Jump to content

DrR1pper

Dormant
  • Posts

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DrR1pper

  1. Is it just me or does it look like the UM3 has addressed the zebra stripes issue?
  2. By any chance have you tried the mod/hack yet @lancelet? Also, very nice looking print. What was the print speed?
  3. I'm really sorry about that. Do you think it best that i start another thread? I think my bed springs are tight already. When i first calibrated the bed, i made sure to thoroughly tighten them and apart from re-leveling the bed a few times before i got the height just right at the beginning (with each time making sure that i had to tighten the springs if i needed to change the level rather than loosen then), I've not needed to re-level the bed since. I have tried this before but not with this model. I can do that though, no problem. I'm not so sure if i noticed any significant changes in the appearance of minor banding lines though by doing this. More testing would be required. I agree it's kinda weird. The best theory i can come up with based on the evidence thus far is that it might be due to inconsistent extrusion, with it cycling between under to over extrusion (in perhaps a sinusoidal manner) and then repeating itself over the course of a print. The two facts that printing the same test object with the same slicer settings except halving the speed did nothing to change the frequency of the banding lines and secondly that enlarging the test object just enough so that each print layer requires twice the time to print (for the same print speed and slicing settings) caused a doubling in frequency of the banding lines, the only possible culprit i can think of is that it has something to do with the extrusion rate being inconsistent. Be that due to hardware or software, i don't know for sure but i am more inclined to think it'll be hardware given the two aforementioned observations. I have not but this is a good idea/test to perform as it would either break my theory or reinforce it's probability of being the right theory. If i use the 0.8mm nozzle on the same test object and if my theory is correct, i should expect to see the banding frequency halve compared to the 0.4mm nozzle print. I will test this soon. Thank you for the idea @SandervG!
  4. Has anyone ever experienced this before and know how to fix it please?
  5. Very interesting developement. I modified the tower to double the perimeter length (by increasing the x and y dimensions 41.4%) which should roughly double the print time per layer and used all the same slicer settings as before and the layer banding doubled on that print in frequency. Take a look.... I'm thinking this is caused by inconsistent extrusion rates now caused by some sort of inconsistent feed per revolution of the either the knurled feeder gear, extruder gears or extruder motor itself (or if i should be so lucky, all the above, lol). Thank you @neotko for suggesting bangbang mode as a possible cause as that spurred me on to discover this.
  6. It's printing right now, but i totally forgot, i made two prints from the um2+ remember. One at 40mm/s and the other at 20mm/s and in both examples the banding frequency was the same. Also, just checked on print and looks like no change to banding pattern and frequency. :( I'll do the print with double print area to test if it might be something with the extruder gear, but i noticed the other day that there is 1mm of momentary play when changing filament travel direction. But thanks for the suggestion of possible cause.
  7. Just started the same gcode now with bed temp manually set to 0*C.
  8. hmm. Interesting theory @neotko. So if it's caused by bangbang mode, then the frequency of the banding lines should match the frequency of the oscillations from bangbang mode, right? I can test this theory by simply printing without bed temp, right?
  9. Oh right. Thanks @gr5. So you're saying if a repeating layer banding problem were to be caused by the z screw, it should be at least 3 times the distance between each of the banding lines seen on my prints? Any ideas what might be causing it then? Or is this typical of um2+ prints for whatever reasons? Thanks again!
  10. So with the zebra stripes related post out out of the way, here are my results from my test designed to observe how print temperature and print speed might affect the visibility of layer lines/banding on all my um2+ prints. The test object consisted of a 75mm tall, 30x15mm rectangular tower. On both printers, printed with only 1 bottom layer, two perimeter wall and hollow for the m200 and only a few percentage grid infill for the um2+ prints (as i printed the um2+ prints first only after to remember that the lowest infill setting available for the m200 is equivalent to something like 30% for the um2 but since i don't think this matters much i did not bother to repeat the um2+ prints with truly zero infill). A layer height of 0.20mm on the um2+ and 0.19mm on the m200. Print speed was "Normal" for the m200 and 40mm/s and 20mm/s for the two um2+ prints. In both um2+ prints, the tower was divided into 5 printing temperature zones along the z axis starting with 220*C for the first 15mm, then 210, 200, 190 and lastly 180*C for the last 15mm. Temperature control on the m200 was not possible but also not a variable i needed to test as the m200 does not have a layer line/banding visibility issues with the unchangeable presets in z-suite anyway. Here are two pictures of all four test print objects first taken with 50% lit ambient room lighting. From left to right, z-abs, z-ultrat, PrimaValue PLA 40mm/s, PrimaValue PLA 20mm/s. UM2+ prints were sliced with s3d and prints speed was set to constant (i.e. same infill, outter/inner perimeter speeds). I also created a video to try and demonstrate the layer line issue better. I forgot to conclude in the video that print temp and print speed appeared to have no affect on the visibility of layer lines/banding on my um2+. Here is another video demonstrating the visible play in my z axis. Looks like it's around 1mm. Conversely the m200 has zero visible play here (but not shown in the video). Not sure if this could be an indication of the z axis being the problem or not. When the bed raises and lowers, the lead screw seems rather straight. I do remember it spinning off center when i first received it but it seems to have straighten up on it's own over time. Odd but not sure if relevant. And here is one of the um2+ prints next to the z axis lead screw. Is it just me or does it look like the distance between each of the larger layer banding lines on the print matches the pitch of the lead screw? Lastly, i printed this object for a friend last night with 0.3mm layer height. I'm including these because they highlight the randomness of the visible layer banding lines when in the right lighting (full ambient room lighting with camera flash in the second and third photo down) and during printing... Notice in the last picture vs the second last, there is a shadow being cast onto a small section at the top of the print which makes the layer lines looks very neat compared to when there is lighting shining upon it (and almost everywhere else on the printed object) then the layer lines/banding is very visible. Finally, photos of each with a single direct camera flash and very low ambient room lighting does a very good job of reducing the visibility of those layer lines on the um2 print compared to the m200 print (last). (I snapped off the top of the first print...not relevant but just so you know it's the same object as above). But put them all side by side in the same non camera flash and well light room lighting and the layer lines/banding on the um2 prints really stick out. Sorry for that wall of text, photos and videos. I just wanted to be really thorough and try my best to leave no stone unturned. The question i wish to ask is whether these banding lines are in fact quite normal/typical of ultimaker 2/2+ prints? I've done some looking around online of the print quality on other um2's and from what i can see, i'm somewhat inclined to believe it is typical (however much i wish it not to be the case). I've actually come to really like (dare i say love) this printer for many reasons. I think it looks really freaking cool, i love how quickly the hot end heats up and cools down when needed, large build volume, oh and it looks really cool (did i say that already?). But to me it doesn't print as nice a surface finish as compared to the m200 which is a bit of a big deal to me. However, I've still really come to love it in many ways for many reasons, even if it leaves a lot of stringing in my prints also. Anyways, I'd really like to hear an honest take on whether what i am seeking from the um2+ is in fact unattainable or not because if this is not how the um2+ prints should turn out, then i wish to rectify it ofc. Big thanks in advance for any help/light you guys might be able to shed on the matter.
  11. Hi everyone, I was going to post this into a new thread (as i know that I have hijacked this thread long enough...sorry about that) but i've decided to posted it here as a portion of it actually relates to this threads topic at hand. If you would prefer that i remove it though and post it someone else, please let me know. So, I performed a really simply print test yesturday to see what the affects of print temperature and print speed have on the visibility of layer lines/layer banding on practically all of my um2+ prints. I also printed one on the m200 so that i had something to compare against and to my surprise, i believe that i am seeing zebra stripes on this m200 print. Something i had checked for in the past and not observed. It was printed in z-abs and here is that z-abs print (on the left) next to one printed in z-ultrat (on the right). I don't believe i have ever noticed zebra stripes on the m200 before but it could very well have been there in many prints only i just never noticed it (though i'm finding it hard to believe to be probably however possible as it's not exactly subtle, at least not in these prints). I've printed the benchy and the other test objects shown in this thread that presented noticeable zebra stripes on the um2 and other printers on more than one occasion on the m200 and could swear that i never saw any zebra stripes of any kind in the slightest. But I'm starting to doubt myself, so i'll run a battery of test soon to double check as i threw those old prints away.
  12. ah ok, thank you Torgeir. Can i try your version of the gcode you used to print the file on your um2 please?
  13. @cloakfiend Thanks for that. Regarding... But that's just the thing. On the m200, i've not experienced these lines on any of the prints whether small or large, complex geometry or simple geometry and with all their filaments (except for pc-abs that i haven't tried).
  14. After i've ran your gcode though (if you don't mind sharing it with me please), what do you think i should do to try to fix the problem then? Do you think it's the z axis as well or something else? Thank you again. People weren't kidding when they said ultimaker has the most amazing and helpful spirit within the ultimaker community. I have to say, as promising as your pictures are Torgeir, i still have this hint of skepticism that the printer can really print as well as you've shown there despite showing clear evidence that i can. That print just looks too good to be true LOL. But trust me...i want it to be real and you've given me the extra impetus to try and achieve it so thank you as well as the others whom have been so helpful too!
  15. Btw, how these prints are oriented in this photo is not how they were printed. The bottom of each print is the right vertical face on each in this photo.
  16. @Torgeir Firstly....Damn it! Sorry. Sent you the wrong one clearly. I made a 0.1mm and 0.15mm layer height version and must have sent you/uploaded the wrong one ofc as it should have been 0.15mm. Secondly....holy crap! Thank you for doing all that work for me! I really really appreciate it and you've given me a ton of hope! May i ask for the gcode that you used for your print for me to test please? Also i used s3d for mine. Was yours printed with the glittery silver/grey pla filament that comes with the ultimaker? Lastly, my one was definitely printed at 0.15mm layer height.
  17. @cloakfiend Hmm. Do you think that could be the cause of my issue?
  18. May i ask how come? I also fact checked my memory of how easily the bed falls down when not powered on and i was wrong. It's not as easy as i stated (i.e. it doesn't just require a bit of momentum for it to then fall all the way to the bottom under gravity) but still has a lot less friction than on the m200. When you push it down, it sometimes has sufficient momentum to continue falling down a little bit more on its own but it then meets more friction and comes to a halt. The amount of friction is not consistent is what i mean. I don't think any of these observations play a role on the issue i'm having though. Could be wrong but just my current thoughts on the matter. Ideally, i would really like a few independent confirmations that the um2 can print as well as the m200 in layer visibility (at the same resolution) before i even seriously consider attempting to take it apart in hopes that it'll resolve the issue. If anything, i'm quite skeptical that it'll work based on the fact that the printer is so new and that i've heard from at least one other person with both printers as well tell me that they have the same print surface quality difference in the layer visibility between their own m200 and um2. But ofc it is possible they are just experiencing the same issue as me and its just never been fixed.
  19. Thanks @cloakfiend for the suggestions. I appreciate the effort you put into your response and no need to apologise for it looking like an essay at all. One paragraph, 10 paragraphs...either way, much appreciated that you take the time and effort to help. I have lost count of how many cold pulls i've done (even using transparent nylon to ensure it's clean as a whistle against the black filament residue inside the nozzle). Fyi, this um2+ is pretty new, so any possible fault with the z i think would most likely have been from the get-go. Yeah, i'm really not liking the idea of stripping the z down to check if this resolves it though.
  20. @gr5 Well, that doesn't sound good in the slightest bit if the case. I did think maybe it was some slack in the x/y belts causing the position to over/undershoot slightly but when looking at opposite printed sides of a cube/cuboid along the x or y axis, you can see the same layer shift/misalignment pattern which suggests to me that it's not this. If it were a random over/undershoot caused by some slack in the x/y, i would not expect the pattern to be identical on both sides. I originally thought this might be the issue because when feeling for the tension in the belts connecting the x/y steppers to the main rods, these belts were super tight on the zortrax as compared to the um2+. I did toy with the idea of loosening the stepper bolts to make that belt have more tension but decided not to on the basis that surely the amount of tension, though less on the um2+ than the zortrax, is designed to be this way by ultimaker. Which then lead to me think it might be either an extrusion consistency issue or z issue. My current bets are on it being a z axis related issue. I just tried to see what the "play" was like on the z-axis for both printers and found that whilst there was some on both, the amount on the zortrax was completely undetectable by the eye, i could only feel it ever so slightly whereas on the um2+, you can visually see the play. You can move the bed on the um2+ up/down from a locked z-stepper position a good millimeter at least. Another observation is that with both printers powered off, the bed plate on the zortrax does not fall down on it's own under gravity unlike on the um2+. It takes a good amount of force/effort to push it down manually on the zortrax whilst on the um2+ if it hasn't already fallen to the bottom, you need only give it the tiniest bit of momentum and it's overcome it's static friction and very easily and freely drops down to it's lowest position. I'm not really sure how or even if at all this is related to the possibility of the z axis being at fault. @Torgeir Thanks for the suggestion but i already tried printing it's longest length along the printers x and y axis and it made no difference in the outcome which only strengthens the theory that it could be a z-axis issue somehow/someway. Thank you for offering to print it for me too. Here is the g-code i used and the stl. g-code: http://www.filedropper.com/drr1pperprintsurfacetestpla'>http://www.filedropper.com/drr1pperprintsurfacetestpla'>http://www.filedropper.com/drr1pperprintsurfacetestpla'>http://www.filedropper.com/drr1pperprintsurfacetestpla stl: http://www.filedropper.com/drr1pperprintsurfacetest I will confess that i'm pretty burnt out from trying to troubleshoot this problem and getting it looking like m200 prints with respect to the visibility of layer lines but i'm starting to think it's not possible. I've not seen or heard of anyone suffer this issue with an m200 before, though that may simply be a cause of me not looking hard enough ofc. But those i've spoken with multiple m200 workhorses have said they've not experienced anything like this on any of theirs and they all print consistently to the same quality.
  21. hmm, that does look practically perfect, without a hint of the issue that i am having. Would you mind printing out my test object for me please to double check my own please? Firstly with my original gcode and secondly with your own pla slicing settings but with the same 0.15mm layer height to keep that variable consistent please. It would really help me. g-code: http://www.filedropper.com/drr1pperprintsurfacetestpla'>http://www.filedropper.com/drr1pperprintsurfacetestpla'>http://www.filedropper.com/drr1pperprintsurfacetestpla'>http://www.filedropper.com/drr1pperprintsurfacetestpla stl: http://www.filedropper.com/drr1pperprintsurfacetest If you can't spare the time to do so though, no problem, i understand.
  22. Hey cloakfiend. These were printed at 0.14mm and 0.15mm respectively. UM2+ print was Prima ABS at 220*C. I'll show you the pla print tomorrow/later-today and it was printed in primavalue pla at 195 or 200*C if i recall correctly. The visibility of these "lines" on the pla print are equal to (if not more than on) the abs printed version. Also, are you saying that the visibility of these "lines" on your um2 prints are as good (i.e. as visibly minimal and subtle) as on your m200 prints?
  23. Sorry for any confusion. I was talking about the visibility of print layers on the m200 vs um2+ prints. Here's a more recent test i've performed showing what i'm talking about: Both were printed in abs and even with pla versions of this test object i made, the results seem exactly the same on the um2+. Now by no means am i saying that the m200 print surface is perfect but i do consider it much closer to perfection than the um2+ print. For some reason, the layers tend to misalign to a much greater degree and with greater frequency than it does on the m200 which to me is why the m200 prints pull off an injection molded look to them more than the um2+ prints. But if you look at the first image in this post and look at the orignal file size and zoom in you can see on the um2+ print (left one) that areas of layer alignment looks as good as the best areas from the m200 so it doesn't seem like it's not possible to achieve the same quality but for some reason it just does not do so everywhere to too the same level as the m200 everywhere. update: This is what i mean To the right side of the left print (from the um2+) there are areas with layer alignment as perfect as the m200. If you open the image in full you'll see what i mean. But then to the left side there are quite a lot of layer misalignments that just ruin the surface quality of the print and stopping it from looking injection molded like the m200 print(s). It's really really frustrating because it's so close and yet so far. But the fact that areas of the um2+ print are as good as the m200 print gives me hope. Just need to figure out why it's not always as good everywhere. But i've spoken with other um2 owners and they've told me they have the exact same problem with their um2 prints. So i don't know.
  24. Hi Torgeir, Please correct me if i am wrong but if the problem in the photo's i provided (on the um2+ vs m200) were caused by the missing steps issue that is causing zebra stripes, wouldn't one expect there to be a repeating pattern in the layer misalignment in my um2+ print? It's just that i've tried printing different objects multiple times in a row with the same g-code and cannot see a repeating pattern. I do not see the layer line misalignment's occurring in the same places. For all intensive purposes, they look rather random.
×
×
  • Create New...