Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts

phantom

Member
  • Posts

    106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by phantom

  1. @smartavionics Sorry for the late reply, thanks for looking into this, much appreciated !! 🙂
  2. Here you go @smartavionics cube 2.3mf cube 1.3mf
  3. Hi @smartavionics, Please find them attached 1 = + 2 = - cube 1.3mf cube 2.3mf
  4. Hi guys, I've come upon a bug in "Initial Layer Horizontal Expansion" Printed a couple of calibration cubes with setting going from 0.52mm to -0.52mm and there was absolutely no change in measurement in the cubes elephant foot, whilst this isn't a small difference ? @smartavionics Attached gcode, Cube 1 = + value of 0.52mm Cube 2 = - value of 0.52mm Cube 1.gcode Cube 2.gcode
  5. I've come upon a bug in "Initial Layer Horizontal Expansion" Printed a couple of calibration cubes with setting going from -0.52mm to 0.52mm and there was absolutely no change in measurement in the cubes elephant foot, whilst this isn't a small difference ?
  6. Hi all, Just wondering when the final be ready? Greetz Barry
  7. Hi @smartavionics, Thanks for checking! The top surface layer is equal in both version right, as is maximum resolution ? Changing these settings would make a difference as would changing a layer height to a higher value, it's obvious that the slicing time would drop considerably, but that is a choice that you know will take more time to process(and print) So the question is what changed that the slicing times are this much higher then before 3.5. Slicing on my computer is very consistent, i have a gaming laptop with i7 desktop cpu and high end gpu and all on ssd drive, so I am not used to long slicing times and staring at the progress bar. I can do it several times on files bigger then this, and it will be consistent with a stopwatch to within 2-3 seconds. So if this print is 15 hours, you can imagine what the difference in slicing time is between 3.4 and 3.6 when I slice a model that prints more then a day, I'm talking 3-4 times longer, and in minutes that's a huge increase, so there must be either a bug or a setting so different that wasn't there before. Let's hope we can get the speed as it was previously (same settings offcours) and hopefully @ghostkeeper has a fix in 4.0 Guys I appreciate the help and looking in too it! Greetz Phantom
  8. Hi @smartavionics, I also got a response on the 3.5 beta topic and it seems to be an update in version 4 according to @ghostkeeper If this is non related, here the 2 files i made: 3.4.1 1.23 minutes to slice 3.6 took 2 minutes Thanks for the help ! 3_6 version testfile.3mf 3_4_1 version testfile.3mf
  9. Great, thanks so much, i'll be looking forward to it !
  10. Hi @smartavionics, Any model can be used, its not dependent on the model. The larger the model the more obvious the difference in slicing gets, it's the same as what I posted in the 3.5 beta topic. When slicing anything, the filament usage as well as printing time are very close so it is not the settings (difference of around 15 minutes on a 19+hour print). It basically already starts when opening any model, there is already an noticeable delay in projecting it on de buildplate, and before it starts slicing compared to previous versions before 3.6 and 3.5
  11. Like yellowshark said, there are more fan settings, did you check them out? Maybe you should be more specific then saying you have the same problem and that your surprised it didn't get more attention. Like Yellowshark said, there are more fan settings, did you check them out? Using the search function results in more then enough topics on fan settings, did you read through them to find how fan settings work and have you applied them and still it doesn't work?
  12. @Ghostkeeper, I posted the same a few days back for cura 3.6, as the problem seems to persist. Do jou know if this will be resolved in the future? Greetz Phantom
  13. It might be acceptable to you, but that's not generally speaking every ones opinion. There are still lots of users going back to previous versions as not each version seems to be an improvement in print quality especially the latest versions. This would also included professional users. Forward compatibility seems to be an issue too with this version seeing recent posts so it worth bringing this issue up. I keep seeing more replies stating that the software is free, hence users should be less demanding...?? If you want to be the number 1 selling printer manufacturer, top notch software is key if you want to differentiate yourself from the rest. Be glad that the many users point out all the different errors showing up, makes for a better more stable program in the long run. We should be demanding or else you wouldn't have such a great community and sell less printers.
  14. Did you try of it worked? And yes bugs happen, but isn"t that the reason we mention issues, so they get checked and resolved ?
  15. Could you maybe give it a try? I have not experiment this before with any Cura 3. version so it stuck me as odd that it does say it is imported succesfully but doesnt show up to select.
  16. Hi, I exported my profile because of my previous post about the sluggish slicing in this version so i could test the same model with the same settings on 3.4.1 However trying to import the profile in 3.4.1 does not work, it says it imported it succesfully, but the menu does not show the profile no matter what i do. So is 3.6 not backward compatible ? Greetz Phantom
  17. Hi, Since 3.5 beta i adressed the issue that it takes much longer to slice an object then it did previously before as in 3.4.1, It doesnt seem to be resolved in 3.6 at all! Same settings on 3.4.1 as on 3.6 i picked a model and timed both how long it takes to slice it. 3.4.1 clear winner at 1.57 minutes 3.6 ridiculously slow at 3.59 minutes 🐢🐢 discussed here and reply from Ghostkeeper as 3.5 beta was the first to be this slow: Posted September 25 in Introducing Ultimaker Cura 3.5 | Beta I did a performance test on that 3.5 file using Callgrind and got this result: http://dulek.net/work/3.5-beta-callgrind.out.3886 This seems to point to this change: https://github.com/Ultimaker/CuraEngine/pull/791 We'll continue discussion there. Any thoughts on this? Greetz Phantom
  18. Here you go mate! Synthesizers_com Studio-110.obj
  19. I found another descrepancy I dont know if it is related to the same issue, but it is wall related. The model is sliced with 4 walls, and shows gaps in the layer view on the first layer infill, and thicker infill lines all throughout the rest of the layers. Slicing the same file with 2 walls thickness doesn't seem to do that and shows a clean slice. I printed the models first 2 layers but they are so compressed that it doesn't really show anything in real life or in a picture. Hope this helps you guys in figuring out the problem :-) slice first layer: Slice second layer: 2 walls first layer no issues cura 3-5.3mf 4 walls first layer issues cura 3-5.3mf
  20. Hi Samrtavionics, Saved it as you said how to save it, let me know if this is sufficient. destroyerfinal 3-4-1.curaproject.3mf destroyerfinal 3-5.curaproject.3mf
  21. Hi smartavionics, I have attached both the file made in 3.4.1 and 3.5. In addition, saving the sliced file also takes much longer Hope it helps! destroyerfinal cura 3-4-1.3mf destroyerfinal cura 3-5.3mf
×
×
  • Create New...