Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

  • Country

nigelwebb's Achievements



  1. Hi, I have just printed two different but similar parts that look like concentric rings joined with spokes. Due to the size of the parts, and the very long printing time, I changed from a 0.4mm nozzle to a 0.8mm nozzle. After printing I measured the parts. Note: I require the parts to have a good diameter tolerance, something like +/-0.1mm. All the outside diameters are correct to the model, BUT all the inside diameters are too small by about 0.5/0.6mm. This is the same on both different, but similar, parts. I investigated the possibility that due to the size of the part (about 200mm) that this could be shrinkage, but that cannot be the case as the small inside diameters are out by the same as the large inside diameters (both 0.5/0.6mm). Is this a known feature? Can it be corrected? Thanks Nigel
  2. Well after a lot of work I have discovered the problem. The Flow % default is 107% on the Ultimaker2+/Cura2.1.3. Once I set this to 100% the part reduced in size by almost the required amount. In fact I found that 95% was ideal for the correct size but there are some very small voids starting to appear. Nigel
  3. Hi, Cura 2.1.3, Ultimaker 2+, ABS, 0.4mm & 0.25mm nozzle I am printing a small part shaped like a square 'C', 25mm square & 5mm thick. The two legs are required to be 1.45mm wide and 3.35mm wide (in the x/y axis), both +/-0.1mm. When I print these with either a 0.4mm nozzle or a 0.25 nozzle the two dimensions come out about 1.6mm & 3.5mm (too large!). From reading the settings I tried to alter 'Quality - Line Width' which had been at the default 0.22mm (with the 0.25 nozzle) to 0.15mm. This made no difference to the finished print size. I guess this was because this is used to calculate the extrusion rate and side-by-side pitch rather than just fixing the pitch for side-by-side lines. This is not a scaling issue as to apply a scale would change larger dimensions by a bigger amount. Typically I find that larger dimensions are oversize by a similar amount, ie 0.15mm. So my question is: what parameter controls the finished part size? Thanks Nigel
  4. I am trying to resolve a Z thickness of the finished part issue with Cura 2.1.2 I have created a part that is 3mm thick, and 5x10mm in size, just for demo purposes. I am printing with a Raft, I want to keep the Raft, so don’t suggest printing on the glass plate because this issue also affects the support structure, however I will leave that issue out for now to keep this simple. 0.4mm nozzle, ABS, Normal Quality 0.1mm layers Turning on Raft, Raft Air-gap 0.3 Initial Layer Z Overlap 0.15 (box is coloured yellow for some reason?) Raft Top Layers 2 Raft Top Line Width 0.3 Raft Top Spacing 0.3 The gcode is like this (I have summarised this) ;Generated with Cura_SteamEngine 2.1.2 ;LAYER_COUNT:30 ;LAYER:-4, Z0.300, ;TYPE:SUPPORT ;LAYER:-3, Z0.570, ;TYPE:SUPPORT ;LAYER:-2, Z0.670, ;TYPE:SUPPORT ;LAYER:-1, Z0.770, ;TYPE:SUPPORT ;LAYER:0, Z1.340, ;TYPE:WALL-INNER ;LAYER:1, Z1.290, ;TYPE:WALL-INNER ;LAYER:2, Z1.390, ;TYPE:WALL-INNER ;LAYER:3, Z1.490, ;TYPE:WALL-INNER ;LAYER:29, Z4.090, ;TYPE:WALL-INNER From Layer -1 Z0.770 to Layer 29 Z4.090 the difference is 3.32mm , which happens to be the exact thickness of the part when measured with a vernier. However the model thickness is 3.00mm Note also Layer 1 being lower than layer 0? - This is due to the Initial Layer Z offset which I guess is why it is yellow! If I change ‘Initial Layer Z Overlap’ to 0 ;Generated with Cura_SteamEngine 2.1.2 ;LAYER_COUNT:30 ;LAYER:-4, Z0.300, ;TYPE:SUPPORT ;LAYER:-3, Z0.570, ;TYPE:SUPPORT ;LAYER:-2, Z0.670, ;TYPE:SUPPORT ;LAYER:-1, Z0.770, ;TYPE:SUPPORT ;LAYER:0, Z1.340, ;TYPE:WALL-INNER ;LAYER:1, Z1.440, ;TYPE:WALL-INNER ;LAYER:2, Z1.540, ;TYPE:WALL-INNER ;LAYER:3, Z1.640, ;TYPE:WALL-INNER ;LAYER:29, Z4.240, ;TYPE:WALL-INNER Now the part is 0.15mm thicker (Layer 1 Z0.770 Layer 29 Z4.240 = 3.47mm), as expected. But it’s not 3.0mm as desired. So to solve this I need to make the Z Overlap value 0.45mm, which really messes up Layer 0 (Z1.340) & Layer 1 (Z0.990). Is there a way to solve this by removing the layers that are not required due to the Raft Air Gap rather than offsetting down the next layers? Thanks Nigel
  5. Thanks for the replies. I can turn off the Raft and print directly on the glass but that does not solve the problem. It's the supports that I cannot remove from the part. My parts have features of different heights (in z axis and parallel to the glass plate), think of it like a cup, except the bottom is flat but also stepped. So the very bottom flat feature prints directly on the glass (without a raft) and then the support structure is required to hold the next plane that is a little higher in the z axis. It is this support structure interface to the part that I cannot remove. On the Quant Q200 it just peels & snaps away cleanly, on the Ultimaker it is like it is bonded.
  6. Hi Guys I've just purchased a Ultimaker 2+, having previously been running a Quant Q200 with UP! software. The Ultimaker produces a fantastic finish but the raft/support separation from the finish part, in comparison to the Quant Q200, is terrible! I find it almost impossible to remove any support because it is bonded to the layer that it is meant to be peel-able from. I have tried both Cura 14 and the Beta 2, but both produce similar results. I have even messed around with the raft to part separation distance, and the support density but neither really helped. However I have noticed that the Quant Q200 uses a different print angle for the raft & support layers compared to the first layer of the part. This must help by reducing the bond between the two layers. Is there the option in Cura to rotate the angle of the print for different layers? Thanks Nigel
  • Create New...