Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Link

  1. many thanks - really useful 🙂 Are you aware of the sharpest corner issue being fixed ?
  2. As usual you nailed !, thank you Sir ! it seems to be a combination of the extra infil wall count and the seam not locking as you said when you pick sharpest corner. Removing the extra wall and setting the seam to user specified (even with grid infil) sorts the issue. When you set the seam to user specified do you leave it to the default location it picks, rather than actually type co ordinates in ? Thanks again
  3. Hi, I am printing a basic cylinder and as can be seen from the image at a point near the top the z seam moves and the travels change despite the model being exactly the same over its length. I have tried every option of layer start position and z seam alignment and still at the same point on the model the the travels change and the seam moves. As said the model is the same the whole way up, just a simple cylinder with one flat side and infil. I have also tried all versions of combing and again no change any ideas @smartavionics or anyone else ? t
  4. hi @smartavionics, I am using your new 'not in skin' combing but getting blobs on the outside of the wall at these points (shown below), as mentioned a while back (and the reason i asked you to keep 'only in infil') Cura treats walls as skin rather than just the top and bottom layers and therefore doesn't retract in the walls, hence the material from the non-retract travel is getting deposited in the wall which is often too thin to hide it. In the screen shot below there is a strange 'kick' in the travel at which point the blob appears. Any ideas ?. could the travel be made to not
  5. Hi, Can anyone explain what this feature does, by default there are settings in place for both expansion and removal, so does this cancel itself out ?, its not clear what this actually does and what changing the settings will do. @smartavionics could you advise ? many thanks
  6. hi @smartavionics did this make it into 3.6 ?
  7. ok, thanks. doesn't sound like something worth doing then.
  8. no, smoothers are a HW mode, they are a used to smooth the supply to the stepper motors http://blog.trinamic.com/2018/08/09/tl-smoothers-do-3d-printers-really-need-them/ they are a popular mode on some printers, so not sure if the UM can benefit from them
  9. Does the 2+ come with smoothers already installed from UM ?, if not are they needed ?, they seem to be a popular printer on other printers but not heard about them on UM printers
  10. Thanks, as mentioned in the other thread I now have the Tinker firmware building as he set it up with the make and the simulator. I am also able to build as you described using just the Arduino IDE, for some reason it doesn't seem to build with the latest IDE version, dropping back fixed my problem.
  11. interesting, I would have assumed that the 2+ was the biggest seller still for UM, but guess the other two models are considered newer and maybe need more tuning as the 2+ could be considered optimised. I managed to get the Tinker build working as it was rebased and have managed to change the few things I wanted (heater PID, default retraction etc for the 2+), so I am really happy with what I have now. I am looking to add a cold pull feature and maybe look into how your 2+ code reads retraction from the SD card and include that into the Tinker branch. Thanks for your
  12. I get this list of errors if it try to do that, I am using the latest Arduino IDE and TinkerFirmware Arduino: 1.8.6 (Mac OS X), Board: "Arduino/Genuino Mega or Mega 2560, ATmega2560 (Mega 2560)" In file included from sketch/Marlin.h:21:0, from sketch/Marlin_main.cpp:30: pins.h:1248:41: error: pasting "/* PG2*/" and "_RPORT" does not give a valid preprocessing token #define SDCARDDETECT 39 // PG2
  13. [gr5 removed massive quote of first post of this topic] could you help with this issue ? just about there, I have a compilation error related to the Arduino.h defining the max and min macro. It shouldn't really define those, but has, how did you get around that ? Thanks c:\mingw\lib\gcc\mingw32\6.3.0\include\c++\bits\stl_algobase.h|243|error: macro "min" passed 3 arguments, but takes just 2|
  14. ok, I fixed it #ifdef min #undef min #endif #ifdef max #undef max #endif was needed
  15. thanks, just about there, I have a compilation error related to the Arduino.h defining the max and min macro. It shouldn't really define those, but has, how did you get around that ? Thanks c:\mingw\lib\gcc\mingw32\6.3.0\include\c++\bits\stl_algobase.h|243|error: macro "min" passed 3 arguments, but takes just 2|
  16. Hi, I am interested in making some local changes and if they work out to be useful I would like to become a contributor. Is there a final guide of how to build the Tinker firmware ?, the most recent discussion here seems quite convoluted and not straight forward. I found this link http://www.extrudable.me/2013/05/03/building-marlin-from-scratch/ Does that work ?
  17. Does anyone bother calibrating the extruder esteps on a 2+ ?, or is the default considered near enough ? is there a guide of how do do it (if worth doing) ?
  18. @3rdpig interesting, I recently went from 0.35 (the default in Cura for a Ultimaker 2+) to 0.4 and have to admit the parts look way way better, the top surface looks so much better not to mention the walls etc. All this would indicate that Cura seems to work better with line widths at least the size of the nozzle. My parts never looked as good with a 0.35 line even without actual gaps issue, the top layer looked very rough compared to a 0.4 nozzle.
  19. @3rdpig what line width did you settle on in the end ?, what did you start with 0.35 ?.
  20. looking at the model it would be worth trying changing the 'Seam Corner Preference', I am not clear if setting this to 'hide seam' for instance is having some odd affect in some scenarios, however setting this to 'none' certainly seems to move the seam point and worth a go
  21. I have looked into this a bit more and the constant similarity between this and when I have seen it is that the gaps appear at the layer start point, the wall lines are started from the same point due to the z alighment and this is the area the gaps start. It really goes seem like the other existent walls have shrunk and the new wall doesn't quite meet the existing. That may explain why rotating the model changes the behaviour as the z seam alignment will move. Would be worth trying to set the seam alignment to random and see if the gaps move. I also found that if I printed two mo
  22. I found another topic on this, same issue. Some ideas about the walls cooling and shrinking away from the other wall. I can relate toe this as when I had the problem I could see the gap get larger as the print cooled. I wonder whether S3D prints the walls in a different order and maybe that is the key difference ?, can you tell from the Gcode ?.
  23. Glad the original issue is still ok, I can’t help but think there is some Cura quirk in here. Something doesn’t add up. Wish i knew what it was. I found this info on S3D website If lines are printed so thin that there's a gap when their shouldn't be, adjusting either Extrusion Width or Layer Height will NOT fix the problem. For example, if you have a 20% gap between walls that should be solid without a gap, and you make your Extrusion Width larger, your gap will still be 20%, but will now be a larger gap because the lines are now larger and further apart from each oth
  • Create New...