved. However for spools that I need to load/unload several times (such as rarely used colours or materials) having them be autodetected by way of an NFC tag is an incredible convenience. It also takes the uncertainty out of asking somebody not used to the printers, to "load a spool of filament XXX into whichever slot is free". So yeah, a convenience, not a necessity. In the same way as the material station itself is a convenience, but not a strict necessity for multi-material printing.
    1 point
  4. Hi RogerBW, this seems a very common issue which is simple to fix. There's a good tutorial by @fbrc8-erin: The video refers to an UM3, but as the sliding blocks are the same for the UM2, you can refer to it 1:1. Regards
    1 point
  5. No it is not. The bug that this thread is discussing caused the renamed printer to revert back after a restart. You have hit a particular case of "known behavior". In your case, you are trying to rename the printer to a name that is already taken up internally, so Cura adds the number (" #2"). You can rename the printer to anything other than the name without the "#2" postfix, and the rename should work.
    1 point
  6. Then please open an issue on GitHub (Cura -> Help - Report Bug) that's the place where the developers track and work on issues. Thanks!
    1 point
  7. They might know they exist, they might not, but as the name of the software implies, "Ultimaker Cura", it is primarily geared towards Ultimaker printers. Ultimaker are kind enough to also add support for other brands of printers, but it's not their highest priority to make sure each and every printer from every maker is available, and it's a bit unreasonable to expect it. Now, if there's a bug preventing renaming a printer (an issue that would be independent on what printer you happened to have added), that's a different thing and should of course be looked into.
    1 point
  8. I agree that the fact that you have to use this workaround is incredibly awkward. I have created this feature request to make it possible to remove print settings profile overrides directly in Cura.
    1 point
  9. In the beginning I used the glue stick (without wiping it afterwards, I didn't know that trick back then). But this gave an ugly bottom layer indeed, and non-optimal bonding. I also tried printing on bare glass without any glue: in dry weather this would work reasonably, but in wet weather it would lift off and cause defects like yours. Also, greasy glass would cause this effect. Cleaning with soap and window-cleaner can also produce this, since soap reduces bonding: you can't glue anything to soap. So, now I thoroughly degrease the glass first, and then wash it with pure luke-warm tap water only (no soap, no window-cleaner, nothing). And then I wipe it with a tissue moistened with salt water: this also improves bonding of PLA to the glass bed when hot, but the print comes off by itself after cooling down. For in case you want to print on bare glass, without glue, like me. If you would prefer using glue, dissolve it and spread it out evenly with a wet tissue, until it is an almost invisible thin layer. As others said above, also check the nozzle-distance from the glass. If too big, there is not enough contact and the print is likely to lift off. If too close, the nozzle may scrubb the print off the glass, also lifting it off. The bottoms of my prints usually look like this: Bottom layer, and reflection in the bottom layer (could not get both in-focus at the same time): PLA print, nozzle is 0.4mm, the round hole is ca. 4mm diameter: PET-print, thin layers, ruler in the background is in mm and cm:
    1 point
  10. Maybe but I think it's backwards - I think prusa slicer automatically fixes many model errors. I really don't know which is true.
    1 point
  11. Hi. It's now cura 4.7 and this issue is still ongoing; there's a requirement for minimum wall flow stating you must print outer walls first, and that's terrible. I dont' want that. Is there any reason why it can't just underextrude that inner wall for 3 walls total?
    1 point
  12. Hi, Please help me understand. I make a model with a shell exactly 1.2mm thick. I use .4mm nozzle with .4mm wall. Yet, Cura tries to fit in two inner walls, or at least moves twice in the inner space (not marked as travel move). Even though: - combing is off - and I even turned on outer wall before inner with minimum wall flow it 100% - compensate wall overlap is off What gives? Thanks! This produced ugly blobs on my print and I really can't get rid of them (This is an edge case. I normally have no issue with blobs, even though I use a long and hot meltzone with stringy PETG for part strength.) I am attaching the cura project and gcode and the stl so anyone can play. 3walls.3mf 3walls.gcode shell1.2mm.stl
    1 point
  13. In case anyone finds this thread, smartavionic's PR was implemented in Cura 3.5 beta on 9/18/2018.
    1 point
  14. That is extremely helpful, thank you! I found your PR on GitHub, it looks like it's exactly what I want. Fingers crossed that it gets implemented soon
    1 point
  15. Hi, this is a fundamental problem that Cura has. It can only print an even number of walls. The wall overlap compensation (when enabled) tries to reduce the width of walls that can't fit in the space available but the implementation is less than perfect and so the width of the overlap compensated lines can be wrong in places. Furthermore, in the situation where the last wall is thinned down to nothing (as in your example), Cura still tries to output a wall so the nozzle will travel around the wall path extruding very little. Depending on your extruder resolution this can make quite an ugly print. I currently have a PR (pull request) on the CuraEngine to add an option to replace lines whose flow is below a threshold value (configurable) with travel moves (retraction optional). This provides a "band aid" solution to the problem you are suffering from. The PR has yet to be accepted but if it is (or something similar) then there will be a solution in a future release. I hope this is helpful.
    1 point
This leaderboard is set to Amsterdam/GMT+02:00
×
×
  • Create New...