prb4

I was wondering what other peoples experience of Neosanding / ironing has been? Generally I have found it works well, however not always. I have three Ultimaker 2+ printers. On two of the printers at 0.1 layers ironing is great almost every time. On the third printer I have a lot of problems. The ironing process doesn't leave as nice a surface finish. There are areas which are perfect and areas which have small holes. I know it isn't the model I am printing or the settings because the other two printers work great with the same gcode. I haven't been able to work out what it is about the third printer (and newest) that is different to the other two. Hence the question, what have other peoples experiences been of Neosanding / ironing? And to pass on more of my experience, all three printers struggle with ironing when I use 0.2 mm layers. Indeed I have decided to stop trying because it fails to give a completely nice looking top far more often than it doesn't with 0.2 mm layers. Out of interest, the poor top surface with 0.2 mm layers looks very similar to the areas of the top surface that fail with my thrid printer, so perhaps this is a clue as to what is happening? I'm out of ideas, in all other aspects the third printer works well enough. I am interested to hear about others experiences? Peter

All I would like from a new printer is better quality at a faster print speed for a lower price...

Hi Two possibilities come to mind. 1. You have chosen a very thin first layer in Cura. Check that your first layer is 0.3 mm. 2. The bed is level but at the wrong height. Personally I find that the calibration card Ultimaker supply is too thick. I always need to have the bed leveled closer than this to get a good first layer. I once obtained a "Leveling Rings" gcode file that someone made for leveling the bed. This works very well. Link here: https://ultimaker.com/en/community/6951-calibration-utility-leveling-ringsgcode

Hi I have 3 Ultimaker 2+ machines that run almost constantly. I regularly clean and lubricate them and change the TFM coupler as required. I was wondering if there is a recommended maintenance schedule for the other parts? I notice that a Ultimaker 2+ maintenance kit is available containing the following parts: PT100 B Sensor Glass Fiber TFM 2x Fan Pack Bowden Tube Pack Olsson Nozzle 0.4 Hot End Isolator Pulley Pack Glass Plate Build Platform Glass Retainer Back (2x) Calibration Card Sliding Blocks 4x Magnalube / Grease Timing Belt GT2 200 (2x) Timing Belt GT2 610 (4x) Heater Cartridge 24V 35W Injection Molding Part/Print Head Aid Sewing Machine Oil How often should I change the parts in this kit? There are two TFM couplers, does this mean I should change all the belts, glass plate and nozzle every time I change the TFM coupler twice? I've never change the nozzle (I only print non abrasive PLA), should I expect to need to change it? and how often? I will be interested to know if there is an official recommended maintenance schedule and what other people actually do? Thanks Peter

Hi I'm reporting back my findings. I've tried the salt method for sticking to the bed for a few days on a number of different prints. It did work to a degree but I didn't find it better than the glue stick so I have decided to return to the glue stick. I am prepared to admit I could be doing something wrong, or perhaps this method doesn't work so well with Faberdashery PLA. Thanks anyway Peter

Thanks for the extra information. I've followed the link (thanks) to your website and downloaded the very detailed explanation. I'll give this a go and report back. I use almost exclusively Faberdashery PLA so hopefully this will work well for me. I also noticed your gentle atomic pull method and have downloaded a copy of that too. I will give this a try next time I do a clean as I have always been concerned about the force exerted during an atomic pull and consequently don't do them until it is absolutely necessary. One comment I do have is, have you tried going to 240 C during the clean even for PLA? Your instructions suggest that 210 C is enough to melt the PLA which is of course true but I have always understood that it was a good idea to do an atomic clean from 240 C to melt higher temperature plastic debris (even if I only print with PLA). Thanks again Peter

I'm interested, I've read Geert's original post, but I have questions? (The link you provided doesn't work for me) How do you actually lay down the layer of salt? Do you dip the glass bed in a bucket of salt water? Do you dip a cloth in the salt water and dampen the glass bed? Or is there another way? Thanks Peter P.S. I find glue stick generally works for me, but not always, so I would like to try this method if possible.

A flatter glass would I think be a big improvement. I have three Ultimaker 2+ machines and none has a glass plate that is really flat. When printing a thin first layer it is quite easy to see the waviness of the glass plate. I usually choose to level the bed so that the lowest parts of the plate are at the correct distance and other parts are too close. This way I get good adhesion over the majority of the glass plate. By the way I use the "leveling rings" code that was discussed on the forum a long time ago and it really shows up the waviness of the glass plates. All three of mine have very different shapes. Peter

I had this fault after a session of checking all the screws were still tight. The solution was to bend the X-axis limit switch slightly. I'm assume I accidentally bent it while performing the maintenance.

OK that's interesting. I'll definitely look at that and see if that is where the delay is. I can understand that reducing the speed for the walls and the top/bottom should improve the print quality. However isn't there a problem with nozzle temperature? Normally if I were to print at 20 mm/s instead of 50 mm/s then I would reduce the nozzle temperature. I am interested in this because I can see the potential to increase the speed to 100 mm/s or even more and keep the wall and top/bottom speeds at say 50mm/s and not loose any quality but reduce the time. However I am concerned about what the nozzle temperature should be with such an approach? Is there perhaps a recommended limit on the difference between the speeds set?

That's interesting but are you sure? I ask because the printer definitely looks and sounds like its doing retractions. If it isn't retracting I wonder what it is doing?

All gone quite again eh! I've uploaded files illustrating the problem as requested (see my earlier post). I am surprised someone at Ultimaker isn't interested in significantly improving their print times?

I see no improvement in quality Only a massive increase in print time (up to 100% longer). This bug has been around for a long time. I occasionally try a new version of Cura to see if it has fixed the problem only to be disappointed time and time again to find that the print times are extremely long. As I said in an earlier post I think the problem is related to the way retractions are handled. This could be a red herring however visually it seems that on versions post 14.09 (ish not sure which exact version the fault was introduced) the print head pauses for a long time during a retraction compared to 14.09 which hardly pauses at all. ...and before anyone asks the retraction settings are identical!

I am talking about Cura, it's a slicing problem. Firmware is identical Exactly the same problem occurs in 2.X and 15.X I did run some tests with 2.X and as far as I could tell the times were the same as 15.X. i.e. 2.X takes much longer to print than it should

2 colour printing to allow the use of dis-solvable support material, even from support I modeled as part of the item. For me this would take the Ultimaker 2+ from excellent to amazing. It would save me a lot of time (and therefore money) if I didn't have to manually remove support.

OK, sorry it has taken me so long to sort out the files. However if anyone is interested in looking into this here are some files. There are three files: - The original stl file of a cuboid 30x30x10 mm - The gcode file sliced using Cura 14.09 - The gcode file sliced using Cura 15.04.6 I have the firmware from 15.04.9 installed on the Ultimaker 2+ Cura 14.09 said the print would take 25 min and it actually took 25 min 48 seconds Cura 15.04.6 said the print would take 24 min and it actually took 32 min 17 seconds I used the same profile for both prints. Sliced with 14.09 first and loaded the profile into 15.04.6 from the gcode created by 14.09. The basic settings are: 0.1mm layers, 0.8mm shell, 0.8mm top and bottom, 25% fill, 50mm/s, Brim. The files are in dropbox stl file https://www.dropbox.com/s/2kxl3khhnsw05mm/30x30x10%20cuboid.stl?dl=0&oref=e&n=206000559 14.09 gcode https://www.dropbox.com/s/eqh62hm52mb14f5/14_09%20cube.gcode?dl=0&oref=e&n=206000559 15.04.6 gcode https://www.dropbox.com/s/elu6nuuei1bx7jg/15_04_6%20cube.gcode?dl=0&oref=e&n=206000559 Many thanks to anyone who can shed some light onto this....

OK, thanks for the offer. I can easily create an stl and 2 gcode files however I don't currently know how to supply them to you so it might take a few days for me to sort it out.

Does it actually increase or is it just the estimation that is different? I very much doubt that the actual print time increases by 100% by something that happened between 14.09 and 15.02. Especially because after two years you're the first person to report the issue. Sorry for the delay in replying I have been on holiday I have reported this before. I have read posts of at least one other person who has noticed the same thing. The time increase is REAL not estimated. It depends on the item being printed but yes the print time increases by 100 % for some objects and a significant amount for all objects.

14.09 is the best version I've used (and still do). Later versions (definitely 15.02 and later) all cause prints to take much longer than necessary. I think it's related to the way retraction is performed but I've not quite worked out exactly what changed. It's a shame really because I would like to use the new features in 2.x but I can't accept an increase in print time of 25 to 100 %.

I'm glad someone else has noticed the same problem, at least I know it's not just me. Unfortunately talking 25 % to 100 % longer is not acceptable for me, as the old adage goes time is money and in this case it quite literally is. I'll continue to investigate tonight, but some input from a Cura developer on what changed from 14 to 15 to cause this huge increase in time would be helpful?

Ok thanks, this sounds like a good solution. Any idea what the extra cable was for on my old print head assembly? I'm now fighting Cura. I haven't updated Cura for a long time because the later versions were always worse. The problem still remains. I have a little test print cube, when I use my (very) old version (14.something) of Cura it says it will take 24 minutes and it does. When I use any later version (now 15.04.6) it says it will take 22 minutes (great!) but it actually takes 32 minutes (Oh dear!) This may not seem like much, but on larger prints it adds hours and hours to the print time for no benefit. I have avoided updating Cura because of this problem (I've posted about this problem before but no one has offered any solutions/reasons), but with the upgrade I've been forced to update Cura. Investigating the problem last night I think it might be related to retraction. When I print the test Cube sliced with old Cura, it doesn't do any retractions when printing the infill. When sliced with the new Cura the printer is doing retractions after every line of infill and taking a long time to do it. I don't want to turn off retractions for obvious reasons. Why is Cura putting in retractions for infill when it didn't use to and how can I stop it? (clearly I don't care how much stringing goes on inside the print!)

I've just installed the upgrade and done a quick test print. So far everything seems ok but I'll reserve judgement till I've run some longer tests. I have one concern. I have quite an old Ultimaker 2 and many of the instructions were incorrect which is fine for all except one. My old print head had an extra pair of wires on an extra connector that connected onto the PCB adjacent to "J22" and near the word "serial". I was not told to remove this cable in the instructions (but obviously I had to). The new print head assembly did not have this cable. What was it? Everything appears to be working but have I missed something? Also the fan duct on the new print head just hits the edge of the plastic printer body when the head homes. I haven't looked at fixing it yet but I am thinking of filing the fan duct down a bit, unless someone knows of a better fix? Thanks Peter

I've just received my 2+ upgrade kit but not installed it yet. Should I be using this new 2.1.2 version after the upgrade? Thanks Peter

I would just like to add my thanks to Ultimaker for providing the upgrade kit. I just wanted to provide an alternative voice to all those that say everyone has already upgraded their printer and doesn't need the upgrade kit. I use my printer a lot (and it is one of the early ones) and I haven't had time to mess around trying unofficial upgrades to find out if they are better because I need the machine to work. (and I should say it has worked, for 2 years, with minimal maintenance) So despite using the printer a lot I haven't got any of the upgrades in the upgrade kit. I am delighted to be able to purchase a full official upgrade grade kit that I can be confident will work and minimize the down time of the printer. My only question (a part from how much!) is will the kit come with detailed instructions on how to perform the upgrade? Thanks Peter

Yesterday I read a very good post someone had written about modifications they had made to their UM2 printer. It was titled " My favorite mods UM2" I can't seem to find it now. I saved a link to the post which doesn't work now. https://ultimaker.com/en/community/view/17591-my-favorite-mods-um2 If this post been moved does anyone know where it is? If it has been deleted - what is someone trying to hide? Thanks Peter