Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts

Link

Member
  • Posts

    332
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Link

  1. I remember reading that Cura didn't work well with a odd number of walls as the fill gaps didn't work well. Has this bug been fixed or should I always use an even number of walls ?. Added to which does it make any difference if I always set the wall (if the part has no infil) to be a multiple of the line width. i.e. if my line width is set to 0.4 and my walls on the object are 1.2mm which is exactly 3 walls, would I still have the potential issue ? @smartavionics I think you have some very good knowledge in this, could you please advise ?, really appraicfte it thanks
  2. As there is such a huge choice now, what do you consider to be the best PLA for detailed parts, I have found Rigid Ink to be very good, I have tried many others, including Filamentum, Colorfabb, Faberdashery, Hatchbox and none seem to be as good as RI for detailed parts. Ultimaker PLA was very good but more expensive and comes in limited colours.
  3. I agree with Neotko, I got my Fab samples and the lack of spool made It just a pain and I still can't see why this would be a good busyness sense for them, so many people must be put off my the lack of spool. It would make more sense for them to at the very least offer a spooled option on all colours. I found their actual filament to print well, but saying that not noticeably better than Filamentum and others. Taking the price into account and the lack of a spool, I didn't order any more. Shame as some of the metallic type colours are nice. My guess is they are about to go under (if haven't already)
  4. I had the same sort of experience from them, their website hasn't been updated for ages and even their twitter feed is stale. I am guessing they are about to stop trading.
  5. yes, you are right !, I stand corrected !, any idea why it seems to be random, I am seeing less moves than you but as you say still moves when it shouldn't ! ideally then could you fix the 'comb over infil only' and also your version which will comb over walls and infil (but not skin' Thanks very much, really great if these can get fixed !
  6. I just tried another model and see the issue, but only on this model strangely this is no skin, but is performing coming travel (dark blue line) in the skin, I can't see why this model would be problematic but others are not...
  7. The only way I can achieve the sort of issue you are seeing is to set the 'retraction minimum travel' to a massive number, in this case 20mm, normally its set to 0.7. What value do you have for this ?
  8. again not seeing moves without retraction like you get, something odd there. No skin in my slice looks like your fixed version, but I haven't changed anything.
  9. that is odd, I don't see that sort of behaviour of 'within infil' you are seeing, I don't see any combing travel outside of infil, anything outside of that is a retraction
  10. Great thanks, ?
  11. I am sure you understand this better than me ;), but if i set min travel that will affect the whole part so even moves which would have been over infil (where I don't care about the extra material) would result in a retraction, which I don't want. Not sure I understand what you mean about the nozzle will happily traverse a skin when moving. As I understand it in all areas other than infil retractions will be applied rather than combing. Setting avoid printed parts when travelling will ensure parts are avoided, regardless of whether the move is a retraction or a comb. Certainly setting min travel, and thus enforcing more retractions will not be a great solution. As I say I am sure you understand this better than me, but I cannot see why the current mode is not good (when named correctly). The OP firsts picture shows a number of moves with are actually retractions rather than combing moves, so Cura has done what It is supposed to do. it still avoids printed parts and used retractions.
  12. I don't think the 'no skin' should be changed in the way you describe, it would make much more sense to rename it as you have mentioned 'infil only combing'. Then a true no skin should be added as an additionally option. I would not want combing over wall, for example a thin wall, maybe two or so walls thick, will suffer if coming is used and the extra material deposited into the wall, it makes the wall look inconsistent due to the extra material. Please consider creating another option and keeping the 'infil' only combing as it is, but named correctly. That would be the best solution.
  13. same problem for me, I had to import the profiles manually one by one and it worked.
  14. ah ok, thanks. is it worth enabling ? is there some sort of limitation in Cura which prevents it having pickable supports like the other slicers ?, seems odd Cura leads (for me anyway) in all areas apart from supports, which seem to have been a bit 'hacked' to get something which still isn't that great
  15. I see there is now a plugin which offers custom supports in Cura, has anyone tired this ?, seemed to slip under the radar without much fanfare but when its a big thing (if it works) ?
  16. Hi, i have for some tanishing in my smooth rods on my 2+. The marks cannot be felt and dimensionally the rod seems unaffected. Does anyone know what these are ?
  17. Can someone please explain how this setting works. I set the top skin count to 1 for example but it doesn’t seem to do much, also looking at the layer view in Cura the top layer looks exactly the same ?. What is it supposed to do ? thanks
  18. Link

    Cura 3.2

    Is there a way to find out if the latest version of Cura also includes any new firmware releases for the Ultimaker printers ?. Can’t see any reference in the release notes ? thanks
  19. Is there a way to find out if the latest version of Cura also includes any new firmware releases for the Ultimaker printers ?. Can’t see any reference in the release notes ? thanks
  20. what speeds are set on the variable layers ?, are they varied by some factor based from the profile setting, or is the profile setting used for all layer heights ?
  21. Many Thanks for the clarification I appreciated it wasn’t a simple implementation, just wasn’t sure what to adjust to get the desired persmeters.
  22. Ok, yes it appears to work like that. If you want to have your variable layers range from 0.16 to 0.2 for example, you have to set your layer height to 0.18 and your ‘adaptive layers max variation’ to 0.02. It seems a bit of a strange way of doing it, it essentially offsets your default layer height plus and minus by the adaptive layers max variation value. So by default it will always make the layers greater (and smaller) than your nominal layer height by the same value. So to restrict your true max layer height you need to drop your default layer height to compensate.
  23. Ok, didn’t realise I could change the colours to see exact layer heights, as it stands you can’t tell exactly what has been set, just a rough estimate based on colour along the transition line all the way to 0.27 (yellow)
  24. Wondering how do I set it so the variable layer height never goes above 0.2 and only below, I need to set my default layer height to 0.18 then the offset to 0.02, the I will get a max of 0.2 and a min of 0.16 ?. It’s not straight forward to understand how to set the layer height ‘range’
×
×
  • Create New...