kmanstudios

I can agree with that one photo, especially with the layer lines, but the rest of it is dubious. And, where are the layer lines on the toggle? Not arguing a point, just leery of such things that are not fully rendered and shown as a real project. Especially as delicate as that thing is. And, where are the parts images? Not the mesh to download, as it is for sale on another site, but the actual parts? This is not a knock either on the design. But if it is a real project and not just speculation, I would like to see more of the real printed things that it takes to make it. Design and reality are very different.

I would agree, but that is all renderings and not actual prints as far as I can tell. Having hands in the pics and not Photoshop composites/3d Renderings only would be helpful. It is a grey area indeed, I just hope it does not lead to an onslaught of things for sale. Especially as I keep seeing the same things/models for free and for sale from various people. So far, not a lot, but it is growing in number.

Yes, but, having to do that to make things go up or down to accommodate the base base of the object can be frustrating. I can usually fix those things as they are basic. Next time I have a model that behaves badly, I can PM a link to someone so they can look. Modeling is one of the areas I am confident on, so I am puzzled by this. It will probably be something silly, but a second set of eyes may be helpful It could be that disabling that feature actually makes them behave that way. Do they properly get put on the bed if you enable it? Feel free to share the models with me. If it's something with the models, it's always good to have a few more edge case models. Oh! Hahahahaha, I understand the question now...duhhhhhh... OK, until recently, I had automatically drop model on. I always set my objects at 0,0,0 on the base with all pivot points located at the same. Basic operating procedure so that it will always work whether I am doing a two color print or not. When it started to wonk out on me, I had to turn it off to allow above Zed0 or have fine tuning below Zed0. But it seems to be model dependent and I have not figured out why. As soon as I have a model again (that is not humongous, up to you) I can PM a link to that file. I have been burning through a ton of experiments and I do not remember which ones or which versions gave me trouble. But it is always the same basic procedure when outputting for print. Thanks!

Yes, but, having to do that to make things go up or down to accommodate the base base of the object can be frustrating. I can usually fix those things as they are basic. Next time I have a model that behaves badly, I can PM a link to someone so they can look. Modeling is one of the areas I am confident on, so I am puzzled by this. It will probably be something silly, but a second set of eyes may be helpful

If you follow the link in that article it then describes doing a cold pull also referred to as an atomic pull. I think what they may be referring to are the individual steps being different.

In this version, it seems to not like reading pivot points like it used to. If I have a two part model, for instance, and both parts have the same pivot point, and no floating/stray mesh/geometry or other issues, it seems to want to either float or sink a model. In this instance, one part got placed correctly on the build plate and the other part got sunk. I have had this happen on several models and no matter what I do to that model (and I am pulling every trick I know) it will behave the same way. Either floated above or below. It is not consistent model to model though. Edit: Oh yeah...no matter where I move the pivot points on those models, it gets placed the same way.

Thanks for the help. But these bugs only Cura 2.6 can't handle. Finally used other slicer to do the job, without problem. The bug was in the file, not cura. You cannot say that it is a bug if it is accurately portraying or slicing the model. Proper modeling is the cure, not the disease. One thing that is a true bug is the way Cura is beginning to handle the pivot points. It is dependent on the model, but it is increasingly getting to where it will not place a model properly on the build plate: if the Pivot point is at the base area, and not other issues (stray polys, etc...I checked) it will either float the model a slight bit above or below the build plate. It is not consistent, but I have not figured out why yet.

You can het the files at Youmagine and Thingiverse. Designed for flexibility in use with a small version or a full version with filament threader. Designed in 3 Parts so that the spool rod can be printed together with holders or separately and then expoxied. By printing together, the spool rod goes inside the holders and creates a set of double walls for added strength rather than a 90° angle as one piece. You can also vary the infills as you see fit. All pivot points align for easy merging of models. NOW I can get back to printing my transparent lamps! uggghhhh...so many things I am doing all at once. But, that is me at home..... ......

I have seen nothing to say that the atomic-pull is not recommended for the UM3 series. I have had to do it several times. Just made sure it is in a corner or you can bend the x-y rods. Edit: Here is a link to a post I made about having to do this. I have had to do this on the AA and BB cores. Usually if I go from a hot temp material, say PC or Nylon, without cleaning, the lower temp materials (Say PLA) can get gunked up and require a nice thorough cleaning. PVA is its own special hell sometimes...... Woiked for me. Do you have a link to a place saying to not do the Atomic-Pull on the UM3?

And methinks it be well deserved Congrats and I hope to see more of your work!!

I am going to have to go along with that as well. Even after 7 months, I still consider myself quite the noob. And, you gotta be willing to waste a LOT of plastic. Getting better, but still learning bunches. And, I am still only touching 20%-30% of the controls. I haven't even been playing with retractions and such like I see some experienced people talk about. LOL

[ ]Ohhh,,,uh uh uh garsh [/ ] Actually, I would look at free alternatives first unless you have a great budget. Although I do like MAX, it is like having a relationship with the wife (MAX), but you hate the mother-in-law (Autodesk). And that ol' battleaxe has made me look at alternatives and start to step out. I just used it because I am most familiar with it.

I had noticed the same thing with a few models, but I did not have smooth sides such as your bottle design. I figured it was catching some minor overhang (and there were some recessed areas that did have 'overhangs within itself) but it would go from plate up like you illustrated. And, yeah, it does kill a lot of extra time in printing as well as waste.

huh.....do you have a pic of that model? Making the suggested change has solved a great many issues (went back and sliced old models that had the same issue) and I can see where it may be good to 'grow support' a bit to help with areas that do not meet the specified criteria. Probably not often, but something to try when I see a possibility.

I suspected that as well and did some testing on it last night. But it doesn't seem to be the case. Unless I did something wrong while I was messing around with the settings. Hmmmm, now I am confused. Simply because I made the suggested change and it worked. So, if not too much trouble, could you explain your testing?

My bed temp is 60 degrees C and I'm using the glue stick provided with the printer for adhesion. Actually, the stick is almost out. Any suggestions for replacements? The Glue Stick is a PVA based glue and it will not work well if the humidity is high. There are a lot of options to research such as hair spray, make your own PVA slurry from recycled support, water/salt mixture (by geert_2...Look him/her up to get the skinny on that), ABS slurry, etc. Depends on your needs and environment. Even though I do have humidity issues, I recycle the heck out of my PVA support material. To the point I have more than 3 gallons of the stuff. I am even using it as a brush on masking agent now. And, I can make it as thick as I want. And, kudos on the experimenting. For me, it is the only way to learn. The first thing I have done since my first Cura version (not long ago) is to open every command and push things. Found some nice happy accidents along the way

Hokey Smokes IRobertI-Man! It woiked! Many thanks for such a simple thing. I had no idea it would cause that effect Shaves some time off too!

You had 21 open edges. That means that Cura is working just fine. You have to remember that as things become more sophisticated, the more sensitive it is to subtle errors. They all had to be capped to create a truly Manifold object. I used 3DSMAX to find this, but I am sure it could have been found in many other programs designed to check such things. If you downloaded this, remember, most of the materials out there are a crapnado of errors. Think of Scotty disabling an entire Starship with just 5 bolts. Here is the file.

Great example is that you can print the inside of an object with a 0.8mm and the outside with 0.4mm. So you keep details on the outside, and get higher printing speed on the inside. And if you set "infill layer thickness" to a multiple of the generic layer thickness, the speed increase is even more (this is also possible with 2x 0.4mm nozzle by the way) Ok. That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation

There seems to be a lot of wasted support on some of this stuff like so: Basic model with 90° tower. On right hand side is overhang, expect support there, but not on left side: Go to Layer view and get a ton of support where there is no overhang. Am I missing something?

I have noticed that Cura 2.6.1 is better at accepting keyboard dimensions below zero Z level with the "Automatically drop models to the build plate" activated. Nice to have a fine tuned depth control to do what you need without switching modes all the time. If you take the layer height you do not need (Layer 1) and move the model down that amount, it should slice properly.

OK, I am a purely visual kinda guy and trying to wrap my head around this. Any examples of why this would be good? Not saying it is not, just cannot figure it without and example as it seems it would create incongruities between areas. Gaps and such.

Nope, not an ass. I concur completely. A little bit of knowledge and fundamentals goes a long way. And, you have to fix so many bad things from the thingiverse. That can be a real crapnado of bad 3D work.

Only on one area (The underside) as the rest of the model seems to remain the same.. So it may be, as IRobertI said, something with the model may be off. And, the closeup views were much more helpful. Can you upload the file so someone can take a look at it? I, personally, like to solve problems and add to my brain attic of things that can go wrong.