coen

Hi David, Seems kinda strange to have this discussion here instead of in the office... but could you please respond to my usecase? Am I correct in interpreting your comments that to bring back the 'speed controls' will definitely require your level of coding skills... instead of the coding skills that might be expect of your customers? (yes, customers, not users). Let's keep this discussion constructive... So my use case is the following: Printer: Ultimaker Original (without ulticontroller) Goal: print a calibration piece to make sure that temperature, speed and flow settings are optimal In the past: I could start printing, level the bed during the printing of the brim, and then start playing with other settings: decrease temperature when there's too much stringing, lower speed when there's underextrusion, etc. How should this be done now? How is it possible that tools that are so crucial for such a usecase just 'disappear'?

I can't really join in on Xeno's wording of his feelings... but removing a feature that was supplying value to users and then expecting them to add it back in seems the opposite of how a company should be treating its customers... I've been downgrading as well... I'll look into adding it to the pronterface thing...

Found that one.... but there's no more flow and speed controls in there now is there?

Sorry to kick this old topic, but I recently also 'upgraded' to find all the printer controls gone from the print window... as by now we are almost 8 months further along I would've expected a solution somewhere in one of these threads, but except for pointing people to another printing program, or writing plugins themselves I can't manage to find a solution to having my printercontrols (flow, speed, temperature, jogging) back in the print window...? Other people have already written about the nasty surprise you get when these buttons are all of a sudden gone, so I'm also kinda curious about the reasoning behind this... So my use case is the following: Printer: Ultimaker Original (without ulticontroller) Goal: print a calibration piece to make sure that temperature, speed and flow settings are optimal In the past: I could start printing, level the bed during the printing of the brim, and then start playing with other settings: decrease temperature when there's too much stringing, lower speed when there's underextrusion, etc. How should this be done now? How is it possible that tools that are so crucial for such a usecase just 'disappear'? (other posts about this issue): http://umforum.ultimaker.com/index.php?/topic/6479-cura-1407-print-with-usb/?hl=%2Bcura+%2Bcontrol+%2Bduring+%2Bprint http://umforum.ultimaker.com/index.php?/topic/4871-please-make-me-a-usable-print-menu/?hl=%2Bcura+%2Bcontrol+%2Bduring+%2Bprint http://umforum.ultimaker.com/index.php?/topic/5121-no-more-manual-mode/?hl=%2Bcura+%2Bcontrol+%2Bduring+%2Bprint&do=findComment&comment=51734 http://umforum.ultimaker.com/index.php?/topic/5038-cura-143-changes-to-print-interface-are-unusable/?hl=%2Bcura+%2Bcontrol+%2Bduring+%2Bprint&do=findComment&comment=44444

Wow, nice call! Free beer for you when you're near Utrecht!

Will probably drop by... if anyone is carrying one of the heavily modded system, I'd sure like to see it, ie. flexible drive, direct drive, etc.

Wow man, great to see you moving so fast! Too bad about the crashes... did you manage to test the waterproofness of the frame? How did printing go? For me I've got little time to spend on this project at the moment: new job, new house...

Print in progress... I will print the finished part too.... I owe a beer to anyone who guesses what it is based on this pic:

Ok, google sheet is up: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LF8jzXoFDleyP3YF3eb1JEQPQ8eOfPjmKctFca1AVGg/edit?usp=sharing At the moment I'm slowly adding the information that was already in this thread... ow yeah and I've been so free to create three classes and baptize the drone too :wink: : Ultiflyer mini Ultiflyer (no google hits, except contamination from multiflyer :smile:) Ultiflyer maxi Coarse descriptions are on the sheet, but since I'm not experienced with UAV's, data might be way off, if any of the experienced flyers could comment: Ultiflyer mini: toy/rc size, perhaps with small camera: <250mm rotor-rotor, short flight time Ultiflyer: base model: autopilot, (gimballed?) GoPro, FPV option, +/- 350mm rotor-rotor? longer flight time Ultiflyer maxi: pro model: autopilot, gimballed digital SLR, FPV option, >500mm rotor-rotor? Long flight time Everything up for discussion of course.

Tips I recorded from this one: bolt thread: counter clockwise nut thread: clockwise ensure that the drawing planes are perpendicular to the part, not to the thread (ie. solidworks lofting), no following guidecurves or start/end tangency. The sinking away of the thread is done by increasing or decreasing the radius of the helix in the last 1/4 turn. With respect to tolerances someone else mentioned a 0.2mm clearance on this forum, which I also used and seems to hold up nicely. The way I interpreted is depicted in the picture below (both threads have a 5mm pitch): This seems to give a nice screwable thread. I used the same clearance for the ring that slides around the pipe: pipe has a radius of 23, the inner radius of the ring is 23.1mm. Anyway, I managed to pry apart the connected parts, so here's what they look like: With regard to using this type of thread for a water proof arm connection I'm kinda doubtful. I think the design used on the drone I posted earlier (http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/3d-printed-quadcopter-with-detachable-arms) is much more versatile: you can just glue the arms shut (all they do is hold some wires, and use the external connectors to let the power through.... would it be too bold to assume the conductivity of water low enough to not cause a problem if those connectors might become submerged? Another thing is to make the mechanical connection to the frame in such a way that in case of a crash it will snap or break off without causing damage to the major parts, so perhaps include some sort of snap-on locking part that will break before the arm itself breaks (if that makes any sense). So that would mean sizing woofy's design to the desired electronic components and making the arms detachable using this sort of mechanism. And we'll have to think of a way to mount a gymbal to that design, as ground clearance vs buoyancy in water might be a problem. I'll put up a google sheet shortly to start digging into component space claims for various size drones.

Well, emptied my roll of white PLA and finished printing the coupling. Learned a little bit about designing threaded connections (mine screws the wrong way :shock:), but the connection it makes is really tight... really really tight because so far I haven't been able to pry it apart again.. hahaha so pictures of the thread will have to wait until I manage to get them unstuck... here's the assembly though:

Another diver here, thanks for the info, now I know why the O-rings on my diving light are the way they are :grin:. The location of the O-ring should be easily adaptable... have you got any experience printing bayonets? The threaded one is on the printer right now, and already I see that the 45 degree overhang angle on the thread is not printing correctly :sad:. Well, the nice thing with having a 3D printer is that prototyping is really fast... PS: quit curious if it's possible at all to 3D print an O-ring seal... due to the microchannels that will occur due to the 3D printing lines...

Had a night of CAD-piloting as well... you could make a 3D printable (to be tested tomorrow) waterproof (with O-ring) arm connector like this: I'll put this on the printer tomorrow just to see if threads like this are suitable, while printing it would probably be a good idea to compile the component list and their associated space claim together.

Darn, can't believe I've only just stumbled upon this thread! One of the reasons I originally bought my Ultimaker is the possibility to create custom frames for drones! I'm a mechanical engineer by trade, and currently unemployed after a nice 6 months of traveling :smile:. As I have some time on my hands, and just yesterday got my ultimaker working again, the next project is to get a drone off the ground. I can help with CAD drawing (also solidworks here), in theory also with aerodynamics, and of course part selection etc. For me important characteristics are: - Waterproof / land on water (as the aquatic drones vid) - Drone/autopilot functionality instead of toy/acrobatics - Modularity of payload design: - GoPro mount - GoPro gimbal - Dropping mechanism - Other tooling ideas - Long flight time (the option below might be necessary to do this) - VTOL/flight transition is really high on my wishlist, but definitely no something to go into the design of the first quadcopter I'd think (something like this, but smaller: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/uav-04zzzl.html) Is the enquiry still online? I might fill that out if that's useful. With regard to 3D printing: We might want to make the design parametric or modular. If it's gonna be a waterproof stowable design, we could just eliminate size as a design factor and make it in several different sizes. 3D printing would also allow for smart ways to design the couplings of the body and arms, instead of using screws or glue: let's brainstorm ideas of shape locking geometry, or just large scale threaded designs (will include drawings when Solidworks has been installed again from the NAS). A design which I really like for its modularity (but is not waterproof) is this one: http://diydrones.com/profiles/blog/show?id=705844%3ABlogPost%3A1377245&page=1#comments And of course this behemoth (which is more of a throw together, but has everything in it already, except that's its not waterproof): http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/3d-printed-quad-2-0 Updated: more 3d printed drone designs: http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/3d-printed-quadcopter-with-detachable-arms Very nice integrated connectors in the detachable arms, not sure if these are the copyrighted designs that the designer refers to (it might be the lid).

Wow! Cool to see the update. That must be the biggest ultimaker printing factory around? I guess you'll let us know when you're getting close to finishing the assembly as well right?

Voting done. Hope to see you guys take home some awards!

Any imagery of the current status? Your website doesn't seem to show much news from the last few months?

In the end there was luckily no need for ABS. About 1m of white PLA left before the print finished :-). Too bad I don't have an ulticontroller though...

Great project, printing on my stone is in progress as we speak type. Actually I'm very afraid that I'll run out of white PLA during the print... while I'm sleeping, or working tomorrow.. anyone ever tried switching to ABS midprint?

For my Ultimaker 1 I absolutely need to level it if I've transported the printer. As for normal printing at home I just look at the first layer (actually the skirt) and adjust the screws for the bed while the print head is out of the way (during the print). This way you can get a feel for how good the levelling is by eyeballing the height of the layer put down, and the color. At the moment most of my printing is done in white, which actually get kinda translucent when the hot end is too close to the bed. The same goes for the form of the string of plastic being put down. If you're too far away from the bed, it really is like a string, and not really sticking to the bed. If you're too close it will be flat directly under the head, but with two 'pushed out bits' perpendicular to the direction the head was going. Ideally it is of a rectangular form, and firmly pressed into the bed. It takes some time before you get a feel for what it should be like (I have so many aborted first layers in my scrap box), but my experience that this gives the best result. Beforehand I would cancel the print.. remove the print from the bed (screwing up the adjustment), relevelling the bed using a piece of paper, and restarting the print (which would often fail again: very frustrating!).

Thanks for your reply and your great work on Cura Daid. Great that you'll take the feedback to work. Attached you'll find some pictures of the final print, with meshmixer supports included. I'm really,really fond of these after this first print: They're very easy to break off, don't take much time/material to print, and do provide adequate support. As with the concave parts, these also are probaby more difficult to generate, as the topology of the object also plays a role. If you're going to spend serious time rewriting the support this might be the way to go (please add a function to bring the supports to the outside of the part on the buildplate then). (first pic shows two failed attempts: 1st one with 'wavy' supports had material feed problems, the 2nd one was with fix horrible B, while I should've chosen A). As for bridging: I'll do some experiments just like gr5 did, I think my fan is very off-ideal at the moment to do this well (one blade has broken off and I'm waiting for the replacement from Ultimaker Central. And well... dual head, water soluable supports: :wub: ... however no extra money atm... first for a sabbatical (and afterwards a heated bed).

Happy New Year! While the fireworks was going off outside my Ultimaker was happily printing away at the parts I was having trouble with, downgraded to 13.06. One of them failed, of which I will post a separate topic. However, the parts are illustrative of problems of the new support method, so lets investigate: First of all the parts to be printed: I'm printing them for a client, and they are apparently prusa parts: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:119616 (xEndidler and xEndMotorV2). As you can see these are quite complicated engineering parts. Horizontal areas spanning some 6-8cm won't be printed decently with just bridging alone (at least not with my current configuration), so I need supports for these parts. I tried some different orientations to print them but in the end, keeping them as is seemed to me the best orientation: The large open hole keeps the best shape (no overhangs or support in it) Only one dimension with possible shrinking issues All orientations would need support material 'everywhere', so no significant difference in support volume for different orientations Supports generated in 13.11 (no upgrade to 13.12 yet due to failing to do a firmware upgrade last time, and the difficulty to track settings and quality impact of settings while continuously changing SW): As you can see, this support block will be locked in by the part itself, making it impossible to get it out: It is surrounded by the part itself, even with corners and ends locking it against rotation the support consist of a 'closed box' making it rigid and stiff This is wat 13.06 creates: This is a flexible and open support structure, which can easily be removed. By the way: compare the amounts of support material cura calculates: 84gr for the old method, and 82gr for the new. This leads me to think: 'if it ain't broken, don't fix it'. So, that gives us the first question to discuss: what exactly is broken in the old implementation? I'll try my 2 cents: Creating a 'cube' of material instead of a shape that starts small and increases to the right size is a waste of material Starting supports on the object itself instead of on the build platform damages its quality With an extra step in the workflow both of these problems can be currently fixed by using Meshmixer. Thanks for the great tip illuminarti! What needs fixing in the new implementation IMO: closed method can only be used for 'convex' support parts: concave polygons needs to be broken up in multiple convex support parts (some explanation here: http://www.rustycode.com/tutorials/convex.html) Special treatment for difficult shapes: for instance a blind hole or hollow cube with one opening: how to remove the support?

Thanks for the tips! I was not aware of Meshmixer, and hadn't found a reliable (and legal) 3D program yet. Meshmixer seems perfect. Having the possibility to run different cura versions next to eachother I just downgraded to a lower version that still has the old support structure which is easily removed. So I am helped for now. However, judging from a functionality viewpoint the current implementation is still broken as the auto-support does not generate correct supports for 'enclosed' volumes. I hope Daid is aware of this and will update the support implementation.

Could an UM official please reply to this thread or should I file a support ticket? Its holiday ofcourse, but I've got some prints up for next week of which some are currently unprintable due to the update to the support implementation that is, IMO broken. Should I downgrade?

Ha, never noticed that one! Great, I will give it a try.