ddurant

Got pictures? Also, details on what software and firmware you're using would be good.

Dunno much about the UP! except that it's going to be a lot more proprietary than a Mosaic. UP! uses its own software and hardware - Mosaic uses similar (or even the same) software and electronics that we use and is all open source.. It should be a lot easier to find support for Mosaic. UP! support may also be good - I have no idea. I just don't know how they compare performance-wise but suspect both are pretty good. You could always hit the #makergear IRC on freenode and ask Rick - he'd know (Rick owns MakerGear).

Of course, things bigger than the Ultimaker build platform can't be done in one piece. X/Y resolution is limited to the nozzle size: 0.4mm diameter. Z resolution is much finer. Parts of an object that are unsupported (like if you were to print the letter T standing up, the top left/right parts are unsupported) require you to either use support structures (which can be tricky and eat up plastic) or reorient the model. Right now, we haven't quite sorted out 'reversal' which is used to prevent little strings between unconnected sections of a print. I'm hopeful that that'll work before much longer and not require hardware changes..

For printers of this size, I think it's probably the best value for the money if you want to get up and running quickly. Some of the RepRap machines are quite nice but they're a bit nerdier than an Ultimaker. For the smaller machines, the MakerGear Mosaic (~5x5x5 build area) is probably the best printer out there. Depends a lot on the settings and probably the shape but I'd be surprised if it was only 30%.. This number sounds familiar - I think I've heard it in reference to quality. If so, it's out of date and we can do a lot better now. There are 2 pieces of software: the slicer and the host. The slicer takes the 3D model and generates the tool path file (gcode). The host sends the gcode to the printer. RepG is really just host software that also sorta wraps in skeinforge, a very powerful, free and open source slicer that's also pretty slow. Netfabb is mostly a slicer but they're adding host support to it, too. The host part is a bit flakey right now but should be getting better soon. I think skeinforge is probably the most powerful/capable slicer around today with netfabb a not-too-distant 2nd place. The feature set isn't one-to-one so it's a little hard to compare but if you're going to be doing lots of complicated shapes in high-resolution, netfabb is probably worth getting. You're welcome!

On the first layer, it should probably be smushing the plastic onto the platform - the distance between nozzle & platform should be less than the diameter of the nozzle hole. Also, make sure your platform is level..

Are we talking steam or actual smoke here?? If you're talking about real smoke then no, that's not at all normal!!

Why? On one method, the firmware resets E to 0 on each thread. On the other, it uses whatever the previous E value. It's the same extrusion length either way. Another in the "because it's always been that way" list, I suspect.. :(

Wow! That looks pretty cool!! (sorry - got no answers to your questions)

That bit isn't entirely correct.. Reprap Prusa is a good example of why.. It's all open source, a number of different companies will gather (and print!) stuff up and send you a box of parts. Some of these kits are complete crap. Some, for the same open source design, are very good. The difference is that some companies are trying to make the best product possible and some are trying to make the quickest profit possible. This, IMO, is one of the big public misunderstandings of open source. Saying it's the same design doesn't say anything about quality. As for this particular seller, they're apparently new to ebay and their picture and text is ripped straight from ultimaker.com. I wish you the best of luck with them but I wouldn't go anywhere near 'em. (though if they bought a couple real UM kits then decided to sell them at a huge loss, that'd be a different story (which is still not overly credible but for different reasons)).

Yes, but I don't see why the FP weirdness of relative E values is any different than the FP weirdness of absolute E values. The things you mention apply to both. edit: and actually, for longer prints, isn't relative E (theoretically) better than absolute since you're almost exclusively sticking to the right of the decimal?

I wouldn't do that if I where you. The relative E value will cause floating point errors to build up, causing errors in the extrusion amount, and thus creating a less pretty print.Not sure I buy that.. With relative extrusion values, each thread basically becomes an atomic operation. You might get a little FP weirdness between what the gcode asks for and what the firmware actually sees but I don't see any reason it's build up over the course of the whole file. Or am I (again) missing something?

Loosen the bushings? Do you mean pulleys?

SF Dimension does have an option for relative E value instead of absolute but I've never used it. That (if it works on the firmware) would probably be the thing to do if you wanted to combine different parts of different gcode files.

:lol:

On the picture of the electronics, http://wiki.ultimaker.com/File:El1.5.4-PCB.jpg , look at the top/right. See the 3 little circuit boards plugged into the big board? Those are the Pololu stepper drivers for your X, Y and Z motors. On the picture, below each of the stepper drivers, are 3 little black rectangles. These are the jumpers that control how many "steps" it takes to turn the motor one revolution. Notice that the jumpers for the rightmost stepper driver (Z) is set differently from the other two - if you look really closely, you can see that the jumper (the little black plastic thing) labeled MS3 is only attached to one pin and that the other jumpers are attached to two pins. CAREFULLY, with all the power off and unplugged, check the jumpers on your board to make sure they match the picture. To remove a jumper, just wiggle it gently with needle-nose pliers of something similar. Don't hesitate to ask if you have more questions. Pictures are good, too.

Layer height really doesn't depend on the software.. Skeinforge is just as capable (possibly more so) at producing gcode for very thin layers - it just takes longer to do it.

Might want to change that to E865.888. The 926.5 is what I came up with experimenting with the old-style bolt. Joergan came up with 865.888 on the new-style bolt and I think it works pretty well.. Old bolt vs new bolt pix: http://wiki.ultimaker.com/Sprinter#Spri ... _and_later

Seeing the first 100 or so lines of gcode would be good, too..

If/when you have more on this, I'd very much like to hear about it. Again, the whole idea of my program is to get this stuff nailed down and figured out then hassle netfabb into putting it into their product. A total success for me here would be to have this program just go away because it's all moved into netfabb.

Off the top of my head, I'd guess one of two things.. One is that you might be telling my stuff to use a thread width that's too wide. I haven't really tested the limits of the stock nozzle but I'd guess that if you try to go under 0.35mm or over 0.75mm, you'll be outside the range of the nozzle. That 0.75mm is a guess - I think I've gone as high as about 0.60mm thread width. You (or somebody) will have to try doing material defs that have a larger and larger width until it just refuses to print well. Two is that the netfabb build style you're using has an override that tells it to use more plastic than the material def says to use. I'm not sure where exactly these settings are but I remember seeing them in the build styles. If you're sure the material def looks correct, you might want to create a basic build style to test it with.

Have you tried the Reset Machine Settings button in the Machine tab on the lower/right? You'll have to click on Ultimaker on the top/right to get the Machine tab to show up. That should reset stuff back to the defaults.

Well, if you're looking for inspiration..

I was planning on publishing the source but I'm a little reluctant to do that now because it doesn't work the way it's supposed to work - I did some heinous stuff in order to make profiles it generates work with existing profiles. It's that whole M92 E14 vs M92 E865 thing. The real end-goal is to get netfabb to pick up the functionality, hopefully picking up non-E14 too. Do you have a specific question? The math isn't hard - I'm just reluctant to set a precedent with doing things the wrong way.

Awesome - looking forward to this! I have to say I'm slightly bummed by no mention of volumetric 5d. The math, I think, is well understood and people using my tool seem to think it works, though it's geared to E14 instead of E800-900 or so.. Any tips on what, if anything, I can do to help them with this stuff?

Nice! edit: got some specs on that, cyclone? Slicer, layer height, speed, temperature, etc?