DivingDuck

The dimensional accuracy wasn't a problem for my mainly technical prints. In FDM a thou in millimeter isn't a real problem as we are talking here about 0.1 mm for a standard nozzle (not to mention a differnet shrinkage in x,y, z for filaments for a print). FDM shouldn't be the technology to go for you if you need this kind of accuracy. Varying thickness can help but isn't the answer for all possible accruing problems. This is why we need to manipulate setup parameters finding the optimal solution between printability, stiffness, accuracy and print time for technical prints. There isn't a one and only solution as fare as I know. When you are using different printers, each one will have other behaviors. Yes this is a problem. Slowing down print speed can help especially for the initial layers and bonding to the build plate. For very small parts I use often only a third of the normal print speed and increase also the number of slow layers. Changing the orientation can also help sometimes. But you are right, this small walls should not happen at all. I mostly took attention for this behavior in the design phase and, if I can't because it isn't my design, I make the mentioned changes and/or reduce print speed drastically. This is mainly better than wasting time with multiple defect prints or hours in evaluation. Well known this isn't a perfect solution. I mainly use two slicers, Slic3er and Cura - both known as a "not-one-click-and-happy-for-everything-solution" 🙂 There are differences between all releases as burtoogle mentioned above. By the way, you didn't mentioned your Cura version as well as your printer and your adjustments in print profiles. You can attach your .3mf file if you are not able to fix your problem. This is usually a better way to ask for help as this file includes everything including your profiles. Or try out the mentioned version of burtoogle. Or, if I remember correct, there is an other member (smartavionics?) with similar modifications. I usually make a step back if I am out of ideas for an actual problem and start from scratch with clean profiles matching the used Cura version. There are too many possibilities harming a profile and never find the way back (especially if you came from an updated version). This often will work better and faster than spending days with searching and manipulating parameters. I too went the hard way down and, as much as I like Cura, it was always a little disaster when I update an existing version and didn't setup everything from scratch. @burtoogle, hopefully the cura team will implement a better wall gap filling in a future version as I find this behavior annoying too.

Had you already try to check -->Shell ->Print thin walls? An other way is (depending on your actual setup) to reduce line width in -->Quality -->Line Width a little, eg 0.399 fore a 0.4 nozzle depending on wall the thickness you need.

Stimmt, an diese Einstellung hatte ich nicht mehr gedacht.

Your welcome.

Well, good question. The lasts two updates I hadn't any luck with reimporting of existing profiles due to compatibility issues between the versions. So I made my profiles for material, printers and adjustments with every update new. Didn't try the actual 4.1 as I will wait for plugin updates and some experiences in the field before I update. ...but I still hope they will manage this some when w/o the need to do this manually

Settings ->Printer ->Manage printers -> choose your printer ->Machine settings ->printer. Copy your old start g-code and replace/paste the existing g-code

Die Layerhöhe zu verändern ist wahrscheinlich nicht der beste Ansatz. Wenn die Linienbreite gleich der Düsenbreite ist, wird das nichts mit dem Druck via Cura. Entweder geht man mit der Linienbreite ein wenig runter (unter die Düsenbreite oder macht die Breite der gedruckten Linien in der Konstruktion etwas größer als die Düsen- bzw. die Linienbreite des Druckers.

A bit late but do you need really a support setup for this? I had seen this some time ago too. If I remember correct, this behavior came from enabling support in combination with an additional experimental setting. But I can't remember what exact, maybe something with tree support?

Look for PI Printer Settings via marketplace for more detailed settings. Once you have install it you will find all possible entries right hand in custom view below experimental settings.

I really don't understand this discussion. This is all there and it was already mentioned twice where to find it. Theses days it seams easy to blame everything without a basic knowledge of the tools they are using. Having a first look in the manual before initializing such a discussion is more helpful. Maybe reading a manual and build up knowledge about a tool is in these days a mater of illness. In attached picture I don't see a lot needed basic entries for a successful print. 1. Choose your printer. 2. Choose your material. 3. Choose your layer hight (aka part of the quality entries). 4. Choose your infill. 5. Choose support if you want. 6. Choose adhesion if you want. That's all a user need for a basic setup and is nothing a user will overcharge. If I want to have more control, I can switch to custom mode and choose first the basic view. It will give additional basic controls and most ( all for basic mode) of the setup entries are well documented as direct tool tip and as well in the manual. I can even dig deeper if this mode do not have all switches I want to use for my print. Simple and easy as long as a user is willing to spend a bit time for understanding the UI. There are other places where such a discussion is really worth to spend some time, like: - why Cura isn't able to update existing profiles and tell a user he have corrupted settings with the effect that I need to setup all printer, materials and tunings again with all Cura major updates. This is a quite unusual behavior for all kind of professional software. - why is Cura saving each manipulated parameter for a print directly as a change for a master setup. This is a time eater especially if there is more than one user using the software and even for a single user this is sometime a painful situation. There are workarounds to minimize these issues, but they are a wast of time and you need to be aware all the time that you can come in trouble for the next print if you or someone else forgot to be careful using Cura. Anyway, I use different slicers and all have different behaviors a user need to understand. Good slicers have all the same problems: they are more complex in matter of settings if they want to be useful for all kind of use-cases.

I see these differences for my prints too. My latest print logs showing differences between 4% and 47% depending on complexity, size and count of parts for a a print job. Smaller parts tends to have huger variations than bigger ones. On an average the differences are around 25%, whatever this mean. In the end I add approximately 35% for non small items and parts with more than 20% infill as estimate and feel happy if I'm below this estimate 🙂.

Fusion 360 isn't so difficultly to use if you know how to start. Search in YouTube for Lars Christensen and Brad Tallis. They did some really good tutorials, easy to listen for beginners too.

May be your AV is blocking Cura.

I got rid of all these external AV/FW tools on Windows systems since more than a decade now and use instead the internal windows solution. I never regret it. Most times when it came to problems with software and updates these days, tools like Avira was a major part of the problem especially if a user runs the tools out of the box w/o fine tuning.