Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MatejEU

  1. From what I gather, if you leave jerk and acceleration control at disabled, your controller will use settings that are defined in the firmware.

    You might be getting better results because Cura sets the outer/inner wall speed at a rather conservative value, something like 50% of the print speed, where on the other hand Simlify3D might be using something like 80% of the print speed. So, if you have a print speed of 60mm/s, Cura will print outer walls at 30mm/s and Simplify3D at 48mm/s, which is a difference that is big enough to increase the effects of rippling/ghosting on a Prusa i3 printer.

  2. 50 minutes ago, hoegge said:

    Kind of unresponsive compared to other slicers when rotating the layer view - framrate around 5 frames/sec when it should be 30-60 Hz

    My system doesn't have a great graphic or processing capability for this purpose so when I'm analysing layers I always active "Only show top layers" and "Show 5 Detailed Layers on Top" since the informational content in the previous layers is not important anymore, I've already inspected them. It's easier on the 3D viewer to do so.


    They're mixing Python and C++. Not the best solution, because one interface can bring the speed down significantly. It will put the strain on a system "unnecessarily". 


    1 hour ago, hoegge said:
    • The rotation and zoom is very strange. It is unclear what the point of rotation is and it is never really predictable - very different from a normal CAD program or Slic3r or Simplify for that matter. Really needs an overhaul.
    • Also the zoom gets slower and slower the closer you get to the object which makes it hard to zoom all the way in.

    I've definitely experienced these two. The zoom issue is not constant and when it occurs I'm not able to reset the behaviour unless I restart Cura. Panning is so strange, often it will throw me somewhere from the build plate or I end up moving the model, then I have to reset its position and reslice it again :O I know that I can lock its position, but I forget to do that.

    • Like 1
  3. Indeed, thank you again gr5 for the help with the issue of undefined (for me at least) layers added to the top/bottom surfaces ;)

    As for the support clarification, in the image below you can see that the support is added and how it looks. It can can be broken off easily since it is thin, but it can help with the support of the upper surfaces/layers. At a different place, it isn't added, but it would be definitely helpful.

    I was hoping to get something like this.

  4. 26 minutes ago, gr5 said:

    What you want to do is check the feature in Cura "ignore small z gaps".  This will fix the issue you are talking about at the expense of taking 5% longer to slice.  I think this should be checked by default but it isn't.

    This works! That feature is checked by default in version that I'm using and it has caused this issue for me. I've unchecked it now and it behaves as expected, at least from my point of view :) From the tool tip info, it seems that I'm actually saving ~5% of computation time and getting what I want by unchecking it :sunglass:

    Thank you gr5 :+1:

  5. Hi, thank you for stopping by :)

    16 minutes ago, yellowshark said:

    You say "I have an issue with the infill structure being added on the top internal layers, which are already finished". There is no such thing as an internal layer; a layer is a layer and comprises external wall, internal wall(s) and infill.

    If we can agree that once can have, e.g. a model of two independent cubes, where one is contained in another. The outside one would have its top/bottom layers as would one contained inside of it. So to describe layers of an object that is contained inside of another object, I would say internal top/bottom layers or the top/bottom layers of the smaller object located inside of the outer object. In my first post, I'm reflecting on a hinge that that is not coupled to the outer object, i.e. it is independent of it. It has to have its internal top/bottom layers. It would be probably helpful that you look at the actual model: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2595224:)


    27 minutes ago, yellowshark said:

    Also I am not sure "which are already finished" is referring to.

    This should be clear from my previous explanation.


    28 minutes ago, yellowshark said:

    I am not sure why you would want to print a model with 0 top layers; is that intentional ?

    I definitely don't want to do that :O How did you get that impression? ':D


    So, to make a summary:
    1) Select top thickness of 0.8 / 0.2[layer height] (mm) = 4 layers.

    2) On the outer object it does it properly.

    3) On the internal object it will make three complete (filled) top layers/surfaces and add this strange thing that has outer/inner walls and the infill (not like a support).
    4) From that top internal layer there is a certain clearance, lets say of 0.6mm until it gets covered by outer object's layers

    5) Reduce top thickness from 0.8mm to 0.6mm = 3 layers.

    6) On the internal object it will make three complete (filled) top layers/surfaces and it won't add anything else, as it has finished those three top layers.

    7) From that top internal layer clearance is maintained, it didn't raise/lower the layers.


    I'm quite sure there is a bug in the code, somewhere in the conditional checks :'(

    Does Cura have a Facebook support group? This is very slow with all the moderation of user comments.

  6. Hi, I'm printing a specific model that will expose all of its internal walls/shells/surfaces when it's in use. I'm able to print it out without any problem, but I would like to improve the visual aspect of certain sections. More specifically, at one point, it will try printing out a surface without any supports (which are enabled).


    In the left part of the image you are able to see surfaces before it starts printing a part of the next layer in the mid air. This will result in sagging of the following few layers, which don't look that great in the end. The gap is two layers high, i.e. 0.4mm in my case. I searched forum and I've tried tweaking different values for supports in Cura (3.1), but it simply won't lay any support at this point. Perhaps because of the discontinuity in the surface, i.e. it would have to bridge two separate parts of the model. I tried to find min. length of a support, so that at least it would put them on those two separate bottom surfaces, but with no success in doing so.

     Also, the isolated layer in the right part of the image is confusing me, it will make two of them and then it will make layers that are closed, i.e. a bottom surface of the next section. Is it trying to make a support from it?

    Ok, I've played a bi t more and found a way to remove it, by reducing the number of bottom layers from 4 to 2.

    Now, I think that there is a bug hiding in here somewhere :/ In changing the number of bottom layers, the gap between two surfaces remained the same, i.e. two layers or 0.4mm. Why would it change the type of the surface at this stage?

    Thank you, M.



  7. Hi gr5, that is a fidget (cube) model where everything will eventually get turned to the outside, as you fidget with it :) Those top surfaces aren't a structural surface for the layers above them, that's why I call them "top internal layers". I've attached another image. I'm a complete noob with Cura, so there is a good chance that I'm misinterpreting something here.


  8. Hi, I'm a new member here and I have to say that I really enjoy using Cura. I gave up on Simplify3D after spending +30 hours on fine tuning my profile in it and still not being able to hide, at least good enough, the z-seam on my models. Cura solved that, where possible ofc, with the hidden seam. Bravo Cura! Bravo developers!

    I have an issue with the infill structure being added on the top internal layers, which are already finished. I have actually found a remedy by using search, here.
    |Robert| advised on using a lower number of top layers overall and it worked, I've reduced from 4 to 3 and that was it. But, why did that work and what if I want to use more top layers to increase strength and improve the finish a bit? That top (infill) layer did offset three top layers down, it didn't replace one of them. Also, in the top left corner on the right side of the attached image, you can see that it didn't repeat the same behavior on that top surface. After I saw that, I played with the "Top skin removal width" feature which did change the outcome when I lowered the value, but it didn't help overall. That one top surface might have different dimensions in the actual model or something like that.

    Thank you for your help =)


  • Create New...