CTotten

Thanks. Here are the two simple plots I made of the progress. Whenever I could check on the machines, I tried to log the completion time estimate throughout the print. I even backed out the time for any pauses (material changes) to keep it as consistent as possible. The print job has a large cavity in the middle, that goes up to over half the height. On the gyroid plot, the cavity (support area) was just about complete when I made the series of entries toward the end of the second day. It seems like the "growth" in time got worse around that same point. My assumption was that after the support area was done, the percentage of the print area getting the gyroid infill went up, causing the increase in the slope or the line. And it is hard to see, but after the first 45 minutes of the gyroid print (before it started the infill pattern layers), the completion time estimate was constant. Unfortunately it was late in the afternoon, so I didn't get a lot of data points during that part of the print.

That is my working theory right now. I read somewhere (can't remember where) that the jerk setting on the gyroid pattern was reduced at one point (from 20 to 8), so that could possibly explain a delta in the calculated time, if the time estimation still uses the old value. But when I open up those settings in Cura, the default value doesn't seem to match up (shows 25 mm/s for infill jerk). Is this an issue for Ultimaker to look into, or should this go to GitHub? I like using the gyroid infill pattern because it seems to run very smoothly compared to other infills. But if I can't rely on the time estimate, then I have to stop using it because I rely on the time estimate in estimate work (cost, workflow, etc.).

As of this morning, I am about 90% through the second print (tri-hex infill), and the estimated finish time is tracking very well. In fact, the estimated finish time says it will end 13 minutes earlier than originally predicted.

I am 12 hours into the 64.75 hour (Cura estimate) print of the same part, this time using Tri-Hex infill at 25%, and the estimated completion time is holding (in fact, it is now scheduled to end 5 minutes earlier).

First print, with Gyriod is complete. Original estimate was 65.63 hours; it ended up taking just short of 74 hours to complete. So that is about 12.5% more time than estimated. In this case, it caused this print to run beyond the work day, so I either had to come in a night (which I did), or let the machine sit idle for 12 hours (come in a Saturday morning), or let the machine sit idle until Monday morning. None of those are good options, especially when this job was "planned" to finish before lunch on Friday, allowing to start the next big print to run through the weekend.

Anymore updates on this? I am using Cura 4.5; I have an S5 and 3E connected via ethernet (S5 is host), and the printers still disconnect frequently. As a previous poster said, it is definitely worse after sending a new print job, or things like that from Cura, cut it is very annoying. And periodically I will get an "Unexpected Printer Status" in Connect, wiping out all the jobs I had in the queue.

Is Ultimaker planning to release a scaled down version of the Air Manager for the S3 printer? Or even a smaller material station? I would think you could get 4 spools into the smaller S3 footprint.

Morning update. I still have 9+ hours to go by the display, and so far the completion time has added over 7 hours to the print (from 2d 17h to over 3d). And looking over the data, the slope (rate of time being added) appears to have went up overnight, which I thought would happen. When I left yesterday afternoon, the print was reaching the top of the support area, so overnight the amount of infill per layer went up significantly.

Thanks for the information. I was assuming it was only a flow sensor in the Material Station, like on the S5 by itself. When I cut the end of the spool off, the material does go all the way inside the feed port before it says it is out of filament, and starts the change process. So I had concerns that if the material didn't release from the spool, or if it did release but the bent over portion would get hung up trying to get into the feed port, then the Material Station would not catch this. I will give it a try once I get the Material Station working again (had a ER63 then ER61 early this week, so Bay D continuously tries to unload material that is not there). Working with NA Support to resolve this.

I am about 60% through the print, and so far the estimation completion time has added almost 4 hours. That is over the course of 40 hours. I have a spreadsheet set up to track the estimation completion time. Unfortunately, I did not watch the first few layers go down, so I didn't specifically log the non-infill layers at the beginning. I am getting close to the point where the support material structure in the center cavity of the print (being done with Breakaway) is going to be done, meaning there will be significantly more gyroid infill per layer, so I am interested to see if that rate goes up. The support material is being down in the default triangles pattern at 15%. But 10% (so far) is a significant error.

I build models all the time in SAE using SolidWorks, and there is not issue importing the model into Cura that way. Most of the programs internally convert between one or the other system, and probably use one system natively.

Yesterday I started a large print (2d, 17h, 38m estimated time) using gyroid infill at 25%. As of this morning, so 16 hours in, I have already "lost" 1h 24m based on the time remaining showing on the display. Once this one finishes, I have an identical print to start using tri-hex infill at 25% (2d, 16h, 45m estimated time).

Agreed. Its a simple matter of managing the fault logic. Some faults should be fatal, some should not. Since many people print without an air manager, including people that have 3rd party enclosures with no fan at all, a loss of the fan during a print should not be a fatal air. Its not like the air manager is actively monitoring the internal air temperature and adjusting speed to maintain a level.

I have been noticing over time that my S5 takes significantly longer to complete jobs than the Cura estimate says. Over time, I have come to believe this is linked to using Gyroid infill. The larger the print, or atleast the more infill, the bigger the difference. For instance, I printed a large fixture this weekend. Cura said it was 28 hours. I came in 30 hours later, and the display said it had another 4.5 hours to go. So, assuming that it finished when it said, that was an extra 6.5 hours, or extra 23%. This did not make me happy, since I drove into work just to change over print jobs on a weekend. So, today I tracked a smaller print job. I was a large disc (about 8 inches in diameter), but was fairly thin (less than 1/2" thick). It was a 7.5 hour job according to Cura. Through the first 3 hours, when it was printing just the bottom layers (no infill), the time remaining tracked with the clock. After it had completed the infill portions, the time remaining had added a total of 23 minutes. After that point, so basically the last 2.5 hours or so, the time remaining again tracked with the clock. I read somewhere that the jerk value for the Gyroid infill pattern was reduced in the code at some point (maybe from 20 to 8 if I remember right). Is it possible that this change was not accounted for in the completion time computation, thus causing the time difference??? I plan to test large print over the next week, doing it once with gyroid then again with another infill. While I understand it is an "estimate", for the most part is seems to track well, especially on smaller jobs that have little to no infill. But people schedule things around these machines, particular if used in a business. We try to maximize the up-time, which means deviations in the end times for jobs can cause big problems. But when I am printing large jobs, that take 2-3 days to complete, and have multiple ones stacked up in the queue to be completed, it is frustrating when your 54 hour job suddenly become a 65 hour job...

I actually got time to watch a print in action today. On the layers without infill, the time remaining counter on the display basically tracked with the clock. On layers with infill, I started losing time (the time remaining did not keep up with the clock). I lost about 30 minutes on this 8 hour print. Once it got past the infill layers, it began tracking with the clock again. I need to try using a different infill on the next print job, to see if it is just a Gyriod issue, but that will have to be a different day.

I know this is an old subject, but has anyone else had issues with the S5 routinely exceeding the estimated print times by a significant margin? For instance, I started a 28 hour print at noon on Saturday. I can back into work at 6pm Sunday (30 hours later), and the print showed almost 5 hours remaining? I don't seem to have this issue on my 3E, as in the estimated print times are usually spot on. The more I think about it, I am wondering if this issue is related to Gyroid infill patterns? Since it was added, I have been using that pattern almost exclusively. And it seems like the prints when this occurs the most are prints will lots of infill. I don't sit around to watch the prints in action, or time each layer, but I was wondering if anyone else uses Gyroid infill a lot and also has the prints take significantly longer than estimated? Or, along the same lines, does anyone have experience getting print times in line with the estimate? What infill are you using?

Submitted. Issue #7372

I was running the first UM Nylon through my S5 + Material Station last night. When I came in this morning, the print was finished, but I had an ER63 message on the display. The Nylon had rewound, but was completely out of the Material Station feed tube (first time this has ever happened), like it rewound it too far. After looking online, I followed the directions to power off the S5 and Material Station. When I powered it back on, the Material Station kept trying to unload the material, then I would get an ER61. This happened several times before I finally completely disconnected the Material Station, so I could keep printing using the rear spool holder. I never could get to a point where I could get the logs because of the ER61 error. I am hoping that after running another print through the machine, when I reconnect the material station it will no longer think it has material loaded from that bay. But I don't know. Is there a reset function for the material station?

How do I get the Cura log?

So are these not Ultimaker brand spools of filament? I was particular interested in the performance of Ultimaker brand filaments, since of any brand, this should work. Also, I did notice the last batch of filament I got had a new design for the packaging. I have not opened one yet, but did UM "tweak" the spooling???

Ever since I updated to Cura 4.5 a few weeks ago, every time I open the program it acts like it is the first time using it. I get the "Welcome to Cura" window, and it forces me to agree to the terms and conditions, and go through that whole process. It also tells me my printer profiles are corrupt. I went through the "reset" process, but it keeps telling me the same thing. It is pretty annoying. And I keep losing all my printer settings that I have tuned.

Found it. It is in their "White Papers" section. https://ultimaker.com/learn/3d-printer-emissions-and-indoor-air-quality

One of the features that drove me to purchase the Material Station was the automatic change over of material mid-print, when a spool runs out. But so far, I have been tentative to just let the system do its thing. I am concerned about how it deals with the end of the spool, the part that is bent over on the spool. Does this work as expected? Maybe I am paranoid, but I have been clipping the ends off when it gets near the end, since I am afraid it either won't release from the spool, or the bent over part will be hung up before the material sensor see's the end of the spool, causing a failed print. What is your experience? If there are problems, what workarounds work for you?

Ultimaker has a fact sheet out on the Air Manager (can't find the link for it right now), but as I recall, they show the VOC level, even when printing ABS, is extremely low, and well below the limits established by regulators. I think that is why they decided not to add an activated charcoal filter to the Air Manager.

I use Windex wipes (pre-moistened in a package) to clean the glass, then wipe it off with a lint-free cloth. Works great, isn't a mess since I don't have to spray anything, and the wipe gets thrown out.