Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

Personal Information

  • Country
  1. claus

    bioFila PlaTec

    I spent the last two weeks trying to get a feeling for green-tec. (I tested the white one) It's a real cool material from technical parameters' but also haptical point of view. It's fully bio-degradeabe, doesn't produce any nasty fumes, withstands boiling water with ease and it's from a highly motivated Austrian start-up with outstanding customer support. And with the 25% discount-code they post on the RepRap forum it's a real alternative to ABS. But anyway ... I couldn't find a single setting which made this material stick on the heatbed of my Ultimaker 2+. Whatever setting I tried - and believe me I tried a lot - it always curled up at the edges after 4-5 layers and and it really showed a nasty warping behaviour. Using the STAPLES stick .. it behaved nearly like PLA --> But I don't like the look & feel of a surface produced with glue stick. On the RepRap forum many users posted outstanding results with GTEC. http://forums.reprap.org/read.php?335,489235 But ... most of them used FR4 or carbon plates. Also Extrudr themselve recommend printing on a carbon plate. So I shopped me a Carbon plate which fitted cosy on top of the glas-bed between the clips of my UM2+. And what should I say ... All the problems werer imediatelly gone. These are the settings for the 0.4-nozzle I'm using now in combination with the Carbon Plate (my focus is on mechanical strength and not on optitical esthetics) h=0.1 -> 40mm/s -> 225°, 60°, Fan=0 for #1; Fan=100% for the rest h=0.1 -> 150mm/s -> 240°, 60°, Fan=0 for #1; Fan=100% for the rest h=0.25 -> 50mm/s -> 240°, 60°, Fan=0 for #1; Fan=100% for the rest @neotko: really looking forward to hear from your experinces with gtec But ... shouldn't we open a seperate thread for this cool material?
  2. Just filed this on GitHub: [2.1 beta] Layer processing & displaying much slower than 15.04.05 #728 Layer Processing speed of 2.1.beta is much much slower than in 15.04.05. In 15.04.05 during layer processing the portion of the object which has already been processed gets displayed. In 2.1.beta the platform stays empty until processing was finished by100%. After processing was finished stepping through the layers with Ctrl+Arrow-Keys happens nearly instantuous and seamless in 15.04.05. But in 2.1. beta there is an extreme delay every time you are stepping from one layer to the next one (rolling arrow bisede the layer scrollbar & layer number indicator) Layer display is really essential for me. Although I like many of the new features of 2.1.beta for me this extreme degaradation in layer processing/displaying performace really is a no go. This makes working absolutly impossible. So I returned to 15.04.05. Info: Ultimaker 2+ Intel i5-4210U GeForce 840M
  3. A quick brainstorming: a bigger lampshade splitted up in printable sub-components always ends up in freeform surfaces; for this application transparency /translucency of single shell is essential (single shell Thaulman-BluPrint or BioFila-silk really looks gorgeos) ultralight body parts for RC-Models e.g. fenders, bonnets, wing-parts, etc. flat-springs for vibration damping of mechanical components; e.g. suspension brackets dust/moistur-seal electronic casing, with some sections printed single wall to allow shine-through of LED to be continued ...
  4. I mean I really don't insist on implementing his with spiralize - this was just an idea. But it would be really great if a slizer in the end would be capable of really slizing x-y-structures drawn with width=nozzle-size.
  5. During my internet-search I got the impression that many users are looking for such a feature. And wouldn't this be a "unique selling point" (alleinstellungsmerkmal) for CURA if it offered a smart solution for this applications?
  6. @ NicoLinux & Tinkergnome Thank's for your reply. I played a lot with " cheating" nozzle-size vs. wall-thickness , but as you also have noticed, this is far away from being straight forward and relyable. It really depends on the specific geometry of the "single layer surface" itself, and also how you place it on the print-table. I really couldn't find a systematic approach: in some cases designing a slightly thicker wall helped. In others cheating the nozzle size wider or smaller. And in some cases nothing helped! After having done lot's of investigations in the specific forums, I think that 3D-printing of free-face-objects with only one- layer-thickness confronts us with a basic limitation of nowaday's slicers. You can find questions and discussions about this topic for all of today's slicers. But none seems to offer a solution. They really "assume" or "request" a closed loop or do two passes on a wall. And this few extra µm should be no problem in most of the applications. But as soon as transparency /translucency or spring-stiffness are the main desing goals it's really essential to get this single layer (skinny) walls. OK maybe in a 0.4mm-nozzle-world we could agree to live with the limitations of two passes per wall and go for a .25mm nozzle and end up with a 0.5mm walls. But do we really want to pay this extra price in print -time? And what if your application requires a .25mm wall? Are there nozzles with less than 0.25mm available out there? I don't know? What really would help here could be a little enhancement in the spiral-function or an add-on extra "black-magic" tool/feature ... something like "spiral-open surface" . With basic spiral you design a full body, skip top & bottom & infill and the slizer will spiral around the outer surface of the full-body. You end up with a beautiful single layer shell print of what once was a full body. But in the case of single layer surfaces there already is no top & bottom and no fill. So how should the slizer find a path around. It has to go back and forward. Pretty clear why the recent implementation works the way it does. But why not let the slizer start at one end of the single-shell-layer and when it reaches the open end of this layer do a retract, followed by an empty move back to the beginnig, and during all of this gradually increase "z" like in spiral. Just a spiral which allows for empty moves in between one spiral pass around! Here a quick sketch, to ilustrate the basic idea again ( ... sorry for the poor quality!) In theory this straight forward solution looks pretty easy ... but for sure the "detail is the devil". But isn't this something worth thinking about. ... or maybe the experts (like daid) already thought this through and have an explanation why this doesn't work. Would be interesting to know! NicoLinux .. What do you think?
  7. Hi! To print "vase-like" single-shell bodies in CURA the recommendet method is to draw a solid body and use the following settings infill = 0 wall-thickness = nozzle-diameter Black Magic = spiral This works excellent and gives really beautiful single shell hollow bodies. e.g. like this Wall thickness really is exactly nozzle diameter. But what if the body has no "closed" surface. Think about if above's hollow body in the end should be the lamp-shade for a wall-lamp. e.g. something like that So far I couldn't find a single settings in CURA which gave a result with wall-thickness=nozzle-diameter. Faking with diamter-size, using all kind of "black magic" settings. I always endet with a wall-thickness of aproxximately twice the nozzle-diamter. Cura always slizes for two shell-layers. Or the slicing result is missing many segments. And I found no way to apply the "full body and infill=0" method on such a body. OK you can always cut open the results of the first picture with a knife in the end. But this is a very brute force and dumb method. I hate it! That's why I would like to consult the experts: -> Is there a possibility to get such a body printed with wall-thickness=nozzle-diameter -> which methodology/settings do you recommend
  8. As far as I have tested tikergnome seems to be right. When loading a gcode file sliced for PLA & nozzle-size = 0.6mm the temperature is changed from 210° to 230°. For a 0.8mm nozzle it's 240° . This costed me quite some headake in the beginning, because I thought something's wrong with my system, because temperature was not set to 210° anymore. Selfspeaking parameter-names like suggested by tinkergnome would be much more unambigous. Would be great if ULTIMAKER could confirm that assumptions and whether they plan to change according to tinkergnome's suggestion?
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to the Ultimaker Community of 3D printing experts. Visit the following links to read more about our Terms of Use or our Privacy Policy. Thank you!