JCD

Maybe a different workaround is not to let Cura solve the problem of printing an hemisphere without support, but to directly print an "empty" hemisphere. I build in FreeCAD such a model with a shell thickness of 1.2mm (3 times 0.4) When Cura slice it with a wall thickness of 3lines, at the befinning there are 3 lines, like in the picture below at layer 155 Then automatically Cura adds the extra lines, while printing in the upper layers below the 314 and 444 layers When arriving at the very top, the inside overhang is larger, so to avoid printing without support, you need to uncheck the "outer before inner wall" setting for the slicing The picture below show the way the printing is done at layer 479 (the very top layer is 500), at the begining of the layer printing, as there are 3lines wall, Cura prints the most inner wall over the outer wall of the former layer, so there is no building "in the air" then ....

I do'nt think adaptative layers option is the solution as the settings of cloakfiend at 0.06mm is already at the minimum avaiable My analysis is : 1) We have an hemisphere to print (radius of 30 mm, 30mm high) and the higher is the layer, the thinner is the wall. THis is why at a moment Cura change the skon making from wall to top skin 2) on the picture below a drawing representing a zoom of the skin at the location of the change (and where the gap occurs) the sphere is in green, the 394th layer with the gap is in blue.cyan, the white rectangles(0 4mm wide and 0.06mm high) are the filament printed. The red rectangle is where there is a change in the quantity of overlapping prints. Below this layer, the outer wall has 5 overlapping prints and on higher layers it's only 4. If we continue higher, there would be 3, then 2 and so on with a lower skin quality and maybe even holes 3)this is why Cura change to the top skin printing After my slicing tests, the higher the ratio wall_thickness/top_thikness, the later the wall>>top change occurs. The simplest would be to put the top thickness to 0, but due to the text above quality is poor 4) the other way is to make the wall thicker, but it will use a lot more material. The solution is to use 4 support blockers (with modify settings with overlap... option). The picture below is the test I did with a the begining a 3 lines wall and then, with the support blockers, 4, then 5, 6 and finally 7 lines wall. Also check the outer wall before inner walls options in the skin settings (at least for the blockers) to get a better transition anytime the number of walls is increasing

I'm using Cura 4.3, so I do'nt see the creality ender5plus but I have the def.json file for the ender5. Ender5 inherits from creality_base which inherits from fdmprinter for the settings The fdmprinter.def.json file tells that enabled prime bob has the enabled var to false, which makes it invisible. This parameter is not overridden by creality_base and ender5 For the ender5plus please check if this param is overridden with enabled=true, if not this params is not visible in cura. Maybe you may override it, i do'nt know this printer, by adding the line in the def.json file

You're using a 0.06mm layer height, are you sure that this size is correct accordingly to the stepper motors and mechanical transmission of the movement on the Z axis (for the gap appearing where you put an arrow) take a look at http://doc.3dmodularsystems.com/what-is-the-best-layer-height-for-your-printer/

Have you tried to lower the support flow in this case, something like 90% instead of 100% ? It will maybe give you support slices a little thinner. This may make the support less strong, but if this is is the case, the support blocker maybe the trick, allowing you to do this only near the top of the support

Here is a new version of the python script, with indentation (there is a slight hierarchical tab to see the 'children' parameters - depending from a 'parent' one) and a picture of the begining of the resulting file and picture of part of the resulting GCode file after slicing getCuraSettings.zip

Take a look at my post to get after each slicing all the values used for the settings. https://community.ultimaker.com/topic/23303-your-current-settings-in-a-text-file-here-it-is/ After including the text generated by my script, do a slicing for each of your profiles ans save the values used. You can easily check the difference between them Anyway, following your picture, I see that there are a lot of modifiction from the custom printer. To simplify the management you'd better create a new myPrinters.def.json file with all all the more used specifics overriding the custom def.json file and create your printer not from the custom printer, but from your new 'myPrinters' printer

I have made a python script to get the updated information ! - After de-zipping, put the file in a folder linked to cura (myself in windows 7 and Cura 4.3 I put it in C:\Users\Proprio\AppData\Local\cura (proprio is the username) ) - At the begining of the file modify the CuraProgramFolder variable to the correct path for your own system and save it - click on the file to launch it and you get in the same folder of the script a file named TxtToCopyInStartOrEndGCode.txt and the content appear in a window (at least on the windows7 system I have) - You can select the whole content and paste it either in the startGcode or the endGCode in the Cura App (Settings>>Printer>>manage printers then click on the machine settings button>> the window with start and end GCode) After that, the Gcode will content all the settings value used for each slicing getCuraSettings.zip

To get the txt file, I opened the fdmprinter.def.json file (it is in the definitions folder of the Cura folder- for me in windows7 in C:\Program Files\Ultimaker Cura 4.3\resources\definitions) with PSPad and with a lot of search and replace I did the trick !!! To have a more convinient way it would be nice to build a Python script to do this in a lot easier way

@ TriggerMeister, Thank you for making me discover this new feature available in the latest versions, I'll check it out quickly !

Have you take a look at my PlugIn https://community.ultimaker.com/topic/27749-tiny-holes-postprocessing-plug-in I'm in Cura 4.0 and have'nt tested the PlugIn in more recent versions, but it works damned well with every tiny little changes in the perimeters of the prints (and tiny holes are one of them)

I think the layer height cannot be managed via a postprocessing plug in Imagine you have a spherical piece to print. When you are printing the bottom or the top part of the piece it will be very interesting to have a smaller layer height, to have a better quality and not a 'staircase' effect. But to achieve this a layer of 0.2mm for instance will be modified in 2 layers of 0.1mm. But each new layer will not have the same travel (for the walls a circle). A post processing plug in cannot calculate this new travel very easily, and imagine if the piece is a complex shape. To make this kind of thing the best way would be for the cura engine to slice the original part in 2 parts, and on each one do the slicing with the relevant layer height

Ok nice end to this topic

Look at your first post at the begining of this thread, and put yourself in the shoes of someone who hasn't worked on the subject. Is your description accurate, with the necessary information available. The sentence ' welll... hard to explain ' is far from useful to find the solution. Myself, I try to help to the extent of my knowledge, on my free time. The minimum for someone seeking help is to provide the necessary information so that those who can help you do so without spending too much time,

I do'nt scream as myself I did the same mistake but i think in a different 'spirit' Look at : https://community.ultimaker.com/topic/28025-bug-advice-slice-button-not-disabled-immediately/?tab=comments#comment-239483

You have not really try to find, in the HELP Menu there is a 'Report a bug" with a link to the relevant place !!!! So try not to give a judgement too quickly

I think the bug is the following one : the textbox for the z porcentage is after the y coordinate (on the 2nd line )textbox and 'vice versa' for the y porcentage and the z coordinate

You seem to have done a lot of testing already Can you give us screen shots for the various cases where you see a strange behavior, and also those which have succeeded. As you have tested a lot of different configurations, do'nt forget to give us the values and params you have used for each test

I think it's a good practice to disconnect auto slicing as if your piece is complex, any modification in the parameter, the place where the part is on the bed etc.. this launch the slicing and you have to wait along long long time just to have the opportunity to make another modification before really doing what you want For the Cura team : why do'nt put at the beginning slicing on 'non auto'

You have to uncheck the 'uniform scaling' checkBox below the x y z values if the scale is different on the various axes

Nallath, Yes and I discovered after my post there was a link via the help menu where I found the previous advices !!!! Maybe it will be interesting to open a section, only to give the same link, just to avoid the unnecessary posts like mine !!

When you have a complex mesh to slice and you click on the slice button, the button is still active for a long time. If you think you have'nt click and you click once more, the process is beginning all over again... and after a long time you get an error (unable to slice), and Cura then continue and go back to the slicing process. My Suggestion is to disable at once the Slice button.(and change the color so that the user get the information the process is initiated) Cura 4.0, windows 7 64

Jabbery, I see in your 3mf file that you have not checked the skin parameter below Outer before inner walls. UM says that this param allows better dimensional accuracy

Jabbery, I'm back !!!! I have seen a parameter in the Skin section called horizontal expansion. In the description that appears when the mouse is over it UM tells that it may compensate for too big or too small holes I have not tried, but for you, it's worth it

Take a look to https://www.reddit.com/r/3Dprinting/comments/9ownqo/waiting_for_user_ender_3_problem/ Besides, if you're printing from an SD Card, is the SD Card always abolutely correctly inserted