V3DPrinting

Thanks Smithy

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

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)

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

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

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 ?

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

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.

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

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.

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 !

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.

@burtoogle Thanks for the answer. In the mean time, I've been through the Gcode file, the old way, with Repetier. Indeed when the Z hop only over printed parts is on, there is a z hop inside the part, but no between two parts with the S5. I will check the gcode file generated for the UM3E, as the print is good.

Hi @burtoogle So basically I need to tell the printer to make a Z Hop all the time and it should work, making a Z hop with each retraction ? Then I have two questions : 1) Why the Cura simulation is correct, making the Z Hop with the S5 ? 2) Why the S5 is not performing the Z Hop instructions a least on the first layer ?

Hi to all I have a job which is dual extrusion (ColorFabb XT and Ultimaker TPU) which runs smoothly on UM3E. Unfortunately I can only print 6 pieces at a time for approx 8h print. I need to speed up the order, so I have tried to print 12 pieces at a time on my S5, so I've duplicated the settings on the S5. If I look at the print simulation on Cura, the first layer looks perfect, with a retract + Z Hop when moving over the already printed part of the first layer. Printed on the UM3E, the behavior is the same as simulated in Cura, but on the S5, the second extruder (Blue TPU) is not performing any Z Hop on the first layer, so there is an unacceptable pollution of the white first layer done by the first extruder. My settings : Cura 4.1.0 UM3E FW : 5.2.11.20190503 UM S5 FW : 5.2.11.20190503 Attached the projects on both printers and the result of the first layer on S5. It seems to be a FW issue on S5. As usual, I have a customer order pending with that issue. Thanks for your quick feedbacks Best David UM3E_Parts x6.3mf UMS5_Parts x12.3mf

Indeed, very close to the print I get. Except the top layers seems to be fine on my prints.

I have done some more testing on a calibration cube. First I have printed a cube using the CC 0.6 profile instead of an AA 0.4 with modified line width. The result is a bit better after tuning the print temp a bit, as speeds are much lower 45 mm/s default speed instead of 70 mm/s in the AA profile. There is a pretty standard elephant foot at first glance. Not as good as the prints done by @smartavionics, but better. Then I have printed another cube with the AA profile, with 0,55 line width, to match the 0,6 nozzle, and same speeds as in the CC 0,6 profile. So the two profiles were the same regarding line width, temperatures, speeds and of course shell and infill. The cube now show a bulge as in the first attempts. So there is something to do with the parameters and the slicer maybe. Are all the features of the CC or AA profile editable in Cura ? Thanks for the feedback David

I have cleaned my extruder, but it was pretty clean already. Nearly no deposits on the knurled wheel. Yesterday night, I have printed a big flat part (300 * 190 * 10 mm), using the same settings as the last posted for the calibration cube. No bulging nor elephant foot at all. I am still using the same spool. I am not convinced it is an extrusion issue. Though I must admit your prints were really good. I will try to use the CC printcore setting on a calibration cube....

@smartavionics Indeed it is way better than my prints. Maybe a calibration issue As far as I know, e steps are an average value, part of the firmware (I have QR3,0 Bondtech extruders on UM3E, so I have to tweak the FW at each upgrade). But is there an easy way to calibrate it and set it on the S5? Usually we have to send an extrude command of x mm of filament, then measure the real length of filament that have been through. Tweaking the FW should be close to the UM3 procedure. Other option is : the extruder is dirty ... I'll have a look tomorrow when my print job has completed.

Just to confirm that it is not a standard elephant foot, but a slicer issue, I have printed a calibration cube with a 2 mm bottom layer thickness. And the issue is on 2 mm height from the build plate .... UMS5_Cube plein test.3mf

I have printed a 30 mm calibration cube with the same settings as in the cura project. the wall and infill layers + top skin layers measure 30,04 mm, but the bottom skin with the "elephant foot" is 30,58 mm. The issue is only on the 5 bottom skin layers, as my settings were 5 bottom layers, after that, the layers tend progressively to reduce to the target size. Given the fact the line width has been set to 0,55mm, there is nearly a full line width added to the bottom skin layers.

HI @smartavionics I have done some more testing, as in my customer project I need to make some text insertions into a board. As I don't want to file / sand every letter in order to fit the board, I am trying to get rid of the "elephant foot". First I confirm it is not a classical elephant foot, but the skin layers being larger than the walls + infill layers. Second, I have the issue also printing with a 0,6 mm nozzle. I have double checked the filament diameter and flow rate. In fact the filament is 2,82 mm for 2,84 mm diameter set in Cura, so the real flow rate is 99%. Third, the issue is on small parts, not on larger ones. See picture : I have printed both parts on the same print job. On the larger one, I don't have any elephant foot, only a first layer a bit too squished and not fully compensated by the -0,3mm first layer horizontal expansion. But on the letter, which is only 25 mm wide, I do have the issue with the skin layers. I am currently printing a calibration cube in order to have a precise measurement of the "elephant foot" with a 0.6 mm nozzle. David UMS5_Test dimensionnel.3mf

OK thanks a lot. So I shouldn't have that issue. Again, printing with a 0,6 mm nozzle with a 0,55 line width on the same printer / hardcore with the same spool / material flow / profile (except line width) / part doesn't create to a larger part on the skin layers.

HI @smartavionics Using wider lines for the infill doesn't save any time, just more material and weight on the print. And yes I have used wider lines : 0,75mm line width for a 0,8 mm nozzle. I've also made a test with a 0,8 mm line width, but it doesn't change the behavior. I may have a go on your suggestion for a 1,00 line width with the 0,8 mm nozzle, but it will increase the pressure in the nozzle so retraction and coasting tuning might be a bit more tricky. Generally, I am setting a lower line width than the nozzle size for these reasons. I think there is an issue in the line width calculation / parametrization for the skin and bottom layers.

UP ! I still have the issue with the bottom layers being oversized using a 0.8 mm nozzle. As there is no issues printing the same part with a 0.6 mm nozzle it may be related to the slicer. I need to print a big flat part in many chunks and a 0.8mm nozzle would save me a lot of time. Has anyone a workaround ? Thanks in advance