kmanstudios

Probably because it is not an official release.....

This has only happened to me if I get excessive curling on the material. I routinely print full height in many cases. So, the pushing down the top of the clips solved that for me when I get the curling. I am thinking not since it could void your warranty and also create issues with the bed leveling.

I am kinda wondering why you would want to do this when a simple pushing of the clip brackets can do the job. Seems like 'make work.'

I will go with this.....

You can always print a clip, but when it has happened to me (I pushed the clips down, front and rear to make them grab the plate much more) I just taped them a bit on the sides.

I am thinking that this is rolled into the product price over the long term. And, yeah, the fan bracket is an issue. But, you can print addons that solve the issue. Remember that UM and most other printer companies come from the background of "DIY" on printing parts and such and are maturing into companies that have to actually make robust turnkey solutions. There are flaws, but I have seen much growth in my time using UM machines. And, if you look at some of my posts, I do call 'em as I see 'em. Not always polite or apologetic. Just blunt. But, the more I use my machines, the more I appreciate how, overall, they have been maintenance free. Gotta get in there a few times, in my case because of mostly user error, and tweak or figure things out.

I would take exception to that because of the globality of the statement. Are there a few issues? Yeah, but overall, 'the printhead' has a lot of very, very good engineering.

Did that for a long time until the heat caused the rubber band to degenerate very quickly. That is when I made my UM3 bracket. BUT! It does work until you get the thing printed. If your luck is like mine, it would pop open whilst printing the bracket and cause more issues.

I would also thin the side arms so it does not interfere with the switching mechanism and the homing mechanism.

This would be the way to go. The square model would use your regular settings and have the hole still there. The cylinder would be there to sit over the hole and modify the number of walls. It does have to be at least big enough to encompass the wall thickness you wish to employ.

I would add that the red area appears to show that the normals are flipped.

Use 'per model' settings on a modifying model (say a cylinder in this internal area). Apply that separate model so that it overlaps the area you wish to affect and choose wall thickness.

The drawing is not attached. Would make a big difference :)

OK, this is what I would expect to print properly. Keep in mind that I use Matterhackers PVA for the most part. I keep the UM PVA for the really needed prints. So, this will show a mismatch on the PVA, but you can override that on the printer. I rotated the body upwards so it does not lay down flat. This is my personal preference. Not a 'more correct' way of printing the object. UM3E_MainBody_v1.0.3mf

That is dryer than my environment. Typo? 3.6? ok.....I want to take a look since I do not have these issues and I did look at the file and it should be a fairly easy print. Have you tried changing out the BB core?

I just noticed what I would consider a 'glitch' in the support implementation. In this image, there are some holes that would need support (A). But, it creates a large amount of support structure that should not be there (B) below those holes. This is a massive increase in material (well, not on this model, but could be if the holes were across the whole side). This is also an increase in time spent printing. The actual overhang of the model does not change, so this area is only there because of the holes it is seeing to support. Acknowledgement: This is a model that someone wanted me to look at.

One thing to keep in mind is that you may need to do some simpler tests to iron out your PVA issues. PVA is a pain to print with. My environment is very dry compared to some places. And, depending on your ability to create a printing environment with humidity control, it may be a great challenge. I know some people here that are far more experienced than myself that just cannot get the results I get due to their local climate. I am just not in a high humidity environment. And, I still have to clean my system periodically because, well, sometimes, humidity can change. I can see the printing change in a matter of hours when there is an upward change in humidity due to weather conditions such as storms moving through, etc.

I can vouch for this as I installed and just a few preliminary things to see how it behaved. It did not mess up my settings and it did not create issues on installation. Matter of fact, it was just as if I loaded the previous version installed (3.6) with all settings intact and even had the 'recent files' intact. There are a few things I have not tested yet, but it is a vast improvement from previous installs and opening first time experience. I have not sliced and printed as I have prints going on that are several days yet for completion. Ayup......Been there for many version iterations since it has been there since I started using Cura just over two years ago.

I know you got the PVA, but what is the other material? Layer setting? Etc..... UM Machine? edit: A project file and version of Cura you are using would be helpful.

No, I am thinking that this is because you need to really do hot and cold pulls before you -print to make sure the core does not have blockage. But, if you are midprint, use the method detailed to get the PVA to print. This would be a case by case basis. In my stuff, mostly organic, it is not feasible. I tried it once and it just failed miserably. This would be something you would be able to evaluate. This is true, but the core should cool between usages of the materials. What would cause an issue is if it clogs, does not extrude when hot and cooks the PVA even more.

Yeah, my PVA failures went WAAAAYYYYY down once I started to use a drybox. Polybox in my case. But, clearing the nozzle in midprint is still required once in a long while if I do not do good maintenance.

Dunno who thought adding all these extra clicks (well, ok, just one) was a smart thing to do. I see no added security value, just annoyance.

Then perhaps you have not had the PVA clog in the middle of a long print?

Are not the speeds for infill a bit high on average? Maybe try slowing them down a bit.

Just Some goofy lamp shades I made a while back. I could go in and trim a few stragglies....