Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts

CalebPetersenPhD

Member
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Personal Information

  • Country
    US

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. LOL! Well in fact 9T labs used to have a modification for one Ultimaker printer, I believe the Ultimaker 2+, that could lay down continuous fiber much like the MarkForged. However, they switched to a different printer now for their final product, and the whole thing is hugely overpriced if you ask me. Then again, so is the MarkForged, especially considering how crappy their slicer is and how little customization there can be. $15k for $800 worth of hardware? Nah
  2. You guys are terrible for getting my hopes up 😜 Ok, makes sense we probably won't see a new printer this year. I'd love to be proven wrong though 🤩
  3. Hi, any rumors if Ultimaker will be coming out with a new printer this year? They released the S5 in fall 2018 and S3 in fall 2019... Thanks!
  4. Hi, if I have the "adaptive layer heights" experimental feature turned on and if I have the object floating above the bed, z>0 (with support being generated), slicing generates no G-code and predicts it will take 0 minutes to print the object. However, if I lower the object to the bed (set z=0) it slices fine with adaptive layers. Object also slices fine with z>0 if adaptive layers are off. I can't post the object but have tried multiple parts so I assume there is nothing wrong with my file.
  5. But all non-infill extrusions are not underfilled at all. Infill only ends up being grossly underfilled when I set a larger infill line thickness (e.g. 0.6 for a 0.4mm nozzle). Whereas Simplify3D produces G-code that makes proper infill lines when I use a default line width of 0.48mm for a 0.4mm nozzle and have the infill line width further inflated by around 130%. People have speculated that there is a bug in Cura that causes it to not increase the fill rate commensurate with how the infill line thickness is increased.
  6. Looks like Cura 4.1 Beta doesn't add this feature 😪 Simplify3D has very few advantages over Cura, but proper, fat infill lines when you assign a fat line width is one of them. Seems like an easy fix, hope this feature gets added.
  7. No, I haven't ever tried to calibrate it! I have performed nylon cleanings and cleaned out the gearbox but since reducing acceleration and infill speed at least solves the problem of infill underextrusion for a standard line width that's a start...
  8. Actually, I'm often using only 20% infill and just want really thick, wide infill lines like I can easily get in Simplify3D. (In fact, the one and only thing that Simplify3D seems better at than Cura is infill! Kind of pathetic how far behind S3D has fallen.) When I increase the infill line width in Cura, it doesn't seem to make the infill lines any thicker in prints... and this is with infill print speed and acceleration turned down. With the default settings, my infills would be horribly underextruded, a problem that people have had with Cura for years.
  9. Dang... well let's hope they get it added in there! In the meantime, maybe I could create dummy extruders for my UM3, assign them the various roles (wall, infill, etc.) and flow rates, and then post-process the Gcode with a simple find-and-replace to change all T3, T4, etc. to T0. Looks like I can change the number of extruders in the ultimaker3.def.json file.
  10. Oh, got it @smartavionics! Is there any way to set deafults in a text editor for those flow settings so that even if they don't appear in the UI they're still used by the CuraEngine?
  11. I agree Fred, I too am constantly playing with all my profile settings. I think it would be even better if the settings window popped out and had several tabs as in Simplify3D. But it's a minor complaint in the grand scheme of things for me. Cura is now leaps and bounds better than S3D.
  12. Thanks for the response @smartavionics, I looked into it a bit more and it seems like that page you linked is saying that you can edit expert.cfg in /resources/setting_visibility by adding the following lines to the [material] section: wall_material_flow wall_0_material_flow wall_x_material_flow skin_material_flow roofing_material_flow infill_material_flow skirt_brim_material_flow support_material_flow support_interface_material_flow support_roof_material_flow support_bottom_material_flow And also moving prime_tower_flow from [
  13. Hi, is there any way to selectively increase the flow rate just for infill? I know you can change line widths for different features (infill, top/bottom, etc.), which is great, but with larger line widths for infill (and even with moderate print velocities and reduced print accelerations for infill) I'm a bit of infill underextrusion. (Print temperatures are more than sufficient) For that matter, being able to selectively increase the temperature for infill lines would be cool. I suppose this could be done with dual extruders (use a larger nozzle, extra flow multiplie
  14. Thanks for the responses, guys. I'm glad I'm not the only one with this problem. Mine's even worse since the plastic was polycarbonate and not a low-temp one like PLA. In my case, the raft stuck like a rock to the bed--it was hard to remove it even with a razor blade. BUT, the print separated from the raft very easily, despite a 0mm airgap! Any ideas on how to fix that? And I agree, this sounds like a design flaw that Ultimaker just won't acknowledge. It's one thing for a print to fail. it's another for that failure to be so catastrophic as to ruin two expensive extruders and God only
×
×
  • Create New...