burtoogle

Sorry, my mistake it needs to be a higher value than that, probably 50 would be OK.

@xDmSx, two days ago, I suggested that you set the Min Wall Flow to a lowish value. Did you try that? I think it solves the problem of printing walls that are an odd number of lines thick.

Hello @xDmSx, I suggest that you enable the Optimize Wall Printing Order setting (if not already enabled) and also set Minimum Wall Flow to something like 20.

Oh, and can you also please attach the gcode file. Thanks.

Hello @xDmSx, please save the project (File -> Save) and attach the .3mf file to this thread. Thanks.

See https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/pull/3837

Using an example like above (100mm square with 90mm square cutout) and 0.5mm wide lines, Cura produces gcode with the expected coordinates. Inside wall... Outside wall... No problems there.

Yes, that's right, when the bridge settings are not enabled, it just prints using the normal settings for walls and skin.

Hello @perplex, when Enable Bridge Settings is not checked, none of those settings are used. There is some legacy code in Cura that detects unsupported skin regions and modifies their alignment but other than that, there is no special handling of walls, etc.

https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues Please make sure you fill out the issue template and provide sample .3mf and gcode files, etc.

FreeCAD says that it has "flipped normals". I un-flipped them and it now looks to slice OK. The Cura mesh tools didn't barf on the original file. Should it have done @ahoeben? bowl-flipped.stl

Hello @bkrahmer, that sounds like it is an issue with the model. Could you please attach it to this thread. Thanks.

Hello @ssashton, if you are using Cura on Linux or Windows, you may wish to try one of my builds that has extra settings for slowing down the printing of walls when the length of the feature is small (i.e. like a small diameter hole). The builds also contain many other bug fixes and improvements that have still not been incorporated into Ultimaker's releases. They can be installed alongside the Ultimaker releases. If you are interested, take a look at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s43vqzmi4d2bqe2/AAADdYdSu9iwcKa0Knqgurm4a?dl=0

Re-reading @redslifer's words, if there is delamination then that would suggest too much cooling fan or too low temps.

Hello @baxi, thanks for the files. I still think that you are likely to get underextrusion due to the long un-retracted travel moves so please try setting max comb distance with no retract to something like 20. Also, don't use the sharpest corner z-seam alignment as it rarely does what you want (model dependent). Instead, use the user specified location to fix the z-seam where you want it.

Thanks. Actually, the STL isn't much use on its own. Far better is to save the project and attach the .3mf file as that has both the model and the settings.

Hello @baxi, please attach the gcode file that exhibits this problem.

My guess is that you are getting underextrusion following long un-retracted travel moves. Try setting the Max Comb Distance With No Retract to 20 or similar.

Hello @obrterry, that setting is only visible when the infill density is > 0, the infill pattern is not cubic subdiv and spaghetti infill is not enabled.

Hi @smsusi, looking at the Cura source code, the only effect that selecting Mach3 flavour is that the extruders are named A, B, C, etc. rather than E.

OK, so what about the difference in retract amount & speed I mention above?

So maybe it's a USB comms issue?

BTW, are you printing these two gcodes using the same method? i.e. both from SD card or both using USB with the same host program?

The next obvious difference is the repetier code is doing 6mm retracts at 80mm/S and the cura4 code is doing 4mm retracts at 30mm/S.

Thanks for the files. The most obvious difference is that the cura4 file has part cooling fan running and the repetier file has no part cooling fan.