Link
-
Posts
360 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Events
3D Prints
Posts posted by Link
-
-
i have looked into this some more
the issue is when you have a hollow object, for example a box and the walls are set to twice the line width, for example 1.6 with a line width of 0.8, this means exactly two walls will fit, i have used the offset command in fusion 360 to create an even wall thickness around the corners.
The issue is clear even in the preview in Cura, with Compensation enabled the print stutters as it rounds the corner, when this happens on the actual print it creates blobs, disable compensation and it runs smoothly round the corner. Cura is implementing some level of flow compensation round curves for a wall which is exactly twice the line width.
Even with a very basic cylinder it does the same, set the thickness to twice the line width and compensations makes the movement stutter
-
9 minutes ago, burtoogle said:
It's not very critical, it can be quite large, i.e. 50%. If it is too large, it could introduce gaps into wall lines that would otherwise be complete.
No, I nearly always use the overlap compensation and I do not get zits like you are seeing. That's with PLA and PETG using a 0.4mm nozzle and 0.5mm line widths.
I only tend to get zits with the 0.8 nozzle and 0.3 > layer, but turning off compensation def fixes it
interestingly Cura says to use the min flow you have to print outer walls before inner will can affect overhang quality ?
What is your max resolution set to ?
thanks
-
14 minutes ago, burtoogle said:
Hello @Link, you could try using one of my builds that has had some improvements made to the wall overlap compensation feature. You can find builds for Linux and Windows at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s43vqzmi4d2bqe2/AAADdYdSu9iwcKa0Knqgurm4a?dl=0
I don't claim perfection but it does work better than the Ultimaker version (IMHO).
If you are using the overlap compensation, make sure to set a non-zero value for min wall flow so that the thinnest wall lines are removed.
Another reason for getting zits is over-retraction. Please check that you are not retracting too much.
Finally, make sure to use the no-skin combing mode and set the max comb distance with no retract to something like 10 or 20.
Hope this helps.
Thanks, what you advise to set the min wall flow too ?
Also do you tend to disable overlap compensation todally, what are the downsides of this ?, what is it meant to do when working properly ?
-
Hi,
I have been printing some parts with large rounded edges, these are shells and just two lines wide (using a 0.8 nozzle), i have been getting some random artifacts on the inside and outside of the curves, after plenty of messing about and reading other people seeing the same thing (these artifacts only appear on the curve), it turns out its to do with Compensate Wall Overlaps, if i disable this the artifacts go away.
I came across this thread by @smartavionics where it seems Compensate Wall Overlaps is kind of broken and wont be fixed
https://github.com/Ultimaker/CuraEngine/issues/577
What do people tend to do with this, if i disable it on small parts i get stringing etc due to the extra material deposited at the overlap site, however on larger parts with curves i get artifacts with it turned on.
I am looking at other alternates to these artifacts but simply turning this feature off solves it, maybe my max resolution was too high as per my other thread ?, there are plenty of threads online around Cura and external artifacts on curves, sounds like something is amiss
https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/4860
would really appreciate some advice/thoughts
Thanks
-
great explanation, thanks !
-
What should the Max Resolution be set to in Cura (its location in experimental settings), the previous version of Cura (3) would set this to something small like 0.05 i think it was for my 2+, but now the defaults for my new S5 in Cura 4 are over 1, 1.25 in fact !, what should this be ?, i did read someone from UM saying there were some crazy values being set here but what is (roughly) the correct value for this ?
thanks
-
Thanks, I think I will see if I can get a good price on a CC based on just having purchased the S5 and being a repeat customer of retailer 👍🏻
-
18 minutes ago, kmanstudios said:
Nice thing about the CC 0.6 is that it will last much, much longer.
I print 24/7 for about 6 months and the brass nozzles get frayed and lose fidelity in the print. The CC core will be much stronger and last better with any material.
And it is there fore that ONE time you need to print something abrasive. Remember, there are abrasive based PLA filaments. When I first started, I did not know glow in the dark was an abrasive material. Kinda hastened the end of that core. 😞
Indeed, you are right, i would def prefer to buy a UM product knowing it will be optimised from a Hardware perspective. How has it worked out in terms of profiles with the CC core on PLA for example, can you literally just set PLA as the material and select the CC core and it will (i assume) use the 0.4 nozzle temps and retraction settings ?
-
5 minutes ago, ultiarjan said:
The argument after the introduction of the UM3 has been that creating the matching profiles for all material types was the delaying factor. While I understand that for a few months, the UM3 is almost 3 yr's old now... so a complete line up of core's would be nice. I personally like the 0.6 so much I drilled out a AA0.4 before the CC0,6 was available.
Seems strange UM are concerned about developing a profile but realistically moving from a 0.4 to a 0.6 isn't reinventing the wheel, couple of minor tweeks really in temperature. Seems a odd reason to not provide the 0.6 core.
Do you have a CC for printing PLA ?, how does it perform ?, i assume you need a tad more heat with the Ruby nozzle ?
-
i would obviously prefer to purchase a genuine UM core but as others have said the CC is very expensive and could only be justified if you had to print abrasive materials. I don't need to do that so it feels like a waste of money, not to mention i am sure i read UM saying if you want to print normal (non-abrasive) materials they recommend a normal core.
I don't understand why UM don't produce a 0.6 for normal materials, it's just pushing business to 3Dsolex !
-
yes, i have a printed torque wrench 🙂
I was going to ask if anyone had used different size cores for printing the part and the support, for example a 0.8 PLA core and a 0.4 PVA, i have a 0.8 BB which i got with the printer, but find the PVA not great on a 0.8 core, its a bit blobby, def more useable in a 0.4 BB
-
I am in the UK but have found a place to buy them, does the core come with tools to change the nozzle ?, assume you just upper the line width for the 0.6 core and maybe a bit more temperature ?
Thanks
-
Having recently moved from a 2+ to a S5 I find I really miss the 0.6 nozzle, that seemed to be the sweet spot between 0.8 (not great for any level of detail of any amount of retraction) and 0.4. However for some reason UM don't provide a 0.6 core appart from the CC which is for abrasive materials. Has anyone used the 3D soles core ?, I assume that's my only option to get 0.6 as you cannot chance the actual nozzle on the UK cores ?
-
23 minutes ago, Brulti said:
@Link What @UMS5_VSM forget to say is that 8-9 months is just after the UM5 started being sold an UM still expected to be able to ship out aluminum plate. They haven't been waiting 8-9 months for the second glass plate.
If you look at the messages above in this thread, you'll see that the second glass plates have begun shipping late April-early May to the various retailers worldwide, who are then in charge of sending them to the customers. Thus why it can be slow to arrive, especially if you take into account the fact they probably sent them first to the people who first bought the UM5.
Ok, thanks for clarifying, appreciated
-
6 hours ago, UMS5_VSM said:
3 weeks? Sorry to say I have been waiting around 8-9 months since I filled out my form after my S5 arrived.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!, errr that isnt good, i am a big supporter of UM as i think their products are great, but that isn't good. We were meant to get a Ally plate, that got canned, then all new printers were meant to come with two glass plates, mine is only 2 weeks old and came with one, and now no sign of the second glass plate ?. without stating the obvious this is not a cheap printer........ !
-
Hi,
I recently purchased my S5, it came with a single glass plate, obviously no Aluminium plate, I completed the form to request the second glass plate a couple of weeks ago and heard nothing. I obviously spoke with the retailer in the UK and they just sent me the link to request the additional glass plate....
I haven't received a confirmation email stating the plate is on the way or anything to indicate what is happening, the page where you request the plate simply closes when you complete it with no confirmation it even went through. could someone update me on what is going on please ? @SandervG
-
2 hours ago, gr5 said:
Some non-ultimaker printers have temperature control for the ambient air inside the printer. I think when this feature was added they forgot to make it default to hidden for Ultimaker profiles. It just generates a gcode that is ignored by printers that don't have the feature.
Thanks
-
many thanks
-
I have noticed there is a setting for Build Volume Temperature in Cura for my S5, what doe this control ?, i am not aware the S5 heats the build chamber as it doesn't have a lid. There is nothing in the Cura user guide about this...
Thanks
-
Interesting, thanks for responding.
this seems to in contrast however to the very aggressive acceleration and jerk settings for travel, these are crazy high and really hammer the machine. If indeed the reason the max travel speed is 150 due to the print head weight the default jerk and acceleration settings should be adjusted (as they are more affected by a heavier print head, the max speed is only met after acceleration). I knocked mine back to way more sensible levels as the printer would actually shake !
Really Interested to hear from UM on this
-
Hi,
I am tuning my profiles for the S5 and whenever I try to set the travel speed to above 150 it goes red ?, could someone from Ultimaker please state of the Max Travel Speed of the S5 is indeed 150 or if it turning red is just a bug in Cura. @SandervGCould you please help, 150 is quit slow when traversing the entire plate with for example.
Many thanks
-
Thanks, I have just installed it and looked at the Gcode, it looks to do what is required, will try a print shortly. As you say it should be fixed in firmware. It's not possible to print PETG for example without extra offset so something is needed
-
On 5/16/2019 at 2:27 PM, ahoeben said:
Note that a new version of the plugin, which singles out Ultimaker 3 and S5 printers, is now available in the Marketplace. This fixes this issue, specifically for these printers.
Following on from your concerns about how this new version would work and make processing of the new height slower by changing every instance of the gcode, are you happy with this version ?, is there any downsides to using this ?
-
2 hours ago, Carla_Birch said:
I think with the last update the prime blob was edited a bit in how it works so it does seem to drag a bit of filament across the build plate now. It really could do with lifting the head more when it primes so that it don't get filament stuck all over the nozzle what then drags some across. Maybe @SandervG could pass the feedback on to the right team members.
Yes, I can't see why this works the way it does, the way the 2+ primed was much simpler and less messy, just extrude a length of filament from a height, then retract whilst moving to the start of the print, the S5 method seems overly complicated and makes either a mess on the nozzle or across the bed. @SandervG could this be looked at,y S5 is better than my 2+ in all areas appart from this, this actually is not as reliable and clean as the simpler 2+ method.
Thanks
Compensate Wall Overlaps - causing zits
in UltiMaker Cura
Posted
model.gcodeBOX.stl