klaus_kraemer

? Thanks!

It's Windows 10, the "thing" is very much consistent and can be reproduced by 100%. No , it does not matter how long Cura has been running - it's simply about the order what's been started / switched on first. You start Cura before switching on the printer, Cura's only offered choice is "Save to File"... Never tried this, because I didn't connect "managing" Printers to the problem. Sure will try these days as a workaround.

Have the same issue - can confirm what you've been writing.

Sometimes it's quite annoying - why does Cura only recognize an UM3 when the UM3 is already switched on before Cura got started? If you have Cura already running and switch on your UM3 afterward, Cura won't connect to the UM3. If Cura has been started before the printer has been switched on there is only one solution: close Cura, switch on your UM3 and then restart Cura. Not very convenient...

This setting seems buggy: Look at both screenshots - I only have changed the "Brim Only on Outside" checkbox. No other parameter has been changed. Look at the differenc in printing time between both settings! Why should an inside Brim like that take about 2 days and 6 hours, while the print with "Brim Only on Outside" set takes only 2 hours???? (And in the following screenshot additionally look at the printhead movements with the magenta print material seemingly leaving the printer for an all but endless journey...)

I just saw that CURA 3.4 will introduce "Support wall line count. Added setting to configure how many walls to print around supports." Found in CURA 3.4 beta changes... THANK YOU!! ?

That's what I did before asking for a hint... No "Support Wall Count" available: Any other place to search?

I have switched CURA back to English language, but could not find "support wall count". Can you give me a hint?

What about another (or second) approach by defining two-dimensional areas to define support blocking at a layer in the layer view? Blocking the space up in Z direction.

Are you referring to the parameter in the EXPERIMENTAL section under "Tree Support": "Tree Suport Wall Line Count"? Couldn't find a "Support Wall Count" parameter...

Thanks for the money saving advice. I'm kind of a tool freak, so I've decided on purchasing such a thing. In comparison to the price of an UM3 the costs are quite reasonable...

Oh yes, I did! You are right, in this special case horizontal expansion should be helpful, but there are forms like cylinders where horizontal expansion simply leads to unnecessary support structures not even connected to the "useful" support structure. I dont know what you see in the original picture, but won't you expect that an outer support wall wall built of 2 or 3 lines should increase the probability of layers still connecting, even with using Crapmandu (love this term!)? Btw. I sure know about mechanics but they fail if the struts are broken... I'm sure increasing Support Density, Support Line Distance is also a way to go... But there is still the fragile outer wall consisting of only one line... Maybe my english is poor, but I don't get the meaning here. I think that is what I ask for: Three lines with a 0.4 mm nozzle should add up to more wall thickness, shouldn't it? I am not talking about building a scaffold (I appreciate, what you have achieved, anyway) - I am talking about CURA's support structures. I am well aware, that I could solve the prolem with a custom built support scaffold/structure. Never mentioned horizontal expansion as a makeshift, but the line width parameter... I mostly concur with your opinion, I simply intended to convey I'm not unfamiliar with mechanics. And even Msr. Gustave Eiffel had to use sturdier struts for the corner supports of his ingenious tower... Hope we are good again! ?

Ok, I have to say my PVA is 5 months old now and probably has accumulated a good portion of moisture. I'am waiting for a dryer/suspender combo getting delivered sometime next week. Especially your new/old comparison is quite enlightening. Still many of the problems you have mentioned could be mostly resolved by a sturdier support structure. What is wrong with thicker walls instead of expanding the structure horizontally to where is does not belong and takes lots of additional time and material? I have mostly successfull experimented with denser infills, but then removal and dissolving becomes tedious. As an engineer I am looking to solve problems, not to look, how I can makeshift around them. So whats the real problem with a thicker wall? Why not use the wall thickness of the chosen extruder? You mention PVA is quite expensive - all the more reason to look for a material saving solution Expanding horizontally is paid for in the third power as a product of X*Y*Z in the worst case. Not the kind of solution I'd look for. And sturdier walls would even improve the usage of older material. Another money saver. I don't get why this problem is circled around and around but not uprooted.

Thats both been on purpose, in the meantime you have seen the first post, where I sought advice to thicken the walls of the support structure. Seems there's no way to achieve a good result - line thicknes should help a little, but it seems not the real cure. It has been about two similar surfaces of the nut, which is only thought to tease a colleague. And secondly the support structure had been as well connected to the PLA as I expected it would within a thread. My issue is only about the fragility of support structures due to too thin walls. For smaller support structures even adding horizontal expansion is not really helpful - if you don't have the space, any support structure remains quite fragile without being able to change wall thickness. So horizontal expansion cannot be a serious solution - even leading to crazy extensions of the support structures outside of shells and never ever connected to the real support structure. And as no one can help with it, I vote to add a (probably quite simple as it exists already for shells) feature to the support structure.

I think the support structure misses an important feature: Being able to define the wall thickness for support structures. This could be solved by simply taking the settings, defined in the "Shell" partition for the particular extruder - or adding this feature to the support structure's settings. I am quite annoyed about support structures unnecessarily breaking off, like you can see it in the image. It had been taken after 4 out of 6 hours printing and the support tower broke off about 30 layers before it had been needed to serve its purpose. ?

As you can see in the thread's opening image, the PVA support structure broke away from itself. its base has been still well connected to the PLA...

I've been quite hopeful and even switched languages in CURA to be sure to use Shell section. As you can see the modification of "Wall Thickness" / "Wall Line Count" does not affect the support structure. ? The support structure remains only 2 lines wide, instead of 6...

Thanks @XYZDesignPro and @gr5, I'll try the possibilities in the Shell section first, before considering the 0.6 BB core. Having it printed upright has been on purpose due to me wanting the surfaces of the up- and undersides being structured the same way...

Thanks!!!

I am so annoyed with the quality of the support structure! After 4 of 6 total hours of printing the support structe has been broken off, short before the support had been needed. The dimensions of the support structure ahd been about 2 cm square. It happens so often, the the support structure breaks during a print. I cannot find a way to make the outer walls of the support structure thicker to get a more stable support tower. I'd so much to define wall thickness of the support structe the same way I can define it for the model itself. Seething, Klaus

Hi there, I'd be interested in seeing the current layer number - correspondig with the enumeration, CURA indicates in layer view - while UM3 is printing. That way it would be easier to watch, when a critical part of a model is printed. Maybe you could consider this for some of the coming firmware releases. Thanks Klaus

First time I got this ominous cube on the screen now. A little bit weird behaviour, sometimes it disappears again, when I klick on it, sometime I can move it around and resize it. Seems to be an elaborate feature, especially when you work around round or spheric shapes. I'll try more, before I complain... Still in my imagination of workflow and accuracy I can only think of working on the layers to achieve accurate results...

Thanks for this, BUT: How do I create these blocks to use as a support blocker? Please don't get mad at me, but I think documentation of CURA does not meet any standards as I cannot find any comprehensive manual, which is bad. Also adding new features to software simply calls for a clear description if you do not want users to think that you don't respect their lifetime they have to invest to understand the new feature without help from the manufacturer. As I am used to self learn, I have tried for some hours to find a solution - wasted hours stolen from my life and my familiy... And as an afterthought wouldn't it be more user friendly to 'simply' enable the user to draw a support blocker layer in the layer view?

I'm a little embarrased, as I really don't get how to work with the new support blocker feature! ? Is there any manual or descriptio, how to use support blocker?