Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts
  • Sign Up


  • 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. Yup, It do look like that little beastie. As soon as I selected a generic PLA instead of my eSun PLA+, they all came back. Thanks, Wayne
  2. I have been using Cura for many releases now, but upgraded to 4.7 when it came out (2 days), and it was working fine til today. I have three printers now, and use separate profiles for each although 99% of the settings are common. The three printers are a Monoprice Mini, A CR-10S, and an Ender 5 Plus. For a long time I have been launching 3 instances of Cura in my Windows 10 Pro, and when they are finally up and running, I change two of them to other printers so I have one instance running for each printer. Today, all of the profiles for the CR-0S vanished. All of them, with one exception and that is the last one I was working with. I had decided that I would start with a new profile using the default "Standard Quality", but even that one, and all other defaults, are gone. Now, going back to 4.6, they are gone from there too. If I select "Manage Profiles, a dialog box is opened, but the list of profiles is completely blank. If I change to one of my other printers, everything is normal for it. All the profiles including the defaults are there, and in the manage profiles dialog everything is there. Including my CR-10S profiles. That makes it sound like a pointer for this printer just got buggered up somewhere, but how do I fix it?
  3. Hey guys, regarding the mathematics of 3d printers let me just say my printers are consumer grade machines made out of Chinesium parts with Chinesium tolerances, etc. Just because the math sez it will work doesn't mean it will. 😞 Back on topic, I also realize that with a Layer Height of 0.2 and a maximum variation of 0.16 that there are many other variables that need to be tweaked to get good results going down to a 0.04 (a difference of 0.16) layer height too. Print speeds, temps, flow, retractions . . . And on the opposite side of that, those same parameters would have to be tweaked a lot more when going back from the 0.04 up to 0.36 (now a difference of 0.32), not to mention that a layer height of .36 exceeds the recommended maximum layer height of the standard .4mm nozzle. So as I said, my example was an extreme case just meant to illustrate my point, and not necessarily practical to actually achieve. At least not on my machines. Maybe you can make adjustments for all of those settings too. Talk about "Snakes on a Plane" and "Arachnophobia" combined huh? 🤣 So for me, I hope this isn't a case of "be careful what you wish for", but I wish the Layer Height to be a do not exceed limit. I think. Maybe. 🙂 In any event, I will keep using adaptive layers either way. ghostkeeper - You say " what you're asking doesn't increase or reduce the capabilities of Cura", and that is certainly true. I already get MUCH more out of Cura than I pay for. But I think for ME at least, it would increase it's USEFULNESS.
  4. The bright red part is what is in contact with the bed. The darker red is overhangs, and are not necessarily parallel to the bed. If I put a brim on it, there are still bed adhesion problems and every time I tried to print it this way, the thing separated from the bed and the brim (This was before I realized that it wasn't flat). This screenshot was taken after I lowered the model 0.24mm into the bed, and it still isn't quite all on the bed and is still too high for a brim to attach.
  5. I've been using Cura for over two years and most of the time I can figure out what I did wrong. But the last few days . . . Dang. As the title suggests, I am having an issue with Cura 4.6.2's Lay Flat option and the attached stl. It is one of a set of files I downloaded from Thingaverse. When I import the model into Cura, the model is laying in a very bad position for printing as shown here: I use the Rotate>Lay Flat command, zoom in on the bottom surface, place the cursor on the very bottom flange of the engine, and click. The model is stood up, and laid flat on the bed as shown looking up from below the bed. Almost. As you can see, it looks like only about 1/3 of the surface is on the build plate. Just for something to try, I then used the Lay Flat command and clicked on the red circle at the top of the dome. I actually expected the whole model to be dropped down to that surface, but instead it only aligned the entire circumference of the bottom of the model that I wanted. I selected the Move option to see what the Z coordinate was, and it still said 0, so it seems that nothing was below the bed. Now you are probably thinking that maybe that bottom surface isn't flat. I thought that too, so I tried slicing with PrusaSlicer, SuperSlicer, MatterControl, and IdeaMaker, and they ALL properly placed that bottom surface FLAT on the build surface. So that makes me think it is an issue with Cura, or a Cura setting. Is this a bug, or a setting, or ????? I have also attached the stl file in case you wanted to test. Stage2_EngineGrey.stl
  6. ghostkeeper and DivingDuck - As I mentioned, the example I gave was an example only to illustrate what I think is a problem, and was most likely beyond the capabilities of me printers as I don't think it can successfully print at .04 layer height anyway. But if I was wanting to print that piece, I would have to cut that part into two pieces and print them separately. The cylindrical body at one setting and the dome at another, and then re-assemble them post-processing. But lets say my printers COULD print at .04 layer height. With THAT much change to layer heights (.28mm), there are several other settings that would most likely have to be tweaked as well (as you alluded to). Speed, temperature, retractions . . . Personally, I find that using the Layer Height setting as a median value GREATLY reduces the usefulness of adaptive layers. It still has a place, but not nearly as much as if Layer Height was the limit. How much redesign would it involve to change adaptive layer settings to have one setting for a minimum layer height, and one for a maximum? Or maybe just add one more setting that will force adaptive layers to honor Layer Height as a hard limit?
  7. Wow. MAJOR brain fart on my part and I should have known better. I made the setting visible and it was indeed checked. After UN-checking and re-slicing, I get exactly what I was after. To make matters worse, I sliced this same piece for printing on a different printer, and the towers were not present. At that point I was fairly certain it was a slicer setting, but a the time I did not have time to investigate and it slipped my mind. So thank you very much for resolving my issue.
  8. I know about the different settings, and I think I actually understand what they do. The bottom line is that I think the Layer Height setting in the shell section should be a hard maximum layer height limit to keep from exceeding what your nozzle is capable of. The screenshot is just an example, and frankly is probably beyond my printers capability, but it does illustrate what I am talking about. I would be attempting to smooth out the top dome part of the model without affecting the 0.2mm layer height of the body. With a maximum variation of 0.16mm, that gives me 0.04mm layers at the top of the dome which is good (at least it would be if my printer could actually do it). But the lower cylindrical body also gets the 0.16 variation in the other direction, or 0.36mm which is very NOT good even if my printer could do it with a .4mm nozzle.
  9. I had to look that one up. "Support Horizontal Expansion" was defaulted to 0mm.
  10. I have been using Cura for a long time, and this has been an issue for a while. As the subject says, supports going up to nohwere. I have attached two screenshots, and the STL file. One screenshot is the part Pre-slice in the Prepare pane. The other is after the slice with Supports everywhere in the Preview pane. There are three support towers that go up to nothing. I see quite a few of these in many different models of many different shapes. To make matters worse, it is difficult to get support blockers in place that will actually remove them. Placement of support blockers has to be very precise, and most often also removes needed support material in the process. But the main question is - why are those supports being generated at all? EDIT: I am using Cura 4.6.2 at the moment, but as mentioned, I have had this problem for several past releases. High Rize Cable Manager.stl
  11. Also check machine settings to make sure "Origin at Center" is NOT checked. And in the FWIW department, you can increase bedsize dimensions to 360x360 with no ill effects. I have been running mine like that for a few months.
  12. I was just trying to get a better handle on adaptive layers so I loaded a model to play with. I sliced it with adaptive layers off to see what I got. Then started changing one Adaptive layer parameter at a time and re-slicing to see the result. I noticed that when using adaptive layers, the layer height parameter specified in the Quality section is used as a midpoint and not a hard limit. So on this piece, layer height was set to 0.2mm in the Quality section at the top, and when I sliced using Adaptive Layers, the height on the curved surfaces decreased as expected. What was not expected is that layer height for straight parts was increased a like amount. In one test, with a setting for layer height of the 0.2 mentioned, curved portions of the model had layer height decreasing down to 0.4mm, but the straight vertical parts INCREASED to .36mm. That was too much for a .4 nozzle. So did I miss a setting that limits the amount of layer height increase? If that is the way this works, then I would like to suggest an additional parameter that specifies a hard limit for height increase to keep from creating a file that is doomed to fail when printing.
  13. Thanks for the reply. I know about the import/export option, but even that is still a pita, and still incomplete as the machine profiles are not included. Just make one small tweak to a a profile and then you would have export it, then go to each of the other computers and import it. That is, of course, if you remember to do it. It would just be great just to have one place to store them and all instances of Cura have access to them.
  14. I have been digging around looking to see if Cura has a configuration option to specify where profiles are saved and cannot find anything. I run Cura on one of three different computers depending on just how lazy I am. One is a Windows 10 Pro machine, and two others are Ubuntu Linux machines. It's a rpita trying to keep it all up to date on the three computers, so it would be GREAT if there was a directory specification or something that would allow me to store all of this on my NAS for use by all computers. Things like filament profiles, printer profiles (including start and end gcodes), print settings, plugin settings . . . all of it. Is there currently any way to accomplish this? I am assuming that this doesn't exist, but personally I think it would be a good upgrade for a (near) future release.
  • Create New...