zumfab

This is my main question now too. I believe on of the problems with older boards was the connector not being up to spec. If that is the only problem, I think that could be fixed by soldering another to the PCB. I am not too scared of that. Going for the full monty is a little bit too crazy, it would probably be cheaper to sell off the current Ultimaker and get another from the shop. It is printed on the board, close to the on/off switch. You should be able to see it without taking the whole thing off.

I am fairly aware of what benefits a heated print bed should yield and the limitations of the current Z axis setup too, but out of curiosity: can you show specific examples of what you feel is gained?

Pheow, that heated print bed is a real investment. My earlier comment on the 1.5.7 electronics has been confirmed, so I am very curious what this means for people on older boards.

That last question is easily answered. In the original frame you have 45 mm to work with. Any taller than that and the electronics will take up more space than the frame provides. Of course, if you build from scratch, you could always adapt the frame to your needs.

I have been told the upgrade is for electronics version 1.5.7. I am very curious what that means for owners of older electronics and whether any issues there, like a power connector that is not up to par, can be fixed by the user, even if that means soldering. It would be sad if owners of older electronics would need to upgrade or miss the party.

Any input on this? I have seen a couple of UM2 printers, but I am really not sure of the differences the parts of the respective feeders.

Although it is great that these colors are available, I cannot justify these kinds of prices to myself. I tried their normal PLA/PHA and felt the price was hampering me in my willingness to print, which is not what you'd want. This price bump is not going to make it any better. Until the prices go down, I am sad to say Colorfabb is not for me. I am not sure that is relevant when commenting as a customer. The internal price point decision making concerns me very little compared to the result of that decision making.

It's a matter of two evils. Either you use a Bowden cable and gain a light print head, improving print quality and speed but introducing some slack in the filament feed, or you use a direct feeder on the hot end and gain a lot of weight and thus problems. There is a best of both worlds solution in development in the form of a flexible shaft, but the judge seems still out on that one. Also, some people seem to have a little more luck printing flexible material with Robert's feeder, although results are not guaranteed.

It I would want to fit one of Robert's feeders on an UM1 for the sake of printing flexible material, what would be needed? Finding a place for the motor to live is one thing, I guess. Are the other non plastic feeder parts unique to the UM2? Robert, in what program did you make your files, if I may ask?

If it has been invented, it has been, or will be, abused to harm people. That is how it has been and always will be. It is just human nature. Somehow 3D printing gets people all worked up. I guess it comes with the territory of a slightly hyped phenomenon, but in reality it is no different than all those other technologies that are useful and can be very useful or very harmful, depending on intent. The same could be said for mobile phones, the internet, aircraft et cetera ad infinitum.

I think SLS and FDM are two different beasts that each have their own niche to fill. If UM decides to storm this market, it will have to be alongside the existing products and not instead of

I heard the new heated build platform will require a 1.5.7 board to be installed. I am very curious what this will mean for older hardware and, more importantly, what this will mean for associated costs and/or whether the older boards can be adapted to perform too.

On the scaling front, I got decent results using a 1.02 scaling factor over X and Y. I tried my hand printing some Lego compatible blocks that that got almost every dimension where it needed to be.

Seconded. This is one of the bigger new things at the moment and a lot of people seem to find it challenging.

I find tweezers are a useful tool to have around 3D-printers. You can get tiny bits of stringed filament out of the way without interfering too much with the moving parts and they are ideal to remove excess material oozing from the hot end before extrusion.

I was wondering, if I were to outfit an UM1 with IRobertI's extruder, are there any specific parts that I would be missing? First I though about a UM1 specific version, but for the sake of simplicity I think it would be a better idea just to stick the UM2 version onto the Original. Obviously the motor needs a place to live, but that can be done. Not so sure about the rest though

That seems like a nice looking keyboard. What is that?

Those are different prices than what I found, in that case it actually makes sense If it is appropriate on this forum, do you have any additional information? Without wanting to sound harsh, because I think Ultimaker is doing a pretty good job, I never really cared for the housing of the Ulticontroller and feel it might be a bit on the expensive side too. Something like this seems like an excellent alternative.

This got me interested. What is the main advantage over, say, the UItimaker propietary Ulticontroller? It seems there is not much gain price wise, so there must be something else

Are you all printing with the Ultimaker 2? It seems to be a very valuable addition to the toolbox to be able to print flexible materials, but I am working with an Ultimaker 1. I am willing to do some adjusting or minor modifications, but it should not become a huge project. It would be pretty neat to print gaskets, model tires and tracks.

The main problem with FDM, sorry, FFF is that the smaller you go, the slower it gets. With those kinds of resolutions, any print will take long and large prints will take incredible amounts of time. It is one of the reasons or maybe even the main reason I see the technology as pretty much a dead end street when it comes to perfectly finished parts - inherently that is never realistically going to happen. If that roughness is not an issue for whatever reason, it is actually a cheap and quick way of getting things done. Until technologies that are more precise become cheaper, faster or produce structurally better parts, FDM will have a future.

I was wondering, is this going to remain an upgrade, or going to be a standard part of the Ultimaker kit?

I think the month waiting time is not an issue, but I hope the price will be acceptable. When an upgrade reaches a certain point (say 200, maybe 300 euros) the money is often better spent elsewhere in the workshop to greater result. I do understand an extensive rebuild of part of the printer means a certain cost, but from a user perspective it is all about the gains versus that cost. 500 euros would be a bit ridiculous, as you could build a full printer for that money if you are willing to source your own parts. Maybe not an Ultimaker, but still, it could actually be a decent printer. Well, we will see.

I hear the telltale click clack during printing, but I double checked to be sure. Retraction is on and happening with standard and recommended settings. It was an experiment with a slightly higher temperature to see what the influence would be on bridging, but bridging, stringing and surface print quality all suffered. Lowering the temperature back to the old settings fixes all of that. I will have a go at the clip you posted.

I seem to be missing your post with the question, but I think I get the idea: in layer view the layers seem straight. I am printing a 1x1x1 cm version of this cube - although the picture is made by someone else. I did not print this cube. I tried setting the temperature from 210 to 217 like in the clip, but the result was less than spectacular. The surface quality was actually a lot worse and the intended bridging was slightly messier. There also was some unwanted bridging between the upright legs. I tried 190 and 200 degrees celcius before too, but former caused adhesion issues and the latter had trouble forming solid layers without separation between lines in the same layer, both an indication of the temperature being too low. Maybe I need to try a modern dual fan design.