corngolem

I noticed that if when underextrusion occurred I pushed the filament into the feeder (which required strength) I could reduce underextrusion. I interpreted this as the nozzle pressure required being too high for the torque of the feeder motor, aggravated or not by the bowden system, reducing the force of the motor compared to if feeder, filament and nozzle were on a straight line. Then recently I tried some new PLA (which I'm pretty sure is not ingeo) that has the same diameter as the default setting (2,89mm). I decided to tighten the feeder's bolt (to spring length of 13,48mm) and now at 100mm/s underextrusion is very sparse. I didn't do it before because the instructions said to stop when it got harder to screw and it happened "3mm before".

Happened again to me, this time I hit the frame several times and it stopped after a short while.

( I ) liked the fact that it printed an object at a certain visible resolution much faster than if the whole object used the corresponding layer height. For my usage more speed means less machines. Unless Skin is plain broken in the new version there was no reason to remove it (it worked well enough).

# Good • Slicing is considerably faster, torture tests that took 1m20s and 4m50s now take 2s (you have to use a stopwatch because it won't tell you) • Smaller details are recognized (but not all compared to Makerware) • You can position the objects on the bed • You can place several objects on the bed and edit them independently (as in Makerware) • You can choose to have those objects printed one by one or all together # Bad • The virtual UM bed has disappeared, it's not as easy to recognize the axis • Support settings (in basic tab) are greyed out • Many settings have been removed: - Retraction min travel and Extra length on start (this does create stringing and deposit on small details) - Skin (said to come back in later version) - Extra wall thickness for bot/top - min feedrate - Support distance from object - Infill pattern (rectangular grid replaces everything) - bridge speed - print order sequence - Joris - Retract on jumps only - Enable hop on move (Skirt was moved from advanced to expert) • The new pathway makes critical mistakes: floors extruded in mid air (sure fail), floors supported by bridges instead of being the bridges (if bridge fails floor fails), entire walls are missing

Similar problem on Mac OS 10.7, I'm downloading Cura-13.06.3-MacOS.dmg but inside is Cura 13.04.app and it says there is a new version so it wants to download Cura-13.06.3-MacOS.dmg. It's written Cura - 13.04 at the top left of the window and don't see any interface change. EDIT: I used AppDelete to get rid of all Cura files, then when mounting Cura-13.06.3-MacOS.dmg I switched to column view and dragged Cura.app from the Cura folder. Now I have Cura - 13.06.2

The feeder's mechanics (not the extruder) seems as it is supposed to be, the spring size is the same as mentioned before. I don't see any problem with the top other than underextrusion and strings getting caught between layers. If 0,2mm at 100mm/s causes underextrusion I wonder why 0,4mm at 50mm/s doesn't. I tried PLA from reprap.me but it simply doesn't stick to the tape or the acrylic plate, so I'll do more tests when I have found proper cheap filament (and when I have time).

From after and the prints are not better. Why would 0,1mm layer height at 100mm/s have no underextrusion and 0,2mm layer height would, isn't it the same amount of plastic squashed more or less thin ? I printed the same 80x80x20mm block at 0,2mm layer height and 50mm/s : only few layers on one wall showed underextrusion. The same at 0,1mm layer height and 100mm/s : some underextrusion on one wall, very little on another and none on the remaining 2, underextrusion on the entire infill and some on the top. To show the markings I would have to turn it back on etc and I don't wanna do that now. I mentioned before that the model of my UM is revision 4, maybe its feeder just doesn't work properly, who here has experience with it ?

I'm talking about missing plastic inside the lines that makes the print weak, cushion like and see through - not backlash or other issues. The previous picture (direct link) shows that it mostly happens everywhere (infill, wall, top) when the surface is large enough. Here's a large 80x80x20mm block I printed yesterday after checking everything. It shows underextrusion on the entire infill. Gcode for one of the blocks posted yesterday and the one after checkup : http://www.mediafire.com/?3ba707udk1dacvk Trace of carbonization inside the heat block About speed and volume, I printed a 20mm cube at 0,4mm and 200% of 50mm/s, it showed no underextrusion while the same cube with other settings did show underxtrusion (earlier tests). With the new tube I can push filament very easily, with the original one it was quite hard and little less hard when there was no markings. Molten plastic came out of from above and below the main hole of the heat block. It happened only once before during the first print after startup.

1) & 7) in my opinion there is way too much friction in the tube, I've replaced it with one of a larger inner diameter and there is no friction anymore (it comes from a reverse osmosis device, it's written "DM TUBE DPE04 >LLDPE< 0/D 1/4" X I/D 0. 170" 70°F 15 BAR WRAS NSF 51 61-G 04A1C21 04 -4"). I just started a print and it works fine, only inconvenient is that it's not transparent. I'll know if this was the problem in half an hour. 2) there is not enough plastic dust or bits on the bolt to prevent the carrying of the filament. I consider that as long that there are clear markings on the filament, the feeder is working. 4) the tension seems already adequate, it's hard to tighten more, there are markings. My earlier test showed that the spring had to be loosened considerably for permanent underextrusion to happen. 5) I printed those blocks (pic posted today) at 200% of 50mm/s 0,2mm Skin 230°C - the UM is supposed to go at 150mm/s so I don't expect underextrusion. My earlier tests showed no underextrusion even at 600% and 240°C. 6) I'm not sure how a clog could occur or what it could be made of if there's only filament. I disassembled the head and only found carbonized plastic between the nozzle and the pipe, it was only a deposit, couldn't have clogged the nozzle. I removed it with a metal brush. Underextrusion makes lines with about 50% missing plastic, so adding more of the underextruded lines would be like pouring more water in a pierced bucket.

Who can solve my under extrusion issue ? See how underextrusion mostly occurs when there is a large surface to print (I replaced the double washers by one nut to prevent retraction from tightening the large wheel's nut)

For everyone's information, both printers are now distributed by iMakr.com

A small update: I'm pretty sure that the Silver PLA 4043D ingeo (and any Silver or Gold filament) included in every Ultimaker needs a higher temperature (230 to 240 instead of 210 to 220) to print without underextrusion. It might also be extremely prone to curling at the nozzle (natural 4043D from Makerbot extrudes straight). I noticed that the filament is not always moving constantly when the feeder's large wheel is turning, and when underextrusion occurs the filament has an uneven trail instead of clear "insect" like marks. I would conclude that either the drive's bolt pattern is not adapted to plastic (this would explain the tiny parts of plastic found on the uneven trail and around the bolt) or that Silver PLA is too fragile. I also noticed that underextrusion and bad marks happen when there is a large surface to print, it's very sparse when there are only walls or walls with a narrow space between them. Edit: a possible explanation is that the repeated diagonal movements pull on the filament enough to create that trail which makes it difficult for the drive's bolt to catch the filament.

<off topic> Kickstarter won't do anything to force the project creator to send you what you paid for, so yeah it's risky. But it's (with indiegogo) the only way to get products that have no equivalent before everyone and cheaper than everyone. That's why I backed a 3D scanner, 2 filament makers and 1 print polisher. I might have found an efficient counter to the delivery issue, you need to use a bank card which includes an insurance against undelivered goods or goods that don't match. </off topic> Does the bowden extruder (or should we say bowden feeder) really make a difference ? I'm not convinced that in the end the models are printed faster. And I suspect it from generating underextrusion. I'll compare with a Replicator when I get one.

It looks like a metal clone of the UM with some upgrades. More pictures of prints at zortrax.com It's now on kickstarter for $1899 (1468€)

Don't know how you conclude to underextrusion. It thinks the filament is smaller (2,89) than what it is (2,93) so more plastic arrives at the head (overextrusion). I tried increasing the flow before, the head was already full and the feeder turned empty.

The calliper is chinese quality, I can measure other parts to verify its accuracy if you tell me which. I never changed the spets per E. The gap might be normal but it can't be good because it creates a play. Actually I put the blue taped end near the feeder because I didn't find any information on where to put it. If like you say the blue taped end is wider then it should be on the feeder side, not the extruder side.

I made 10 measurements on the 3mm Silver PLA from Ultimaking Ltd: 2,9 2,85 3 3,09 2,94 2,96 2,85 2,93 2,83 2,95 Average: 2,93mm (while Cura is set to 2,89 so I should be over extruding) This might be a factor but I strongly suspect the bowden system. There's a large gap between the filament and the tube, all around, and both are deformed when the head moves around - there's no way this is reliable. Once I identify the cheapest supplier of PLA 4043D I'll order a roll for the UM and another for the R2 and see what happens.

or different brands ? cause I've just gotten a Replicator 2 and the PLA that came with it is notably more brittle.

I have backed it, I'll test it when I receive it but it looks like it's melting the print more than polishing it - I'll probably prefer the raw look of 0,2mm layers.

This concerns slicers in general but I'm posting here. Is there a difference between parameters (especially print speed and temperature) set in the slicer and the same parameters changed on the fly during the print ? And by this I mean, do slicers take into consideration the given temperature ? to for example adjust the print speed and flow on some part (bottom, wall, infill) of the print. This leads to a suggestion: why don't slicers use the plastic's properties (as given by the manufacturer in the data sheet) to adapt the gcode and make a better print ?

I don't get it. I was aware it was sold on the shop but I thought this download was a free version with some unknown differences. Because who's gonna spend 150€ just to be able to get gcode out of a particular slicer ?? and for only one brand of printer ! If I'm gonna spend this much money on a software I want it to be compatible with all printers out there, like most slicers currently are. What's the point of exporting to tons of formats, including several slice formats but not gcode ?? Apparently even the pro version that costs 1000€ doesn't do it. What are these developers thinking ?! I'm more interested in Netfabb's slicer than in its repair tool, because it seems to make much smarter pathways than others.

I'm seriously pissed off by this software. I've had the UM engine on my drive for a couple of months, I must have gotten it from software.ultimaker.com because the editor's site doesn't even have a download page for it. I must also have created a licence at that time cause I've got an email to activate the demo. So "Netfabb Studio Basic for Ultimaker 4.9" for Mac won't connect to the printer, I read in another thread that it never did and that you should save the gcode on the SDcard. I go in the Utlimaker area, calculate pathway for some model, but I see the Print and Save as .GCODE buttons greyed out ! My version is activated yet it still says Demo. So I try reinstalling, but there's no uninstaller, I use an app that finds files related to an app and trashes the whole thing. I then go to software.ultimaker.com and see 2 downloads for Netfabb Mac, what's the difference ? no idea. Both are from September 2012 while there have been an update in december and another in January 2013... I download one, launch it and it somehow still has my licence and preferences and the buttons are still greyed out. I look at the export options, lots of slice formats but no gcode !

Yes I want to see your diagram cause I'm not following you entirely. Where does this 0,4mm come from ? In any case, the question remains: what is creating the gap ?

I’m still discovering but thinking about it I would say that backlash causes gaps in all directions of the XY plane. The lines not touching the wall is the consequence in one direction of backslash and the lines not touching each other is the consequence (of backslash) in the perpendicular direction. Is there an inconvenient with a bed made of glass ? why doesn’t Ultimaking use that if it’s guaranteed to be flat ? Adding it on top of the acrylic bed doesn’t seem the best solution, I would rather replace it with, but gotta find a company who can drill glass... When I move the print head manually it is smooth on one axis but not on the other. I didn’t know what this was due to, then I thought it was due to the washers I added to secure the rod in the frame, but it might just be that one of them is bent ! (bad rod, bad bed, bad fan - starting to think this printer isn’t worth its price). I’ve done several tests with speed and temperature, using a 30x5x60mm block with 5% infill, printed at 50mm/s. At 230°C underextrusion does happen when you reach 500%. At 240°C and 600% underextrusion never happens, unless retraction occurs. So now I’m pretty sure retraction is the number one cause for underextrusion when the hardware is fine. I was able to reduce it (by half) by setting retraction distance to 2mm (recommended in Cura) instead of 4,5 (default) - however this created lots of stringing. I was able to eradicate it by setting retraction extra length on start to 1mm (instead of 0) and leaving distance to 4,5 - but I only tested it on the large scope calibration model. -------- Thanks to both of you for sharing your knowledge.

Alright well if someone is willing to print but has non standard hardware let me know and we'll find a way.