Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts
  • Sign Up


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Erik_Es last won the day on May 3

Erik_Es had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

Personal Information

  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'll run a few tests to sort things out. It IS a very useful plug-in...
  2. I use a value of -0.2 to -0.3, depending on how close I'm printing the initial layer. For a "tight" initial layer (so the actual nozzle to plate distance being slightly less then the initial layer height set in Cura) use -0.3 or even -0.4 (with a 0.4 nozzle), for a "looser"initial layer -0.2 appears to be enough.
  3. I used to do that too. Using that negative horizontal expansion means you don't have to bother with that anymore for most prints, so it saves a lot of time.
  4. To finish on a happy note: I LOVE the option in the latest Cura's to use a bit of negative horizontal expansion on the initial layer to prevent even the slightest traces of elephant's foot. VERY happy with that !
  5. Thought about it a bit longer. The more the end bits of the infill lines get entwined between the wall layers (improving wall to infill connection), the more the wall lines will actually be interrupted by hitting these overlap bits, which then decreases the strength of the wall itself. I guess. I would like to see some proper strength tests to see which is better. If anybody reads this and has done such tests, please leave a message. Or else I will do it myself - SOME day, because I have a million other things I want to test as well, and only so much time in one day...
  6. Yes, now you mention it, I heard that argument or a similar one before. I guess that by printing infill before walls, with plenty of overlap, the ends of the infill walls will sort of get entwined between the wall layers. I can see how that might improve the connection of the infill to the walls, as with normal "walls before infill" the infill only gets squashed against the inside of the wall, not crossing it - although you can get a similar effect by using a high value for infill overlap, which then actually has the same effect with a much less detrimental effect to the surface quality. So maybe the builders of Cura assume that most users need strength above quality, which I don't think is the case. One way or the other, the fact that this parameter has so much effect on print quality while being hidden from view by default seems like a big mistake to me.
  7. By the way, you said "most prints". Does this mean you actually found a proper use for printing infill before walls ? I haven't...
  8. And so you should, well done. 🙂 👍 But how many people are using the latest Cura, unaware of this hidden parameter (in my book "hidden" should mean "de-activated"...) and wondering why they keep seeing those awful infill lines on the outside of their prints, I wonder...
  9. Yes, it did make a lot of sense. No clue why they dropped that. I've tried all versions for the last 7 years, and I still find that 14.07 is like the VW Beetle of Cura's. OK it might not be as fancy as the latest one. That has 300+ parameters you can control, which is very nice on one hand, but good luck testing them all properly to see what works and what doesn't for each type of print... 14.07 has no airconditiong, no GPS, no ABS, etc etc but at least everything WORKS, ALWAYS, exactly how you want it to, which I can't say for any Cura after that one. Progress is not always just improvement, it seems. Very weird about the later versions is that although most of these 300+ settings are hidden by default, they are still doing stuff behind the curtains that can really f**k things up. For instance, it took me ages to figure out that there is a "infill before walls" checkbox (in the hidden parameters for infill) that is set to ON by default. Digging out that parameter and unchecking that box DRASTICALLY improves the print quality for most prints that use infill >0 and <100 (so that's about 90% of prints...). If you haven't yet, try it out. No more infill visible through the shell. Gone as if by magic. A silly parameter, AND set to the wrong default, AND extremely well hidden in the Forest Of Parameters...
  10. 14.07 has none of these problems. All the newer versions (Cura 2 and up) do. Also: setting up multiple prints (by using Multiply Object) worked like a charm in 14.07 and has been COMPLETELY f***ed up since then. Placement and print order are a mess. I have to manually make objects switch places to get the right printing order. WHY ????
  11. Nice to see this topic is not just bothering me but at least one other person... 🙂 Once you figure out how to use the plug-in, it's not a real problem. But the approach is very counter-intuitive, so I guess most people who use this plug-in never notice the changes occur one layer later than they should, and in most cases that doesn't really matter much for the print that comes out in the end. But in some cases it does... @randyinla: I don't think you can blame Ultimaker for any errors or unclarities in this plug-in, because (if I understand correctly) these plug-ins were/are built and shared by users, not the company. However, a much bigger problem is the fact that in the newer versions of Cura there is no way to save a print profile that holds the settings for the plug-ins you use. Instead, the plug-ins are now completely separated from the profiles, which means that if you need a plug-in for a certain print which you want to print again and again later (as I often do for my shop). that each time I want to print that thing I need to activate the plug-in and set the settings, which I apparently need to write down in a little black book now because there is no way of saving them. Such a pity. One of the reasons I still keep using 14.07 for a lot of prints. Very silly that that is necessary. So easy to fix... And to make matters worse: if you use a plug-in for a print, and then go on with another print, you might find that sadly the old plug-in still kicks in and ruins your print, because once you set one it will stay active until you switch it off yourself. Recipe for disaster...
  12. @tinkergnome: thanks a million !! @nallath: got it from the first link in the previous post by tinkergnome. Perhaps you could put it back on the download page now ?
  13. Haha, big OOPS... I meant 2013. Early dementia ?? So no need to dive into my box of old floppy discs. But I'll have a proper dig through my archive. Lots of hard discs to check... Hopefully it's there somewhere. If I find it I'll let you know.
  14. Same problem for me. @tinkergnome: if you go to the cura download page you can click "find previous versions", but all that is there is the Cura 14.07 source code. No exe or installation file there... I have worked (a LOT!!) with all cura versions since 1993. The newest versions are quite good in some respects, but in other respects they are actually TERRIBLE compared to 14.07, which I still prefer for most prints. PLEASE ADD THE 14.07 WINDOWS INSTALLATION FILES TO THE DOWNLOAD PAGE ! or if someone has archived this, please send it to me : es@printedinspace.nl. Thanks !!!
  15. OK thanks gr5. I was expecting it to be like that. So I will use layer number (which is much easier in most cases) and keep in mind to subtract 1 from the layer shown in the layer view. Thought it would be good to get this clear, as it will be helpful as well to other people using this plugin and not getting why changes happen one layer later than expected. BTW: I understand gcode reasonably well, but I try to avoid fiddling around in it myself. I'm quite wary of introducing errors that might cause damage to my printers... If you would be so kind to check another topic I started, called "plugins not saved", that would be most helpful. Although I like 3.6 very much so far, it seems such a pity that these useful plugins can not be saved/loaded as part of the profile anymore. Hopefully this can be put right in Cura 4 ?
  • Create New...