uncle_bob
-
Posts
144 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Events
3D Prints
Posts posted by uncle_bob
-
-
Hi
There's also a tolerance on the wheel / gear diameters that can get into this. If the filament is not quite round ( it never is perfect) a twist between the wheels could result in errors in either direction. As a practical matter - do I really *care* below some percentage? My. guess is that the don't care threshold is somewhere in the 1% region. I must admit this is the fist time I've seen a way to *test* that theory.
Bob
-
1
-
-
Hi
Why not just stuff a little MCU into the mix and make your sensor look like their S5 sensor? As long as they have unified firmware across the platforms ( do they ???? ) it should just be a line in a config section to turn it on or off.
Yes, this very much requires you have a bit of info about what their sensor "looks like" in terms of it's I/O data stream. Anybody taken a hammer to an S5 yet?
Bob
-
Hi
I realize this isn't a democracy and you *do* have costs associated with any sort of retrofit kit. It's not just the cost of the parts. There is design time, time to write instructions, and inevitably support when things don't quite go right. All that said, I think a number of us would be very interested in even a labor intensive kit based retrofit process. The cable issue sounds like either a replacement cable / extension cable / splice job would do the trick. Not at all sure what the "new" back to keep the motor from grinding involves.
Bob
-
Hi
One would guess that (except for crashes) the amount of filament commanded is always greater than what ultimately goes out the spout. Put another way, the feeder can slip, but it can't over step. The net result is that you over estimate how much filament has been used. If you write that back to the spool there will be a bit more on the spool than the NFC *thinks* is on it. As long as the result is not a hard stop I don't have any problem with that tradeoff. If it simply tells me "you need 127 grams and I think you have 119 on the spool" that's great. If it will not let me proceed .... not so great.
Bob
-
1 minute ago, XYZDesignPro said:
So what do you think the chances are that filament vendors like ColorFabb, Taulman etc. might begin producing spools of filament with Ultimaker NFC chips?
Hi
I think that is a completely independent thing vs the partnership with the bulk material producers. Put another way - it's a software thing ..... You have to get a bunch of fiddly little things worked out in Cura and the firmware as well as on the chip it's self. There are a number of threads around going into all the details.
What this *might* turn into is a set of "Ultimaker approved" filaments from various outfits. That would be a first step towards NFC integration, but only a first step. Given the ( unfortunately ) smaller size of the 2.85 mm filament market .....who knows how long it might take to get very many people interested.
Bob
-
Hi
Good to know, !!! Unfortunately that's not what has me tied up in knots here.
Thanks
Bob
-
Hi
Interesting that you get the crash report / backup config screen. That's one I have never seen. Looks like there is some "variety" of code (or issues) out there.
Bob
-
Hi
They have asked for log files. The log is buried a bit deep. They would like them on git hub or here. cura.log is mine.
How to find the log file:
https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/wiki/Cura-Preferences-and-Settings-Locations. the log is in the same set of sub directories as the other stuff they talk about.
Duplicate on git hub:
https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/3704
Bob
-
Hi
Indeed, Cura 3.3 is released. It also is "out" in the baseball sense.
Install it on a Mac running the current version of OS-X and it makes it up to some sort of disclaimer screen. That stays up for maybe 0.25 seconds. Everything crashes and goes away at that point. Restart the machine, re-install from scratch, neither one helps. Same symptoms each time. No crash dump, or any other indication of a problem. It just goes away .....
Software is so much fun !!!!
Bob
-
6 hours ago, Daid said:
Sounds to me like a problem area actually. PLA or PVA above 45C is problematic to catastrophic. So you wouldn't want that in a heated build environment...
Hi
I have a couple of fully enclosed printers. They get used almost exclusively for small ABS parts. There are very few other materials that print nicely in them. Enclosed is great when you need it. The rest of the time ..... not so much. I'd also mention that the UM3 is the first dual extruder machine I've owned where that part actually works properly. I'd be very careful in that area ....
Bob
-
1
-
-
Hi
Low price leader has never been UM's place in the market. There have always been ( and always will be ) lower purchase price options. The only way they will continue to justify their market position is by continuing to deliver printers that do a better job. That's not to say this or that print is better under a microscope than some other print. How much do I have to fiddle to get this or that done? What sort of up time do I get on the printer? If there is a problem, what sort of support is there? How close to an "end to end" solution is it ? ( = does the software vendor point at the hardware vendor and vice versa while nothing comes out right?). Indeed with enough time invested I can make just about any POS printer turn out a part. That may or may not be a good use of my time. If it is, I'll buy something cheap. If I need to put a lot of stuff through the printer for weeks and months on end, getting less than 60 hours a week on good prints may not make any sense. Are there other good vendors out there? Sure there are. I have yet to find a good one who is also cheap .....
Bob
-
2
-
-
Hi
I keep both the UM3 and the UM3 ext running most of the time ( over 130 hours a week on each of them ). I certainly would not call one a "replacement" or "killer" of the other. They both can do a lot of things. Not all prints are gigantic. The same is true of the S5. You *could* do everything on it. I'm not sure that is how most UM3 owners would approach things. It's certainly not how I would look at it.
Bob
-
1 hour ago, kmanstudios said:
For me, to be able to stop breaking everything apart would be a blessing. All that other stuff is gravy to me. The ability to use the full buildplate for both nozzles will also be a greatly welcome addition in the size department.
The way I see it is that it is basically $1,400 more for 50% more printer. And it is not for the hobbyist I am sure. While not printing as a money making venture, I am real serious about what I can print.
Hi
On this we completely agree.
You *could* look at it as 1.5X in both X and Y, that gets you > 2X the build plate area. It also gives you > 2X the total build volume of a UM3 ext. It *is* a lot more printer. There will always be jobs it will do that the others will not. It's way less trouble to print this or that "solid" than muck around with chunks and putting them together
All that is true if you are a pro or if you are a (serious) hobbyist. Will we all *replace* our UM3's with these? Some will, I'd bet most will not. Of the "not" group, some will add the S5 to their print farm and move on. A lot depends on just how much work you have to get done (or can find to do).
Bob
-
24 minutes ago, cjs said:
Sadly it's not
If you don't want to spent 12.000$ you can still print yourself a wedgebot https://www.youmagine.com/designs/wedgebot-for-ultimaker2 or buy a bondtech ddg or do both
Hi
I've tried a couple variations on the wedge gizmo. The world *could* use a better solution ..... I have not tried the Bondtech but I have been tempted. Part of the issue is that the printers are packed pretty tight and getting into the extruder in any fashion is a bit of a pain. Yes, that part is *not* a design issue on the UM side.
Bob
-
2 minutes ago, Daid said:
........
Oh, but there is a quick-release lever on the feeder now. Instead of the tiny handle that you couldn't hold down for longer then 10 seconds without hurting your fingers.
Hi
Quick release lever !!!!! Now *that* is a big improvement
My poor aching fingers thank you !!
So - the obvious question - is the new lever retrofit-able to the older machines? ( Obviously I hope it is. That would save me about $12,000) ....
Bob
-
4 minutes ago, foehnsturm said:
I know this is a bold statement
But our sensor had zero false alerts so far, by design it will always touch the filament. Now I want to see if we can achieve an accuracy of +/- 2% for 1mm of filament. The 1 mm is because rotary encoder resolutions are limited, we are in the range of 60 steps/mm now. So far 85-95% real flow seem to be the regime for good prints. Flow below 85% compromises layer adhesion, below 75% you will see the classic under extrusion pattern.
Hi
I think that "zero false alerts" is pretty much what the design has to do. As a protection device, a "measurable" false alert rate will drive people to turn it all off. With any testing approach, there is always the question of how well it duplicates the real world. My dog just walked by shedding fur all over the place ..... how well does it deal with random dog fur
(Yes, I know, get out the credit card and May 15th I can see for my self ....)
The same step thing that limits you to 2% on 1 mm is not as big a deal on 10 mm. Yes, that's a bit of filament, but now your accuracy is 0.2%. This is the down side of 2.85 mm vs 1.75 mm. You have moved a bit more volume in 1 mm ( or worse 10 mm). I can't argue with the "90% is ok" logic. Tuning a lot of prints over the years, that seems to make sense. Unfortunately it *does* depend a bit on the type of filament you are using......
Bob
-
Hi
Toss in something like flexible filament and I'd bet the issues just pile up ....One very basic advantage in this is the 2.85 mm filament. It will be more rigid and probably helps in this case.
Bob
-
15 minutes ago, kmanstudios said:
And when it grinds and you have to pull off a meter or meter and half? Do you know how much you have used before you had to do that? And farms that have multiple machines going balls to the walls with multiple people would greatly complicate that.
A physical detector would notice a halt of filament regardless of the situation. And, again, all other threads about this are people working toward a physical solution.
And as I said, if it is easy to create a plugin then by all means, but I think it would be extremely limited.
I know I would never use it if the physical solution works because it covers more ground with the same result. Also, as I said about pausing and resuming, it seems to do a pretty good job of that as it is. Sometimes I wait a while before it happens and sometimes not so long.
Hi
Have you tried the other "physical solutions" on the other printers out there? I have. Despite the glowing PR and terrific demo videos those companies put out, they are *very* limited answers to the problem. Are those guys all idiots? Maybe they are. It's still Marlin and a tiny MCU deep down inside these machines. They all share some limitations. I'm sure that UM will do a good job on anything they release to the public. The big question really is - just how good is "really good" in this case?
Only field experience will tell if there is a "physical solution". To date, nobody has an answer that really works in the filed. It is a multi dimensional problem and getting it right in even one of the dimensions has yet to happen. Again, that's not from looking at videos, it is from actually using the printers. People have tried this and tried that. They do this or that in the firmware. What works in one situation does not work the next time around.
Unless it works more than 4 times out of 5, it's simply useless for change over. None of what's out there right now even gets to that level. UM could do a "best in the world" answer and still only be at the 80% level. Throwing away 3 or 4 days of printer time and starting over is way to expensive (from a number of standpoints) to do it on a regular basis. For changeover you will be relying on it for *every* large print. If you are really pushing a big printer, that's a lot of the time.
On a "protect me from failure" basis, a "gets it right 80% of the time" answer is way beyond anything we have today. Things don't jam up on every print. It's a rare occurrence. Knocking that down 5:1 would be very welcome. Provided it doesn't false out ( as do many other filament sensor setups ) it would result in more production out of the printer. Nobody is going to say no to that. On many printers, the "false trigger" issue is bad enough that the common approach is to simply turn off the sensor. They create more problems than they solve. That *is* one challenge UM spotted early on and I'd bet has a better answer to.
So the same engineering with the same net outcome is "great stuff" in one case may not really up to it in the other case. That's not a big surprise to somebody who spent 50 years doing design work.
Bob
-
Hi
At some point anything you do with "how much filament" is going to be a guess. There are cases where *knowing* when the changeover will be is a good thing. Not just from the standpoint of the print. It's also nice for the person swapping spools. Trading off a bit of material left on the spool against this convenience *is* very much part of the deal. You get something / you loose something. If meters of filament instead of grams makes things easier to code ... go for it. Translating from meters <-> grams offline is not that big a deal. Coming up with a post it note for whatever I normally use is pretty easy.
Bob
-
1 minute ago, ahoeben said:
This is off-topic, but how will Cura Connect handle slicing for different volumes and different profiles? I assume that if I slice an object for an UM3, it will not print in optimum quality on an UMS5. I don't have an UM3, so I have never seen Cura Connect up close. I am genuinely interested to know how this will work.
Hi
Right now, you set up for the largest printer in your group. You slice against that printer. If you dispatch to the group on "automatic" it figures out which printer can handle the size part you sliced. It works quite well. The only limitation is that the largest printer needs to be the "group host". Just how all that will work with different resolutions .... we'll see ....
Bob
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, kmanstudios said:
Well, for one, that is not a 'truth. That is an opinion. And I stated as such, but ol' Bobbo is the one who is trying to say it is 'The Truth'. And, now, apparently you. If it had been left at opinion and not devolved into circular reasoning and dodging issues that he could not back his way out of, this would not be what it is now.
How would Cura 'know' what is the best place for that to happen?
Can you not resume in an infill or inner wall, or inside and drag to the outer wall?
I could go along with that, but I am stumped how Cura would know how to find 'the perfect spot.' Does any slicer do this? If so, how well?
This would be a major problem, especially if changing filaments for any number of reasons for the NFC chip (should it be readable) can only identify which type of filament, assuming you are using UM materials.
Again, what would be the criteria to make that decision? And, would that decision be global or selectable. i.e. Corner vs. large curve, etc. ?
HI
....... errrr .... not quite. You have spent a *lot* of time twisting and turning this to meet your needs. Apparently you have a very real need to thump on things. If so, that's a wonderful hobby, go to it. Re-read the posts and see how this has evolved. It was *never* presented as a "truth". It simply was presented as something that could easily be looked at. I'm sure you will have even more fun twisting and turning things .... go for it.
Bob
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, kmanstudios said:
Still not a Cura thing. And quite frankly, I'd rather fix a boo boo than a whole print. This is getting repetitious. And a bit odd when you are arguing what something has or does not have when we have no idea of the scope of the new product. Just a lot of assumptions on your end.
Hi
When the "boo boo" is a puddle of material that destroys the print .... it's not a minor issue. It's been .... errr .... almost a week since I've had yet another of those happen.
Indeed it *is* a Cura thing if you want an orderly stop point. If that isn't clear, we can go around all this yet again.
Bob
-
Hi
- Based on the filament sensors I have on other printers ..... not so much. None of the ones I have will properly detect jammed filament. They *might* get that working in some future firmware update. Right now in the real world ... simply does not work. Even the "out of filament" detectors are a bit unreliable. Depending on something like that as part of every big print .. not a good idea. Having it as a backup "just in case", yes it is a good thing. Having it false detect a lot .... not good at all. Having a switch that wears down and blocks the filament on retraction .... also a really bad way to go.
All of this filament sensor stuff is also predicated on being able to properly do an orderly shutdown. If I'm printing the outer layers - shutdown is not a good thing. Even on inner layers shutting down and coming back up *properly* is something that all of these printers struggle with. Put the shutdown / restart in the gcode from Cura. Don't have the poor little MCU running the firmware try to work it out on the fly. Cura knows a *lot* more about how to do it right on any given print.
A planned shutdown with a "time to shutdown" also would be a nice thing. That way having hands available for the changeover is a bit easier ....
Bob
-
1 minute ago, kmanstudios said:
How is cura a fix for spool design?
Hi
Check the earlier posts for all the details. Simple answer - put in a pause calculated based on filament used. Allow the user to put in another spool before the whole print crashes. Simple bit of code and it all "just works".
Bob
Ultimaker S5 | impressions & opinions
in UltiMaker 3D printers
Posted
Hi
Simulation processing options = play the print in Cura ??
Bob