Morandir

@ctbeke, @CarloK, and @Smithy Thank you both very much for the clarifications. My initial reading was that Digital Factory was replacing the other services, so I relieved to hear that the rebrand of Ultimaker Connect doesn't force cloud only printing. I also appreciate the concern as to why it would be an issue. I am not in IT though I am familiar with their policies and work closely with them, so I'll try my best to summarize. 1. We would not want our corp IP data to be sent outside our organization. (The cloud is just someone else's computer.) 2. Potential attack vector to have network connections routing outside, then back into our systems. 3. I would expect they'd make a hard policy if asked the question. They have repeatedly defaulted to a hard NO on any network related questions or suggestions. I already feel like I'm on thin ice as it is with the local network printing on our current Ultimakers. Keep a low profile, and it isn't a problem. Start having issues or ask too many questions and the simplest solution would be for them to revoke all network access to the printers. (I'm sure they'd also give a litany of reasons that I'd like to avoid finding out.) Thank you again.

Smithy, Thank you for a clear answer. That is unfortunate. Can we use our printers without using Digital Factory (Print over network)? If we can't remotely print to our printer without an ultimaker account, it will likely run afoul of many policies which may lead to no more Ultimaker in our organizations future. As I said, unfortunate.

Is it possible to use Digital Factory without signing in, or up for, an Ultimaker account?

Thought about this again the other day. If the machine firmware simply allowed you to input and store a number for filament available. That number would then be decremented by the linear travel of the feed motor. As simple as Store X and Subtract Y. No need for Cura at all. Yes you'd manually have to look at the machine, but that's what I'm doing already so it would fit right in and be very helpful when using 3rd party filament. Thanks for discussing. Hopefully it's something that could exist.

I did get the same effect for both extruders (individually). Setting in only per printer, not extruder. Thus it's probably off a bit depending on where you would print. Thanks Tinkergnome! I spent some time searching for Bounding, Grey area, Limit, and Print One, but they all showed up with posts from 2.3 and 3.1. Glad to know it's being tracked.

I think I see your point. It really should be a [Firmware} request as it's would be a feature on the printer, not within Cura itself. On our end we think of them as one and the same. Should I post a request in the [Firmware] section?

" So it would count from the same setting if you change the spool. So it would only work if you don't change the spool and if you need to change the spool you have to reenter everything again for the new spool and lose the values for the previous one. " I would be perfectly happy with this behavior. Only an estimate, and a manual one at that. Spreadsheet would never happen as I have 10+ ppl printing over the network to one printer. It would be nice to have that estimate, even though I know it would be wrong if the filament gets removed or changed. As I'm the main person to do it, it would give me a helpful tool. Thanks for seeking to understand. If there's a feature list somewhere, I imagine it to be straightforward to implement (we always do, don't we), so I think it's worth being suggested for the list. -M (p.s. I'm really curious to see what you make of the [bug] post that got me to log on to begin with....)

I'll do my best to describe the issue I'm seeing. I often print multiple parts in a single print. I want to print one part at a time because they are not tall, and usually take up very little space. I have printed 9x cap like object before with no issue up to Cura 3.4. I'm on 3.6.0 now and the size to the bounding box that limits overlap has increased greatly in size. First to note, I have one extruder disabled to be able to select the Print one at a Time option under special modes. I have physically confirmed that the default Ultimaker 3 Ext printhead settings are accurate on my printer. On to the show.... So after upgrading to 3.6.0 I don't have the room to put multiple parts on my plate. The bounding box is way to large, excessively so. Let's take a 10mm x 10mm x 10mm cube for example. it has no brim for adhesion, just a cube. Look at how big the box is! In the Left-Right "X" direction: 84mm to the left and 101.something to the right. Looking at the size in the machine settings: X min Distance from center of nozzle to left of print head X max Distance from center of nozzle to right of print head. It looks like the size of the left edge of the bounding box is 2x the Xmin number (83.8mm) and the right edge is Xmin + Xmax (101.8). Sure enough! Left and right edges below Now it's time to go down the rabbit hole... So I started playing with the printhead settings values to try to determine if I could figure out how the calculation was off. I couldn't because it's not predictable. If you have Xmin and Xmax at 10 each, the size of the bounding box is 20mm on each side. Xmin=15 and Xmax=10 gives Left: 25, Right 20. Xmin=5 and Xmax=10 gives Left: 10, Right 15. Xmin=10 and Xmax=15 gives Left: 20, Right 25. Xmin=15 and Xmax=25 gives Left: 30, Right 40. Xmin=25 and Xmax=15 gives Left: 40, Right 30. It appears to me that the calculation is as such: if Xmin < Xmax then Left = 2x Xmin, Right = Xmin + Xmax if Xmin > Xmax then Left = Xmin + Xmax, Right = 2x Xmax Same behavior for Ymin and Ymax I believe with a quick check (didn't run as many numbers.) Something is very wrong. I should be able to put cubes next to each other without having 2x the space needed. Hopefully this can be fixed soon. The Y's appear to the flipped. Using the above, I was able to get the correct spacing:

You're right in that I could track it manually on a spreadsheet/paper based on Cura estimate. However I'm not the only one using the printer, just its caretaker. As you noted, it's the saving of the information to track it that would be useful. I imagine adding a selection under the Material X setting, it has two lines: Estimated Material Remaining and Manual Filament Remaining Input options. You scroll to the Manual Input, and then scroll to the number of meters remaining in my filament. Then after a few prints, you can navigate to that setting again again, and it would have a Estimated Material Remaining display the number (Input - Used).

I'd love to be able to manually input an estimate of material remaining when I add or change materials. I've got empty spool weights and a good sense of the density, so it is easy to estimate how much material I have left. I'd like to be able to enter that under that Material 1/2 settings and then have an the system subtract how much each extruder has used from that number. Would give me a live estimate of my remaining material even when I don't have a roll of NFC controlled material available. Thanks! -M

Nicolinux, Thank you for your suggestions. Thought I'd follow up to close it out for any who may find this. It was effectively an issue with the stepper motor and belt that controls that direction. We tried printing cylinders and variously sliced objects that did not reproduce the issue. It was in a region of the plate where the friction on the pulley belt changed quickly. As best as we could figure, having changes in direction in that region messed with the motors ability to return to the same position, thus it skew the parts in that area. A cylinder didn't have the issue because it would never stop/start in that orientation, just go round and round. It was very subtle. We "loosened" the tension on the belt a little to reduce the effect of the friction change and the issue went away. Shortly after we replaced the belts and haven't seen it since. Thanks again (a year later)

I was very excited to see the "Infill Steps" feature that would allow the infill to be reduced as you get away from top/bottom surfaces. The factor of 2 reduction is quite abrupt, and causes a lot of printing in the air to occur. For a long time I've wanted an infill that would split and grow to transition from a very sparse density to a very filled layer and always be supported underneath. The image in my head was that of the Divinity School in Oxford, the Vaulted Ceiling: A quick mock-up of how a vaulted unit cell might look something as shown below. The vaulted sections could then split again and create a denser layer that is supported beneath at all times with low overhang. Vaulting could recursively be used to transition between the top/bottom surfaces and a very low infill volume. Just like architects have been doing for ages. I'm a big fan of cubic-subdivision and I think it would be interesting to see if that infill type could use the recursive-split vaulted features to allow increased vertical strength and reduced infill density. Finally felt the need to speak up and put my thoughts out there for the community. Does anyone think this could get some traction? I'm sure the programming team wants more on their plate to do.... Thanks for considering.

Thanks for your response. I'm thinking it's a model singularity, though I'll post over in hardware and get their thoughts. Thanks again. -M

Greetings, (Software forum thinks it's a hardware issue, though I'm skeptical as we print test cylinders and nearly identical parts right afterward with no issue.) I'm having a strange issue with one part printing features at an angle (skewed). Here is an example of the part: You can see how the features skew, and then straighten out. It's got a couple of us scratching our heads, an we think it may be a singularity in how the slicer handles the part. Here's the mating part without any issues printed right before this: I've checked the belts, etc. we even printed a cylinder the same height as the part to see if that would skew, and it did not. Time to come to the community for help. Anyone have any ideas? (Next I'm thinking we change nozzle size...) Printing: Ultimaker 2+ Ext, ABS, 0.6mm Nozzle, Bed temp 90C, Nozzle 260C, both Cura 15.4 and Cura 2.4, 100% infill, 100% support, 40mm/s speed.

Greetings, I'm having a strange issue with one part printing features at an angle (skewed). Here is an example of the part: You can see how the features skew, and then straighten out. It's got a couple of us scratching our heads, an we think it may be a singularity in how the slicer handles the part. Here's the mating part without any issues printed right before this: I've checked the belts, etc. we even printed a cylinder the same height as the part to see if that would skew, and it did not. Time to come to the community for help. Anyone have any ideas? (Next I'm thinking we change nozzle size...) Printing: Ultimaker 2+ Ext, ABS, 0.6mm Nozzle, Bed temp 90C, Nozzle 260C, both Cura 15.4 and Cura 2.4, 100% infill, 100% support, 40mm/s speed.

Umm lets explain some basic stuff that might help. If you choose UM2 or UM2+, as long as you don't update the firmware, it doesn't matter. So you have a UM2 with Olsson? Choose UM2+ and DONT update the firmware. If you need to update the firmware just select UM2. Since you can have more than one machine settings this is very easy to do. Also @nallath since Ultimaker did sell officially a UM2 + Olsson upgrade, shouldn't Cura has a 'UM2 + Olsson'. Or just a check called 'Olsson Block Installed'. Or just a json duplicated that points to um2 firmware and enables the nozzle size. Anyway not my problem. But could be easier for users to understand how to proceed. My problem is that the firmware has already been updated some time ago, and I'd rather not revert back. I like the idea of a Olsson block checkbox, but it seems that got nixed. No 2.3.x for me it seems. :(

From the software perspective there isn't that much difference between an um2 and um2+. As long as you don't do the firmware update (because then it will select the wrong firmware) all should be well. And what do we do if the firmware update was done quite some time ago? Revert back? Ugh.. This may not be the right place, but could we please get nozzle diameter adjustment added to the list of to do's? I'd appreciate the functionality, otherwise I'm stuck on 2.1.x Thanks.

I'm so excited to see UM3!!! Just came to upgrade Cura and was surprised with the news! Question time: Can we remove/replace the nozzles in a similar fashion to the Olsson block? Yes we may be able to change cartridges to alternate sizes in the future, but those are much more expensive (10x!) than swapping out a $10 nozzle. Also, any additional details on how the spring dual nozzle lift mechanism? (Found my own answer: )Now I just need to convince the department to budget for another printer... Keep up the great work!

Erik, I too thought I'd make a more determined effort to have a successful cold pull Atomic Method cleaning of my nozzle, to no avail. My filament always breaks off at the inlet to the heater block. I took my teflon isolator out and it looks like it's probably time to be replaced, or there was ABS baked on it. I cleaned it out (rather than replaced) and it had quit a bit less friction. I wasn't able to try the pull again, but because I noticed a significant necking in the filament that broke off, I thought you may have a similar issue. When I get my up and running again, I'll try once more. In lieu of that, you can always remove the olsson heater block and clean it out by hand at least. A little tedious, but I've been successful with a Xacto knife and a moment of zen. Just have whatever is left in the nozzle then. Hopefully I'll be able to have a successful Atomic Pull one day...

Greetings, I'm trying to print a part with a couple of internal ribs, and the interface between the support material and the part is a gnarled mess. First, a photo As you can see on the right side a bit, there are supposed to be two ribs running the length of the part, but they are a complete disaster. The support grid came away as intended, but everything above it was, well you can see for yourself. I have already set the support gap to 0 to try to limit this effect. Bed is leveled with .002" shim and the first layer is printed nicely. I tried to print two parts one after another, and the 2nd part came out with half of it in shambles (even though the exterior finished well...). No delamination there. Here's another part from a couple of weeks ago. You can see the support layer is built up, but then the next part layers are terrible. Do I need to increase my grid density to limit the amount of bridging that occurs? Is there something other than slow, slow, slow that is needed? Belts are tight and lead screw is freshly lubricated. Guidance? Settings: Date: 1/26/2016 Material: ABS (White) Print Temp °C: 250 Bed Temp °C: 100 Cura Settings: 15.04.4 Layer height (mm): 0.06 Shell thickness (mm): 0.8 Bottom/Top thickness (mm): 0.6 Initial Layer Thickness (mm): 0.28 Fill Density (%): 100 Print Speed (mm/s): 50 Travel Speed (mm/s): 50 Bottom Layer Speed (mm/s): 20 Infill Speed (mm/s): 0 Top/Bottom Speed (mm/s): 0 Outer Shell Speed (mm/s): 0 Inner Shell Speed (mm/s): 0 Support Type: Grid Overhange Angle (deg): 60 Fill Amount (%): 20 Distance X/Y (mm): 0.7 Distance Z (mm): 0 Platform Adhesion: Brim Line Amount: 25 Nozzle Size (mm): 0.4 Cooling Fan: Enabled

Thanks for the insight

Thanks for the input. Here's the update: When printing at a 30mm/s w/0's everywhere else (except bed layer) I was seeing the same behavior. The first inflill line went down well, but when the next layer ran the other direction, only the peaks were getting filled to the layer. It looked like the material between the gaps slumped into the open space leaving the peaks. The photo is after a few layers. I then slowed down to 25% speed (7.5mm/s!). The proper grid line started to fill as I thought it would. See photo lower right corner. You can see where it clearly shows a solid line grid. Increasing speed% to 30% lost the effect. At this low of speed, I'm probably better off printing 100% fill as that seem to lay down clean and quick. Additional thoughts or is there something I'm missing? Settings: Date: 1/19/2016 Material: ABS (White) Print Temp °C: 260 Bed Temp °C: 105 Cura Settings: 15.04.4 Layer height (mm): 0.06 Shell thickness (mm): 1 Bottom/Top thickness (mm): 0.9 Initial Layer Thickness (mm): 0.25 Fill Density (%): 30 Infill Overlap (%): 25 Print Speed (mm/s): 30 Travel Speed (mm/s): 50 Bottom Layer Speed (mm/s): 20 Infill Speed (mm/s): 0 Top/Bottom Speed (mm/s): 0 Outer Shell Speed (mm/s): 0 Inner Shell Speed (mm/s): 0 Platform Adhesion: Brim Line Amount: 25 Nozzle Size (mm): 0.25 Cooling Fan: Enabled

Owen, Thanks for the suggestion. I did change it on the fly to 50% speed, and didn't see any difference. Perhaps that doesn't effect the predefined print speed, but only the "global" speed. I'll try a slower print at 260C (Can't go any higher on UM2).

I'm looking for some guidance on infill problems. As always a picture first helps. Sorry for a potato photo, but I was trying to focus on the part while printing. The GRID infill is only being printed as single pedestals/posts that fail to provide much support when the part is done. I am using the smallest nozzle size (.25) I've got, and I'm going slow (30mm/s). The UM2 is about 6 weeks old. Bed is leveled with .002" metal shims, and I've checked the belts for backlash. The long belts have probably lengthened slightly, but are still snug, and the short belts are tight. I can move the head around with one finger, but it's not 100% effortless (I can feel the motor steps,etc). Any guidance on the source of the problem, and how to get it to print properly? I've been doing a lot of forum reading to not just post blindly. Am I at the resolution of the feeder? I'm thinking the new geared feeder on the UM2+ may help. Thanks for any help you can provide. Also, the infill wall bond had gaps. Settings: Material: ABS (white) Temp: 250C Bed Temp: 105C Cura Settings: 15.04.4 Layer height (mm): 0.06 Shell thickness (mm): 1 Bottom/Top thickness (mm): 1.2 Initial Layer Thickness (mm): 0.2 Fill Density (%): 30 Infill Overlap (%): 20 Print Speed (mm/s): 50 Travel Speed (mm/s): 100 Bottom Layer Speed (mm/s): 30 Infill Speed (mm/s): 50 Top/Bottom Speed (mm/s): 30 Outer Shell Speed (mm/s): 30 Inner Shell Speed (mm/s): 30 Platform Adhesion: Brim Line Amount: 25 Nozzle Size (mm): 0.25 Cooling Fan: Enabled

I too have been having the same issue. By moving the print head and applying pressure to the belt from the side, I'm able to center the belts on the pulleys. It isn't a spacing issue as the pulleys have plenty of room for the belt. As the printer operates, the belt returns to it's grinding position against the side of the motor pulley. Due to the natural return, my guess is that the axes of the two pulleys are out of parallel enough to have the belt walk against the pulley wall. I too would appreciate some guidance on how to correct this issue, as I believe it may be contributing to my slight issue with gaps between the infill and the wall (the belts are tight, especially the short ones). My thought is maybe thin washers on one side of the motor to better align the axis, but as it's really tucked away in the corner, I haven't undertaken the effort. Back over to you guys again.