cgrejsen

Hi Smithy, I tried the thin walls option, but did not notice a difference. To remove the thin edges, I scaled the height from 6 mm to 8mm, 9mm and 10 mm, removing the tops and bottoms, leaving just 6 mm in height with edges around 1 mm. Each print reached 5.5mm. I noticed some asymmetry and it appears some of the lower layers are lost, so I printed using a raft, and the entire ring printed in full height, and with symmetry. -Christian

Thanks that makes sense and I really appreciate the input. I will increase the thickness of the wall and give it another whirl.

Hi Smithy, Thank you for checking this - project file enclosed. -Christian CE3_WeddingRing.3mf

As a CAD exercise I created an exact copy of my wedding ring (22.9mm x 22.9mm x 6mm) and exported the STL file to Cura. Cura reports the correct size, and slices without any errors or warnings, however printing does not yield the expected result. After three attempts with CAD changes focused on outer smoothness only, and printing at 0.1mm resolution I have three different rings of varying heights, 4mm, 4.2mm and 4.8mm. Diameter is consistent, so I assume it has something to do with the dizzying number of settings affecting layers. I am fighting the urge to just increase the height in small increments, and would really like to understand which settings affect this. Any insight appreciated.

Earlier today I did a re-installation of Cura 3.6 after wiping out all remnants of the previous installation and performance is unchanged. I am beginning to wonder if the abysmal performance is related to Apple's discontinued support of OpenGL. As a distraction I installed Cura 3.6 on an old Fujitsu T5010 notebook with a dual core P8600 and 4 gb RAM running Linux and found the Cura user interface to be snappier than the iMac ... so maybe Open Source Linux has better OpenGL support. I really like how Cura works on my Surface Pro II so that system will be commissioned for future slicing. Pity the screen is so tiny..

While we agree the i3 540 at 3.06GHz is not exactly state of the art, I am not sure it is significantly slower than the i5 4300U at 1.9GHz in the Surface Pro II. Both are old, both have two cores, and the i3 has more cache, but hey I could be wrong on that :-) I suspect Cura uncovers a race condition in El Capitan pegging the cpu, but I could be wrong on that too...

I apologize if this topic has been addressed previously and maybe El Capitan is not supported. For me Cura 3.5, 3.6 Beta and 3.6 perform excruciatingly slowly with El Capitan on my iMac i3 3.06GHz, 12GB RAM and SSD. Unuseable except for very basic functionality, like "load model", and "Prepare". Almost every interaction pegs the cpu at 100% +, sometimes for minutes. Keystrokes and mouse clicks appear to take about a second to register before any feedback, and attempting to scroll through profile settings is a daunting operation with the program at times becoming entirely unresponsive, requiring a Forced Quit and restart. For my own curiosity I installed Cura 3.6 on a Surface Pro II w/4GB RAM running Windows 10. The program performance is fast and responsive is immediate. I am curious if others are seeing the performance issue on El Capitan, and if anyone has any tuning recommendations (besides upgrading my hardware ...).