XYZDesignPro

It's just a common 1/4 in. Drive 7 mm 6-Point Shallow Socket https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=L&ai=DChcSEwi09O7FoMzTAhWLjGkKHcHWAJUYABAAGgJpcQ&sig=AOD64_3c72lfDN6qmGL7PCpjgV1Tr5yksw&q=&ved=0ahUKEwivrOjFoMzTAhUURGMKHW7ZApcQ0QwIfw&adurl=

I'm sure GR5 will jump in here soon. He can share everything you ever wanted to know about 3dSolex. I have two UM3Ext each with a 3dSolex Hardcore. I use the .6 nozzle primarily for the work I do, but they came with .25 .4 .6 .8 nozzles. I have used the .25 nozzle without a problem for small objects. I purchased the 3dSolex printing cores because I missed the Olsson block nozzle options I found so useful with the UM2 Ext machines that I had before purchasing the UM3 machines. Where are you GR5?

Yes, that is the same problem / symptoms. It's not a deal breaker, but it does appear to be a bug in 2.5 Final that I've not experienced in earlier versions. I'm now just leaving "Automatically drop models to the build plate" setting un-checked, and setting the Z to 0 manually. Not a big deal. Perhaps it will be addressed in 2.6 . . .

Must be something at your end. Part looks fine in Cura 2.4 using default (Recommended) settings.

Hi, I just tried that using version 2.5 and initially it didn't seem to want to accept a value typed in the Z field but then I clicked around some other stuff and afterwards I could enter whatever I wanted in the Z field so perhaps there's some weird focus problem there? Were you using 2.5 BETA or 2.5 Final? In any case, it would appear that Tinkergnome is at least partially correct. If you disable "Automatically drop models to the build plate" the correct functionality is restored. Of course the user now has to set the "Z" to 0 manually, but it does solve the problem. Thanks.

Perhaps you have enabled the setting "Automatically drop models to the build plate" (Preferences -> General)? That setting is enabled by default and simply assures placement the model at the 0 "Z" location. There are times when I need to set the model at -0.2mm "Z". That has the effect of burying the model 0.2mm into the build plate, to assure good build plate adhesion. The fact that I cannot do this in 2.5, but had no problems with it in 2.4 and earlier versions of Cura tells me this is a bug. Unless someone can jump in here and tell me what I'm missing. Can you try it for yourself and see if you can type in a specific Z location? The X and Y locations work as they did in 2.4 and earlier, but I'm unable to enter a specific Z location and have Cura accept it. Thanks.

In 2.5 you can set the X and Y locations manually by entering the distance in the box in the upper left corner and pressing either Enter or Tab, moving to the next field. However when entering the Z value, and pressing Enter or Tab the field always reverts back to the previous value. The only way to change the Z value is to drag the Z arrow. Not very accurate. 2.4 does not behave this way. Am I missing something?

Thanks for your thoughts / response bagel-orb. Sorry I'm just responding. Didn't see your response until last night. Your explanation makes total sense, but helps me little. Rotating the model to have the Z seam aligned with the Layer X & Y start position might work for some models, but it would compromise the overall quality of the finished part for others. Believe it or not, placing the model at a 45° angle vastly improves the look of the skin of the part when it is oval or oblong with a very slight curvature in cross section. May seem trivial to some, but not to a customer expecting an accurate and aesthetically pleasing representation of the finished product. Virtually everything I print is hollow (we manufacture plastic bottles). As far as diminishing the Z scar, most of the time I locate it at the peak of an oval (as you can see in the example below), or in the corner of an oblong or square shape. Hides it quite nicely. Turning Combing Off results in excessive retractions and constant Z travel up and down at each layer. Really ridiculous. No Skin, moves the travel moves to the outside, effecting the part's skin condition with "bumps" at both the Z scar and the Layer X, Y start position. And of course both options significantly increase print time. Before purchasing my two UM3 Ext printers, I had two UM2 with Olsson Block upgrade kits. I then used S3D exclusively. After I got the UM3 machines, S3D failed to handle dual extrusion very elegantly and I came back to Cura. If this behavior persists into 2.5 Final, I'll just have to keep using 2.4 Final for my work and forego all of the fantastic improvements thus far implemented in 2.5 :( You asked, and those are my thoughts . . . Best . . . Cura 2.5 definitely handles positioning differently from 2.4. Since Cura 2.5, CuraEngine is using multi-threading to speed up the process. The engine generates multiple layers at the same time. The major disadvantage of this is that the engine doesn't know where the previous layer ended in order to get the point on the inner walls closest to the previous print head location. Instead the engine starts each layer closest to the Layer Start Location. A workaround for your situation is to set the Layer Start X and Layer Start Y to the same values as the Seam X and Seam Y. I don't think this is a problem for most prints, since most prints use infill, so the starting point of the inner walls is already closest to the last infill line, rather than the end of the outer wall on the previous layer in both Cura 2.4 and 2.5. Moreover, we think that having the location of the seam of the inner walls at a different location as the seam of the outer wall could help strength prints and reduce the size of the z seam which is visible on the outside. Love to hear your thoughts.

While it may not be available from the panel menu during the print job, flow control for each print core is available from within Cura (2.4 Final) when creating the gcode to send to the printer. Not a good as real time adjustment, but better than nothing.

I have exactly the same problem. I'm using the same solution. Tweezers. Not very elegant, but functional. I keep hoping a software / firmware fix will come with each new release, but alas no joy :( Why can't we get a fix for this?

Thanks ultiarjan, but that link takes me to the download for 2.5.0 BETA2. The Cura Download site indicates that there is a 2.5.1 BETA, but all of the links at that site are dead. https://ultimaker.com/en/products/cura-software I'm looking to install 2.5.1 BETA. Does anyone know where that can be found? The links at the Cura Download site have been dead for days. :(

Where can 2.5.1 BETA download be found? All of the links at the download page are dead. https://ultimaker.com/en/products/cura-software

Happens every time I print support with PVA. I've never printed any other material in core 2. I've simply resigned myself sitting by the machine waiting for the material change to core 2, watching the prime process and at the proper time, I grab the prime pile with a pair of really long tweezers and hold it in place. Not very high tech, nor elegant, but beats the hell out of ruining a print in the first 3 minutes and having to start over. This has been going on since firmware 3.5 and Curs 2.3. I keep hoping it will be remedied with each release. Alas, no joy . . .:(

Although it has drifted considerably off topic at times, this thread was originally entitled "BETA Testing Cura 2.5". So I thought this was the proper place to post this information. Did I miss something here?

The No Skin option will force the travel moves to the outside of the part, but does not resolve the stringing. Just moves it to the outside with retraction. Better, but adds considerably to the print time. With the Off option, the travel moves are exactly the same as with the All option, but with more retraction which helps with the stringing, but that does not resolve the fact that the nozzle is always returning the the wrong X,Y location before moving to the user defined X,Y location. Never saw this behavior in Cura 2.3 or 2.4. Only now with 2.5 BETA and BETA 2. BTW, if the Z location is set to Shortest, the Z scar is always at the same X,Y location as you see in the photo of 2.5 BETA. Always facing the right rear of the build plate. Approximately X200, Y200.

This might be an Apple platform issue? I've found 2.4 and 2.5 BETA faster than any previous versions of Cura. Win10 Pro, 64 bit, 16GB Ram, Intel Quad Core @ 3.4Ghz.

Installed BETA 2 last night. Still having the same problem. 2.4 Final and 2.5 BETA both 1 & 2 have a distinctively different way of handling user defined z location. I brought the 2.4 version into 2.5 as a GCODE (so glad import gcode is back in Cura. Thanks ) so you could see the Travel Moves in each. 2.5 BETA appears to always return to a location facing the right rear corner before moving to the user defined z position. The result is a messy string of filament in the interior of the hollow part, as you can see by the blue lines The first is BETA-2 and the bottom is 2.4 Final. Thoughts? Thanks for the link. I'll download and upgrade my 2.5 BETA installation tonight. I have a backup I7 laptop that I use exclusively for the BETA releases so I don't mess with my desktop work station.

Thanks for the link. I'll download and upgrade my 2.5 BETA installation tonight. I have a backup I7 laptop that I use exclusively for the BETA releases so I don't mess with my desktop work station.

The Cura Download page is broken :( None of the links are live . . . Is the new version 2.5.1 BETA?

Same problem here. Worked fine with firmware 3.5. Started after I updated to 3.6 firmware. Does the app need to be updated to properly interact with the new firmware?

Same problem here. Both of my UM3X machines. Started after the firmware update from 3.5 to 3.6.

Using Cura 2.5 Beta on UM3 X with 3.6 firmware I am getting this message: This print job is larger than the printer's build volume please . . . I can choose Ignore or Abort. If I choose Ignore the job will print successfully. This does not happen with Cura 2.4 Final with the same file

Thanks for your reply Nallath. So - I'd still like to suggest that the Top and Bottom Layers each have their own pattern choice. i.e. Bottom Layer > lines, Top Layer > Concentric. Any chance this will make it into 2.6? Thanks again . . .