KickahaOta
-
Posts
47 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Events
3D Prints
Posts posted by KickahaOta
-
-
On 6/8/2018 at 8:58 AM, kmanstudios said:
This would be my naming convention I use at home. It may be a bit long winded, but it is thorough. Typos and all.....
UM3E_SpaceCar-UInFolded_FullPlate_Flat_PLA-PLA-04mmNoz_01Lay.curaproject.3mf
Feature request for next Ultimaker: Wider display. :)
-
It's absolutely great that when you select an Ultimaker in the Printers view of Cura Connect, it shows all the necessary maintenance tasks and when they were last done, and allows you to flag individual tasks as done. There are two changes that I think would make this feature even better, that don't seem like they'd require too much work to implement.
* For each task in the list of maintenance tasks, there should be a link that takes the user to the documentation on how to perform that task.
* In the Printers list, flag printers that are behind on their maintenance. One option: Display "Needs maintenance" in the same place that you currently display "Not available" for printers that have been taken offline (mocked up in pic below).
-
1
-
-
Reviving this topic: Ultimaker 3 firmware 4.3.3.20180529 just released. This is good. I can't find any indication of what it does. This is bad. ?
And as for "Where would I ideally expect to find this?": Cura itself now has a Changelog extension that shows release notes for Cura itself. If I have, say, an Ultimaker 3 configured as a printer, I would ideally expect Ultimaker 3 firmware announcements and release notes to appear in the Changelog extension too.
-
1
-
-
The text on the XY calibration sheet (both the old V1.5 version packed with my UM3 and the new V1.9 version that's for the S5 as well) does a pretty good job of explaining the operation clearly.
But I would say that the graphic showing you how to select a line actually confuses things again. The problem is that the difference in spacing between the Material 1 and Material 2 lines is much greater on the graphic than it is on an actual calibration print. So before I tried calibrating the real printer, when I looked at the graphic that was trying to show me 'See, choose +15 because that's perfectly lined up; don't pick -3 because that's off', my response was "Okay, but why wouldn't I choose -6? That's perfectly lined up too. Am I missing something? Would they both work?"
That situation -- two pairs of lines that are both perfect matches -- can't happen on the real calibration print (unless something is terribly off).
Is there a reason why the graphic takes this approach? Wouldn't it be better to use line spacing that better matches a real calibration print?
-
I wouldn't normally make store recommendations for fear of looking like advertising, but since you ask: 3D Universe shows the Ultimaker build plate as being in stock (https://shop3duniverse.com/collections/accessories/products/ultimaker-glass-build-plate), and I've had great customer service there.
-
1
-
-
By the way, in some scenarios, another way of reducing the problem of hole shrinkage (especially the problem of inconsistent hole shrinkage on different printers with different materials) is to use "polyholes" -- rather than designing the part with a circular hole, design it with a polygonal hole, with a relatively small number of sides, that matches the inside dimensions you need.The "rubber-banding" effect that gr5 described so well is much less pronounced on these sorts of polygons than it is on standard many-sided-polygon "circular" holes. So results tend to be both closer to the original design and more consistent.
Of course, if your design specs call for circular holes, this generally isn't practical.
You may find https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2918438 helpful in exploring the way holes work, since it lets you easily generate holes in a range of sizes, using both traditional circular holes and the most common implementation of polyholes.
-
I recently went shopping for print cores (please stop me before I shop again), and noticed that the new ones do not have the silicone ring around the nozzle. This led me to https://ultimaker.com/en/resources/50885-replace-the-silicone-nozzle-ring .
A couple of thoughts on this page:
- It's striking that Ultimaker has shifted from 'These rings are important enough that we include ten of them in the maintenance kit' to 'These rings are unnecessary and you can throw them away.' This seems worth spending a couple of paragraphs on 'Why?' What purpose was the nozzle ring intended to serve? Why is the ring no longer necessary?
- Saying "If you still have spare nozzle rings, you may choose to use them or throw them away." -- and leaving it at that -- seems a bit odd. If Ultimaker's position is 'Sure, if you feel like using them, that's fine,' then the instructions for how to use them should still be included. If Ultimaker's position is now 'You shouldn't use them,' then omitting the instructions is appropriate; but in that case you should probably come out and say so.
Thank you for your consideration.
-
1
-
For those (like me) who had no idea what 'linear advance' was, this article describes it pretty well.
-
That's a really good point. Of course, if "manually moving the file to the machine" is the intended use case for the prefix, that leads to another possible solution: add the machine/printer prefix to the name when saving Gcode to disk, but don't add it when you're sending directly to the printer over the network.
-
I hadn't considered adding a Flush option, but now that I think about it, that would be extremely useful and possibly the best solution to the problem. I currently use Material -> Move for this, but that option really seems intended for a certain amount of precision that isn't required here; and having to crank the dial umpteen turns clockwise is a pain. Being able to say "Look, just flush this" would be useful in a variety of circumstances, actually.
-
PC isn't exactly a "plays well with others" filament; but it would be worth trying Ultimaker's "Breakaway" support material -- it's listed as "experimentally compatible" on the compatibility chart.
-
1
-
-
I've been so happy that my UM3 has never failed a print once it got past the first layer (build adhesion is still occasionally an issue). I started a dual-extruder print -- nothing that seemed too complicated, PLA with a bit of PVA support -- made sure it got past that first layer, and left for work. After around two hours I thought to check in on it remotely. Hmm. No. That doesn't look right.
I aborted the print, eventually made it home... no. That definitely doesn't look right. ?
Looks like I'm having spaghetti for dinner.
Anybody else got some funny failure pics to share?
-
1
-
-
Thanks, nallath! Edited.
-
Leaving aside the question of "Is this good?" and getting back to the question of "How to make this work?"...
At least on the initial layer, Cura will completely ignore model portions that are too thin relative to the layer height. When I loaded up Cura with this model, my Initial Layer Height happened to be set to 0.27mm, and the brim was skipped by the slicer. When I lowered Initial Layer Height to 0.2mm, the brim was sliced as expected.
So try either slightly increasing your brim's height in the model or slightly lowering your Initial Layer Height. -
At least in the Windows version, this is pretty hard to find. Look in the upper-right part of the Curo window. The rectangle in the far upper-right -- the one with just a checkmark and an arrow in it -- is the available-configurations menu. (See the circled area of the first pic below.)
Click there, and you'll see your current Ultimaker configuration displayed. Click anywhere in that rectangle showing the extruder settings, and you'll autoselect those materials and print cores in Cura.
(If you're printing in a network environment with multiple Ultimakers, I believe you'll see a list of all the available configurations on that Cura Connect instance, and you can click any of them and auto-select the appropriate printer, as well as configuring the Cura material and print core settings.)
-
2
-
1
-
-
Is the Ultimaker doing automatic levelling when this happens? The Ultimaker always heats both cores up before levelling, which makes sense since hot metal expands and measuring a cold nozzle wouldn't necessarily yield the right results.
Note that automatic levelling always does both print cores, even if you're about to print a single-core job.
If your levelling is generally good, you might want to reduce the auto-levelling frequency.
-
1
-
-
I've had my UM3 for less than a month, and I'm loving the swappable print cores -- I've already added an AA0.8 to the mix and I've got an AA0.2 on the way.
One thing I've found to be inconvenient: When I swap print cores, there's nearly always remnants of some other filament color in the new core (or I have to assume there is, since I can never remember). That means that after completing the PrintCore X -> Change process, I have to go to Material X -> Move and extrude material until the old filament is flushed out and the new stuff is running smoothly. So I wish there were at least an option to have the end of the PrintCore X -> Change process be "I'm going to automatically extrude material until you press Confirm", like the automatic extrusion at the end of Material X -> Load and Material X -> Change.
-
Thank you for the update! I appreciate it.
-
The Cura default print temperature is 225C vs. 200C, which seems worth making the adjustment. It's not a big deal, since Cura does have the support; it's just a bit of a pain to have to override the "Please switch from PLA to unknown" material-change prompt before each print.
-
Hello! The new Tough PLA is starting to hit the market; but neither the testing nor the stable versions of the Ultimaker 3 firmware appear to recognize Tough PLA NFC chips or allow Tough PLA to be manually selected as a material type. When will this support be ready?
Tough PLA firmware support for Ultimaker 3
in Firmware
Posted
I was hoping that was what that firmware drop was for; thanks!