nallath

Dit is ook een file voor de UM1. Die doet een aantal dingen net ff anders. In princiepe kan je de UM gewoon een groot plat vierkant laten printen zonder infil. Dan gaat ie ook op de extremen fillament neer leggen, zodat je het bed makkelijk kan levelen.

How to make a huge walking spider robot

If the 'standard' settings don't work; go into the expert settings. Cura itself gives pretty good advice in the tooltips on how a setting influences your print. Unfortunately 3D printing has a long way to go before it's as easy as printing with a 2D printer.

You could also try to increase the wall thickness from 0.8 to 1.2 and print 5% infill. This gave great results with PLA (Very light prints, but freakishly sturdy).

Not likely, but it is possible. It could also be that the axis are not quite straight anymore, which can cause a different sound. You could try to lubricate the axis by applying a bit of (sewing) machine oil.

This has to do with shrinking of the plastic. If you increase your model with a certain factor (depending on the plastic, and yes, even the color) it should be correct.

Sounds like one of your end stops is broken.

Yes, but it's not a trivial thing to do. I'd put my money with 'ordinary' computer vision algorithms if you want that sort of stuff. All 3d scanning algorithms have several tradeoffs; Complexity, robustness, number of frames required, processing time, accuracy and resolution. In order to get scans that are good enough to detect under extrusion, you would need a pretty awesome resolution and accuracy. It would also need to be extremely robust, as false positives / negatives are a big no-no. This usually means that you require either a ton of frames and/or a ton of processing time and or huge complexity. But then again, even a ton of frames is kind of a no-no, and the same can be said for a ton of processing time, leaving only one thing to be unoptimized; The complexity.

And it won't scan all area's of the model visible to the camera. The results would be far better with a projector (or rotating laser, but that creates a whole range of extra problems)

I'm keeping a close eye on this topic. The results almost sound to good to be true.

You cannot make a pay per use system. DRM is bad, real bad. We've had some parties contact us that had a 'secured solution' to provide this, but it took us less than an hour to crack their system (and none of the software engineers here are really adept with security). Let alone the problem of converting g-code back into the original files.

Not quite true. It would have some added value. If you place the camera outside the printer (perpendicular to the ground plane) it would help. You could stack multiple lower res scans together like that.

The latest version is something like 14.07. Our version numbering is based on Major.minor.revision, which means its year.month.revision. 14.03 would be a 4 month old build.

All true, but all of this would be much, much easier (and better to set-up) if you simply made another box instead of relying on the UM encasing.

Depends on your definition of high resolution. With a laser in most situations you will get an accuracy of about 0.5 to 1 mm, unless you start using high end (industrial) lasers & camera's. Cons: Every time you move the scanner from your printer, you will have to re-do the calibration process. This can take about 5 minutes. With no moving laser, there are large parts that are 'un-scanable' The printer is white. Which is the worst color for 3D scanning background ever. It's not that cheap. You will need a decent camera (100-150 euro), a laser bandpass filter (80 euro), a semi decent laser (20 ish euro) and a rotation platform (20-50 euro). Distance of the camera to the to-be scanned object is small, which forces you to use cameras with a large angle, which tend to have a lot of fish eye effect. This is killing for your quality.

First off, the argument you pose is a fallacy (argument from ignorance). Just because you do not know of such an application, does not mean it cannot exist. Making something open source can increase the development speed, but it's also possible that it does nothing (or even decrease it). In most cases this is due to organisation problems and lack of a clear vision. I'm reasonably certain that other slicers used features from the cura engine. The cura engine in return would not have been here if it weren't for other (OS) slicers. This has everything to do with not having to reinvent the wheel over and over again.

Try to use the latest version whenever possible. We will not go into bug / bad result reports about older versions.

See above post

So it can grow faster?

I remember once reading that the tin in solder degrades your nozzle quite fast. Not sure where I read this though, so don't attach to much weight to it.

Craft ware seems to use voxels; atleast one version that they released a while back did. I'm a bit sceptic if they can get the resolution high enough if they continue with those.

Don't see the upgrade as a heated bed upgrade. See it as an upgrade that just happens to have a heated bed.

Sewing oil is magical stuff. I totally agree with adding it to the package, but it's not my call (You can touch it, so it's outside of my responsibilities )

All that kind of data is in the Github (read; Can' t be arsed to look it up ) .