Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

Personal Information

  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Hi Link Thanks for the feedback. Yes it's the same issue, but it is consistent, based on the printer configured in Cura. It would be great to have it fixed by Ultimaker team, in order to get consistent results across the different printers. "Not in skin" might be a good option, with a slightly longer print time, but not as much as with no combing and without the hassles of the retractions.
  2. Hi Link Thanks for the feedback I used the wording "solid infill" as in Simplify 3D, but it is bottom and top layers in Cura wording. I'm printing with a 60% infill in the current case. I do confirm that I have the exact same parameters in the both profiles and Cura 4,2,1 behaves differently. So it is a bug. I checked every single parameter which is not hardware related. On the UM3 it combs within the infill, with no retraction On the S5, it is like setting the combing parameter to "Off" or so. I have attached the files for each printer. Also I would like to comb within the infill (including the solid infill) and not in skin, which the parameter "Within Infill" does well on the UM3. My post is to point out the discrepancy between the two behaviors. Note that if it is an non Ultimaker printer (I have a Mankati XT Plus) it behaves like on the S5. I understand there might be a workaround with the "Not in skin" parameter, but if you look at the path generated, it overlaps the infill perimeter, which creates additional travel. See screenshot. UM3E_model.3mf UMS5_model.3mf
  3. Hi to all I am printing the same parts on both S5 and UM3E using Cura 4.2.1. I have noticed when printing on the S5 that it performs retraction when printing the infill of the solid infill layers. I have set the Combing Mode to "Within infill" on both profiles and have the same parameter (not printer related) on both profiles. On the UM3 Cura has sliced the solid infill without any retractions between lines of the infill, but on the S5 there is a retraction between each line. See screenshot The slicing has been done on the same installation of Cura. Doing the slicing on another computer with Cura 4.2.1 provides the same results. Both computers were MacOS I believe it's a bug. Can somebody running Cura 4.3 check if it's still there ? Thanks for the feedback David
  4. Hi Smithy Thanks for the feedback. Indeed the black sliding blocks are very reliable on the UM3, no problem at all after 2 years of intensive usage on my first UM3. I cannot say the same on the S5, at least for the ones handling the Y Axis. For my understanding, the sliding blocks were white at the beginning (heritage from the UM2) then black. Are you confirming that the new S5 are now shipped with white Matt blocks ? Should I request those to my provider ? Best David
  5. Hi I don't think the old version is white and the new black because the blocks are exactly the same on the UM3 and they are black on my UM3 bought well before the S5 was announced. There is some oil on the axis end over the time, but currently it doesn't create any problem on the rear sliding block. I've made a check after replacing the blocks yesterday and the faulty one is clearly worn by some 1/10 of a millimeter. I believe there is some design flaw on the sliding blocks (at least the black one I've got) and the brackets are not big enough to ensure a snug fit over the time, as they have to handle the weight of the Y axis which is bigger than on the UM2 and UM3 (and it's the same block)
  6. Hi Job Thanks for the information. My printer was with the black blocks when brand new. So in June when the French distributor sent me black blocks in order to repair, that seems to be normal. In between, I've bought some spare ones in order to minimize the downtime, it's the same on the UM3. They are black too. I will ask for the new version for the replacement parts. Best regards
  7. Up .... With some videos it might be more clearer. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/bcmea9jyjpd5sm2/AAC20bI6zPjhoiX2-iZW57mha?dl=0 The issue is the small clips on the sliding block are wearing and the fit is not snug anymore with the rod. The issue appears only on the Y axis, which is handled by the sliding blocks. The X Axis is supported by the sliding blocks, so no issues. Thanks for your feedback
  8. Hi I had an issue mid June were the Y axis of the print head was no more held by the sliding blocks and dropped down after 6 months of usage of the printer. I replaced them under warranty, thanks to the French Ultimaker distributor. Today I discovered that one of the sliding block that have been replaced is now not snug any more and the Y axis is going to get out of it, after only 2 months of usage. As it becomes recurrent, it is very annoying and let me think about a design flaw. For a 6 k€ professional grade printer it is a bit of a problem having it down for 2 small plastic parts. Has anyone had this issue ?
  9. Here's the repaired file of the Printcore Lever. It is optimized for a low shrinkage material, certainly would need testing and tweaking for materials like Polycarb or ABS. UM3CoreClip_PL repaired.stl
  10. I have successfully fixed my print core using the model from Thingiverse in my previous post. The model has to be fixed with Meshmixer (Make Solid feature). I have printed it with ColorFabb HT Clear. But in order to get the dimensional accuracy, I haven't tried to get a clear print (increased material flow and high temps would have increased the dimensions) It should handle without any problem the high temperatures in the enclosed printer. The only point is the stiffness of the HT. It would have been better to print it with transparent PC, with some tweaking in order to be accurate. Good point is the same part works also well with the 3d Solex Hardcores, which I use mainly.
  11. Hi Smithy Thanks for the feedback. Indeed it's on Thingiverse. I'm just back from my annual leave and didn't had the idea to thingiverse for the model. I will have a try with that one https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3003778 As I print often with a fully enclosed printer material like ABS, ABS/PC, CPE+ or PC, I'll go for a CPE + print. I let you know
  12. I have the exact problem from time to time with 1 S5 and 2 UM3E. Doing a Cura Connect Reset on both the S5 (hosting the Cura Connect Server) and the faulty UM3E does the trick at the moment.
  13. Hi there I have an issue with a fairly new AA 0.4 Printcore, supplied with my S5 end of Dec '18. It's the secondary AA print core, so it hasn't run many hours and it is in very good condition. The transparent lever has broken, while in the printhead. I have managed to extract the print core out of the printhead and I would like to fix it without buying a brand new print core. Is there any spare parts available for the print cores ? Or is there any CAD file that part, so I can get it printed in SLA ? Thanks for your valuable feedback !
  14. I have managed to print FormFutura TitanX (ABS) on my S5 without any glass chipping, consistently using Dimafix. If you spray a thick layer of Dimafix on the glass plate, it will protect it and while hot provide the right amount of adhesion. It also works fine with PC and CPE+ For CPE, I still use 3D Lac, but the bed leveling has improved in the last FW version and I nearly don't have anymore first layer too squished on the build plate. Which is the cause of the chipping with CPE.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to the Ultimaker Community of 3D printing experts. Visit the following links to read more about our Terms of Use or our Privacy Policy. Thank you!