Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


yellowshark last won the day on February 7

yellowshark had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

131 Excellent


About yellowshark

  • Birthday 01/01/2015

Personal Information

  • Field of Work
    (Product) design
  • Country
  • 3D printer
    heated bed and enclosed housing which were not offered by Ultimaker.
  • On The Web

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Interesting post! I do not have the benefit of your background or experiences but I am a long gone software developer, ranging from assembler to Cobol. Yes old stuff but the fundamentals of software development broadly remain the same, just the tools and audiences change. The more complex one makes a subject, whether necessarily or unnecessarily, the more difficult it becomes to deliver clean code. Probably more importantly the more difficult it becomes to modify and deliver clean changed code. A generalisation would be that new functions work but bugs are introduced to existing code that was clean โ€“ it is just too complex to understand all ramifications of change and beyond oneโ€™s financial/operational capabilities to test everything that has not changed ( or so your thought!). At the moment I am stuck on Cura 2.7 (which for me works fine) whilst I await a clean version of 3.n. Does 2.7 produce better models than 15.04? For the most part, for me, probably not. But, as you say, there are more options which give you more control and if nothing else should help one overcome problems more easily. So is Cura now more complex than it needs to be? (Anyone from Ultimaker is welcome to shoot me down in flames for any wrong assumptions here). There are some fundamentals. The decision to create the new software (was it Pink Flamingo back then?) would have been driven by a variety of influences. There was a new printer in the labs to support, importantly with dual extruders. There was a new extruder system and coded reels of filament to support. Probably the architecture of the old Cura software did not lend itself to what Ultimaker wanted to do and the decision to throw away the old software was taken. Maybe, above all of this, Ultimaker saw that the market needed to change. It was populated mainly by techies and difficult, without help and that level of technical capability, to produce decent quality results quickly without some considerable experience โ€“ the learning curve was quite steep. Ultimaker wanted to move the market to a more plug โ€˜n play level; just compare laptops now to pre Windows or even early Windows PCs. I cannot remember the last time I reloaded the Windows O/S whereas with W95 it was every 6 months at least. Just consider how much functionality they have added to try and make this goal achievable if you have an Ultimaker 3. So yes the subject is more complex and no doubt so is the code, although hopefully better architected. I for one would not criticise them for this; indeed I applaud them for embarking on such a change. Just think of the increase in productivity if your engineers each had their own printer and with a few key depressions could produce their own prototype there and then, not having to rely on people like ourselves. And whilst there are now all these additional settings to keep the techies happy, their challenge going forward will be to gradually automate everything, remove all those techie settings, so we are all just making a few key depressions!
  2. yellowshark

    Top thickness not respected when using adaptive layers

    Lol I do neither/ both. I decide how many layers I want and then convert that to mm. No I cannot defend that or promote it; it is a bit like eating Weetabix for breakfast, although I can defend that ๐Ÿ˜Ž
  3. yellowshark

    Layer resolution range

    With a 0.8 nozzle (3 years ago) I ran .300 layer at 40mm/s with a temp of 210. I suspect that these days I might run that cooler as in general I print cooler now than I did back in my early days. Then again I seem to printing 10 degrees or so cooler than you, although I have no idea what speed you were using; there are a number of variables so nothing is gospel although I think about 10 degrees is the limit, beyond that I would be suspicious of something being wrong.
  4. yellowshark

    Layer resolution range

    ... sorry,that was for PLA; I use ColorFabb and Faberdashery; Ultimaker could be different.
  5. yellowshark

    Layer resolution range

    It depends also on your print speed which you do not mention. Your optimum temp. will depend on your printer, your filament, the colour of your filament. And your optimum temp. could easily vary by 5 degrees either way from my optimum. My definition of optimum is the coolest temp. I can print at without under extrusion or any negative impact on the surface quality. With .3mm layers and a .4mmm nozzle at 30mm/s I would be in the region of 195-200 depending on filament
  6. yellowshark

    Layer resolution range

    There is absolutely no problem in printing 0.3 layers with a 0.4 nozzle; I have been doing it for 4 years plus. Just remember that the higher you raise the volume per sec. flow the hotter you need the extruder. So with the same settings .3 layers will be a greater volume than .2 layers. Not sure about the 0.8 nozzle, certainly no expert on that. Again with the same settings you will be pushing through twice the volume and the feeder speed will be doubled but your extruding orifice is twice as large so I assume the pressure will be the same but whether you need any increase in temp. I have no idea really. Checking back 3 years ago when I last used a 0.8 nozzle it looks like I did not increase the temp.
  7. yellowshark

    Same Cura setting with different quality

    Hi @geert_2 I agree with you; I always always print two or more copies if the layer print time is too fast, for the reasons you describe. I suggested setting the layer print time to 10 secs just as an investigative step, although I did not make that clear, of course a stop watch is an easy alternative! Love your idea of inverse models๐Ÿ˜Ž
  8. yellowshark

    Same Cura setting with different quality

    Good luck! Strange that the PLA is specified at a minimum temp of 210. I just checked the ColorFabb site and they recommend 195 and I have gone down to 190 without problem, that was probably.100/.150 layers at 30mm/s
  9. yellowshark

    Steps per mm in Cura

    Hi, I have not seen the other thread(s) on this...... but modifying the flow is unlikely to fix dimensional error unless it is very very small I suppose, no real idea, never tried it. If you print a 100mm line and your steps are under by 10% then that line will be 90mm thereabouts and flow will not fix that!
  10. yellowshark

    Same Cura setting with different quality

    Ok two things. Firstly; now this does differ between printers and filaments BUT I think you are printing too hot. Using .200 layers at 30mm/s I would probably use 200 maybe 195. 220 is definitely too hot and is probably having an impact on your small piece. So take your temp. down as low as it will go, i.e. until you see under-extrusion and then push it up 5 and you should be fine. The small piece. I suspect your layer print time with this is too short and so the printed layer is not cooling fully before the next layer is printed on top of it, so you get squelch. Having such a hot nozzle (220) will not help but I suspect lowering the nozzle temp will not fix this problem. In Cura, under the Cooling section, set your minimum layer time to 10 secs. and minimum speed to 10mm/s and tick the Lift Head option. When you print the the piece if the nozzle lifts then you know your layer print time is less than 10 secs. You now have 2 options. Just let it print like this but it may be better to extend the layer print time by printing a second or third copy of the piece. Also you said your print speed is 30mm/s, that is good but make sure all your printing speeds are set to 30mm/s (excluding 1st layer).
  11. yellowshark

    Steps per mm in Cura

    Hi my Cura is older than 3.1.1 but I think you will find this in the firmware not in Cura - it certainly is in my non UM printer
  12. yellowshark

    Getting Better Dimensional Accuracy - Calibration

    Do you mean you extruded the filament not printing on a bed, but just catching it from the air? Wouldn't it stretch because it is still soft / warm and it just hangs there? Hi @SandervG, that is a fair point. What I do first is to extrude 30-40mm to ensure all is extruding well and as it should be, which does mean that on the first cut it is not totally hanging as it is laying on the bed before the cut is made. BUT that does not apply to the subsequent cuts (although as I said above the measurements were cconsistent). I do not think that measuring it printed on the bed is reliable as that will depend on how squished you have the filament set to via the bed to nozzle distance. Visually it looks right, i.e. once the first tens of mm have been extruded the width of the extruding filament, from the nozzle tip to the bottom looks consistent BUT that is not the same as using a vernier! I guess the good thing for me is that this "stretched" filament was fatter than the specified nozzle diameter and using .45 was better than using .40. Your point though does make me think that I will have another play and maybe try 0.47 or even 0.5 and see what happens.๐Ÿ‘จโ€๐ŸŽ“
  13. yellowshark

    Getting Better Dimensional Accuracy - Calibration

    Oh dammit, @LaserBrain, my comments were based on your test cube but if your are printing circular geometries then the inner diameter will have a tolerance close to what your stating , i.e. smaller; of course you may already know that ! but I just wanted to be clear.
  14. yellowshark

    Getting Better Dimensional Accuracy - Calibration

    Whilst I have not done extensive testing I think I agree with you @Jakeddesign on the 7/8 nozzle diameter. Whilst I have 0.4mm nozzle I measured that it was extruding a diameter of 0.45. When I say measured I did this by manually extruding 10mm of filament and cutting it off and measuring the diameter. I consistently got 0.45 with a couple of +/- 0.01 mm variations, During my testing and configuration work I found I had greater accuracy setting the line width to 0.45. Now, I am not sure on the implications of this but I could not set vs 2.n to have a nozzle size of 0.45mm as when you exit the dialogue box Cura rounds down to 0.4mm - so you either have 0.4mm or 0.5mm - I think vs 3. may have removed he nozzle size setting completely (which fries my brain a bit). Anyway I went back to 15.4.6 for most of my testing because you can set 0.45mm in the old Cura., Where I could get the same level of accuracy with the new Cura I know not. I know that to a certain extent you can increase/decrease the line width and get accuracy but whether that extends to a deviation of +/- 0.05mm again I know not. Hi @LaserBrain in terms of accuracy the two thinks that immediately come to mind are firstly checking that your belts are not loose and secondly recalibrating your stepper motors. Now you have a brand new printer which I assume has a standard steps/mm setting which UM will have tested, probably extensively; I have no idea if they test each new machine and recalibrate that setting if required. You might like to ask them and indeed what tolerance they expect on the X/Y accuracy. Personally, with the right settings, I would expect you to be able to get down to 50 microns variation as a an absolute minimum. Sorry just to stress, with a brand new machine I would not want to suggest that you start playing with the stepper calibration without having a word with UM first.
  15. yellowshark

    Bed Leveling/Warped Glass

    The vertical gradient is around 10c too I guess that depends on how thick your glass is.

Important Information

Welcome to the Ultimaker Community of 3D printing experts. Visit the following links to read more about our Terms of Use or our Privacy Policy. Thank you!