tinkergnome

Yes! ? The remark refers to this: Your scale is probably fine. Empty spools from Colorfabb have a different weight (255g) than spools from Ultimaker (apparently 235g)... that's all.

Das trifft aber nur auf den UM2+ zu, soweit ich weiß. Der Extruder-Motor vom früheren ("nicht plus") UM2 hat 0,9° (400 steps/rev). Mehr Drehmoment ist übrigens auch nicht unbedingt die perfekte Lösung. Das "Skipping" ist ja eigentlich Absicht. Wenn es im Transportweg irgendwo klemmt, führt mehr Drehmoment nur dazu, das sich das Transportrad vom Feeder in's Material hineinfräst... und damit ist ja auch nicht viel gewonnen...

Colorfabb uses different spools, all dimensions and weights are stated in their FAQ: https://support.colorfabb.com/support/solutions/articles/13000003167-what-is-the-size-of-the-spools- In conjunction with the known weight (and length of filament) of a full spool one can calculate the remaining length quite accurate as a function of the weight. https://support.colorfabb.com/support/solutions/articles/13000000067-what-is-the-length-of-filament-on-your-spools-

On your test object it is pretty obvious that the layers look different in those heights, where top (solid) layers are printed. The time per layer is longer in those spots and the deposited material has more time to cool down before the next layer is attached. I would try to print more than one part at a time to increase the layer time in general and/or increase the minimum layer time in the slicer (e.g. double it to check the difference). The default (5 seconds in Cura) is probably too short for this kind of model and material.

well, you can ask an Ultimaker reseller if the part from the UM2 is still available, the part number is 1320 Or try to print it, all step-files are on GitHub: https://github.com/Ultimaker/Ultimaker2/tree/master/1320_Print_Head_Top_(x1) The hole in the fan shroud can probably be drilled out. If the parts are not longer available.... well - you can always fall back to the "Aliexpress-way"...

Well, you can try the "Mesh Fixes" in Cura (make all options visible first). "3D Builder" that is included in Windows10 can repair those models quite well - and you can use "Meshmixer" to inspect the errors in the file. It's not the first time that someone shows such issues here, and i think every time, that it is quite impertinent to sell broken (or unprintable) files - especially in that price range...

Ein paar Ideen die Kantenlänge von "Part1" ist 50mm. Wenn Du in Cura skaliert hast, prüfe sicherheitshalber anschließend auch die Position (z=0) mit dem ersten Layer 0.3 und alle anderen Layer 0.2 lassen sich 25mm nicht exakt erreichen, es gibt auf jeden Fall eine Abweichung in halber Layer-Höhe - das wären aber nur 0.1mm. Wieviele Layer zeigt Cura an (125)? die Z-Höhe hängt auch davon ab, wie genau der Düsenabstand zur Plattform eingerichtet ist (bzw. beim 'Homing' vom Drucker wiedergefunden wird), und wenn die Plattform nicht perfekt eben ist (das ist sie nie...), gibt es auch eine Abweichung Mehrere kleine Abweichungen addieren sich möglichwerweise, 0,4mm sind allerdings ziemlich viel, um es nur darauf zu schieben. Da der Drucker ziemlich günstig ist, ist die mechanische Stabilität evtl. auch ein Thema. Wie gut lässt sich das Ergebnis reproduzieren (Stichwort: Wiederholgenauigkeit)? Was genau wird da kalibriert? Nach Anpassung der steps/mm für die Z-Achse sollte man eigentlich schon einen Unterschied feststellen können.

Hi bman, your modeling software is usually the better tool to define the placement of both parts. Take sure that you export both models with the same origin (if the modeling software has options for that). There's no need to manually move them around in the slicer. In Cura you simply select all models then and use the "Merge models" function (right mouse click). Basically this function lines up all origins and the parts are placed exactly like they were exported (relatively to each other). Good luck!

Good luck! ...and if it doesn't work, you can still use a brim... ?

@kmanstudios - but an "infill mesh" does not influence the stability of support structures, right? It depends on the support pattern. I think, "Zig Zag" has always this grid like bottom layer. In general - "zig zag" supports are much more stable if you choose at least one surrounding wall. The setting is called "Support Wall line count". And you should select "Enable support roof".

First of all you should check, if your UM2+ has a mainboard where all five stepper driver chips are in place. And whether you have the (older) printhead where the plastic pieces still have the holes for the second bowden tube. Irrespective of that all electrical connectors for a second extruder are present (stepper motor, heater and temperature sensor). You would have to install a firmware for dual extrusion and configure the printer in Cura for two extruders. I think, it is possible to disable the unused extruder in Cura and slice only for the other one. I'm not sure, if this requires changes to the start gcode. Probably not, if you use gcode flavor "Ultimaker".

great, thanks for reporting back!

It doesn't look like leaked plastic on your picture, is this perhaps only the copper paste what you spot there? A leak is very uncommon, if the nozzle is correctly mounted. Can you make a picture of the printhead from below and from the back?

it has be done before... https://community.ultimaker.com/topic/14254-printer-head-fan-not-working/

First of all: Welcome to the forum! Well, you'll get the warning message on the printer if you start a non-UltiGCode file from the sdcard, that's normal. It should switch to the 'printing' screen as soon as you choose 'Continue'. You said the start script is processed, so i guess you get at least that far? You'll get the 'Printing from USB' screen as soon as serial data is read from the USB connection. That's normal too, because everything is controlled from the print server (Octoprint) from now on. Is it possible that you just have to wait until the printer is heated up to the target temperatures that you've set in the start script (hopefully...). Which warning dialog (in Octoprint)? Can you elaborate this a bit more?

M103 is not supported by Marlin. There's a table with supported firmware for each gcode. And read the comments carefully - the used parameters are sometimes different for each firmware (or have a different behavior...).

I'm not quite sure if this was your question, but once your Ultimaker3 is connected to your network you can simply enter the printers ip-address in a web-browser. This opens the start page of the printers web server and there's a link to the API documentation.

The RepRap wiki has the best known reference documentation for gcode: https://reprap.org/wiki/G-code

That's more likely related to the gcode than to the firmware. Have you checked the gcode file for moves to x/y = 0? Which slicer do you use?

Perhaps a silly question: While you use the fan to extract the warm air, is there also an inlet for fresh air somewhere? I guess this is quite essential... And +1 for the 120mm fan!

Another possibility: Someone in the German forum mentioned recently that there may be a firmware bug. He said that there's an offset of the print position after resuming - depending on the active print core. There where no details about which axis or by which amount though... He just said, the pause function on the UM3 is useless for him because of this. If you use both print cores and if it is reproducible, you discovered perhaps the same issue? Source: https://community.ultimaker.com/topic/24343-2-düsen-2-layerhöhen/?tab=comments#comment-218498

UM2Go firmware doesn't exists yet, but should be doable with a bit of extra work... Basically: the growing count of different modifications to each printer variant is a recurring challenge. Even the UM2Go can have an Olsson block, a different feeder, a heated bed, a second extruder and so on... That's the benefit of open source hardware. There's no 'one-for-all' firmware but there's always the possibility to modify it - that's the benefit of open source software (i can not stress it enough... ?).

Well, if the problem suddenly appears after re-naming the (formerly working) file... what happens if you shorten the name of your file to 26 characters (or less)?

This message is pretty clear: G-code file [...] does not contain any extruder train data As i said: compare the gcode header with an example that is generated by a recent version of Cura and play "find the seven differences"... ...or post the gcode header from your file and @nallath can tell you the missing parts... ?

You can still use legacy Cura (15.04) to upload the firmware. Choose "Install custom firmware..." and select a *.hex file from wherever you want. You could even use "avrdude" from the command line, the Arduino (and Marlin firmware) doesn't depend on Cura.