Xeddog

I would like a little clarification of what Cura calculates to be a hole. So far, I have found that when looking down on the model in Cura, a hole can be any shape. Round, oval, square, or even just plain weird. And everything I have seen so far has no bottom and no top. I would guess, however, that since Cura slices layer by layer, a hole would be any space that is enclosed on all sides in the layer being sliced. If that is the case, how would a horizontal hole on the side of a model, like a screw hole, get expanded since it would be open on one side? Thanks. Wayne

You are correct, but there is a workaround for now. Use file manager to select all the files you want to add, and then drag and drop them into Cura.

The 5.4 beta won't allow loading multiple files at the same time. For example, - navigate to the folder with stl files. - select first file - Move cursor to last file - shift-click last file the first item is DE-selected and the last file, and only the last file, is selected The same thing happens with ctl-click Computer is a Windows 11 laptop, and this process works with all other applications, etc.

ooooooohh yeeeaaaah. Minimum layer time. I had forgotten about that one. About flow, I've been printing for about 5-6 years and I have NEVER heard of any other technique besides cubes, either single or sometimes double wall, to calibrate flow. The funny thing is, the process ends with something like "after completing the calibration, verify with an actual print and adjust accordingly." Why not just adjust accordingly to start with? This is the first time I have used the cubes in quite a while as I have essentially been doing the "to start with" method anyway. Thanks for the info. Case closed. Wayne

Sheez. Already have an update. I just happened to watch this one start printing. The first layer printed at the 30mm/s as defined in my Cura settings. As the second layer started, I heard the fans come on, and the print speed DECREASED even further. Like maybe 10mm/s.

I am working through some calibrations for my CR-10S and one of them is printing a 20mm single wall cube (no top, bottom, or infill) to calibrate flow. Along with calibrations, I am trying to determine the printers top print speed that still yields good prints so I had the print speed set to 100mm/s after the first layer. I noticed while the cube was printing that the speed seemed to remain very slow, and looked like it kept the 30mm/s first layer speed for the entire 20mm cube height. My first thought was that I had Spiralize Outer Contour checked, but it was not. So does printing a single wall model cause Cura to invoke vase mode? Currently running 5.2.2, but I think I have noticed this before on some older versions. Wayne

I haven't had this issue for quite some time. Maybe as much as a year. Even when I was having the problem on occasion, it was so minor and easily circumvented that I quit monitoring this forum for a resolution. There have been a few new versions of Cura since then, so I just assumed it had been resolved.

Until recently, if I had a model created using Fusion 360 loaded into Cura, I would get a notification in Cura if I altered/saved the model in Fusion 360. That doesn't seem to be happening any more. No notification of an updated model in Cura. I don't know if this is a change in Fusion 360 (just got an update today), Windows 11 (constant updates), or Cura 5.1 (no changes I am aware of), but I would sure like to get that capability back. Where would I start looking to diagnose this? Thanks, Wayne

Thanks Posital. I have been using Arc-Welder since it's beta, and of course I have added the Cura Plug-in. I asked the question here before Arc-Welder existed. Wayne

I have had this happen several times for a while now. When it happens, there are NO parameters that are red ( At least no VISIBLE parameters). As BenjaminS94 says, change ANY single parameter, and change it back and you will be able to slice. Change temp, change it back. Change speed, change it back. Change the number of walls and change it back. It does seem like you could literally change any single parameter, and then change it back.

Yeah, I know all about that gap and it can be quite irritating. But in this case, the gap is caused by the print head zigzagging the perimeter instead of printing a straight line. It moves outward what looks like a line width every 25mm along the 95mm lengths instead of printing it as a single straight line. And just for laughs that I probably shouldn't mention here, I had about 5 pieces laid out including this one. I made all of my settings, sliced, and had an estimated print time of about 6 hours. When I increased the print speed from 60 to 80mm/s (no other changes at al), the estimated print time INCREASED to over 1 day 8 hours. 🙂

Quick addition - Cura 4.12 beta does this too.

I have been using 4.11 for a while with good results. But the last few days there is ONE piece that doesn't print correctly. It is a trapezoidal shape and there are two sides that do not print as straight. In the picture, you can see where there are gaps formed when the nozzle moves outward at several points. There is another piece that this one mates to, and has the exact same dimensions, but it does not have this issue. I have tried turning it over, and also rotation it around the Z axis in several positions, and nothing helps. I also used two different printers. As a test, I sliced it using PrusaSlicer, and it printed fine without the gaps. The piece was modeled with Fusion 360 (stl file attached), and it shows the entire side of the piece as one continuous face. E5+ Filament Guide and Runout Sensor - Post Cover.stl

No, nothing in particular. To be honest, most of it would probably be soooo far above my head anyway. I was mostly just curious since FormerLurker's github page doesn't have any updated release since February.

Thanks for the reply. Now I just need to find out what some of it means. 😁

I have been using CURA 4.10 for a while, but in the last couple of days there was an update for the ArcWelder plugin. I checked github and there are no program updates, so I am curious what the update was. Thanks.

I tried Arachne on one small print, but after printing I noticed that the support interface was not created so the overhang was bad. I double checked the settings and it should have been there, but wasn't. I think I'll wait for Arachne 2.

Note that when printing in one-at-a-time mode, the "Printhead Settings" in the machine settings section must be correct. Those settings are used to keep the objects separated, and that there is clearance between printed parts and machine hardware. If you have custom hotend mount, or cooling ducts, etc. you will have to measure all of that out and enter the correct values.

I seem to remember an issue with custom material profiles. Switch to one of the canned material profiles and see if you profiles are visible again.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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?