tinkergnome

I'm not sure what you consider as "holes" in the preview. Can you show a picture of a single layer and mark the area in question on it? Just to sure: the experimental "coasting" is not accidentally enabled?

Point 5. on this page is the same explanation that i heard of ("just in case..."): https://fbrc8.com/products/um2-extrusion-train-upgrade-kit I think you can keep using the old ones if they are still in a good shape.

I would consider the "custom printer" only as a temporary solution. (I'm just saying...) The Cura developer wiki provides some instructions how to do it "the right way". https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/wiki/Adding-new-machine-profiles-to-Cura

🤣🤣 It's crucial that the printer is configured for the exact material type that you feed into it. The UM2go is meant to be an "PLA only" printer (AFAIK) - but it has to have the correct diameter (2.85mm) as well. Your pictures look like you either used the wrong material type (anything different from PLA) or the wrong material diameter. If unsure - show a picture of the material spool. Doesn't it have any label on it? In short: the first thing to check is if the material settings on the printer are matching the used material. Once this is confirmed - we can work out about maintenance, consumables and repair....

Material files are in the Cura program folder and on GitHub. That's the easiest way to confirm the parameters. If one is a bit "nerdy" one can even check the history. https://github.com/Ultimaker/fdm_materials Search for "break temperature" in the appropriate xml-file. PLA uses 60C, Nylon 145. For CPE it was recently increased from 70C to 75C (in Nov. 2019).

Cura places (the center of) the loaded object usually in the center of the buildplate. If you move it, it shows the relative distance to the center. There is no relation to the coordinate system of the printer in any way. In short: that's normal.

My first guess is: You probably forgot to change the GCode-Flavor (like you obviously did before for your UM2+)?

...and the generic "HIPS" material is explicitly excluded in the UM3 definition (for whatever reason). Maybe this plays a role in this case? https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/blob/master/resources/definitions/ultimaker3.def.json#L16 BTW: It's perhaps worth to get to the bottom of this exclusion setting - is HIPS abrasive or such? Better safe than sorry...

Well... a power supply can fail as well (and catch fire). The really big capacitors are in the power supply. If you don't cut the mains voltage in an emergency case, it will always be only half of the solution. (just my 2ct.)

I have the impression, this (old) Simplify3D thread was slowly hijacked meanwhile and turned into "just leave your complain here"... but now it's too late... 😏 I'm not entirely sure if the motion controller is still driven by Marlin, it's just an assumption from the early UM3 days. But if this is the case: The Marlin source code is available on request, that's part of the used license after all. @SandervG may correct me... i think the fastest way is to submit a request on the support page. Your reseller should be able to request it for you as well. Of course only valid, if open source Marlin is still used. But - t.b.h. - the Marlin part is by far the least interesting part of this firmware. It's severely stripped down AFAIK and degraded to a dumb motion controller. There's not much to learn from the sources. Very few of the hard-coded values are used (if at all). The Linux system is where things are buzzing... The printers configuration consists of a bunch of json-files nowadays - it's much more complex than in former days... every progress has its price. 🙂 But YMMV - just out of curiosity: what would you like to change in Marlin? But perhaps it's better to start a new topic for deep digging in firmware modifications...🧐

Well - to our luck is the quoted part "insanely inaccurate" to say the least... There's no 'key" or any kind of encryption - what he was complaining about was: the firmware updates are "signed" by Ultimaker with a certificate. The latter is IMHO a good and necessary thing for binary files that the printer receives via its internet connection (and the signing is hardly related to this topic). It means that nobody can plant an unsigned firmware on the printer with a man-in-the-middle attack. Oh-well - is this really a bad thing? 🤷‍♂️ You have physical access to the printer, so who cares? OK, the "Digital Factory" / "Cloud" stuff is not Open Source - but that's what the API is good for. The Marlin part is Open Source software and the Linux part is accessible in developer mode and open as well. Not much that holds you back from developing your own firmware - or to modify the active leveling procedure (e.g.). I've modified an UM3 in the past, because i don't like the print core illumination and the loud 'beep' of the button. Was pretty easy. Just take the time and have a look (in developer mode) - it will be worth it. Ultimaker kindly provides recovery images, just in case something is screwed up. 🙂 For some more insights from the firmware developers use the search term "Inside the Ultimaker 3". It's a few years old, but the principles are still valid. There are 6 articles (though the links between them are broken since the forum software was updated...)

Wait a second... just out of curiosity (i don't own a S5): Why not? One can develop and install a different firmware at any time, the hardware is not "locked" as far as i know. There's even a special developer mode which makes it possible to change and debug a lot of the (Python-) procedures without the need for re-compiling. There's a lot to explore. And each printers provides an API for "remote control" (actually two - the older one for network printing and the new one for the digital factory). Was anything of this removed in newer firmware versions? That would be indeed annoying... Or is it just because of the risk of losing warranty or such...?

For example: there are hobbyists (and professionals) that use different hot-ends, fan shrouds, sensors, enclosures and similar things that may have an influence on the available build area.

In this case you can configure the build area in the preferences menu, without a need to build your own firmware. One problem solved - time to struggle with the next one!

In short: because a profile with higher priority on the stack can use these subjacent parameters as a base value. The profile system is explained on the developer wiki: https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/wiki/Profiles-&-Settings

Hi @gamergirl4, Cura was never meant to act as a print server - although it obviously (partially) works. Just use the (micro) SD-card and enjoy a device that prints stand-alone. Alternatively (or if you insist to print via USB cable 🙂) Better use a dedicated print server like "Repetier host" or "Octoprint". Both are free to use. Happy printing!

Not necessarily, but it helps of course. Don't use the part cooling fan for those big objects and try a different filament first. If this is "silver", use a different color - i don't know why, but these glittering additives make it much more worse.

Actually the CuraEngine does it after every 10000 mm³ extruded volume. More about the reason here: https://github.com/Ultimaker/CuraEngine/issues/14 Exceptions are single extruder machines with GCode flavors "Bits from Bytes" and "Makerbot" for reference: https://github.com/Ultimaker/CuraEngine/blob/master/src/gcodeExport.cpp#L862 (dunno if this is of any help... it's perhaps easier if you fix your software... 😛)

yes (to both questions). All these numbers are only guesses, estimates and averages anyway. 🙂 As long as you use the default PSU and everything runs stable - just leave it at this. Good luck with the PID tuning!

Do you have pictures of the hotend installation? Dunno, but if you haven't done it yet - try the "socks", those are quite cheap. https://e3d-online.com/products/v6-silicone-socks-pack-of-3

Don't use this... Marlin auto-tune does not work - it never has 🤷‍♂️ I would like to be wrong, but articles that are useful in practice (for this specific task) are very rare... Here is a nice write-up that may help (especially the "Troubleshooting" section): https://forum.seemecnc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=11440&p=106976 no!, yes! 🙂 BTW: The absolute values do not count, the ratio between them is the key. Here is the shortest (but complete) explanation from the originator:

Darauf gibt es nur eine richtige Anwort: "das kommt drauf an...." 😏

This spacer is part of the maintenance kit STL-file and dimensions are also available on Youmagine: https://www.youmagine.com/designs/ultimaker-printhead-spacer The distance is intended to be 16.8mm - well doable with a vernier caliper

It may be very well a temperature problem. Did you changed the temperature sensor as well or is the exact same model as before? Can you measure the actual temperature with an external thermometer?

may i answer with a link? https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5035/~/run-with-graphics-processor-missing-from-context-menu%3A-change-in-process-of