Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

Personal Information

  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think I get it. Doesn't work in reverse though. (At least for single walls) I tried increasing the line width to cover that second pass but then it wont slice the wall. Either way, I'm definitely going to have a play with this new information. Thanks! Also, I guess I have been increasing the overlap whenever I seen an issue or trying to fill gaps ect. What's technical difference between changing the line width vs. changing the overlap?
  2. What can I say. Sometimes I get in the paint and I charge hard. Then I'm like meh, and lose interest. When this happens are the extrusions recalculated to 7/8 as well, or is this in a way creating an over extrusion? Or Is this just a way to force an overlap? Does this create a dual overlap alongside the existing overlap settings?
  3. It was never about just taking my word. Trust me, I don't take anyone's word in this either. And I tell people to do the same. However this wasn't my word, or my opinion, or what I thought. It was my findings. I've also never been accused of being a good teacher. And when people ask me to teach them, I say no, I'm not a good teacher. While my explanations are correct, some may not understand. While I tried a few ways, I guess they all seemed the same to you. If I'm trying to describe the color red. All I got is "It's red" "Its not blue". That's just how my brain works. I too grew up with Cura, but I have always hade to change many default settings. Not because I wanted to do anything specific. Guess its because I don't have a fancy printer like you that Cura was tailored for? I mostly learned to change setting according to how my printer reacts to them. And how the Cura engine links the settings to each other. I'm no programmer and coding skillz can make an LED blink... maybe twice.... I can just see the logic in the printers behavior. I watch what triggers bad behavior then create super simple STLs that when sliced are easy to read. Why would the default line width be .35mm? I've always assumed/been told that it was supposed to be the same as the nozzle width? So I always change it to .4mm Never had any issues, so that's where it stayed. And I only ment that line width didn't matter in the aspect of printing asingle wall - no matter what line size you input along side the actual wall thickness produced a single wall. I previously stated it as overlapping walls - that was a bad term for me to use. The nozzle overlaps say 99%, while that 1% of nozzle is hovering over free air. That's where the 1% extrusion I mentioned came into play. That 1% of exposed nozzle, is extruding 1% of filament. Thus creating 2 walls. A full wall and that little smidge of a second wall. 2 passes - 2 walls. Same thing as any normal overlap setting in Cura, but recalculated to the extreme that you cant control. (I was just wanting to control it). And holy crap!! I never thought about reducing the line size to force a more detailed slice! I'm pretty sure you're talking about lithophanes? If it works for me, ill have to shoot you a few pennies too! avionics never shot me a link :/ I haven't printed ninja flex yet, I've seen plenty who have with mods are a simple as just adding a rubber band. I must admit, it is fun doing things people say cant be done.
  4. Actually, the only issue i had was your continual arguments of your opinion against facts i brought to the table. Facts you didnt struggle to understand, but blatently ignore, and continue with your opinion. And literally, who opens up cura and prints with the default settings. I had to change plenty before i even start to print, even the filament diameter was wrong. So arguing about default settings is moot. Either way, the line width means nothing. I have changed the line width multiple times/sizes and no combination of wall thickness vs. line width will create a single wall. Or I have yet to find this magic number. Which is why i came here. So no, you never have printed single walls, and argued you had/were, driving this argument. And i had fun with it. Buuuuut, this bores me now. Glad you learned something out of it and no longer pass on misinformation. Catch you in another couple years when i cross a situation i cannot figure out on my own. Ok, bye bye now.
  5. I explained they are not "stacked" on each other. they are overlapped.. Stacked would mean a new wall is printed on top of the original. Overlapped means they are not stacked. It is slightly offset and the slow 1% extrusion is creating a new wall that is joined to the previous wall.. HUGE difference in realities. I did explain myself, also The first reply understood EXACTLY what I was talking about. It is not my fault you chose to jump into a conversation you did not grasp es of plastic one on top of the other. That is not ignoring physics. That is observation. It may not be all there is to it, but it is observation. The observation of one line laying down on top of another, Again no, you ignored the facts given to you because "didn't understand it". There is a HUGE difference between 1 and 2. The real explanation was set forth in the beginning with my gcode analysis AND confirmed with the very first reply (which you chose to ignore as well). Sorry, but its completely relevant. The gcode shows the EXACT movements of the toolpath. Not what you think you see in a picture. Im actually a happy go lucky kinda guy. I just didn't appreciate someone arguing their opinion over the facts I given. (again facts that from the first reply understood. because you couldn't is not my fault) no, I turned it off on my phone. its like really super annoying. But youre really doing your dammdest to deflect.. my spelling has nothing to do with the gcode that you cannot understand anyways. What I'm after? Basically, an apology. Or just stop replying is cool. You still cannot understand the you caused this by arguing your opinion over the facts I presented. And you did this on the grounds because "you did not understand". I was arguing and trying to explain to who I thought understood the basics of 3d printing. Which you didn't. Which brings to light many points. Why were you arguing your opinion over facts I presented? Yet you claimed me to be a troll? You said my alternative facts? Seriously, what kind of teacher are you? A student provides evidence and you ignore it because its above your paygrade of understanding? Funny you pointed out your a teacher... like it had any bearing on the conversation. it obviously didn't grant you any understanding of my post from the get go. Yet you try to point out I'm being superior? Well I can hold my breath for 10 seconds. I guess were even..
  6. So if you acknowledged the difference WAY back when. Why were you persistant in saying that you can print single walls. And yes it is a fault. When you blatently ignore facts being given to you.. Just because YOU cannot understand whats being said, does not make it untrue. It does not allow you to revert back to your own reality, ignoring the math of the gcode when the line plot shows 2 walls being printed, when you ignore the physics when way back you admited to visually watching 2 walls being printed. Then continue to say, you print single walls all the time. Which is completely untrue. So yes, all that makes me giggle.. So again i ask. ( Iwant to see the depths youre willing to fight this)... Do you think have always been printing single walls?
  7. Statement - me. "I'm trying to design models as "vase mode". I model in Fusion360 and my latest endeavor is that a few projects require single wall prints." Explanation - me - "After some troubleshooting, I found in the gcode. It turns out that the "rewind" is actually printing that extra little bit of wall. (I need/want this part to not happen) " AGAIN - What im trying to accomplish - (I need/want this part to not happen) you - "print in vase mode" Me - I'm really not trying to print a vase. Also the model is quite complex, it's about 90% "vase" and the rest are parts that do contain infill. Its just the behavior that's causing issues and messing up prints. then the whole - you do single walls "all the time" when youre mot in vase mode, then I tried to explain in cura - if your not in vase mode, is impossible! as others have pointed out.. Then I you tell me in underextruding, when I stated in the first, its a loss of prime yadda yaddda yadda..you drug it into far left field because you thought it was printing single walls. when in the very first post I explained its printing 2 walls. even now you say you cant read gcode. so when I bring it to fact, you close youre eyes, and say "well its in the legend". when the legend doesn't mean anything because the legend doesn't control the printer.. the gcode does.. at that point you could have easily said. dropped it because I was bringing up what you did not understand. instead held to your guns ignoring my alternative fact.. this really makes me giggle.. youre still trying to say "I see what I see, and I print single walls all the time" which is proven even more that you don't and never have printed single walls. you print 2 walls that are extremely overlapped. I mean, do you still think you print single walls?
  8. Im not conpletely sure what you mean. As how is it configured as .35mm? When i break down the gcode the overlap is super agressive at a thickness of .4007mm or was overlapped at a .001mm difference. Damn near on top (But not on top). If i try to go much under that, or even at a .4mm it does not slice the wall correctly. I also have my line width set to .4mm the same as my nozzle size. If cura was configured to lay down a .35mm line, wouldnt the overlap be less agressive as theres that .05 + the rest of the wall thickness? Either way smartavionics came up with the idea that if the overlap was to agressive, and the flow rate was under a certain percentage of the main wall flow it would ignore the print and convert it to travel moves. So with that idea, if one created a wall with a .41mm thickness they could set it to ignore that .01mm wall remainder. Yet at the same time creating a wall of .5mm or .6mm could be set to default to the original code. With less of an agressive overlap i think it will extrude just fine and there would be no problems. (at least i believe thats the plan)
  9. I did explain. I wanted a single wall. It was not printing a single wall and it was giving me issues with loss of prime. You kept saying it was printing a single wall. And I said it wasn't. You got it to print and tried to say that it was still a single wall, and I explained again. So I brought out some gcode to prove that it was not an actual single wall, but overlapping walls. You said it was still giving me an appearance of a single wall, while I still kept saying that I don't want an appearance, I want an actual single wall.. You were stuck on the appearance while I was trying to get the actual movements. See stuff like that makes me giggle. I have had this issue since when I started using cura since like in 15.04, but I never needed single walls until now. So I hopped in the forums. And if it wasn't for you, the ball probably wouldn't have been set in motion for another 3 years. Thank you sir.
  10. I never said you called me a noob, I was asking if you were calling me a noob. You need to slow down on your reading. Also I am not making fun of any disability. I never said my way of explaining things was superior. I spent 3 pages trying to get you to understand the "difference" between cura printing single walls and not printing single walls. And my issue was that I could NOT print single walls outside of vase mode. and you continued to say that I could and its possible. Even From the first reply people said this was a known issue within Cura. you continued to say - well I can print single walls - I looked in the legend and I see a single wall I dunno what this yank wants - So I brought out labs to prove to you that you in fact were not printing single walls, you are the one persisted to say that there is no difference (even when the labs proved there was a difference). And I explained over and over the difference of what Cura was actually doing and trying to avoid that. Can you understand the point of this thread was to print a single wall? Not appear to print a single wall? Or are you too thin skinned to admit when you're wrong?
  11. So now I'm a noob? You sure are backtracking pretty quick from "nothing is lost in translation" to "I can get communications messed up" Oh the things that make me giggle... Either way, I still have to say thank you. If it wasn't for your misunderstanding and keeping this thread alive, I don't think smartavionics would have seen it nor had ideas to springboard the development into fixing a known issue. Danke. smartavionics, if you have a donation link, I would like to shoot you a few pennies for your gracious support in this matter. Solving this issue might help a lot of others in prototyping where weight is super critical. Like mini drones, is what I was kind of working on myself.
  12. WOW! hats off smartavionics! It seems to slice it perfect At least for the layers I skimmed through. I cannot wait for this feature to become available. Sorry kmanstudios. I know its overlapping walls, I knew that from the first reply. I am not trying to create an 'appearance' of a single wall. I want to 'print' a single wall. (but not in a vase mode). Not only would it help my loss of prime issues, it would cut down my print times. Ya know, because its not printing 2 walls. the difference between my slice and smartavionics slice took off 20min in a 1h12m print.
  13. I understand this is how Cura slices thin walls. I have accepted that, but somewhere down the road it got turned into this. I guess because I didnt see a single walled print. I see 2 overlapping walls. and when you break down the gcode, I can SEE that 2 walls are in fact overlapped. The whole purpose of the D was really not to print it, but to create a single walled print without vase mode. Also to demonstrate how it backtracks with the minimal extrusion issue. I cant print it at the moment, Im not even trying because my goal is not to print a 2 walled D. But that's pretty cool smartavionics! I hope one day thats part of cura in an experimental mode! Here is the model, its a bit from finished. Since the start of this thread I kinda abandoned it and started designing a double walled version. LandWhoopster Prototpye.stl
  14. Spiralize creates a vase mode. Im not trying to print a vase. I have designed a model with A LOT of vase style walls, yet other parts of the print have thicker areas that do require infill. Spiralized will not slice the entire print correctly. Nor at the same time will Cura slice a single wall. Cura overlaps 2 walls. Here is a super quick test print I just whipped up to show the tool path. Simple square, I believe a .41 offset as well ;TYPE:WALL-OUTER G1 F1800 X125.21 Y74.79 E0.08385 G1 X125.21 Y125.21 E0.1677 G1 X74.79 Y125.21 E0.25155 G1 X74.79 Y74.79 E0.3354 G0 F3600 X74.99 Y74.79 G0 X74.8 Y74.8 G1 F1800 X74.8 Y125.2 E0.33831 G1 X125.2 Y125.2 E0.34123 G1 X125.2 Y74.8 E0.34415 G1 X74.8 Y74.8 E0.34707 G0 F3600 X74.8 Y75 As you can see, the "2" walls are not printed directly on top of each other. The first set of walls have a full extrusion path. And the second wall is printed ALMOST directly on top of the previous giving the appearance of a single-wall print. While only extruding the second wall at about 3.5% of the original wall. I can play with the wall thickness to get the 2nd wall extrusion to less than 1%. I believe that was with a .40075mm wall thickness. Yet cannot get Cura it to ignore and not print that 2nd wall. And of course, it all breaks down in the radius. As given thickness will slice a straight wall and the same thickness will have a chopped up radius. I was just looking to print single walls, yet not a vase mode. Outside of vase mode I have not seen a single walled print.
  • 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!