yellowshark

Reasons understood, you are in the business of manufacturing printers and slicing software, not forum software! Hopefully the new hosting will support Internet Explorer I am sure I speak for most people when I say that bugless transfers of personal notification queue and posting history is really important. Good luck

Two comments. In my experience nGen with a bronze nozzle sticks to the bed like a limpet. If you need good strength/layer adhesion then you will probably want to go hotter 245/250, irrespective of what ColorFabb say.

Hi @SandervG, no not yet. I have had most of the summer off, just printing needed jobs but no playing around. So now back to full time 2.7 is just about my first job, there look to be some nice things there, possibly some from 2.6. There are certainly parts I would print with multiple copies on the bed that would be less than 2 inches and right now that is probably the majority but it could easily change! I will try and look at this in detail next week and report back.

Absolutely. Like @eldrick I run a 3D printing business and sequential printing is a must have. I for one cannot afford to print say 8 models using print all at once and have a failure 80% of the way through printing and loose every model. 15.04 was fine but since the introduction of 2.n (certainly 2.3) it has been a mess and for well over a year now I have regressed to Slic3r to do multiple model printing. It really does not take much brains for a user to manually layout the print bed so there are no collisions. What we need is a parameter to let us do this manually rather than have Cura do it for us. That way you are serving both your newbie users and your experienced users. And yes if we do it incorrectly we get a smash but that is our responsibility for selecting the "manual" option.

Thanks, I just wanted to be sure on what was going to happen.

I am fairly certain that it is. They were talking about a specific issue with Cura 2.6 beta, which had been reproduced and which has since been fixed. I pointed out two known workarounds for the time being. Can I ask you where you reported it? The entirety of the Machine Settings view was done in my free time, and I am still the maintainer of that code as an external contributor. Unless issues are reported on github, I may not notice them (though I do my best to check the forum). For Cura 2.6 it has undergone quite a bit of change to support multi-extrusion printers Have you actually tested this with the Cura 2.6 beta, or are you just assuming that it is not fixed because of another issue that has a known workaround and that has been fixed since then? I have just finally upgraded 2.4 to 2.6.1 and yes it has been fixed, no problems now in amending the customised printer start/end gcode statements

I have just upgraded 2.4 to 2.6.1 and this problem has been fixed, allowing customised printer start/end gcode to be amended

Oh and once you use a Z-offset command your bed levelling process becomes a new world. Try changing your gap by 0.001mm using your finger and thumb!!

Yup @ffco is correct, BUT be careful. The value you use may be different depending on the software you use. My glass bed is about 7mm thick and my printer Z height is 216mm and I do not use Cura to print, I use Repetier Host With Cura my z-offset statement is G92 Z208.795. But if I was using Slic3r (this was about 3 years ago so it may have changed) I would have used the inverse i.e. G92 Z7.205. Get it wrong and there is a loud clunk when the bed hits the extruder nozzle.

Well it maybe although so is 2.4 which is what I use. I thought 2.6 had the new function of multiple versions management so why is it telling me 2.3 is installed - I certainly do not want to uninstall 2.4 until I am happy with 2.6. Do I just ignore the message? I have, to be careful, backed up by 2.4 Cura appdata folder structure, although as I understand it 2.6 will not touch this

I have always suffered the same type of thing with 2.4R. The gcode always sets temp to 210, irrespective of what I have entered in the Cura settings. To be honest I have not spent much time trying to find where it is coming from as I just mod the gcode before the starting the print as I need to mod the gcode for the z-offset command anyway from modify printer settings bug in 2.4

Thanks @geert_2 certainly no harm in giving that a try. Although of course now it is cooler and raining, British weather for you!! I was wondering yesterday whether it was the heat or maybe it was the humidity? Not something we normally suffer from where I live but it was sure humid last week.

Yup we wereusing Colorfabb Dutch orange, which we use quite a lot but I could just not get it right. The worst point was the walls separating. They printed just fine but then small gaps would appear. I have never seen that before and we have printed hundreds of this part. It was not everywhere along every wall but enough for us to reject them. We got an extra day on delivery and by tonight I think we will have reprinted 50-60 of the original 100 :angry: :angry: :angry:

This is the first time it has happened to us. Printing in England is normally trouble free when it comes to environmental conditions; in Autumn, Winter and Spring if anything one will be heating the printer room. We run at 20/21 c. This week with England having experienced the hottest day in June for 40 years or more, the room hit 29/30 c for at least three days consecutively, right in the middle of a production run of 100 units. What a mess, lots of poor finishes, gaps between walls, playing around with Flow% to try and get it better and unbelievable shrinkage. The part we were printing fits onto a belt and so has a loop on both sides (i.e. sausage shaped “circles” ) with a specification of 4.0mm width for the vertical gap. Having adjusted the model dims. for shrinkage we always (95%+) get within 50 microns for this part which is fine. This week most of our readings were 3.60-3.70 with some down to 3.50 or so. Unfortunately we had printed a large quantity before starting QA and discovering the problem :angry:. So there has been lots of Dremeling and filing these past two days! Plus reprints this weekend to replace poor quality. Weather temps are back to normal, as is the printing operation. You learn by experience and we shall certainly not be leaving QA so long the next time temps get insane!!

Yes, others are having that issue too. It is an issue with upgraded profiles. There are two workarounds for now: * Remove and re-add your printer in Cura, or: * Open the Configuration Folder and remove the folder named "old" from "machine_instances" Devs, see https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/1902#issuecomment-305257112 Hi @ahoeben, not sure if this is 100% correct. This appeared in 2.4 which I reported. I need to get to the start gcode and change it but Cura does not allow it. Yes if you create the printer again you can change the gcode as you re-enter it. But after that, i.e. setting a up a new printer, you cannot access that printer and change the gcode - you can input the changes you want but they do not get stored. If I remember correctly the changes you make are stored in another definition of the printer heled in a different folder (wrong) rather the folder that Cura reads the printer definition on startup (correct). Disappointed to hear this has still not been fixed!! I change my start gcode quite regularly. Over the pass week I have about 10 changes and have had to keep them noted down on a piece of paper and re-apply them for every print run of new gcode. Hi @ahoeben, I reported it on 4th April, thread "Cura 2.4 release bug" and checking when, I see that you have recently posted to that thread, which I missed. I will install 2.6 release and follow your instructions and report back - on this thread rather than the original thread.

....forgot to note that my problem is with a custom printer defn., no idea if Ultimaker printers suffer the same error.

Yes, others are having that issue too. It is an issue with upgraded profiles. There are two workarounds for now: * Remove and re-add your printer in Cura, or: * Open the Configuration Folder and remove the folder named "old" from "machine_instances" Devs, see https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/1902#issuecomment-305257112 Hi @ahoeben, not sure if this is 100% correct. This appeared in 2.4 which I reported. I need to get to the start gcode and change it but Cura does not allow it. Yes if you create the printer again you can change the gcode as you re-enter it. But after that, i.e. setting a up a new printer, you cannot access that printer and change the gcode - you can input the changes you want but they do not get stored. If I remember correctly the changes you make are stored in another definition of the printer heled in a different folder (wrong) rather the folder that Cura reads the printer definition on startup (correct). Disappointed to hear this has still not been fixed!! I change my start gcode quite regularly. Over the pass week I have about 10 changes and have had to keep them noted down on a piece of paper and re-apply them for every print run of new gcode.

Thanks for the detail @Indy31,all that takes your time. Lol well if the release notes had something about it I would have upgraded but I did not see anything and I would rather stay with stable rather than Beta software in our production system unless needed. Is it automatic or is there a setting to be set to cause the retraction. Anyone know if this was fixed in 2.5 or was it 2.6?

Bump

When it does happen again, bear in mind that your bed to nozzle distance will modify that line you are printing. Normally not an issue if you print figurines but can be irritating if you print technical stuff where dimensional accuracy is important.

Hi This is something I rarely encounter but on this model, which I have to print this week-end is below minimum print time at the top and is suffering. I selected the option to Lift Head and when the model prints the head moves to the side as instructed but filament oozes out and then gets dragged across the model when the head moves back to print the layer. Is there a way to prevent this? I am sure I did this once under 15.n or 14.n and do not remember having this problem, maybe I am wrong on that. Yes I know I can print a tower to raise layer print time and get around it that way but this will increase print time and cost my customer more. I guess I do not understand why a retraction is not done when Lift Head is requested.

Because what you call "priming" is not seen as priming by Cura. The 2 "custom prime towers" are not prime towers, but just regular objects. There is no way to tell Cura in what order objects must be printed. Silly me, I assume my brain did not register the word "custom" when I read it

Yes many years ago I used to build 1:43 car kits fabricated in resin or white metal and did exactly the same before painting. A good point.

Well done you Ultimaker guys, heaven at last. Cura versions - excellent; a shame politicians do not listen to their public like you do. Dual extrusion for custom printers - oh bliss, now I am motivated to get that new heater element out of the drawer and get my 2nd extruder working again. I appreciate it is probably not the easiest thing for you to test, but I close my eyes and just hope that it is going to work - absolutely no excuse for me to not get this downloaded and help by starting to test. Model auto arrange - another example of listening and I am sure it will be better than 15.04.n !! Mold - ooh that does sound interesting; this package is just totally awesome. Off to buy some jelly tomorrow to check this out 8) Cutting meshes - have not go my brain around how that will actually work but sound a powerful tool So you have pretty much everything I have been waiting for, thank you. I did not see any mention for the 2.4 bug of not being able to change the custom printer start/end gcode so I will be testing that first!! Of course apologies if it was fixed in 2.5

I forgot to say that I sometimes use two coats. With surfaces that will lay flat during the process I will tend to load the brush more and use one coat. With curved surfaces that will slope during the process I will load the brush less and then maybe need a 2nd coat, immediately