calinb

Thanks! I am printing now and my filament barely has any drive marks in it. Your filament is obviously being deformed, ground, and chewed-up to force it though the hot end. I''ve made three changes to parts in my kit (one with my lathe and two with my mill). I'll describe more about them later, but you have the Bertho drive, so only one of my mods might apply to you. I think it might. I think temperature can change how and where plastic jams in the hot end. The link you provided explains the official reasons. http://daid.eu/blag/2012/08/31/ult ... v2-hotend/ Some of them, I question. For example: The new white connection part seems to be designed to stop plugs and making the bowden tube connection less prone to errors. As the bottom part has a slightly thinner diameter then the brass tube on which it rests. This means any plug that tries to form is of a diameter that will fit back into the brass tube. I have made very careful measurements of the parts with micrometers and calipers and the Teflon tube discussed here has the same internal diameter and the brass tube on which it rests. The other beneficial claims for it are true, I believe. I am running the V1 nozzle and brass pipe in the V2 hot end, because I broke my V2 in the repeated wrenching I've done to take things apart and put them back together many times for debug. I'll provide more details later, but I found that a gap exists internally between the Teflon tube and the brass tube (regardless of V1 or V2 parts used in a V2 hot end). So I closed the gap by milling 0.011" (280 microns) off of my V1 nozzle. You could achieve the same dimensional change by milling (or carefully filing) the same amount off the bottom face of the PEEK where the flange from your V2 brass pipe seats against the PEEK. This will move the other end of the brass tube into the Teflon pipe above. If your parts have the same dimension as my parts, this should seal the gap between the Teflon tube and the brass tube. I milled enough to create about a 150 micron (0.006") "crush zone" in the end of the Teflon tube to seal it well against the brass tube. Again, my parts vary a bit. For example, I have two PEEKS and the depth of the recesses in the top end of the PEEKS (that accomodates the flange of the Teflon) tube varies by 100 microns between the two PEEKS. However, I think your problem is likely to be assembly (mine quite possibly as well!). I was very, very careful in the assembly of my modified V1/V2 hybrid hot end. fluxline helped me to realize the possible importance of a step left out of the V2 instructions: The Teflon tube must be displaced from the wooden plate by the width of the small allen wrench provided in the kit. This is covered in the instructions. What might be equally important (I"m not certain about this), but not covered in the instructions, is the clip in the Bowden tube quick connect must be inserted before tightening the assembly together with the screws. The Bowden tube must be fully inserted into the Teflon tube (the pen marks line up) at this point too. This was required in V1 because the Bowden tube had to seal or it would leak plastic. In the V2, the plastic should be solid at the end of the Bowden tube, but we still want it to be hard against the Teflon pipe. In my case, I think the finger pressure required to feed filament manually has dropped from 30-40N to about 20N. However, I also think that (after my modifications to the drive hobbed bolt and Delrin rubbing block, my extruder drive mechanism could now drive the previous 30-40N if necessary! If you feel the force required to push the filament though the hot extruder is excessive. I think you may need to reassemble the hot end very carefully with regard to above procedure. Much like the jamming wiki explains as a mod => http://wiki.ultimaker.com/Jamming . If done that way nothing can get in between, no? In the V2, our Bowden tube terminates at the Teflon tube. This should not cause leakage problems because the plastic is solid there! However, my mod was directed at the equivalent junction in the V2--the interface between the Teflon tube and the brass tube. There IS a gap there in both my V1 parts and V2 parts (about 125 microns, but it varies between my sets of parts a bit). Is that significant enough to cause leakage and a jam inside the PEEK? I don't know. The nozzle orifice is 400 microns, in comparison. Some plastic was sticking to my internal PEEK threads so I know plastic was in the gap! My hot end requires less force to feed filament now, however. Is it because of something about my V1/V2 hybrid? Is it because I filled this gap? Is it because I was very careful and methodical about assembly. I don't know for sure. I'm pretty sure my printer would have function at least a little bit before (it would less fuctional than your printer), if my Delrin had valid dimensions!

Haha--I started the thead and I say abuse away! The more information, the better. That's a good thread that I'd not yet read. I was talking to fluxline about the problem this morning via Skype and he clarified a step for me. The instructions say to displace the Teflon tube away from the wooden plate the width of the supplied allen wrench before tightening the screws. This ensures that the Teflon tube bottoms on the PEEK but fluxline pointed out that it also ensures that the Bowden tube is pressed into position. However, this only occurs if the Bowden tube is first pushed against the slightly displaced Teflon tube AND the Bowden tube clip is installed before tightening the hot end screws. The V2 instructions do not mention the clip and Bowden tube part of the process or provide reasons behind what the instructions are dictating. (The instructions rarely provide reasons for anything, severely limiting our education!) Tightening the hot end screws will sandwich the parts stack together with clamping force, seat the Bowden tube and compress it between the Teflon tube and the Bowden tube quick connector. It now occurs to me that these things are somewhat independently controllable, because it is possible to partially tighten the screws, and then install the Bowden tube clip before completely tightening the screws. Joergen and fluxline (the initial posters in the thread) are both experienced Ultimaker users and very sharp guys. I'm in touch with both of them via Skype and I will feed back the information our continuing conversation produces to you. Of course, we may need to buy them a "6-pack" of filament in gratitude when this is all over! I didn't receive those parts, but I remember seeing a picture of black parts somewhere in the instructions--maybe it was just a black version of the white stand-offs used to support the cover over the electronics board. You do have a cover installed, right? The screws insert down through the bottom of the frame. Hollow white tube spacers or "stand-offs" (what we sometimes call them in the U.S.) are slipped over the 3 mm screws (we call small bolts "screws" in the U.S.) from the bottom before the board is installed. Then threaded hex standoffs are screwed onto the remaining threads on the screws to secure the electronics board. Finally, the cover is secured with short screws into the threaded hex standoffs. The cover I received is different than the cover in the instructions and maybe you missed it. Wow--from a guy with so much 3D printing experience too! Thanks for that link. I'd not seen it, but I've already started shopping for a new extruder and hot end. I needed this printer for my new business two weeks ago! It may soon be a question of installing another extruder or placing an order for a Makerbot R2 for me. Either way, I just ordered $11,000 in urethane molds for my business because I can't get my Ulimaker to print! I have customers waiting to receive our first product shipped. I saw that one. Friction is low for me. Unmelted plastic "extrudes" just great when the machine is run cold without a nozzle!

Thanks for the share, hcpl! It sure sounds a lot like what I've experienced with V2! This part is interesting: The brass tube has been replaced by a shorter one to compensate for the brass tube part on the nozzle. It also creates a void between the PEEK and the heater. Lowering the heated area and creating a better cooled top. Less heat in the higher areas means less chance for plugs. Which is good. However, with a lower point of heating the plastic will have less time to melt before it reaches the nozzle. Maybe this will impact the maximum extrusion speed My V1/V2 hybrid will lack the void--same as a V1. I'm still going to assemble it, because I have the parts! I've been wondering about the ~0.125 mm gap between the V2 Teflon pipe and the brass pipe within the PEEK. I was talking to fluxline and he doesn't think the gap is significant, but an extruder nozzle orifice is 0.400 so it seems like 0.125 mm could potentially cause a leak into the PEEK. Maybe it's too small of a leak to cause a plug and a jam.

Yes--I read that thread too. I think most of the concern would only apply to the V1 hot end. I'm not sure why too tight would keep the filament from passing, except that the Bowden tube will get distorted at the end at some point with excessive pressure. Also, if it is cocked or the aluminum and wooden plates are far from parallel there could be problems. The forces and pressure points (I'm too tired to think of the definitive technical word I'm trying to recall right now) are different in our V2 stackup of parts than the V1. One huge advantage to the V2 is the Teflon tube is trapped between the the wooden plate and the PEEK. It can handle a lot more pressure than the Bowden tube in the V1 and it's not necessary to have much force at all on the V2 Bowden tube because it's no longer at a junction that can leak (unless it leaks up the entire length of the Teflon tube from the Teflon tube / brass tube interface below)! The Bowden tube just needs to be touching the top of the Teflon tube--not jammed up hard against it such that it is under much stress and exhibiting strain. In the V2 stackup, we have the Teflon tube held fast against the PEEK (or even better, the brass tube inside the PEEK threads), because they are both squeezed between the wooden and aluminum brackets. I believe it's necessary to sandwich them tightly with the screws, because that is what keeps plastic from leaking into the PEEK! It also keeps the PEEK and everything below it from rotating in the aluminum plate. Again, I think the force applied by the screws to the stackup should be significant, in order to preclude leaks. I also think that the Teflon pipe should, optimally, bottom tightly against the brass pipe, [bold]inside the PEEK[/bold] instead of bottoming against the PEEK with its flange in the recess area on the top of the PEEK. There should be a small gap between the aluminum and wooden plates in the corner with the PEEK assembly. This way you know the parts in the stackup have bottomed (although it doesn't guarantee where--the Telfon pipe may be bottoming against the PEEK at its flange and not at the brass pipe, where I think it should bottom tightly!) I don't think we can expect a solution to come from Ultimaker tech support. They will probably never wade though all the information necessary to solve it! We must find a solution ourselves (or another brand of printer!). -Cal

So you received the Bertho-style clamp in the drive mechanism? I did not receive that upgrade. Luckily, I received both a V1 and V2 hot end parts. Now I need the spares! :( I need to dig out my fish spring scale and rig that up. I used a bathroom scale and just went back and forth applying my finger pressure between the scale and the filament. You can get pretty repeatable results by "touch" with a little practice indicating at least reasonable accuracy for this purpose. Yep--those are my symptoms too, but I can't even get it to work at 250 or 500 rpm. I just get to the fail point faster at 1000 and I've not attempted higher. My two attempts at printing were also a waste of time and the same for all the plastic in these trials, because about 2/3 meter is wasted each time the drive chews it up and rams it up to the head! I believe that the V2 nozzle should be screwed into the aluminum block all the way before screwing the brass tube into the other side. See my post in response to Daid's post, above. I believe the nozzle should touch the aluminum block because, in this position, the top of the brass tube that is inside the PEEK will just about make contact with the bottom of the Teflon tube. I think it SHOULD make contact with some pressure, to make sure molten plastic does not leak into the PEEK at this junction. As measured with my micrometers, I do not believe the dimension of the parts are correct to make this possible. There is about a 0.125mm gap between the bottom of the Teflon tube and the top of the brass tube. This junction is inside the PEEK, so it cannot be observed not measured directly. You can only measure the disassembled parts and deduce this gap. By "white plastic part" I assume you mean the Teflon tube (new to the V2 design). The Bowden tube and the top of the Teflon tube should be too cool to melt plastic at this junction. If you were getting any molten plastic up there, it cam up from the Teflon tube / brass tube junction below. This is the junction that concerns me, as I said above. Ditto again here from 185 to 250. It just gets a little easier to push manually with finger approaching 250. Then you are one issue better-off than I am, but you have the Bertho-style adjuster. My Delrin adjuster is still too tight when backed all the way out. Hence another mod is necessary in my machine shop. Same here, but I even turned the 2 mm slot in the drive bolt 2 mm wider, which completely filled the width of the filament channel with the "good part" of the knurling (by shifting the bolt to the left 2 mm). I don't think it helped, however. Again--all too familiar to me!. I don't have the patience to do it but I suspect that I could print successfully if I don't completely close the latch on my drive mechanism (this compensates for my Delrin adjuster that's still too tight with the adjustment screw backed all the way out) AND I just sit there and "assist" the feed with my fingers. The motor will change speed, as programmed by gcode, and my extra 20 Newtons of force will keep it extruding. Of course if my worries about the Teflon tube / brass tube hot end gap are valid, it still might jam eventually. Given the similarity of our printers' symptoms, I don't believe a solution lies in increasing the power (or speed) of the motor. There is plenty of power available to grid and distort plastic already! Same print result here too. I haven't even bothered to assembly my Ulticontroller yet. It has no value to me w/o a working printer!First the build platform will go down (Z+) for about 5cm and the extruder start running fast (around 1000 rpm I guess). This is the part where the filament gets damaged. After that the build platform goes up again and the head starts print. At this point the extruder is much slower and it gets there for some time. But because of the damaged filament it gets into trouble quite fast. At first I can help it by hand (resulting in too much filament on the build) but eventually it will block up again. I believe that if I can prevent the fast extrusion at the beginning of the print I would be able to print something completely (or at least a lot more) since then the filament wouldn't be damaged from the beginning and as long as it runs as slow as during the build I think it could work. The documentation about first prints shows some intsructions on running filament through at 2000 rpm. So that should be possible without blocking? I don't know what rpm is reasonable. I've focused down around 250 to 500 rpm and even that doesn't work.I'll let you know how my V1/V2 hybrid configuration works out. Keep in touch. I think we have the same problem--at least the same major root cause (there could be other contributors.

Thanks for posting, Daid. Joergen mentioned that problem during our Skype lab session too, but my assembly is correct in this regard. It would be nice if the instructions included guidance besides the adage that the assembly is incorrect if threads are showing. The V2 brass tube does have a short end and long threaded end (on each side of the flange) and the orientation can be described using those features (short threaded end of the V2 brass tube goes into the aluminium block and the long threaded end goes into the PEEK.) It is also very important to screw and bottom the nozzle into the aluminum block before installing the brass pipe. Otherwise, there well be a gap between the other end of the brass pipe and the Teflon tube. (The brass pipe will sit lower in the PEEK threads.) Actually, my micrometers tell me there is a slight gap there regardless--about the same as it would be in my V1/V2 hybrid assembly (0.125mm-- see my above post) and it cannot be corrected without modifying parts. I'm concerned that this gap might be causing my jams, much like the PEEK leak in the old V1. I know it's a detailed and lengthy post, but did you have a chance to review my proposed V1/V2 hybrid configuration? I"m planning to make the small change to the V1 nozzle and try it. I snapped my V2 nozzle off at the aluminum block anyway. I would appreciate you opinion. Thanks, -Cal

During our approximately 1-1/2 hour Skype video call, Joergen and I took many caliper measurements and compared our machines. We identified two differences between our machines that may be contributing my my printer's inability to feed filament and extrude plastic. 1. Joergen's older revision of the hobbed drive bolt has far more aggressive knurling than my latest version of the bolt. I may fabricate my own bolt. 2. Joergen's older white Delrin filament drive rubbing block (I think it's a one-piece) is considerably narrower (front to back) than my two-piece black Delrin rubbing block. When my adjuster screw is backed all the way out (and doing nothing) AND my clamp latch is only latched to the 90 degree position (not fully latched "over-center") my rubbing block still provides about 0.5 mm "worth" more pressure than Joergen's typical setting while printing. In other words, Joergen's printer does about 0.5 mm less filament squeezing than my printer. Furthermore, I have no adjustment range available to reduce pressure, because my adjusting screw is already backed all the way out. I may put the rubbing block in my lathe and mill a curved slot centered into its rubbing surface using a small ball nose end mill. This will render my adjuster screw functional and also keep the filament centered in the groove and slot. Since breaking my nozzle, I've made many measurements of both my V1 and V2 hot end parts. I verified that the V2 Teflon tube's flange makes hard contact with the recess in the PEEK (next to the knurling) but the tube portion does NOT make hard contact with the V2 brass pipe, because the flange bottoms first in the sandwich stackup between the aluminum and wooden plates. The tube to tube junction is a point of leakage into the internal threads of the PEEK, even if the molten plastic never makes it past the Teflon pipe's flange. I did find some signs of plastic leakage on the PEEK threads from that junction in my PEEK after looking closely. I wonder if I'm getting the dreaded PEEK leak, or whatever it is called, that can cause jams. Given that I broke my V2 nozzle, but all the V1 parts were also shipped in my kit, I may assemble a hybrid V1/V2 configuration that could prove to be superior to either of the former hot end configurations. I will use the V1 nozzle, brass tube with the Teflon tube. No Teflon tape should be necessary. As in the V1 configuration, my peek will be hard up against the aluminum block. Micrometer measurements indicate that this still results in about a 0.125mm gap between the end of the Teflon tube and the brass tube so I will mill 0.250mm from the top face of the V1 nozzle where the nozzle contacts the aluminum block. This will permit the placement of the brass tube through the aluminum block to be higher, while still bottoming into the nozzle and permit the brass tube to make hard contact with the Teflon tube. Due to the compression of the Teflon tube after tightening the assembly between the aluminum and wooden plates, I predict that the Teflon tube flange will still be hard up against the recess in the PEEK and provide a backup to external leakage, but only a trial run will determine whether it leaks or retains the molten plastic. My goal is to eliminate all leakage into the internal PEEK threads. It would be nice if it didn't spring unsightly and mess external leaks too! The advantages of the hybrid configuration are (hopefully): a. No plastic within the aluminum block, because a single brass tube passes entirely though it. b. One less potential leakage area where leakage is very bad (at the Teflon/PEEK junction). The V2 can leak there but will also leak into the internal threads of the aluminum block (semi-bad, because it makes cold disassembly and assembly difficult, resulting in broken nozzles! :( If the hybrid configuration leaks between the nozzle and the brass pipe, it will merely glue the nozzle to the brass pipe, which can be removed as a unit from the nice and clean internal threads of the aluminum block. My main problem is I don't have time for all this debug and the machining of new parts or modifications of the old parts contained in my ($1900 US) 3D printer kit! I'm at the 70 hours invested point now and still far from successfully printing parts! Again, thanks to Joergen for his most generous contribution of help on Skype and to others here in the forum posts too. -Cal

>we had spoken about this on Skype, 20-30N filament holding force in the feeding mechanism is enough clamping force >for the delrin (which btw works good and adequate, the bertho upgrade is nice, but not mission critical). That sounds good, but 20-30N holding force is not sufficient to be consistent with the application of a filament feeding force in the range of 30-40N, which is what I've estimated to be necessary to force filament through my extruder head. Thanks for the information. It supports my hypothesis--my Ultimaker requires too much feeding force, for some reason yet unknown. I've now snapped my nozzle, in trying to install it for the third time after tear-down and inspection, but I will try to heat it up, clean it out, and determine that the orifice is 0.40 mm instead of something smaller. I don't know what my next move will be. Catch up on my sleep for a few days?

I measured straightened virgin filament (not yet distorted by my drive mechanism) in orthogonal directions in a few places with a micrometer: 2.8448 mm minimum 2.8956 mm maximum I'm thinking about removing the Teflon tube and V2 nozzle and installing the V1 nozzle, brass pipe, and Teflon tape. It probably won't make any difference but it appears that it would be compatible with the other V2 components, most of which are identical to V1 (PEEK insulator, aluminum heater block, etc.). The V1 might provide a longer heated section, given the long brass pipe will replace the Teflon pipe. My gut mechanical feeling is the amount of force required to push filament though the hot section on my printer is unreasonable for the drive mechanism design. I don't know why so much force is required. Oh--and thanks! I'm quite desperate to get this thing working for my startup business.

Despite investing around 60 to 70 hours in this project (and about half of a spool of PLA!) I have yet to even get close to successfully printing anything with my new Ultimaker. I have the V2 hot end and the pre-Bertho feeder mechanism and I am trying to simply extrude the white PLA provided with the kit. Any attempts to print with Cura result in a jam of the filament very quickly. I am using the RepG 026 Console to debug the problem. I have tried temperatures from 185 C to 250 C. I can push the filament though the head by hand (requiring about 30 N to 40 N of finger-applied force on the filament (about 7 to 10 lbs), or maybe a little more, depending on temperature, but the extruder drive cannot manage to do it. The extruder drive mechanism can very smoothly push plastic right up to the head, however. It can also continue to push it though a cold head, if I remove the nozzle. If the Delrin pressure "foot" in the clamp is adjusted to provide enough pressure against the filament to drive it through the head, the filament is distorted severely by the pressure needed to generate the filament drive. This results in a jam as soon as the distorted section reaches the hot end. Is 30 N to 40 N of force normal to manually feed the filament? The biggest problem I have with my debug effort is I have no other machine to inspect and compare to my machine. I have positioned my hobbed drive bolt such that the knurling exposed to the filament is 100% "good part" knurling. (The knurling nearest the clip groove is best, because it is cut more deeply and aggressively into the bolt than the knurling nearest the big gear end.) I could print parts if were to manually assist the extruder with my fingers, but that's not going to be much fun for a 6 or 24 hour print! I have disassembled and reassembled the hot end and cannot identify any problems or any means to reduce the amount of force required to push filament though it. Thanks for any help. Joergen has provided many excellent suggestions to me offline and been very generous with his time, but I have yet to discover a solution. If I didn't live on the other side of the continent from him, I'd offer to meet him at a local pub with Ultimaker under arm! Thanks for any help you might lend, -Cal

I had a switch that was provided with partially stripped holes. Fortunately, it was one I could swap with another one and "flip" the bad side with the stripped threads over.

Thanks for your thoughts, Owen. I'm still learning the ropes and will be for quite a long while. Looks like I'll use the Repetier-Host gcode editor and simulator often! It's really cool. A user can highlight different sections of gcode within a layer and the corresponding extruded plastic is highlighted on the simulator graphic. The graphic can be zoomed and rotated too, of course. The editor Help button provides gcode definitions for the selected line "on the fly" while editing.

If you don't mind looking, here's the code, Owen. I also understand if you don't have the time to figure it out. I'm not actually going to print this gcode, but I might run into a similar situation once I get my model in order and split its gcode using with the techniques I've learned here. I added some comments. (I learned from Repetier-Host that the parentheses that netfabb uses for comments don't seem to be official gcode comments and it will still execute codes between parens!) This gcode was produced by netfabb using the ultra profile for a part that is not split (only a few points would rest on the table. It would probably need support to actually print. M104 S240.00M92 E866G21 ;use millimetersG91 ;use relative positioningG1 X0.00 Y0.00 Z5.00 F500 ;move the head up to Z5.0G90 ;use absolute positioningM109 S240.00G28 ;home the head to machine originG92 X0.00 Y0.00 Z0.00 E0.00 ;set the zero to the originG1 E0.00G1 X0.00 Y0.00 Z5.00 F600.00M106 S255G1 X205.00 Y200.00 Z5.00 F5000.00G1 X205.00 Y200.00 Z0.35 F5000.00G1 X205.00 Y100.00 Z0.35 F2500.00 E3.23 ;start extruding plastic at Z0.35 on the right side of tableG1 X204.00 Y100.00 Z0.35 F2500.00 E3.27 ;several lines followG1 X204.00 Y200.00 Z0.35 F2500 E6.50 ;extrude faster and fasterG1 X203.00 Y200.00 Z0.35 F2500 E6.53 ;these lines are NOT part of the .stl modelG1 X203.00 Y100.00 Z0.35 F2500 E9.76G1 X202.00 Y100.00 Z0.35 F2500 E9.80G1 X202.00 Y200.00 Z0.35 F2500 E13.03G1 X201.00 Y200.00 Z0.35 F2500 E13.06G1 X201.00 Y100.00 Z0.35 F2500 E16.30G1 X202.00 Y100.00 Z0.35 F50000 E11.44 ;yikes--extrude really fast!!!G1 X0.00 Y200.00 Z0.00 F15000G92 E-4.85 ;"preload" 4.85 mm of plastic for the next extrusion ??? G1 X0.0000 Y200.0000 Z0.2000 F3240.0000 M107G1 X0.0000 Y200.0000 Z0.3800 F1200.0000 G1 X0.0000 Y200.0000 Z0.4000 F1200.0000 M104 S240.0000 (minimal layer time: 10.00 / Time Entry: 0)(#0-#3: extrusion time: 0.01 / jump time: 3.70)(printing at reduced speed: 10.00 %)(begin layer 1 at 0.040) ;null layers(begin layer 2 at 0.080)(begin layer 3 at 0.120)M106 S255(begin layer 4 at 0.160)(minimal layer time: 10.00 / Time Entry: 1)(#4-#7: extrusion time: 0.00 / jump time: 0.00)(printing at reduced speed: 10.00 %)(begin layer 5 at 0.200) ;more null layers(begin layer 6 at 0.240)(begin layer 7 at 0.280)(begin layer 8 at 0.320)(minimal layer time: 10.00 / Time Entry: 2)(#8-#11: extrusion time: 9.23 / jump time: 0.60)(printing at reduced speed: 98.19 %)(begin layer 9 at 0.360)G1 X0.0000 Y200.0000 Z0.3800 F1200.0000 G1 X0.0000 Y200.0000 Z0.3600 F1200.0000 G1 X58.4300 Y143.7600 Z0.3600 F10500.0000 E0.0000 G1 X60.0060 Y142.2430 Z0.3600 F10500.0000 E0.0000 G1 X69.1600 Y142.2400 Z0.3600 F2356.5957 E0.0413 ;finally start extruding the actual part at Z0.360 (why so high?)G1 X69.4900 Y142.3900 Z0.3600 F2356.5957 E0.0430 G1 X69.4800 Y144.4700 Z0.3600 F2356.5957 E0.0524 G1 X60.8600 Y144.4600 Z0.3600 F2356.5957 E0.0913 G1 X60.4500 Y144.2400 Z0.3600 F2356.5957 E0.0934 G1 X60.0100 Y142.2400 Z0.3600 F2356.5957 E0.1027 Besides the mystery extruder "preload" of 4.85, I don't understand the purpose of all the lines on the far right side of the table that are not part of the model. They are printed at Z=0.35 and then netfabb created all the null lines followed by finally extruding the actual part at Z=0.36. Functionally, it's like the print starts about 0.32 mm higher than it should. Thanks, -Cal

Yup--works great, according to the Repetier-Host gcode editor and simulator! G92 E8743.4072 Z7.7800 is correct, because the initialization code left the head at Z=-0.040, which is the correct position for the first layer of the split gcode. I noticed that netfabb "preloads" the E value in initialization with G92 E-4.85 which causes a fixed amount of "extra" plastic to be extruded at the first G1 command containing a non-zero E value. I don't understand what the extra 4.85 mm of plastic is for, but I could subtract -4.85 from the E value in my G92 command too. I need to investigate further. That's a lot of plastic! What is it for? The Repetier-Host gcode editor is great. I couldn't even get netfabb's own gcode to import into netfabb! It only imports into the SLICE section, and it can't be dragged or imported to the Ulimaker engine section. I don't know how one can print netfabb gcode from netfabb once the program is closed. Maybe it's part of the problem with printing directly from netfabb that I've read about. (I'm still assembling my printer.) Furthermore, even the netfabb slice viewer graphic is blank after netfabb imports the gcode it and does not depict any layers. This thread turned me on to Repetier-Host: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1276#p7725 Thanks again for the guidance! I've been alternating my time between working on models and assembling my Ultimaker. Just finished the V2 hot end. Pheww!

Thanks, Owen! You saved me a lot of time as a noob pouring over gcode definitions ( http://reprap.org/wiki/G-code ) So, for confirmation, let's say I have a 388 layers in a gcode file with HEADER: M104 S240.00M92 E866G21G91G1 X0.00 Y0.00 Z5.00 F500G90M109 S240.00G28G92 X0.00 Y0.00 Z0.00 E0.00G1 E0.00G1 X0.00 Y0.00 Z5.00 F600.00M106 S255G1 X205.00 Y200.00 Z5.00 F5000.00G1 X205.00 Y200.00 Z0.35 F5000.00G1 X205.00 Y100.00 Z0.35 F2500.00 E3.23G1 X204.00 Y100.00 Z0.35 F2500.00 E3.27G1 X204.00 Y200.00 Z0.35 F2500 E6.50G1 X203.00 Y200.00 Z0.35 F2500 E6.53G1 X203.00 Y100.00 Z0.35 F2500 E9.76G1 X202.00 Y100.00 Z0.35 F2500 E9.80G1 X202.00 Y200.00 Z0.35 F2500 E13.03G1 X201.00 Y200.00 Z0.35 F2500 E13.06G1 X201.00 Y100.00 Z0.35 F2500 E16.30G1 X202.00 Y100.00 Z0.35 F50000 E11.44G1 X0.00 Y200.00 Z0.00 F15000G92 E-4.85 then maybe some non-header stuff I need: G1 X0.0000 Y200.0000 Z0.2000 F3240.0000M107G1 X0.0000 Y200.0000 Z0.3800 F1200.0000G1 X0.0000 Y200.0000 Z0.4000 F1200.0000M104 S240.0000(minimal layer time: 10.00 / Time Entry: 0)(#0-#3: extrusion time: 206.62 / jump time: 28.43)(printing at normal speed) Z-MIDDLE: G1 X33.2000 Y135.8600 Z7.7600 F1200.0000 E8743.4072(begin layer 195 at 7.800)G1 X33.2000 Y135.8600 Z7.7800 F1200.0000G1 X33.2000 Y135.8600 Z7.8000 F1200.0000G1 X33.7400 Y136.4100 Z7.8000 F4200.0000G1 X33.9857 Y136.6593 Z7.8000 F4200.0000G1 X63.2300 Y135.4100 Z7.8000 F2400.0000 E8743.5723G1 X65.8000 Y134.7900 Z7.8000 F2400.0000 E8743.5869 So just put this single line right before the "Z-MIDDLE" section? G92 E8743.4072 Z7.7600 because they were the last values for E and Z before the start of layer 195? Or will that cause the head to jump 20 microns in Z (7.7600 to 7.7800) before it starts printing? Layer 195 at 7.800 doesn't have an E value. Maybe I need the last value of E before layer 194 with the correct height for layer 194 (now the 1st layer): G92 E8743.4072 Z7.7800 I'll try it in the AM, but just wanted to try to confirm first. Again, Thanks! -Cal

I'm very happy with a netfabb-generated toolpath for one of my models, but the model needs to be cut in half to print properly without support (printing each half with the cut face down). Unfortunately, I'm not happy at all with the toolpaths generated for the two separate halves after cutting the model and repairing the halves. What I really want is a netfabb engine setting to start the toolpath generation halfway through the layers of the full model. It can do this with slice files but it doesn't seem to be able to import a "half-model" slice file and generate a toolpath using it. Other than writing my own script, is there a way I can "cut the gcode in half?" I can generate full-part gcode in both orientations so the order of the gcode layers need not be "flipped" for a lower half part, but half the layers need to be deleted and the other layers re-numbered to produce a revised "half-part" gcode file. The model is very complex and built from solids. I've been unable to make the models completely water-tight and perhaps a few other peculiarities are still present. Nonetheless, the toolpath for the full model looks very good. The toolpaths for the split halves exhibit several problems, regardless of what repairs I attempt on each half separately. Maybe I'm missing something in netfabb and there's an easy way to solve my problem. Thanks for any suggestions, -Cal

It might be interesting to compare empirical notes. I obtained seven 1kg rolls of ABS from protoprinter on Ebay and measured the last few coils on a roll at twenty places with a micrometer. The micrometer precision is somewhat worse than 0.0001" (2.5 microns). I did not evaluate my measurement technique empirical, but I suspect it is repeatable to better than 0.001" (25 microns). Half of the measurements were obtained parallel to the spool axis and half of them were perpendicular to the spool axis. My results: n=20 mean=2928 um std. dev. (n-1) = 59 um I forgot to record the exact values for the extreme spread as I punched the numbers into my hand calculator but it was around 0.1100" (2794 um) to 0.1180" (2997 um) (delta about 200 microns). I'm curious how these numbers compare to what others have measured.

Thanks, Joergen! Should I use the new Netfabb volumetric mode? Would it make the adjustments for ABS easier? It seems like a volumetric mode strategy might be to tweak the Netfabb settings for the filament diameter. Maybe I should start with volumetric mode and only adjust the print temperatures, initially. If the results indicate under extrusion, I could reduce the Netfabb filament diameter setting slightly. Volumentic mode seems to be very simple to manage. I'm not committed to using the Netfabb UM engine, but I am currently running on a relatively slow Ubuntu machine (dual core Atom netbook) and the Netfab slicer and "Calculate Toolpath" features run acceptably fast. I'm planning to use my Ulticontroller for printing my parts, BTW. Alternatively, I could install Cura and start my trials with it. If you were at the bottom of the long Ultimaker learning curve today, what tools and strategy would you use? I have an old dual-core Pentium 4 desktop box (my old "Hackintosh") that would be clunky and inconvenient to use alongside my Ultimaker, but I could install Windows or Linux on it and enjoy a bit of a speed bump over my netbook. As always, your assistance is most helpful!

My Ultimaker kit is finally on its way aboard DHL and I have a bunch of software running on Ubuntu, including the Netfabb UM engine running under wine. The controller and heater for my heated bed mod are standing-by. I'm using the extra preparation time to create a few ABS materials definitions in Netfabb and export some gcode. For starting points, Joergen's suggested deviations from PLA settings are as comprehensive as I've found. I have modified the Netfabb PLA materials definitions as follows: 1. added 30-40C to print temp 2. decreased packing density setting from 100% to 85% Do I need to adjust the e-steps (extruder steps?) in some manner? Is this done to compensate for the reduction in filament feed rate of the softer ABS? Do I compensate by increasing the extruder speed using the override feature?

I can confirm that Netfabb with the Ultimaker engine also works on Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, once the Microsoft Visual C++ runtime libraries and msvcr80.dll problems are sorted out. Without reading this post, I first ran the installer, launched netfabb.exe, and activated the software via the offline option, because netfabb failed to phone home properly for the keys, due to the lack of runtime support, I suspect. As reported here, the Ultimaker module was not present. The error was the C Run-Time Error R6034 (C++) and the information on the link to the Netfabb support page regarding the error indicated that the MS Visual Studio runtime libraries were not working correctly. Then I installed the 2005 and 2010 rdist runtimes and sp1 packs to no avail--even after third and fourth attempts using winetricks. Finally, I overwrote the msvcr80.dll in the drive_c/Program Files/netfabb_reprap subdirectory with the dll from drive_c/windows/system32 subdirectory (the wine version). It worked and the program runs without errors and all is well to the point of gcode export. Well...nearly all is well. Sometimes the model graphic rendering in the netfabb workarea is hesitant to refresh, but a click on a selector icon seems to refresh the image. I only have a slow Atom-based Samsung netbook with 2GB of memory and the buili-in Intel graphics, but the free (as in beer) version of Netfabb Studio for Linux doesn't have this problem on this machine. However, it's still fast enough under wine to complete a "Calculate Toolpath" in ultra / ultra quality-hollow for a 119.436 cm³ (180.34 x 130.76 x 14.63 mm) print in 14 minutes, which I can easily tolerate. It can slice it at 40 microns so fast that I didn't even notice the time (maybe 10 seconds). I suspect that I'll have problems with the USB interface under wine, but I'm still waiting for my Ultimaker printer to test it. I also have the Ulticontroller shipping along with the printer kit and could also use RepG, which are both better solutions for sending files to the printer anyway, from what I've read.

Thanks, Ian. I now see the moving average is up to 16 days. Yikes! Given the rapid increase and the approximate width of your moving average window, I suspect the arithmetic implication is you are not currently shipping product at all. This is an excellent example of how the "4 days" figure when I placed my order wasn't at all useful information, from a customer perspective. I regret that I considered the figure to be a pro-Ultimaker factor in my choice of a 3D printer. By definition, the web page supplied figure is 100% hindsight and, though I don't doubt its truthfulness, it is utterly worthless from the perspective of potential Ultimaker customers. I have a few urethane molds on order, and we only need to print a small number of a couple of parts. The cost of urethane (or even worse, injection) molds is prohibitive for these small number of parts. Hence, the need for 3D printing. I've successfully created models in FreeCAD and imported/exported .stl files with Netfabb and Sketchup. I know I'll still have a very steep learning curve with the printer. I also have a PID controller and silicone heater mat ready to install on the printer. We must print with ABS, because we need parts that handle somewhat higher in-service temperatures than PLA can withstand. So given assembly, installation and debugging of a heated bed, and the steep 3D printing user learning curve, I'm very worried. This is our first customer sale and order and it's very important that we meet our commitment. If I didn't have a business commitment myself, I'd be disappointed, but not out of pocket. Money is tight when personally funding a business startup. I"m sure you know! I may need to order another printer stateside, if you cannot ship the Ultimaker soon. I almost purchased a printer here in the US originally, but I was more comfortable with the Ultimaker track record of superior finish quality. Now I'd be far more comfortable with a high-confidence delivery date quote! Thanks again for anything you can do to help or keep me informed. -Cal

I think they ship twice a week, so you can expect a few days of variation in the shipping because of that. But I know how annoying the wait can be. (I had exactly 6 weeks lead time) Hopefully it will ship this week. I purchased it for my business (not a retail sales business) and I gave myself two months to come up to speed on 3D printing and deliver a custom product to my customer. Every day of shipping delay results in my additional discomfort in meeting MY delivery commitments! I know I have a steep learning curve ahead.

I would not complain about next-day shipping and very few people would complain. Next day shipping is the performance level any retail online sales business should strive to achieve. I don't know where you work, but two weeks is insanely SLOW, for a consumer item! I regularly purchase many similar items off Ebay, even from Asia, and my experiences have been very good there. Vendors that are slow to ship or don't meet their commitments receive negative feedback with notes to that effect. The Ultimaker running average shipping estimator should be removed from the site. Even if the information is truthful, it's a running average and, as such, irrelevant when setting expectations for an individual customer's order and shipment, which is really all a customer cares about! Averages will begin a climb toward infinity, when shipping stops, due to a printer bill of materials item backorder for example. However, the running average estimator delays and obfuscates the disclosure of this sort of problem. When I ordered, the running average said "4 days." Now it's up to 5 days and perhaps it's begun its climb "to infinity and beyond!" :( I'm at 6 working days (10 calendar days) now and have no idea when when I can expect shipment. Certainly the running average estimator provides no insight, except that it's increasing and that can't be good!

Wow! Thanks for sharing your work, Joergen. That wide camera is super cool! When I was younger and fitter, I rode mountain bikes. Your invention is certainly exposed to significant shock and vibe! I need to produce prints with the best possible finish, which might require post-processing in a solvent tank dip and following-up with a light bead blasting to restore the matte finish. The UM has very fine movement capability and I've read about 40 micron slices being quickly generated with netfabb. Do you feel that the atypically fine movement capability of the UM is an advantage, compared to an average 3D printer in this price range, when striving to optimize finish quality? From what I've read, calibration is probably the most important factor that affects finish quality. I've calculated that my part would now consume somewhat less than 1/2 lbs. of ABS maximum, but I plan to reduce that number by adding cavity "wells" in the part. I don't care if they take a day or two to print. Again, I appreciate the time you've taken to help me. -Cal

Daid, Joergen, Thanks for your replies. Your assistance is immensely helpful! Has anyone confirmed that the head can deposit ABS across the full 210mm x and y dimensions? I expect that ABS build volume would not be significantly different than PLA volume, but I always distrust specs, in any case. I might even find better plastics for this application but I also require colored plastic or at least orange and yellow--perhaps even the fluorescent plastic, which might be really cool! >why their expensive product is a puddle with electronics on the passenger seat of their car. This would be a problem for me too. I need to house electronics in an impact and heat resistant container. The passenger seat of some very hot US climates would be a problem but I'm an electrical engineer, rather than a materials or mechanical engineer, and I assumed ABS would not shatter as easily as PLA under impact. Maybe PLA would be sufficiently impact-resistant too, but you have alerted me to a very relevant limitation of PLA, Joergen.