Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts

Link

Member
  • Content Count

    332
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Link

  1. Link

    line width

    Not sure I follow this logic, the first layer will be wider than you specify due to the squish into the build plate, subsequent layers should be as per what you set the line width to (assuming the nozzle is the size you specify and esteps are correct etc) the slicer calculates the flow etc to achieve your specified line width. If you are saying you ask for a 0.45 width with a 0.40.nozzle, but actually get a 0.35 for example, then change your line width to 0.35 likely the end result will change again as the slicer will reduce flow etc to get were it thinks it should be. You will be
  2. Link

    line width

    i have done a fair amount of testing with different line widths and repeated those since my S5 arrived, the thinner line widths used by default in Cura in general are not as good for overhangs, the thinner line width can lead to poor bonding on overhangs and some stringing. I have also seen lines not bonding together and leaving gaps with thicker line widths as mentioned above, however i have also seen this on the default thinner widths, so its not 100% that thinner prevents this issue, I think there is some sort of Cura quirk with gaps in perimeter lines and it seems to come and go.
  3. I delete my comments from here as i read this article with describes how the build plate is pushed on purpose....
  4. I have noticed the new bed level sequence in the .8 and .11 firmware actually pushes the nozzle slightly into the bed, it's not by much but compared to the older version which literally just made contact with the glass, I assume UM have considered this and we are not looking at slight bending of the build platform over the longer time ? It's obviously doing as expected as the first layer is perfect, but from a visual perspective it was nicer to see the bed not being flexed at all (even by this tiny amount) I assume this more direct contact was required to improve the ac
  5. no problem, glad you got it sorted 🙂
  6. I have just updated my S5 to .11 and everything is fine so far, WiFi works no problem
  7. you need to update you z offset plugin, there is anothter thread on this, basically the UM firmware does not support the G92 command now, so the new plugin takes account of that and calculates the offset in a different way. Once you change the plugin to the new version it will work as expected
  8. On a related note, when my S5 offers a update it shows 5.11 not a interim version, should the available version show the interim version first ? Or will it do the required in the background ?
  9. Haha, I am the same, I was just about to install it and saw some more noise about WiFi not working
  10. I am in the same position, my S5 arrived last week and is on the firmware prior to the problematic one and its working fine, it would be good to get a summary/release note of what this release fixes or enhances. @SandervG is this available somewhere ? thanks
  11. Hi, I have received my S5 and so far very impressed, quality is amazing, lots of really nice features etc. I am not starting to tune the print profiles and rather than use what i had for my 2+ i am starting with the UM base profiles for the S5 and tweaking those. Looking at the standard profiles a few things seem strange which i would like some thoughts on. Speed - for the 0.4 print core the default travel speed is 150 and the field goes red if i go above this, this seems quite low ?, also and more relevant is that the default travel jerk for 0.4 core is 50
  12. Without doubt that will be the short belts need tightening, check the manual of how to do it. It's easy. I am assuming you are printing this part flat rather than vertical.
  13. Link

    S5 Active Level

    Received my S5 today, very impressed ! It would be nice to choose when the active level took place, as it stands it happens at the start of every print which adds to the overall print time, it would be nice to select when it happens, for example only run when a print core has been changed. Could this be added to the firmware ? @SandervG
  14. Thats very useful, many thanks. I will speak to the reseller and see if they can check the firmware, failing that i think i can live with those bugs whilst you guys get things sorted and use the work arounds temporarily. FYI - I am still very much looking forward to getting my S5, the 2+ has been amazing and I am sure the S5 will be the same (present teething troubles accepted) Cheers
  15. Could i please get a back to basics statement as to the status with S5 firmware and the issues etc, i am about to order an S5 and once it arrives would like to know the best course of action. 1. If it does not already have 5.2 installed, do not perform the upgrade ? 2. If it does have 5.2 installed i cannot roll back myself, but what exactly does not work in this firmware ?, is the issue that only single extruder printing works ?, i know the z offset doesn't work in 5.2, assume it works in previous versions, or did it never work on the S5 ? 3. Z offset is very useful, is
  16. Thanks, yes i saw that CC core but as you say its overkill for normal materials (has a Ruby nozzle etc) and the cost is much more than a normal core. Ideally i would have really liked a normal 0.6 core..... interestingly i looked at the default profiles for my 2+ and the retraction length for 0.8 and even 1mm nozzle is still the same as 0.4 at 6.5mm, maybe the print cores used on the S5 at sizes over 0.4 require less retraction than for the Olson block on the 2+, but seems odd....., hopefully someone from UM can confirm
  17. Hi, I am preparing some profiles for my incoming S5 and noticed that the default profile settings for the 0.8 nozzle look a little odd, for example, the default for retraction is 5mm distance as apposed to 6.5 for the 0.4, could someone from UM please confirm this is correct, should the retraction settings for 0.8 be 5mm and 25m/s ? @CarloK hoping you might be able to confirm ? Also are there any plans for a 0.6mm print core ?, seems strange to have 0.25, 0.4 and 0.8 but no 0.6 Many Thanks
  18. yes, this has been widely discussed the new firmware does not allow the use of G92 so a new version of this plugin is required and is in review, I am asking when this new version will be released.
  19. Anyone selling or know of a S5 for sale in the UK ? Thanks
  20. I have nothiced something odd with infil, this tube is the same size all the way along its length for example but the infil seems to change is pattern slightly in different points for no apparent reason, this happens with all infil types pretty much. Any idea why this would be ?
  21. could well be, there also seems to be the added complication of the extra infill wall throwing things out, with that enabled nothing seems to keep the seam aligned.
  22. I have been experimenting with the 'sharpest corner' function and it doesn't work consistently on all models as you would expect, despite the corner not changing in the model the location for the seam moves (as seen in the original problem). Also when you manual set the location of the seam it results in much improved travel moves, Cura seems to be able to much more efficiently calculate its paths when you set the seam location. Using sharpest corning seems to make the whole model way more complicated for Cura to handle (or it would appear so)
×
×
  • Create New...