gr5

This is a common problem on the UM2. It's the connectors/wiring. In the video the fans are on for part of the circle and not the other part. That is because of the flexing/bending of the electrical cables that are next to the bowden. You might not even have to take apart the head. So there are 3 fan connectors but the side 2 fans are special because they are in series so you will see a jumper between two of the connectors coming from the main printer. It's hard to describe in words so google something like "ultimaker 2 fan connections" or "UM2 fan cabling" or something for some photos. Anyway, slide up that plastic weave that hides the connectors and you should see them above the print head. Set the fans to 100% and then just squeeze and gently tug to try to figure out where the problem is. You might even see a wire come loose and then "oops you broke it" but the good news is you know exactly what the problem is at that point. The connectors aren't really needed. I NEVER disconnect those cables and I've taken apart the print head on all 4 of my UM2s multiple times. So the connectors aren't useful. So if you find a bad one just cut the connectors off and solder things together (or find a friend who is good at soldering).

>your model is not manifold Well that is a problem. You should fix that first. It's probably unrelated to how long it takes to slice the model but it's definitely a problem and you should fix the model. If you use blender then google "how to make manifold models in blender". If you use sketchup then google "how to make manifold models in sketchup".

You have lots of choices. Is the CC core programmed as a CC core or as an AA core. Hopefully it's programmed as an "AA 0.4". So you just use an AA 0.4 profile designed for the same material - for example if you have Nylon CF then in cura set it for generic nylon. If you have PETG GF filament then set it for generic PETG. The only setting you have to override is line width. Set that to 0.6mm to match the actual core. Slice, and print. Done. No warnings to "ignore". Realize that the UM3 series printers do NOT have hardened feeders so you might want to get a bondtech DDG feeder to replace your existing feeders. You should do both feeders because the DDG has a different value for steps/mm and on the UM3 you can't change steps/mm for only one feeder - you have to do it for both. If you don't upgrade the feeders, any abrasive filaments (glass fill, carbon fill, etc) will gradually wear down the sharp points in the feeder that grip the filament. The tips will get rounded and you will loose pressure/strength from the feeder. Filaments will slip and you will get underextrusion and you will want to throw the whole printer in the trash. At that point remember "oh - I was told this would happen - I need the DDG feeders".

It sounds like you are pretty technical so I'd definitely do the downgrade. I think you need to do the "firmware recovery" method. But first you might want to put in some firewall rule to block those other machines from upgrading firmware. https://community.ultimaker.com/topic/20024-recovering-a-bricked-um3s3s5/

So just choose a non-networked printer and it won't ask you lots of questions. I chose the S5 and it didn't ask me anything else. Then you can practice slicing.

So I'm being told that the feature is in 7.X but gone in 8.X and because UM is moving in that direction they won't be fixing bugs in 7.X for features that are going away. However I believe there is also an API for digital factory (DF) and this is probably all supported there now. UM is moving towards DF (cloud based) versus local networking. It's free for users and easier for the programmers to deal with evidently. Of course the other option is to stay with the firmware that works for you. Personally that would be my choice as it was a great printer years ago and was still a great printer with 7.X firmware.

No it's for Cura. The slicer.

OMG. So those 2 videos look absolutely fine and normal. Your issue has NOTHING to do with the lift switch and everything to do with the Y movement. It moves just fine in the newer two videos but in that first video it SLAMS into the rear of the printer. Ignoring the end stop switch completely. Although it never should have gotten close to the end stop. Something was really really messed up when it printed your part but then it's fine when you do other things. I really don't know what is going on. It's moving Y too far. I was hoping that whatever the issue is, it would do it when calibrating the lift switch. But for some reason it doesn't. Are there any G92's in your gcode? My next thought is some bug or plugin in cura is inserting a G92 - e.g. G92 Y100 into the gcode and it confuses the printer into thinking the print head is different from where it actually is. Another thought is you have the wrong firmware that thinks you have an S5 printer and not a UM3 printer. Is this a new printer? Did you change the firmware just before getting this issue? It's just a strange issue. It actually looks like the steps/mm is wrong and causes it to move to far. If you can find the exact gcodes where it moves and does the core switch then you could type those in manually and try to narrow down the problem. Figure out when it gets confused about it's Y position. I'd do that by putting the printer in developer mode (setting in the menus) and then ssh to the printer and use "sendgcode" commands to try to duplicate the issue. No need to heat up any cores or print beds to simulate the problem. Google this forum for "sendgcode" for more info. Did you contact your reseller about this? Are you like an individual with a tight budget or is this for a company printer? If company printer I'd send it to the reseller and make them deal with this strange issue. But they will charge a lot!

Okay well I think that text is wrong. Maybe it's old - I looked in the github on April 20 and I think the text was different when I looked. It might be I was looking at the *next* version that isn't out yet.

In above post 240C bed temp is clearly wrong. You want the bed a bit over the softening temp. For PETG I think that's around 80C? It's critical to be over that temp but you have a more serious issue... It looks to me like you have some underextrusion as well. That is what is causing those inner strings inside the circle and possibly why your brim isn't solid (lots of gaps in the brim). Test your feeder first - it should be able to pull about 5-10 pounds before slipping (at least 10 pounds for 2.85mm filament - not sure with 1.75mm filament - I assume about 5 pounds). So heat up the hot end, move the material back to the feeder half way and then move it forwards again and fight the feeder with your hand. Estimate the force needed to overcome the feeder. Maybe locate something that weighs 5 pounds (measure with water? gym weight?). If the feeder seems fine then it could be the hot end. The nozzle may have some buildup in the nozzle (google about doing cold pulls) or your temp may be off. What was the recommended print temp? Does your hot end have teflon in it? Many (most?) do. Teflon degrades pretty fast at PETG temps (240C?) and needs replacing typically at that temp after only 100-300 hours of printing (if you only print PLA at 200C then teflon can last 500-1000 hours of printing). The teflon gets soft and when compressed it squeezes the filament.

The printer should have told you to go to ultimaker.com/ER80. Did you read everything there? I just did. What did you try so far? It sounds like the most common problem is the cable - if your printer is back against a wall on a large table it may be difficult to reach around behind the printer and maybe the initial cable installation was a bit loose. I'd move the printer such that you can get good access to the back then remove and insert the AM cable firmly and be sure it's really in there good. Also make sure you update your firmware to the latest. I only have the base S5 but if anyone who knows more than me looks at this topic they are going to want to know what firmware version you have so maybe post that here as well.

Oh that is REALLY strange. Dustin did you watch the video? So the head reaches the end of travel. Hard! Which doesn't damage the printer but it should never do that. and for some reason the limit switch doesn't stop it's travel. It shouldn't even be going that far. I agree with the factory reset - that can fix things like steps/mm of travel. Something is really strange. Is it printing somewhat in the center of the printer? I'd run the lift switch calibration 3 4 or 5 times in a row. Make sure it seems consistent. Not because the printer needs it to be run more than once but because the more times you do it, the more likely you will notice something. Okay so I'd check the Y limit switch also. There is a smaller rod that passes through print head left to right. That should stick out to the left of the left sliding block by quite a bit so it can hit the limit switch (I believe that's correct and I'm not just confusing the UM3 with the UM2). Manually push the head around (while at it notice if there is lots of extra friction and if so use a tiny bit of oil - one drop - on the rods). So push the head to the back of the printer and watch to see if the rod hits the limit switch in the left rear corner. You should hear it click. If it's missing the switch then that could be your issue. You might simply have to slide the rod a little more to the left through the left and right sliding blocks. Or possibly the limit switch is loose and has moved too far to the rear of the printer and the blocks hit before the limit switch is triggered.

underextrusion isn't always temperature related. It could be you have something wrong with the feeder or the nozzle. If you can show a photo of the top of the part it should be more obvious if the problem is underextrusion. Also if you slice for 0.4mm wide paths but use an AA 0.6 core. I'd really like to see the top of the part zoomed in as well as the photo you already published. I assume this is an AA 0.4 core. You could try the other core - S5 printers come with two AA 0.4 and a BB 0.4. Sometimes the nozzles get partially clogged - the plastic can caramelize on the inner walls of the nozzle and turn your 0.4mm hole in your nozzle into a 0.3mm hole. Then you get mild underextrusion like in your photo. Especially if you are raising the temperature so high - this can cause much more rapid caramelization.

Your scan can't be very accurate at least out at the edges as the actual grate is much thicker than a sheet of paper, right? Whereas your scan appears to be mostly thinner than a sheet of paper. Did you scan the bottom of the grate as well? I have only used blender a tiny bit but I seem to remember there is a function to thicken everything. But that will change your accuracy. Maybe @GregValiant has some ideas? He's pretty good at fixing models but if he doesn't know which dimensions need to be accurate he'll have to guess. I mean is the top scan accurate but the bottom surfaces are all just a guess? That's what it looks like to me. It looks like maybe you only scanned the top of the part and the scan software just assumed it *was* infinitely thin.

Your model is pretty bad. Sorry to say. When you scanned it you needed to scan the underside as well. As far as I can tell the walls are infinitely thin in most places. So Cura is like - oh - infinitely thin - okay that just means zero plastic. Done. So the model needs a lot more work in blender or other software. Blender is designed for computer graphics where you can have infinitely thing objects and they look pretty good as long as you don't go around to the back side. In 3d printing the models have to be solid. So some CAD software like design spark mechanical, autodesk, and hundreds of others only let you create "real" 3d objects. Other CAD software like blender and sketchup are geared towards computer graphics and will let you create non printable 3d scenes that may look great but aren't printable. There are lots of guides on youtube for how to fix your blender file to be printable.

That's usually underextrusion. I'd like to see the part from the top also.

Oh, right. Damn. My fault. So @nallath where do we report firmware bugs? I'm guessing you click on the 9 dots in the upper corner of this page, then click "support", then "submit a request" at the top of the screen.

Looks like a bug (and possibly a feature removal). Please post a much shorter description of the bugs on github and include a link to this thread. https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues

I think it's just "blackbelt cura". Just because there are no updates doesn't imply it's getting old and will break down. Software lasts forever unlike hardware. 🙂 Why don't you explain what's wrong with blackbelt cura more specifically. Maybe I know someone who can help with that.

Sounds like you are slicing for an Ultimaker 2 series printer. On those printers the temperature is NOT set in Cura but instead on the printer itself. That's why temperature, fan, and material diameter are hidden. Because they are set on the printer.

Yes, do just what you propose. Although you can create a support blocker you are switching that to a mesh modifier. But I know what you mean. Be warned that there will be 3 wall lines from the outer part and one wall line at the inner part where the mesh modifier is so use that as a way to outline the embossed letters. Another trick might be to use a feature called "ironing" which can, I think, hide those walls. Maybe play with that as well.

I am told that the latest version (5.3.1? not sure) can get stuck when slicing - the bar moves across steadily and then stops. I am told that this is a know bug and has a high priority to be fixed. Also I hear that it is related to support structures (I rarely use support but it's critical when I do need it!) and that sometimes rotating the part on the plate by a tiny amount can "randomly" make the issue go away.

Can't you just use a power meter and measure it with that?

Did you set it to "zero" or was the option gone?

At 93% scale (only slight reduction in size) the part seems to slice just fine. Did you mean 93X? That would be smaller than 1mm. I doubt that is what you meant. Again, the project file will include your scaling information. So get Cura to do "the problem" at the "problem scaling" and then save the project file so I can see exactly what you mean.