kmanstudios

If the switching arm (the lever that raises or lowers extruder 2) is facing the front of the printer, then it is Material one that is giving the error. If it is facing the back of the printer then it is Material 2 that is the culprit. Are you using the app? And, I bet that the culprit is the extruder with PVA. Why? Because it is the usual suspect.

It is pretty tall. I did think of something along the coral line to disguise the iffyness of the edges. THEN I would tell everybody it was all part of the plan!! ?

He is not that big, but, it did use a lot. I have learned a few tricks to keep the PVA use down though. Like decrease the support horizontal expansion and decrease the support percentage.

Ok, this beastie was one of my first, sorta, successful prints with just the gyroid infill and no walls. What I did to at least get it this far is to tell Cura to use Extruder 2 (PVA) for the walls. This at least gave me some support for the infill. But other than combing, I am not sure what to do to make the edges look better. Still experimenting with other things vis a vis the gyroid. I may still be able to save it.....Heat gunning the crap outta it right now. Spaceshipe design: Hadda PVA failure in one friggin' spot. grrrrrr, but printed out the part to get replaced when I get around to painting and assembling it. This is the render for what it should look like when assembled. Another spaceship (all bad lines on surface were my fault....found an issue I had incurred a while back while doing something else....so this is not a printer issue): Rendering for assembled model (and why the funky green things in the earlier pic) And finally, a Fractal Creature. I call it Rockfish, but you can call it Jim....

O always set my sup[port interface to a bit higher than the default when using PVA. Also remember, that the resolution of the support is going to match the overall layer height, so it may have 'lines' in it. And, yeah, PVA is just a pain to work with, but you will get the hang of it for your environment.

I think that would be most beneficial. And seriously, as a guy who has spent (now) 40+ years in the advertising and marketing and publishing fields I kinda have a grip on what can be perceived by marketing materials and voids in information. Here is just a simple thing that caught my eye and made me cringe. Yadda, yadda, yadda, 'improved profiles to produce the perfect print', yadda, yadda, yadda. Greatly paraphrased of course, but the 'perfect print' statement was made. And, that is the crux of an issue. There is no perfect print based on a lot of conditions out of UM's control. People not buying certain materials, certain lack of care on machines (or, in my case, not noticing the cores had worn down until the prints looked like hell) and of course, the dreaded PVA and environmental issues that can plague all materials. Simple things like heat in one environment and cold in another can affect just about any filament's performance. So, while a departure from 3.6 beta, it is something that a sharp consultant would notice. And, when I get around to doing the tests of the CC core, I will be posting about that as well. For instance, I noticed that the 3.6 beta would not let me really work with the CC red choice and any other material and defaulted to a 0.1mm Layer height (?). So, I will have to fake it out and use the 0.8 core to start with. With that as an issue, I am wondering what will be the firmware response. I am getting ahead of that game the same way I played with Cura for a full 3 months before I actually received my first printer. And, I will look at it from a new consumer's point of view. UM's machines, from day one were a dream to work with because so many issues had been worked out and I did not have limitations as described. And, honestly, @ctbeke, having met you early this year, you do not really strike me as a person with a mean bone in your body. And, the internet sucks for real communications.

Honestly, I think it is the powers that be that are driving this issue. The super fast software updates and such and the feeling of being in perpetual beta, even on actual releases..... This goes for any company. And, I am hoping that people at UM see that I am saying the things I am saying from a couple of vantage points, one being a person who has had to evaluate hardware and software solutions for companies. And, it is out of sheer love for my printers. I am usually not enamored with tech per se. It is nothing but a tool. But, some tools I get attached to. And, if there was not a desire for comments from people, not rants, but comments and perspectives, then, why the public beta? I thought it was to weed out issues, not create divides.

I have not run into that. I have been playing with the Gyroid infill a lot (Hint: Polalchemy Elixir is not good for Gyroid type prints where the walls are missing). And another print (with typical walls and infill) is drying as well. It is a very strong infill. But I have a print drying that is gyroid without a wall, printed with PVA as a support and another where the walls are see through and the pattern is visible. Took several prints to do it too. But, so far, no issues with resonance. It really helps that it is so strong that you do not need it to be very dense to get strength from it.

Ummm, no, that is the impression you gave me. Basically, "We put out a product but do not have time to make it fully functional." That is the essence of what you said. Care to share them because this is the support channel I was pointed to when I first purchased my printer. You know I did. So, what was the purpose of this question. And, I never mentioned it publicly because I carry my NDA very, very close to my heart and actions. But, since you opened that door..... Correct me if I am wrong, but is not UM positioning itself as a one and done solution to businesses? This statement would be contrary to that: I do believe I said I was going to do that....so, ummmm, thanks for paraphrasing my intentions, I guess? You guys seem to really be defensive these days. The only point I was making is that it appears to me, as a consumer, that it is a half developed product that is only geared towards a very limited set of materials. And, I kinda do not think that if I notice this impression, I am the only one. What I also find interesting is that I am making comments to try and put a consumer's point of view on the table. But, it seems to be taken as an attack or something, or am I missing the gist of "It's a pity you see it that way.?"

?

PFFF...I am gonna get one and play, play and play with it. While it may be time consuming, I am surprised that UM would launch a product and then just go, "meh" it is just enough. And, you put in the time for the 0.8 core. Cannot really be that big of a difference. But,. I will see.

On the other hand, think how much joy he has produced for people just starting or looking for something cool to print for their young ones. I mean, everybody needs something bulletproof to start a first print with and I cannot think of finer examples. No supports, well crafted and spot on characterizations. And, really, kids do love them.....even us big kids.

Depends on where you are and where they are.

We are on the same page then. That is why I wanted to make the distinction. What I mentioned was that there are some very unscrupulous people who seek to profit off other's hard work and talent, of which you excel in, in both cases. Look at how @flowalistik's work is pilfered for virtually everything under the sun. I have even seen his cool low poly Pokemon creations used in advertisements and as an image accompanying unrelated information. That ticks me off for him.

So, you have no issues with posting your models and letting others claim it and make money off of it?

Or get closer to the functionality of the full software and load it into the slicer as an AA 0.8 nozzle. Then all preset temps and extrusion rates are calculated closer to the actual nozzle use.

You are on a printer unfamiliar to me, so I cannot help there...sorry. ?

Depending on how strong the bond ends up being, you can usually pull it off with pliers and clipping on the thin parts. The final cleanup with a blade,

Did you look in the layer view?

Honestly, I think the prime tower is a great idea as it offers comfort to newbies. I know it did me until I got information about it and this was during the changes that they put in regarding the preheating and cool down temps. But it is nice to get weened off it as it does add a lot of material usage and time. Basically, a great starting point when new to machines, but eventually there is a time to expand. Edit: and though they do try to offer things that are good for other printers than the UM line, it does carry well with the UM printers.

At the risk of asking the obvious, then why try the new prime tower if prints are doing well without it. Or is this just a test to see if it works?

Bibbity bopity blingy blorp Borp bop racist Ooo, eeh ooo ahh ahh ting tang walla walla bing bang Seems you are more interested in ranting and arguing than actually providing the information that could help you. and finally, Bingo bango bongo irving

Just for time and material differences, would you mind doing a slice with the tower and without to demonstrate that difference? That was a big statue and I can imagine how that would accrue over the total print. little like jumping off something high, eh? I know it was for me and then I gave it a whirl and it was a very nice experience.

Aside from all the other rants I am not even going to read, this is an incomprehensible mess. Basically, their job is not to make sure Ultimaker's software interfaces with every printer on the planet. Their actual job is to make sure it interfaces with their printers. Why this is such a problem, I dunno, but at this point, with all the really, really bad translation statements and such, I am really not going to try to argue with someone that is complaining that they bought a printer, and then complains that something, not written for that printer, or should have ever been written for that printer does not interface. Buy a cheap printer, well, you get what you paid for. Why this is so hard to understand escapes me. But, I will say it again. Ultimaker's software team is not beholding to the "Other" printer community at large. They cannot solve every other printer's issues and should focus on their software/hardware solutions. And, it does make much more sense for them to solve their own issues for their printer base than everybody else's. Uh, no, you missed this point entirely. The software is open sourced, and can be fixed and submitted by the manufacturer. So, yeah, I got a point wrong, but the philosophy remains the same. Why does your printer company not actually expend THEIR money to make things work? That is the question on the bottom line. Try to read subtext and not specifics. I can get a tech point wrong, but does not support your argument at all. Again, when these cheap companies actually have to expend resources, it will not remain cheap. But, I will also state that you seem to not get that someone, on team Cura, offered their time to fix your issue and yet you still rant against them because they are not going to buy your printer to fix the issue.

This is good information and thank you for clarifying. ? Edit: Ummm, Cura is open source, so why does not the manufacturer find the problem and then report it to Cura Devs? Looking for more clarification of process here to be honest.