Jump to content

jens

Member
  • Posts

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jens

  1. Where can I learn about how to configure the placeholders used by the plugin (the ones not found in Cura settings, e.g. each printers short name)? Thanks a lot for your patience :)
  2. 4.12.1 I just found a "Printjob Naming" plugin by you without the "Custom" in the name. Is that it? Doesn't seem to add any additional settings, though(?) Sorry with the dumb questions and all EDIT: OK, I'm dumb. It's under the Extensions menu, not in Cura's settings dialog or anywhere near the printer settings ...
  3. How can one get this? I doesn't show up in Cura's marketplace.
  4. Since some update my UM2 won't fuse wall layers (sideways layers) together. If I print vertical walls with more than one layer, those layers don't adhere to each other, like not at all. I can easily shove my finger nail in between without any resistance. It doesn't matter if I use external/internal walls or additional infill walls instead -- the result is the same. While that does lead to somewhat better (wall-)surface quality on a cosmetic level and less plastic gunk building up on the nozzle, the parts are way too weak. I didn't have that when Cura was still in the 10+ version numbers. Of course, there would often accumulate a bit more of plastic gunk on the nozzle, but I could print thick-walled parts that would really have one single thick wall (and not several separate layers like a stack of leaf springs). With the new Cura, I didn't find any option to make wall layers fuse together. Would someone please point me in the right direction? (Just in case: we're not talking about a mere underextrusion issue on the machine side of things. It's something with the slicing. I think it started somewhen with Cura jumping from 2-digit-dot-something to 1-digit-dot-something version numbers.)
  5. I'm sure it's already been discussed extensively - so forgive me for asking, but I didn't follow too closely ... Is the UM(2) electronics capable of handling another motor that you could use to lift the head parking area when in printing mode and only bring it back down for the tool change?
  6. For those situations, I usually leave holes in the part to press-fit/glue whatever (usually nuts or similar metal pieces) in. But just printing around the metal part is neat. How did you get the metal insert properly aligned on the bed? Pre-printing some thin "orientation lines", place the insert and start the actual print?
  7. Maybe it fits better here than in the truly-practical-thread ... All the same material (except for the brush head, of course, and the towel)
  8. Not sure if stuff related to wet shaving (you know, real soap and all that) is disqualified by definition ... Brush handle with an excessive amount of finishing work (still only looks rather used/vintage at best); Minimalistic shaving mug with some rough sanding and torch smoothing (except for the really bad cellulite, the inner surface is very rough for practical reasons) (Sorry, I can't make decent photos with my phone ... nor any other device)
  9. Additionally, you could try to go down with your temperatures. For me, heating the bed to no more than 60 °C did help, as did minimising nozzle temp (you have to find the minimum for your material where layer bonding is still sufficient). Also, I usually never go above 40...50 % with the cooling fans for parts of that size.
  10. No, it's an option but not needed, the metal one of UM2 will work fine. People change it because the UM2 version is not symetrical, as it was designed for dual extruders, which we now know will not happen on the UM2, so a symmetrical version in metal available from UM2 would still be very nice (@SandervG) Some people change it because the metal one of the UM2 just does not work fine with the Olsson block. I don't know if there are slight variations in the metal fan shrouds coming mounted on UM2s, but at least with mine the block just wouldn't fit without touching the metal.
  11. Erm. I didn't mean for this to get ... all emotional. Sorry. I don't know, if the program still uses the nozzle size, but, it doesn't need to. If you specify travel speed, line width and layer height, you get the volume per time that has to be extruded - it doesn't depend on the size of the hole it is pressed through (it could, if go deep deep into the effect of the nozzle size on the shape of the cross section of a single extruded line ... like, slightly rounder edges or whatever).
  12. Wall size was the wrong term. It's line width ... you put in all the line widths and numbers of lines to run for the perimeter resulting in a certain wall thickness. I do not see, where a parameter nozzle size would be required there anymore. But then again, I never ever used the new Cura to fully prep a printable file (as the program still crashes all the time; it's more like an open beta) - maybe with a simpler layout (not all the options enabled), the program falls back to nozzle size. Who knows.
  13. Just put 0.8 in as you wall size (for each wall size that you did enable in the settings)
  14. What do you mean by this? Something like this, I think: ... this goes also for joints where you would stick, let's say, one tube into another (there, you get surfaces closer to each other, if have them tapered)
  15. I asked for material stiffness (as in E modulus, not sure what the correct English term is) because I had a very thin part in mind. I use PETG a lot (still not sure if Colorfab XT is the same) - it's significantly more flexible than PLA.
  16. Hi, as the topic says: are there any filaments that are noticeably stiffer than PLA (without being much weaker)?
  17. The print looks like the heads need some x/y fine tuning, but promising!
  18. Uh ... I didn't see that. It looked like only half the tab was missing
  19. I don't mean to offend, but the design IS kind of breakaway; doesn't really look like an issue with material properties. You could make those tabs a bit thicker. Turning them by 90 deg might not be a bad idea as well (not sure if there is enough space, though).
  20. Yes, I got it partly wrong. In the new Cura, all those printing settings (that you see on the right side) AND the machine parameters will change with the "Machine" option. It's just that you can't see (and configure) the actual machine parameters (size/geometry) anymore. As for your issue, you'd only need the possibility to add a custom printer. As for mine, I'd rather have "Printing profile" and "Machine" two different things. There, I'd have - just as an example - UM2 chosen as machine and could then choose between different profiles, say, (1) PLA_smallparts, (2) PLA_rough&fast, whatever. But that's a matter of taste, I guess ... having both combined would also work.
  21. We are dependent on the community for print profiles. So far we recieved a few, which have been added to Cura. I think leopop was talking of freely configurable machine profiles where you (you, the user) put in all the parameters that strictly refer to the machine (mainly geometry like bed size, head size, offsets, etc) yourself ... It was like that in the old Cura, I think. What the new Cura does now when you change the "Machine" .... ...is to change the actual settings profile (all those options that you can have in the settings bar on the right). While it's good that you can do that, it's not actually the "Machine" that you change ... it's more like a "Printing profile". Or to say it in more general terms: now, you cannot really change the MACHINE you're printing with (except for the pre-configured ones that came with Cura); instead you can change HOW you print with the machine. However, if it isn't the machine you're changing, the respective setting shouldn't be named "Machine". First thing: Call things what they really are. Where it says "Machine" now, it should rather say "Printing profile`" or something along these lines. Second thing: Make the settings that strictly refer to restrictions/qualities of the machine (and not to the way you use it) configurable. Here, I'm mainly thinking about geometry of the printer (but could also be the max temperature of the nozzle - if you want to restrict that depending on the printer chosen). I know, that at some places it might be a thin line between either or the other (e.g. nozzle size <-> wall thickness), but that's life, there are always exceptions to rules. EDIT Should I post this as issue in guthub? I have a feeling I wouldn't be the first person to mention it ...
  22. Mine looked the same after much much less printing. It's not really an issue as long as the lower hole doesn't get to tight. (Yes ... I want to be quoted with that line.)
  23. Thanks for that offer. I'm going to try out the stock heater first and see if I run into problems ... (Just in case, info added)
  24. When will there be a stable version? Mine works well as long as there is no part and I just play with the settings. With an actual stl-file loaded, the program crashes all the time while scrolling/zooming/panning, sometimes it won't even load/slice while doing nothing (the progress bar just stops and windows tells me that there is a problem with the program and that it has to be shut down or something).
  25. Sorry for all the scattered postings, I just write as I see something new (something new that has probably already been mentioned by someone else) ... Could we have it so that the width of the options bar on the right side can be changed (like grabbing and dragging its border)? Some of the captions are shortened to an extend and in a way that you just couldn't read (understand) them anymore.
×
×
  • Create New...