gr5

221 contra 350? ¿Estás hablando de la temperatura nominal máxima? Todos los núcleos Ultimaker tienen el mismo calentador de vataje, pero los núcleos CC solo están clasificados para funcionar a 280 °C como máximo. No estoy seguro de por qué, pero tal vez algo se derrita. No te preocupes por la potencia del núcleo CC. Tienes 2 problemas más grandes con el software. El UM3 podría rechazar el núcleo CC. Cura no cortará un núcleo CC para un UM3. Creo que la solución más fácil para cura es decirle a la impresora que tiene un núcleo AA 0.4 y decirle a la impresora que está imprimiendo nailon genérico (si es nailon CF o PETG genérico para PETG CF) y cambiar el ancho de línea en el perfil a 0,6 mm. (no se necesitan otros cambios). Luego, cuando vaya a imprimir en la impresora, se quejará de que es el núcleo incorrecto y en el pasado podría presionar "ignorar", pero no sé si eso es cierto con el firmware más reciente. Alternativamente, hay instrucciones aquí para reprogramar su núcleo CC para que parezca un AA 0.4: gr5.org/cores/ Además, cuando obtiene el DDG, bondtech le indica cómo corregir los pasos/mm en su UM3, pero tendrá que hacerlo cada vez que actualice el firmware en el UM3. Si tiene problemas en el futuro, debe enviarme un mensaje directo en el foro, ya que me pierdo el 80% de todas las publicaciones. Estoy usando el traductor de Google, así que espero que todo esto tenga sentido.

I noticed something else more important! That particular hole that you highlight - on those layers, that is the very first line printed for that layer. And the nozzle comes across from the farthest corner of the print. Almost completely across the printer. I think I would leave optimize wall printing order checked (default) and change wall order ordering to "inside to outside" as that way there isn't a lot of travel to that inner circle (where the nozzle can leak a bit and then when it gets there start underextruding).

You have line width at 0.8 (this is good as you have a 0.8 nozzle) and you have wall width at 1.6 which implies 2 walls but then you changed wall line count at 4. There was a time when cura would make 4 lines at half width each causing underextrusion like in your photo. But it *appears* that cura did the right thing. Still, I highly recommend you reset wall lines to default and change wall width to 3.2mm (0.8 X 4) to get your 4 lines and to avoid cura underextruding. However I don't think that's the problem. I'll look at the gcode with a gcode analyzer that looks at flow but I don't think that's the problem. So vertical holes tend to print smaller than the CAD because as PLA cools (in the first few milliseconds after leaving nozzle) it shrinks. PLA is also very sticky - it sticks to itself like snot. So you have this liquid rubber band pulling inward as you print that inner ring. I think a solution is to change wall ordering to inside to outside so that when it prints that inner wall it can stick to the previously printed wall better. Type "order" in the settings search box and you will also see this which I think you should uncheck: optimize wall printing order. Unchecking that will let the initial walls cool a little more before printing the final inner most wall (I call it inner wall but cura thinks of it as an outer wall - the wall farthest from infill - the wall facing air).

I believe this change has a good reason for it. I also find it surprising and annoying but I ignore it and the printer is able to print the part just fine. So maybe there is a good reason for it?

Si realmente tiene el UM3, entonces podría considerar buscar extrusores DDG de bondtech. Debe cambiar ambos alimentadores si lo hace porque los pasos/mm deben ser idénticos para ambos alimentadores.

El alimentador S3 está bien y es el mismo alimentador que el S5. Ambos usan acero endurecido. Puede estar confundiendo el "ultimaker 3" con el S3. El "Ultimaker 3" o UM3 no tiene alimentadores endurecidos.

What you post *seems* like enough information for me to duplicate this but it isn't quite enough. Hopefully your model isn't secret. Please post a project file. In cura menu do "file" "save project as" and post that file here. It will contain your model, material settings, printer settings (machine settings), profile, overriden settings and much more. Also even though you mentioned cura 5.1.0, it's worth mentioning again when you post the profile. Also is that a photo of the bottom layer? when it is partially complete?

The good news is that those logs hold many days worth of log information so it's okay to reboot before dumping the logs.

I downloaded and looked at the most recent STL, "Patched.stl" and it looks pretty bad. There's no bottom to the model. Even if you are printing in spiralize mode you still need a manifold part. Cura expects a manifold part or it will do unexpected things. One can divide CAD software into two types: those that make pictures (scenes) and movies, those that make real parts. For example sketchup, blender are good at the first thing - making great computer generated graphics, movies, etc. They don't care about infinitely thin objects as long as you only look at things from one angle. Such as the walls of rooms in a house - they don't need thickness as we won't be viewing the walls from inside where the studs are. Whereas the other type of CAD (e.g. design spark mechanical, tinkercad, freecad, onshape, fusion360) only let you make manifold parts (mostly - through normal usage - but if you are an expert sometimes you can trick them to create non manifold surfaces but it's just very rare). In these CAD software you do things like extrude surfaces, intersect 3d volumes. You can't cut open a surface to see the inside - if you drill a hole through it, the software gives the hole walls automatically. Anyway your STL is not manifold. Look up the word if you aren't sure what it means. And the software you are using doesn't enforce this so it's extra work. There are tools in sketchup and blender to help you. You can google about "making parts manifold" for your particular cad software. IN ADDITION, STL files contain only a list of triangles and every triangle has a "normal" which specifies which is the inside and which is the outside. Every triangle specifies which side of the triangle floating in 3d space faces air and which side faces "plastic". Blender and sketchup also assign this when you design things and have their own way of helping you know if you have walls that are inside-out. Cura uses this information to help it slice so if you get it wrong, cura will often get confused. The other type of CAD doesn't need to show you which side is in or out - it just takes care of this automatically since all objects are manifold. If you do a "sectional view" where it slices the part open it shows the inside as solid. google "view and change normals" for your cad software.

The mesh plugin isn't great at fixing meshes. You could try meshlab. It's free. I think there are some free web services that do it as well. Or you could ask the original designer to replace any missing surfaces.

I assume you are talking about those red lines? That looks very wrong. Can you share the model? Assuming not, install the mesh tools. Cura has an amazing plugin to test your model to see if something is wrong with it and can repair a very few of the many potential problems: In the upper right corner of Cura click "marketplace" and make sure you are on the "plugins" tab and install "Mesh Tools". Then restart Cura. Now right click on your model, choose "mesh tools" and first choose "check mesh" I think those red lines have to do with holes in the mesh. A quick hack-fix - since they all seem to be on one layer, play with your layer height and initial layer height. First try larger layer heights to see if you can have all the slices skip over that bad layer. Alternatively play with initial layer height.

I would probably stick with lolzbot cura. It seems every new version of Cura has some obscure but problematic feature that causes some kind of issue and sometimes it's best to know all the kinks and workarounds of a fixed version of cura. And the lulzbot people are really good and have contributed to cura (I believe) and if they have picked a particular version then that's probably best. Messing with settings you don't know well will result in hard won lessons learned. Painful lessons. Printing lying down or standing - either should work fine. I'd probably do lying down as it's probably faster and uses less filament. Maybe you can just be more careful about cutting the support now that you know - start cutting far from the leg and approach carefully. Maybe use a hot knife or soldering iron for the far awy cuts and definitely consider a flush cutter for the final cuts. google "flush cutter". Seriously. Will be the best $5/5 euros you spent to improve a 3d printer. . There are tons of support options but I don't do artistic models (I do mechanical parts) so I don't know which options are best for something with skinny legs and skinny sword like this. Please show a picture of this "gobbled into a ball". I have no idea what you mean. You might want to try "tree support". It may be much better or maybe much worse. It depends on things like how much the model really needs. You should also learn how to do support blocker. Try to find a < 2 minute video on cura support blockers. The interface changes slightly but you should be able to figure it out. But when using support blocker you have to then really think about each layer and if it is printable or not. The printer can do bridging (think of the top of a doorway) as long as both ends are on the same slice. So you don't need support for certain surfaces that are horizontal if supported on each end. Please show pictures!! Both of your cura screen shot showing both orientations (with the settings you used) and of the blob. Also strongly consider posting a project file if you have specific questions like "how do I thin support where this arrow is pointing". To do that do "file" "project save as" and post that file here. It should hopefully load into newer versions of cura than the one you used and at least give us more ideas as to your settings.

top/bottom thickness has nothing to do with line width. You can put "line width" in the search box in settings and it doesn't matter if you have settings visible or not, they will show up. All of them were at 0.4 in the original project file. @Torgeir I think you are confusing top/bottom thickness with top/bottom line width (I can't tell in your screen shot as things are blurry). Torgeir is an expert and posts lots of great advice but in this (first ever?) case I think he was wrong. top/bottom thickness tells cura how many layers on the top of your cube to make above the infill (and bottom of cube). 1.2mm / 0.15 layer height means 8 layers. Changing this to 0.4 would change it to I think 2 layers which would not be enough. "disconnected walls" is very common and is a clear example of underextrusion. You still have underextrusion. I don't know why. Your temp (200) and speed (30) seems reasonable.

Dies sind genau die Symptome, die zu erwarten sind, wenn der vordere Lüfter nicht mehr dreht. Erhitzen Sie einen Kern. Wenn die Temperatur des Kerns über 60 °C steigt, sollte sich der vordere Lüfter drehen.

Did you do my extrusion test? How many seconds? What temp and material did you run the test at?

griffin is a version of Marlin and accepts almost all the same gcodes a few exceptions but "power loss recovery" sounds like a "new" feature (maybe 5 years ago?) in Marlin that I don't believe exists in any of the UM printers.

You shouldn't need adhesive sheets for PLA. Instead you can use gluestick on glass. Your glass looks foggy so either it has gluestick spread with wet tissue or it's incredibly dusty maybe? Assuming you did the gluestick then it's probably a leveling issue - Try leveling again and as it starts to print if it still does this in the first few seconds then push up and/or down on the bed to see if that improves things and if it does then start spinning the 3 level adjustments the same amount to move the bed appropriately. Also - are you sure this is PLA as you do need adhesion sheets for certain materials like PP.

I strongly suspect the problem is with the part "origin at center". I don't think that should be checked. Normally that is only checked for delta printers. and the behavior matches. Because cura will be sending out negative X and Y positions which would indeed make it crash in the front left corner. If that's not it then I would use flash forge slicer and look at the resulting gcode file and compare it to the start gcodes and look up each gcode that is different (I'd just look them all up). You only have to look at the very beginning - the first 30 or so gcodes. I guess another question is "does it crash before or after this command": G1 Z50.000 F420 The above moves the Z axis only and puts the Z position to 50 so the bed would be 50mm from the nozzle. then the very next move should move all 3 axes at once to the front left bottom corner.

Just turn the printer it off and on. No need to wait longer than 2 minutes.

I couldn't find any files like that. Where did you find the file? Most configuration files related to cura are json format.

FYI UltiMaker has been moving the firmware to use DF (digital factory) more and more. It's free by the way. It's not to make more money - it's just easier for the programs to do everything through DF instead of the direct network interface. So newer firmware has removed some networking features and added them to DF plus more. So if that's not your thing you should avoid upgrading the firmware. Personally I'm happy with just using USB sticks. yes the gcode files (ufp files) are on the "hard drive" on the printer. If you know linux you can connect in (set printer to dev mode then ssh to the shown ip address with username/password root/ultimaker) and one of the partitions has all the old gcode files.

I'm not sure where you should start but to connect to the machine from windows you need to install and run cura.

It took me 17 seconds. This is on a heavily used and old AA 0.4. This is at 200C. At 220C it was closer to 12 seconds.

cura You can send us your "project" file that has the cube please. So make sure you have the settings as you had it and load the cube into cura that you used and then in Cura do "file" "save project" and post that file. I doubt it's cura but possibly. Also while in cura get the version. "step 4". So grinding, slipping is expected if you hold down the down arrow. You need to tap it in a regular rythm and speed up or slow down until you get roughly maximum extrusion. maybe 1 tap per second? Maybe 2? Not sure. Once you are roughly close to max speed, with the other hand grab the extruded filament and pull sideways and the angle should "freeze" solid within a second and then see how many seconds it takes to get the bend down to the glass. I'll do the same test. Memory says around 10 seconds. I do sometimes count the seconds but I have huge variability in variables (often I'm testing a um2go, and my S5 rarely prints PLA). I'll do the test with AA 0.4 core. An old one.

I don't know the answer but every need to save and load profiles can be solved by saving and loading projects so I recommend you try that. At least for a workaround and possibly for a permanent solution. I stopped using profiles and started using projects years ago and I am so happy I did. Have the other person go to "file" "save profile as" and save the profile and then have them send you the result. Load that file up in your version of cura and you are all set. This will save printer customizations in addition to the profile, and settings changes from the profile, filament customizations and also if there is a part loaded it will save the part or parts, the orientation, position, and scaling. And much more. Basically everything is saved. I don't know why but in my experience project files are more dependable and less buggy than profiles. You do need to have the same or newer version of Cura but you already took care of that issue. Everytime I save a gcode file (or ufp etc) I also save the project file. Every time. there is a 1 to 1 relationship. So then days, months, years later I can load up the project file and see exactly what every setting was and I can look at the model and so on. So when I slice something new I usually pick a project file to start with.