foehnsturm

@nzo, http://moi3d.com trail version might be worth a try.

Single extrusion mode should work as you described.

btw, forgot to mention. Your setup looks super-clean

Hi joris, The PSU might shut down with dual extrusion, if all heaters and steppers are switched on at the same time. There are power budget settings in the firmware to limit the wattage for the heaters and bed heater. I suggest using the forum search with "power budget".

Two heads in two corners is doable ofc. The major reason for the Mark2 approach was keeping the modifications to the original printer as small as possible.

Ty. @bagel-orb, curious about your opinion about that.

For the horizonzal interlock one could start with unmodifed perimeters of both parts and then incrementally protrude the dovetail until it's fully developed. For the vertical interlock. True, but at least not more of an issue as without using this technique I think.

Well, if you want to attach a skin, say 0.8 mm thick, to a core you would have to include its two inner perimeter lines in the overlapping volume, which is completetly located inside the core. In a way that the outer two perimeter lines remain untouched and the inner two start "dovetailing" into the core part. Ofc interlocking two thin parts isn't possible.

As we all know one major stumbling block for multi-material printing is material compatibility. If you look at the material combinations sheet provided by Ultimaker there are way too much "X". The reason for that? Due to their chemical composition those materials are not friends, they don't stick to each other, they don't print well on top of each other. For example, covering a simple tool handle, made of PLA with a skin of TPU won't work well as the skin might rotate freely on its own. Old school craftsmen know how to design strong joints without relying on bonding, like carpenters with dovetail structures. More generally spoken, they use topologically interlocking surfaces. But this "macro" scale interlock is challenging to adapt for arbitrary shaped componentens using 3D design software. At least, it requires profund scripting skills and information about the subsequent slicing process (layer height, line width, wall thickness) to produce something that slices well and achieves the desired goal. But 3D printing has the unique ability to do this on micro scale! I don't talk about blending / fusing two materials as this will likely suffer from the same limitations as mentioned above. No, it's about small scale topological interlock, typically within 4-8 times the line width or layer height. Cura already features a setting "Alternate Mesh Removal" which will make the printer alternate between overlapping meshes every layer. The good: Cura recognizes overlapping meshes. The bad: printing one layer of material A on top of one layer of material B will not produce a strong interlocking geometry and the printing itself will again suffer from the already mentioned incompabilities. So why not work on a feature "Interlock Overlapping Meshes" where Cura will connect/interlock both meshes using certain smart strategies. In other words: The designer overlaps component A and component B to some extent and the slicer will use this volume to interlock both parts. Some ideas: Simple interlocking in xy plane. The "micro dovetail". As a side effect, the contact surface between both materials is significantly increased, this should also support chemical bond. Possible interlocking in Z direction. An aligned 50% linear infill on areas where meshes overlap. Either material should print fine on top of and underneath this grid . So, @nallath what do the Cura devs think about this? And if it will never make it to the top 50 , any Cura contributors interested in this idea?

We had this x10 issue when importing in Solidworks afaik. You should be fine with scaling down by factor 10.

That's all ok. Just use a drop of superglue to secure the magnets. Slicer settings / extrusion / flow can easily affect the hole diameter in the range of +- 0.05 mm. And that's enough for changing from tight fit to loose fit.

The second print is just fine. Like 6maker mentioned, use a drill just in case. To my experience these eyelets are the only critical parts relating to underextrusion issues.

Hmm, my first idea is that one of the few changes we've made to the Cura defintion files for the more recent versions might be causing this issue. Any ideas @Tinkergnome?

Sieht super aus! Beim Abziehturm gehen die Meinungen auseinander. Ich lasse ihn weg, wenn's geht (bei mir meistens).

Der erste Wert gibt an was von der Netzteilleistung nach Abzug für Elektronik und Stepper noch zur Verfügung steht (Schätzwert, bei Problemen kleiner machen) und die anderen Werte geben an, was die Verbraucher maximal ziehen können (auch Schätzwerte, bei Problemen vergrößern). Wenn man also das Netzteil stärker einschätzt als es tatsächlich ist oder die Verbraucher in der Realität mehr ziehen, als hier angegeben, schaltet das Netzteil mit Überlast ab. Beispiel: für das Heizbett ist 130W eingestellt, dieses zieht aber bei 100% in der Realität 150W, dann rechnet die Power Budget Logic an der Realität vorbei und überlastet das Netzteil.

As for the time question. Tool change movement takes approx. 1-2 sec. This is as fast as the UM3 nozzle lift sequence and much less time as for any other typical dual extrusion stuff (e.g. waiting for the nozzle to heat up if it was not perfectly pre-heated in time).

Afaik, they did not implement any advanced pre-heating logic, unfortunately ...

To my understanding you need special firmware only if you use the builtin material change routine (which I don't

Bondtech doesn't require custom firmware. Just changing the e-steps/mm setting in the menu.

In short: 3rd party feeder (not DIY) offering real improvement = Bondtec Two gears, gripping the filament from opposite sides make much more sense than two stacked coventional gear/idler combos.

I'm a bit late but: Do you use a prime tower and does Cura want to start the layer with printing the perimeter line of this small area?

Das mit der Wand sind die von Cura "erratisch" erzeugten moves nach X=0, Y=0 zu Beginn und Ende mancher Layer. Deshalb die folgenden Einstellungen aktivieren und auf unkritische Werte setzen z.B. Travel -> Layer start x = 100 mm Travel -> Layer start y = 50 mm

It's time now to make a start on this project And we've got a question. The 3rd head will be parked in the front left corner, basically using mirrored parts for the dock and the head. The printing area will stay the same, no additonal reduction. But ofc the standard electronics can't handle 3 extruders. Therefore we are looking into the possibilities of adding an extension board to multiplex the required in/outputs. However it's uncertain if this is feasible for a reasonable budget. Plan B is replacing the (old )UM2 electronics with something up to date, like Duet3D, which would offer a lot of additional benefits as well. So, would you guys take such an upgrade, which is some € 250 extra for the electronics, into consideration at all?

All Neodymium magnets of this size share the same holding force of approx 900 gr. My first guess: he's using some filament which is not easy to glue. Second, he doesn't wait long enough for the glue to settle. Even with this kind of glue (German "Sekundenkleber") this can take a few minutes if the glueing layer is a little thicker.

no, just add the same printer within Cura once again. It will be named ...#2 and shows all extruders