ffco

You da man! Thanks. I will check out MAX too.

I've been able to do this by putting in starting gcode in the machine settings. Put in a G92 with your adjustment. For example, this moves my head .1mm from the build plate: G92 Z-.1

I'm guessing it's an issue with this model, but here's the model if anyone wants to try it out on their own to see if they get similar results: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1936316/#files I initially was using the "dual cape_v2", but have also tried some other combinations. Seem to get similar outcome of the feet not touching. I even put supports on, and it didn't seem to build supports under the feet that were in the air which seemed weird.

UM3, Cura 2.6 Release. Utilizing the included profiles within Cura (fine-0.1) When I import each separate stl, I get brims on both models and everything looks good: After merging the models, I lose layer 1 on the second extruder (which includes the brim on the second extruder): Am I missing something here or is there an issue?

https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1936309

I pre heated the printer for 15 minutes, active leveled again, pre heated for a another :10 and then printed. It still appears to be too close for me. I will do this procedure a few more times as I print in the future to see if I notice any difference.

I just noticed (maybe it's been there a while) that I can now add start and end gcode in machine settings for my UM3 - Cura 2.6 stable. I added the G92 command to the start gcode and verified it's inserting it in. I still need to play with preheating more as Tom suggested... but now with the start gcode option I can inject the G92 command into the normal workflow and print over the network. This will be great as now I can slice and print over the network and insert G92 if needed vs having to manually manipulate the gcode file after the fact, put on USB, etc.

Yes, features are being built into Cura to use the 0.4mm and 0.8mm print core in one print. And actually, with different layer heights. This is already possible with the current version of Cura (infill thickness). The limitation is that the thicker layers should be a multiple of the thinner layers. But the next version of Cura will enable you to choose the extruder per feature. So then, you can print the inside of a model with a thicker nozzle and thicker layers, and the outside of the model in high detail (thin nozzle, thin layers). For most models, this will greatly decrease printing time. Bu it also enables you to print the skin of an object with "special material" (bronzefill, woodfill etc) and the inside with plain/cheap stuff. Wow. That's an awesome enhancement. I can see where this will be very useful. So glad I chose the UM3.

Thanks. I will try pre heating and see if thats whats causing it.

I have my first layer height dialed in on my UM3. Now getting nit picky . I seem to have differences in layer thicknesses when I start in the middle of the first layer. As it moves from the middle to one side, it seems to lay out one side thicker than the other side. Assume things are heating up more, flowing more freely as it works out to the edge on one side. Then when it goes back into the middle to complete the other side, there is a noticeable difference in the layer width. Any solutions to combat this? Taking longer to heat things up prior to starting to pint? Or is there a way in Cura to force the first layer to start on one side and not in the middle?

Glad it helped. I still haven't a smooth solution to overcome this. I either just live with the first layer being too close in exchange for being able to print directly to the printer over the network. Or if I want a nice looking first layer, I use the USB drive to transfer the file after I add the G92 offset. It's too bad that I have to do a workaround like this. It would be great if the printer had an ability to adjust this offset in the firmware or Cura.

Anyone else having issues with the layer view on a Mac with the release version? Locked or crashed my Mac several times today from what appears to be video kernel panics. On a positive note, I'm printing like a champ with this version and the new firmware on UM3.

Worth a shot - Can you check to see if you have a name for the model/job in Cura? In the bottom right hand corner of the model window with the pencil by it? I've seen this behavior and I didn't have a name in the model. Once I added a name, it cleared the situation.

Most likely a feature request - but Cura will send a job to a UM3 via the network with no "job name". There is a option in Autodesk Fusion 360 to send a model directly to Cura. Not sure what sequence causes to send the model over with no name. But Cura seems to accept this. If you leave it without a name and send the job to the UM3, it basically homes the head and says the print is complete. Took me a while to figure out that this was due to there being no name for the model in Cura. So it would be nice for Cura to enforce it having a name before sending the job.

Not exactly sure if this is a beta issue or not as I just started using custom materials. But when i choose "normal quality .1mm", the profile turns yellow and says "not supported" when I select a custom material I created (cloned from a standard). Using the built in materials does not create this. This is all before a model is even loaded. Edit: Looking like this may be due to me duplicating a profile for an Ultimaker material vs. a generic material. Is there some sort of logic to match compatibility of UM materials to profiles?

Thank you both. The Gcode edit will be best as I have to already make a few other adjustments. I am getting tired of moving the USB drive back and forth. I need to figure out a way to edit the gcode file and send the post sliced and edited gcode file to the UM3 via wifi (if even possible). Maybe a plugin?

I have to do multiple small prints to test fitment. As of now, just as soon as the bed cools down, I am starting another print and having to wait to heat the bed back up again. Is there a way to just keep the bed on between prints vs. it shutting down automatically? TIA

Did a new manual level to get the bed back in check. And then an active leveling. Default I got this: Raised the bed up .1mm with "G92 Z-.1" and seems much better: will play with it more to see how it affects adhesion, etc.

Sorry... I didn't really keep track of how much I adjusted the screws for the bed. I'm guessing a quarter turn at most. I'm assuming there is a way to inject maybe some offset in the gcode file after sliced? If so, I will re active level and play with some various values in the gcode. I will research the way to adjust the gcode or if you have the answer handy, please let me know. But just wanted to confirm this is not a material issue or something I can overcome in a Cura setting? Thanks for your patience. Fairly new to 3D printing. Worked with CNC carvers in the past.

Printed Solid has some for UM3 and UM3 Extended https://printedsolid.com/products/ultimaker-3-safety-enclosure-kit

Using the cura default profile with an initial layer of .27. Non Ultimaker PLA. You can hopefully see the differences in this image and how it improves once I lower the bed. The rest of the layers are great once I get past the first layer. The lowest layer is squished more and is wider than the rest of the layers above it. Really want to dial this in and want to adjust the correct settings as the rest of the print looks great. Thank you for the assistance.

Sorry if this is in the wrong section. Not sure if it's an active level calibration issue, or simply a setting in Cura. When I active level, my 1st layer is too close. I resolve this by lowering the bed some by tightening the bed screws as the first layer prints. My question is what is the correct way to resolve this? Printer setting or adjust this in a Cura profile? Goal is to not have to manually lower the bed. If I active level again, I'm back to square one.

Noob question. Printing with MakerGeeks Maker Series PLA. Duplicated the pre canned Cura PLA profiles. Printer is a new UM3. Things look great but getting extra material oozing when making larger moves. I have tried a wide range of temperatures and it doesn't seem to make a difference. So assuming I need to move to retraction settings next. It appears that there is no retraction values set under the material profiles in Cura. Question is if this is the next logical step to combat the oozing, and any recommendation on some starting values to input on the material profile for a UM3?

+1 on both of these.