tinkergnome

Was genau änderst Du denn in Meshmixer, und wie? Die Antwort von @zerspaner_gerd hat Du gelesen? Du ich nun doch selbst gesucht habe, hier noch der Link für alle anderen: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4634679

This may be valid for the larger one. There's a sharp edge on the tip of the smaller cone. Anyway - both models are broken and therefore results of slicers are unpredictable. If you don't have seen it yet - here is a comprehensive tutorial about preparing models with FreeCAD: https://yorikvanhavre.gitbooks.io/a-freecad-manual/content/working_with_freecad/preparing_models_for_3d_printing.html

How are these objects made in FreeCAD? It doesn't look good at all. Nothing more than a few thousand "flying" triangles that are not connected. In addition: The wall is razor-sharp at the tip. Which kind of printer can build this...? It should look like this: cone3.b.stl

It depends... 🙂 Which printer definition is selected? Printers of the UM2-series use the material settings that are configured on the printer itself (by default). You have to change the GCode-Flavor to "Marlin" if you want to have full control about this with Cura. It's in the Cura machine settings. Be aware that there are settings for maximum feedrate. If you want to go higher than 45mm/s for retraction speed you have to increase the maximum allowed value first (printer maintenance menu -> "Motion settings") Good luck!

Take sure that any "z-hop" and "retract at layer change" is disabled in Cura

Die Frage ist doch erst ein paar Stunden alt....? Lass dem George mal noch ein bisschen Zeit, schließlich ist der in einer ganz anderen Zeitzone. Die Standardwerte für den UM2+ (35W) stehen hier: https://github.com/Ultimaker/UM2.1-Firmware/blob/UM2.1_JarJar/Marlin/Configuration.h#L206 Ich bin mit den folgenden Werten ganz zufrieden (35W), aber perfekt ist das wahrscheinlich auch noch nicht: p:12.00 i:0.75 d:75.00 Ich glaube, Heizwiderstände sind auch nicht alle präzise 35W (auch wenn sie als solche verkauft werden). Da gibt es durchaus Schwankungen. D.h. die genannten PID-Parameter sind eh' immer nur ungefähre Richtwerte.

Only an explicit tool change command sets the active hotend (T0, T1...). Again: all assuming that the printer is driven by Marlin. No clue if other firmware behaves different.

The crucial point is that RawMouse does not use the 3DConnexion driver at all. In contrary (from https://github.com/smartavionics/RawMouse/blob/master/README.md😞 Dunno, if libspnav library is mandatory or optional on MacOS?

Mooooooment! Das hat ja wohl nix mit Faulheit zu tun. Nur mit Zuverlässigkeit! * SD-Karten (und -Leser) sind empfindlich, zerbrechlich und verschleissen mit der Zeit. * Nur ein WLAN-Kabel hält ewig...(genau wie der UM2)! 🙂

Sure. There's nothing to export if nothing is created. Default profiles can not be exported AFAIK - those are read-only. ...and once a custom profile is created you simply select it from the list (if you want to use it for a print). I think "Create profile from current settings" is all what you're looking for, the export function is a whole different topic. All you need is in this dropdown menu: https://support.ultimaker.com/hc/en-us/articles/360012380880

Exporting is only handy if you want to use it as a file for backup or if you want to import it into a different Cura installation (AFAIK). Anyway: The "Cura Profile Writer" has to be enabled, not (only) the reader. And according to the manual there's an "Activate" step to do first (this will enable the "Export" button). https://support.ultimaker.com/hc/en-us/articles/360012480959-How-to-manage-printing-profiles-in-Ultimaker-Cura

It's a feature of the UM2 series. Short answer: (very) long answer: 🙂

Which firmware is used by this printer? Is it added as a custom printer in Cura? And which gcode-Flavor is used? M104 (without any T-parameter) sets the temperature for the active hotend only (at least in Marlin firmware). So your example command from above is totally fine for this purpose. See documentation for M104 here: https://marlinfw.org/docs/gcode/M104.html If your printer behaves different i would consider this as a (severe) firmware bug.

Oh - and the part does not fit in the build volume 🙂 Most probably you can reduce the size of the brim to solve this.

It would be easier with the actual .blend file... But the main problem are a lot of intersecting faces in the resulting stl file. It's a bit guesswork... it seems like the two inner divisions are separate cubes that are crossing each other and are touching (but not connected to) the outer walls. This will not work for 3D printing because it results in intersections and overlapping geometry. The whole piece is needed to be a single, manifold geometry. Don't stitch together separate parts in this way. Start with a single cube. Use only "scale", "loop cut" and "extrude" and you will get a box with a mesh topology that is perfectly suited for printing. Merge duplicate vertices before exporting - just to be sure. Something like this: Step 1 (loop cuts): Step 2 (extrude):

Well, you don't mention the model of your graphics card or the driver version, that makes it a bit hard... 🤷‍♂️ As you already know a graphics card with support for OpenGL 4.1 is needed for full preview functionality. You can start to check the log file, some more details here:

Did you read the article about "manifold geometry"? You have to model an object that can exist in the physical world. Walls without thickness do not exists and are not magically generated. You have to model them. It doesn't matter how you do this. Extrude the faces, use insets, close the geometry - whatever works for the given task. 🤷‍♂️ The solidify modifier can't repair a broken topology. It's possible with Blender - there are lots of tutorials on youtube about proper hard surface modeling for 3D printing, the importance of good mesh topology and so on. If you have fun with it - do it, stick with it. An example: https://www.sculpteo.com/en/tutorial/prepare-your-model-3d-printing-blender/modeling-3d-printing-blender/ But Blender is for sure not the best tool for this task and you will have a hard time in the beginning. You can have a much easier start with 3D printing if you use a 3D-CAD program instead. There are even free ones. A lot is possible - and you have choices... i'm just saying..🙂

Das muss hier nicht der Fall sein, aber zur Sicherheit ist ausserdem zu bedenken: Die Summen unter "Printing" zählen nur für Drucke von der SD-Karte. Wenn der Drucker über USB angesteuert wird (z.B. mit OctoPrint), dann zählt das nicht mit. Die Statistik wird dann (z.B.) in OctoPrint geführt - aber das nützt Dir ja nix... Mehr als ein grober Anhaltspunkt ist diese Statistik eh' nicht. Man kann sowas auch in weniger als 100 Stunden kaputt spielen, in anderen Fällen ist alles nach 5.000 Stunden noch so gut wie neu... Was ist denn mit dem Extruder passiert? Warum musst Du den zerlegen?

The yellow buttons are just the three extruders. That should be fine. The tools on the left side are all plugins. First step is: click on "Marketplace" (upper right corner) and check if the "Scale Tool"-plugin is installed and activated (!).

The e3d amplifier board is based on the circuit design of the Ultimainboard V2 controller (according to their documentation). Dunno, but i can imagine that there's a pullup resistor for the old thermistor on the arduino shield. If so, the resistor needs to be removed or bridged first.

This are only faces with zero volume. The crux is: a non-manifold geometry can not be printed. Most slicers try it anyways, but the result is usually not what you expect. Some hints: https://www.sculpteo.com/en/3d-learning-hub/create-3d-file/fix-non-manifold-geometry/ Designing for "real world things" is very different from the "just for visualization" - approach. If you design functional parts a good CAD program would be the better choice (as @geert_2 said). For this simple example you can either: - in Blender: close the top and the bottom with faces and in Cura: set top and bottom thickness to zero and choose a reasonable wall thickness or - use the "Solidify" modifier in Blender and define the thickness of the outer wall this way There's a builtin add-on in Blender called "3D Print Toolbox". It can check models for several error types.

If you consider how the "slices" are made (always horizontally), it may be still the broken geometry. At least there are some (or all?) normals facing inwards. That's perhaps not the main issue, but there may be more... How does the "X-Ray-view" in Cura look like?

Ich glaube, dafür ist ein "modifier mesh" gedacht. In diesem Fall also ein zusätzlicher Würfel, der den Bereich mit abweichenden Einstellungen markiert. Wenn Du dafür nicht extra ein CAD-Programm bemühen willst, kannst du auch einen "Support-Blocker" hinzufügen, passend skalieren und positionieren, und dann den Typ (und die Füllung) ändern, wie im Handbuch gezeigt: https://support.ultimaker.com/hc/en-us/articles/360013370140-How-to-adjust-print-settings-of-a-part-of-my-model-in-Ultimaker-Cura

Basically - make it manifold. It has to be a solid single object and watertight. - no "floating" faces - no overlapping faces - no internal geometry - no holes in the mesh This model has all of it🙂 as far as i can see... Whatever you did - it does not work this way. There are step-files in the original design. I recommend to use these as the basis and make your modifications with a proper CAD program. FreeCAD could be used, or even Fusion360 if you want. Some pictures: The X-Ray-view in Cura gives a rough indication of all "problem zones" (marked in red). 3DBuilder imports it like this: Meshmixer counts 88 separate shells that are not connected to each other ...and PrusaSlicer counts the errors in more detail for you:

You can probably use this definition as a base and add a second extruder definition (file) as described in the wiki: https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/wiki/Adding-new-machine-profiles-to-Cura