rachael7

Thanks so much for the information! You are correct, at least as far as marketing goes, that PEX and PEI are different. I've tried both though, including the one from WhamBam, and had pretty similar issues, so I was just using shorthand. Interesting that it hasn't been an issue for you. I suspect it is because of the 0.2mm first layers. I'll have to give that a try. I'll check out your other thread when it comes out, no need to detail other settings here. Thank you. I couldn't agree more about the limitations of the prime/de-prime/calibration sequences and I've voiced that pretty loudly to anyone who would listen at UM. It really lands wrong for me that such a capable machine, at such a high price point, would be arbitrarily locked down in the many ways it is. I get wanting to ensure consistent good results to inexperienced or semi-experienced users, and the desire to lock down the machine to accomplish that goal. But I really feel like they should give us an "expert mode" or something like that which allows us to get into the machine on a deeper level. I would happily accept whatever waivers or limitations of support that came with enabling such an option, as it would provide so much more flexibility and allow the machine to reach its full potential. Limiting the machine to only glue-on-glass build surfaces in 2021 is shortsighted - it leaves the machine several years behind where the tech is now and stops it from advancing as build surfaces inevitably continue to improve.

So glad to hear you're having good success with it! The problem I had was that the nozzle pressing into the PEI/PEX surface led the printer to set the zero point a little below the surface of the PEI/PEX. I tend to run thin first layers, commonly 0.10mm, and the offset created by the indent in the build surface was enough to make the nozzle way to close to the build surface on the first layer. Do you tend to run thicker first layers? Or maybe you use a Z offset to compensate? The stock profiles do have thicker first layers, so if you haven't changed that, perhaps that's why it's working for you. I don't doubt that it is working for you, I'm just curious how you get around the zeroing problem.

Also, for what it's worth, I bought a piece of aluminum as a base for the magnet in my setup. I used 2024-T3, since it is the likeliest to be flat, of the inexpensive alloys. I chose the thickness (0.100") so that the combination of aluminum, magnet, and flex plate was about the same thickness as the glass, allowing the clamps to work normally and keeping the machine within the expected range of heights.

I haven't filed a bug report, because I don't think it would be considered a bug. The nozzle temps aren't drifting or behaving oddly, they're just cooling from extrusion temperature (for priming) down to standby temperature (as they always do when not in use). The challenge for us is that they're doing that cooling while the machine is also probing the build plate. When probing a glass plate, the temperature of the nozzle doesn't matter, so from the perspective of an engineer working on the assumption that glass is the only build surface that will be used, it would be a waste of the user's time to wait for the nozzles to cool down to standby temperature before probing. In fact, I suspect that it might well have waited like that at one point, only to have the behavior changed in subsequent firmware, to save time in the startup sequence (a couple of FW revisions have focused on speeding that process up). At any rate, it has no impact on people using the machine with the specified glass build plate, so I doubt you'll convince UM to consider it a bug.

So after some experimentation and communication with Fbrc8, I've determined that any build surface that can be damaged by a hot nozzle during bed-leveling isn't going to work. Normal PEI film takes indents from the hot nozzles during the bed-leveling that not only mess up the cosmetic finish of the part, but also results in bad readings on the mesh leveling. The problem is that the nozzles are hot when the bed probing starts, having just come off the priming process; but they are being allowed to cool as the probing goes on, so by the end of the probing, they are mostly cool and aren't pushing into the film as much, and therefore the machine gets different readings from beginning to end of the probing, resulting in a bad mesh. I tried Kapton tape and the result was the same, although to a lesser degree as the Kapton I tested was a lot thinner than the PEI. I plan to try a powder-coated PEI plate next, in hopes that the powder coating is less prone to taking an impression from the hot nozzle than the film version. I'll report back with my findings, but right now, I'm not real hopeful for a build surface other than the glass, unless Ultimaker will change the start-up cycle to add in a cooling period before the probing starts, so the temperature of the nozzles is the same all the way through the probing process. If you want to play with it though, no need to wait for a group buy; WhamBam and Buildtak have them now, as do a couple of vendors on AliExpress. Just be forewarned, it's probably not going to work out real well and you might be wasting your money.

Thanks for the reply, but I’m asking specifically about the S5. It has some unique things, particularly the auto bed leveling that cannot be turned off, that both make it behave differently than other machines and give me cause to worry, hence my inquiry.

Resurrecting this thread to see if there was any follow-up to this. I see that a few manufacturers are making flexible build plate systems for the S5 now, including WhamBam and BuildTak, among others; but I'm a bit nervous about actually trying it. Are you still using yours successfully? Ever have bed leveling issues? Anyone else out there using one of the commercially available ones and have any feedback?

Sorry to bump an old thread, but I'm dealing with this same issue and looking at that product as a solution. I've used PEI flex plates before, so I know that works. Does the plate interfere with the auto-leveling on the machine? Do you put it on top of the glass or remove the glass? Thanks!

Thanks, Erin. Unfortunately, we were unable to reach a resolution. The issue is too intermittent to pin down. If I can find any pattern or capture the logs after an error, we may have a new direction to investigate. But for now, we’re at an impasse.

Unfortunately, they were unable to help. That's why I came here. So far, I've been three days without an error. Hope I didn't just jinx it.

It matters more with the material station. There are workarounds, but once you've gone to the trouble to do the workaround, it only takes another few moments to make a tag to get the rest of the functionality. It speeds loading, removes any chance for a mistake, and allows the printer to track the usage on the NFC, so you know if you have enough on the roll to finish the job. So yes, it's worth it for me. Is it for everyone? Judging by the small amount of traffic on this thread, I'd say probably not.

Just tested the Amazon ones you recommended. They do indeed work much better than the smaller ones I found. Thank you again!

I’m interested. Let me know when you have some numbers.

I am also having an issue with the fine knurl feeders and error 65 on my S5 with material station. In my case, I installed both new feeders, upon recommendation from Fbrc8 (Ultimaker's US service company), so it's not a problem of mismatched feeders. Like the OP, the new feeders did solve my problem with broken PVA, which was a near constant and debilitating issue, so I'm glad for that. But ever since I changed the feeders, I get random ER65 errors on my #1 feeder, running even common filament like PLA. The errors occur at random intervals, on different sorts of parts, and they are not reproducible, so it is very difficult to diagnose. The only thing I know for certain is that it started happening after installing the new feeders and occurs at random intervals ranging from 20 hours of run time to 60 hours of run time. Fbrc8 has been pretty much useless, just quoting me sections of the user's manual basically, so I'm kind of out of ideas. I've already cleaned and serviced the entire machine, including the feeders, installed a new print core, recalibrated the decouplers, reseated the cable at the head, etc, etc. I'm also using standard UM profiles in Cura and a PLA that has run beautifully through 5kg or more. Fbrc8 told me I cannot use one of each type of feeder as that would cause errors and I was also strongly discouraged from increasing the tension on the #1 feeder to improve its grip. Even when I get the errors, the prints come out fine once resumed, so it's not a clogged nozzle or stripped filament or anything like that. Where do I go from here?

Awesome information, thank you! I will try those tags for sure!

I have the same issue with positioning. The tags work, but they're super finicky. I don't think you're likely to find ones like Ultimaker uses. I surveyed the market pretty thoroughly when I was working on this and I'm pretty sure the UM ones are custom made. It's actually not that expensive to have them custom made, but you do need to get a bunch. Maybe if someone wanted to put together a group buy we could pull it off.

I am also getting this error at widely spaced and apparently random times. In 780 hours of running, I've gotten the ER80 two or three times. Most recently, I got the error at hour 24 of a 26 hour print, very disappointing. I've checked my connections and they're solid. My bowden tubes are not attached to the air manager cable and the cable is properly secured to the back of the machine, so it does not appear to be an electrical connection issue. The error occurred in the middle of the night, when the machine was entirely undisturbed (and unobserved). It's such a rare failure, that there isn't much I can do to diagnose it, so after checking and rechecking the cable, I'm pretty much at a loss.

Ah, that's my problem. I didn't roll the rev to your new scripts at all, except for the exe. My bad. I'll download the new versions and give it another go. Thanks!

All that said, the EXE that you included as release 1.0.0 works great! So much easier without having to install Python! Thank you!!!

Thanks so much, Bunnyman! Couple issues to report, at least on my end. Compiling the exe seemed to work, but then it wouldn't actually run. It gave an error about module failed to start or something. So I tried to run the uncompiled script again. It had been working before, so I was surprised it errored out. It returned: I had originally set this up when I was running Cura 4.7. I've since upgrade to Cura 4.8.0. Oddly, the reference to Cura 4.7 seems to be hard-coded into CuraMaterial.py. How did I get myself into this mess?! LOL

Yeah, I don't think it was any change with the format of the tags. I'm hoping that they fixed what I think was a bug regarding new materials. As it stands now, if your new material has a material type field that matches an existing material, like PLA, ABS, etc, your custom material will not download to the material handler. In order to get it to go into the material handler you have to give it a unique material type, like PLA1 or whatever. I really don't think that was their intention and the release notes sound like they may have addressed it. I'll have to test it soon.

Thanks, Bunnyman! I can't even imagine being without a computer for a week, let alone 2 months! Good to see you back. I think the tags are going to work fine, at least the ones I got from Amazon. The pickup in the machine is inside the plastic divider between the bays. It's just a flex circuit, like you'd find in a keyboard or something (accidentally took one of those dividers out, so I've seen it). The tags I bought seemed to pick up at least as well as the UM ones. My UM spools only actually read if I rotate them until the tag is in the bottom half of the machine - I think they kept the transmit power low on purpose, to prevent cross-talk between bays. The purchased tags seemed to have similar response, so I'm comfortable with them. My biggest worry is that on non-UM spools, you may not have a recessed area for the tag and the tag could get damaged as the spool turns. Might be best to put a mailing label or some other sort of sticker over the tag to make sure there is no abrasion. Otherwise, I think we can turn any spool that fits into an NFC spool. On another matter, have you had a chance to play with the new 6.1 firmware yet? The release notes made it sound like they changed something relative to custom materials, so I'm wondering if it has any effect on what we're doing here.

I can't say for sure, but maybe? The issue is that most NFC stuff seems to only use the ID of the chip, and not the actual data storing capacity of the tag, so most of the NFC apps I found couldn't do anything with the data portion at all. I could manually edit some of the data fields with NFC Tools on PC, but I feel like I read somewhere that IOS doesn't actually let you do what you need to do with the phone. Also, you have to figure out which fields store the data you need to change and edit it in hex. For example, the total material weight on the roll was in 2E when I looked at it with NFCTools (I don't think the apps all number the memory fields the same) and the remaining weight was in 2F. I didn't track down where the material ID was, though I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult. In the end, I gave up on that approach, since even with the challenges in setting up Python, it was still easier to just use the tool in this thread.

Well, I was able to answer one question myself. This script is perfectly capable of writing new tags on blanks, in addition to changing existing spool tags. The trick is finding the right tag to use. After some trial, error, and research, it appears the tags you need are Mifare Ultralight NTAG216. The NTAG216 part really is the essential bit and what you should search on. I can confirm that these ones, from Amazon, work: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07BF8MSN9/. Just select your material from the list, put the blank on the reader, and click "Write Tag". Couldn't be easier.

Has anyone been able to make new tags from scratch, rather than reprogramming the UM spools?