neute

FWIW and aside from all the joking, I think Ultimaker is long overdue to upgrade its hardware. Just last week I had my company's S5 drop its linear rods and belts all over the build plate (again) because a tiny grub screw came loose. Of course it had to be just hours before the end of a 36h build job and not, say, during a 30 min quickie. I'll admit that the machine is not the single most well maintained of all machines, and I took the opportunity to clean and lubricate everything. Unfortunately, design decisions such as clipped-in rods in plastic bearing blocks can't be corrected by some maintenance. This is to say that while the Ultimaker motion system, that has basically been around since the UMO, was a very powerful kinematic and definitely served its purpose, it is time to move on and catch up with current designs (maybe even leapfrog the status quo a little bit?). Machines like the E3D toolchanger, probably the upcoming Prusa CoreXY machine or heck, even my Voron which consists of a few aluminium extrusions and a bag of printed plastic parts, jump leaps and bounds around the S5 - mainly due to a stiff and light motion system based on linear rails (which don't even have to be the best of the expensive, since we have rather small loads) and precise filament control, which is achieved through light and powerful direct dual drive extruders. All of these machines cost roughly a third of what UM is asking for the S5. I'm not saying that UM should offer such a machine at this price point, since that is probably not possible due to overhead, the vast amount of software development that also goes into the UM ecosystem and some more economic reasons that are beyond me; As an industrial customer who is somewhat invested in the UM ecosystem and the FFF market in general, I'm just saying that the 6k€ price tag on the UMS5 hurts a lot when I compare it to other machines such as the above mentioned, because *IMO* the hardware is not worth it (any more), even considering the ecosystem. If a future UM machine would feature a rock solid and fast motion system, a precise extrusion system (could be 2,85 mm, could be 1,75 mm), optionally a Material Station that also works with, say, PVA and/or fibre reinforced materials - along with all the great ecosystem features and Cura 5.x with a smooth interface and arachne slicing engine - the machine could cost 10-15 k€ and still be a great deal for industrial customers. And synergies in development and sourcing could trickle down into a new prosumer device at 3-5k€, comparable to the current S5/S3 lineup. long story short, circling back to the first line of this text, I'm sure that something like this is what is actually going on behind the scenes at Ultimaker. Beside all the ranting I'm still mostly a fan and excited for what is to come. best, Niklas

I second this. IMO all the "smarts" and closely defined workflows make the machine very time consuming to use, which has often made me choose another printer from the workforce altogether if something needed be done quickly. While I do see the benefit of "babysitting" the user, e.g. having pre-definded states and workflows that make it more or less impossible for an unexperienced user to screw things up, a "pro" mode that gets rid of the abovementioned issues, as well as would allow for some basic stuff (set fixed IP, remove printed parts instantly, clear the "print removed" state from the webinterface etc...) would be a great addition for advanced and experienced users, that would make the machine much less tiresome to use. best, Niklas

you should be able to insert and heat the core again to like 220-230 °C (for PLA), and maybe either push all the filament through or quickly remove the print core (ignore the printer's error message, just restart) and remove the filament with pliers.

Hi, I had literally the exact same problem today. I was able to reach into the gap between the print core and the housing, e.g. the gap in your circle, with a small knife and cut off the filament, since it couldn't be unloaded from the print head but was free to move a few mm up and down, e.g. not permanently stuck in the print core. You should probably make sure before, by heating the print core up and tugging on the filament, that the same applies to you, e.g. the filament isn't stuck in the printcore itself. Otherwise you won't be able to pull it out after cutting it. After cutting the filament I was able to remove the print core and get the remaining piece out. @AndersK thank you for mentioning the front fan, it seemed that it was an issue for me as well, I spent 15 minutes with tweezers pulling "hair"/thin stringing leftovers out of the fan of the base, it wasn't spinning freely at all. The print quality already seems to have improved. My filament tube was also dirty from inside which partly blocked retractions, causing a lot of stringing to happen in the first place. Good luck, Niklas

thank you all for your contributions. I do acknowledge that this one might be on me, since I work with 3rd party materials and/or specialist materials that don't fall into categories like the above. I'm aware that, at some point, I'm asking too much of Cura's automatisms. This might be one reason that in this regard, I feel more at home with the other slicer options that I mentioned because they aren't "too smart" in choosing the right settings for me. But that may be a whole different use case than what Cura is actually designed for. thank you for this, I remember already taking a look at this once. The way I see it, Cura's architecture might not be too different to what I described after all - we have materials, qualities and definitions which could be vaguely compared to filament, print, and printer settings from slic3r/forks (please correct me if I'm wrong). However, and I'm glad that you're open to discuss possible improvements, to me it doesn't get clear which setting in Cura actually is part of which of the above (material/quality/definition), and the way I understand it changes are still stored in an overall profile, where all of the changes to each are stored, possibly because they interact and/or depend, and can't be changed individually without affecting the profile. And we've not even talked about intent at this point. So my proposition would be to try and find a way to de-tangle this a little bit and give the option to change material, quality, and definition independently from each other and to actually show each in the UI. This could be what some users are actually asking for when they wish for "tabs" to structure the settings pane. hope I make some sense 😄 Best, Niklas

Hi all, since this topic is one that also gives me a lot of pain, I thought I'd share my thoughts. Like @mkaj2019 I feel that I have to maintain a print profile for every arrangement of filaments, this gets a lot worse when I'm using my Toolchanger with 4 printheads instead of one of the Ultimakers with "only" 2. This seems to be the case because, as @Smithy mentions, the material profile really does not cover much, only temperatures and retraction settings. Want to use a certain PLA as support for PETG? Have to create (and maintain! since the profiles do not inherit, e.g. stay connected to the base profile) a new print profile for this combination. A much better solution IMO is how it is handled in Prusaslicer/Superslicer/´(Slic3r). There is a clear separation between print settings, printer settings and filament settings, and they don't interfere with each other, which means that there are basically 3 types of profiles (but they are a lot easier to separate and don't always need to be changed all the time). Want to do a dual color print with both extruders? Choose a filament for each extruder, possibly the same print profile for both, don't touch the printer settings, boom - up and running in 5 minutes. Same for Cura? Select the filaments for each extruder, it will tell you "Not supported" and you have to go through the whole profile and change all the little settings that you've already changed a hundred times for each profile before (happens to me at least once a week). And I hear you say, it won't work for the Ultimaker, since the profiles are very fine tuned and a lot of settings have to be changed for each filament aside from temperature and retraction settings. True, but Prusaslicer/Superslicer has override mechanisms, e.g. you can set up a print profile that works best for you (preferred layer height, infill, patterns, speeds etc.) and can still enter overrides for each filament, e.g. maximum speed and/or volumetric extrusion rate. The only thing that's missing IMO is the option to create profiles that inherit and stay connected, so that changes in the base profile get carried over to all dependent profiles. I'd appreciate if the Cura developers would take the time to consider this proposition and gave some feedback. (If I know why a certain solution is not possible or hard to implement, it's easier for me to live with it....) Thank you! Best, Niklas

Hi, igus sells an own Magigoo type (https://www.igus.de/product/20272?artNr=PF-ADHESIVE-01), this is strongly recommended for I180. It will hold e.g. a raft very strongly and release it easily once the bed cools off. Recommended temp min. 95 °C for I150, you can work with just bare glass, but some adhesion medium (glue stick or the above mentioned igus Magigoo) is recommended since it helps with releasing the part off the build plate after printing. Recommended temp min. 65 °C hope this helps, Niklas

Hi, can you elaborate on the expected timeframe for the full release? To me, this new engine has been the single most substantial development of the last years for Cura, as it eliminates hours of fumbling with line width settings each week (when you run a 3D printing service, you have no influence on the parts being printed). I can work with the beta - it works very well already - but it would be more convenient to have a full release as a package approved by our IT, instead of working with non-network computers... thanks, Niklas

Hi, IMO filament grinding is usually just a symptom of other, extrusion related problems. When the extrusion works unrestrictedly, the filament shouldn't be ground even if the tension is high. Accordingly, I find it rather strange to manipulate the feeder in the way shown. So I'd look someplace else. Are you using the profile for iglidur I180 provided by igus? Aside from temperature, feeding speed is also relevant for extrusion, so if you're using another profile that might play in the same temperature range but uses faster extrusion speeds, you might get the same problem. Remember that this is a material filled with additives for wear resistance, so it doesn't quite extrude as freely as other materials such as plain colored PLA. I suggest using the igus profile, and/or using extrusion temps about 245 - 250 °C and no higher than 40 mm/s at 0,2 mm for print speed. For extra security, dry the filament spool at 70 °C max for at least 4 hours to eliminate any influence by possible moisture content. hope this helps, Best regards, Niklas

Hi all, this is one of the best/most important news for my daily work with Cura. Juggling and fine tuning line widths to get cleanly printed, solid walls is one of the most time consuming and infuriating tasks for me, even more so because every other slicing software seems to be able to handle this with ease (and for years already, might I add). I print a lot of parts for customers, so I don't really have influence on wall thicknesses. Moreover, I'm using horizontal offset to make parts more precise which nullifies any design guidelines ("use a multiple of X as wall thickness" - doesn't make sense) finally, I just hate it when my printer tries to shake itself to death 🙂 it might work on Ultimakers with their mechanics, but it just doesn't seem healthy. And I've had the rods fall out of the clips already.... is there a rough timeline on when this might be implemented into the main release? best, Niklas

It looks as if the two nozzles aren't perfectly aligned in the z direction. If the second nozzle is lower than the first, it will push the support material into the top layer of the part, so it's difficult to be removed, while the distance between the top of the support structure and the underside of the part is too big. make sure the nozzles are clean and the buildplate is clean where the nozzles touch the bed before starting the print (so the autobedleveling can reach a clean result)

Hi all, thanks for the fruitful discussion. I've tested my print bed after your comments. When I tried to reach 28,5 mm, the screws bottomed out. I turned the backwards screw all the way in and then half a turn out to have a little play, and did the leveling. I had to adjust the both screws in the front so that the distance between print surface and bottom of the print bed is now about 29,5 mm. There hasn't been a significant change in the first layer of the part I printed before and after this procedure, but I'm willing to accept that the print bed is "optimal" for the active leveling to work best now. I'll try to make a comparison of what I consider a "perfect/sucessful" first layer and what the machine achieves without touching the settings. Best regards, Niklas

Hi Sander, what distance should I set between the cast aluminium bed and the plate on the S5? Or how can I measure 14 mm here? I can't insert a tool or calipers since there is an edge all around. See photo. Then I've had tremendous luck using the z-Offset plugin, even with "difficult" materials that used to lift off the build plate (here the proper adhesion medium did the trick, while squishing the material onto the plate did not). What setting do I need to change to battle the overextrusion of the initial layer, which leads to material build-up and bulging next to the nozzle path? Thanks for your help, Niklas

Thanks for your input. I've never seen this tool to set the gap before, shouldn't it be included with new machines if this distance is that important? As I've mentioned, I've never been able to get a successful first layer without tweaking the G-Code via the Z-offset plugin. That's my whole point - to me, a successful first layer means that it looks good and doesn't have elephant's foot and over extrusion. Adhesion shouldn't be achieved by forcefully squishing the filament to the print bed, but by using suitable measures such as brim, raft, adhesion medium and bed temperature (all of which usually work! If they don't, forcing the material onto the glass plate won't either IMO). And for what it's worth, a "slight touch" shouldn't make the x-y gantry flex. In short; the UM auto bed leveling is flawed. Change my mind. PS: I don't have bad intentions or a grudge against UM, but I've never read an answer to this problem that addressed the concerns directly, only hints that I've followed in the first place (clean nozzle etc).

Hi, if I may board this thread shamelessly - if I understand the autoleveling behavior correctly, it is flawed because of some assumptions that result in an inconsistent result, that is also consistently too close (this can be measured by aborting a print after the first layer or measuring the brim of the part and comparing it to "initial layer height"). Please correct me if I'm wrong here! (and please tell my why!) My understanding of the autoleveling is mostly like @Smithy describes; the bed creeps up to the nozzle, and as soon as the nozzle hits the bed, the distance between nozzle and bed doesn't change any more and this is measured by the sensor. In an ideal world, this would mean that the nozzle, which is held down by a spring in the printcore to ensure perfect position, gets pushed upward against the spring force. However, since nothing is ideal, not only the nozzle gets pushed in, but the bed flexes (due to the cantilever design), the x-y rods flex upward (visibly!), and maybe even the bed springs compress. If my assessment of the system is correct, this introduces a significant error. I've noticed this with one S5 and one S3 that I have access to. The solution to gain a first layer that is consistent in height with what I set in Cura, is to use the Z-offset plugin at 0,1 mm extra height. Problem solved (albeit in a quick & dirty way, I shouldn't have to do this - this shouldn't be an issue in the first place). However, and this is why I mentioned "inconsistent", I also often get height differences between the two nozzles that sometimes exceed one layer height (note that the printer is happy about this, no "height difference exceeds realistic values" error). Resulting, of course, in filament being squished into the former layer of support material etc. Keeping the nozzles meticulously clean only helps so far. Also it seems as if the problem gets worse with 3rd party cores, a.k.a 3DSolex, which supports my theory that the spring in the printcore plays a role. On the UM3, all of these issues were resolved by disabling autoleveling - unfortunately, UM decided that we shouldn't have this option for the newer machines. If there is something wrong with my machines or if I had a misassumption, please let me know! Best regards, Niklas

How do adhesives like Magigoo work on a steel sheet instead of a glass plate? Or, to put it the other way round, how do you account for the fact that the Ultimaker sinks the heated up nozzle into the surface of the printbed when active levelling? I've come to the conclusion that polymer surfaces like standard Buildtak are not compatible to the S3 and the S5 because of this. The nozzle sinks into the surface - on the right side of the print bed, not on the left, because it has cooled off by then - which can only lead to a skewed and untrue leveling result IMO. No such problem with glue or magigoo of course. any thoughts? PS on an UM3 Buildtak works because the active bed leveling can be deactivated :P

I second this - I have a dedicated wifi router for my 3D printers, that is located very close to the printers and the computer, and the printers (S3 and S5) weren't able to hold a connection to Cura for more than a few minutes at best. Reverting to ethernet fixed this (mostly). For contrast, my Duet powered machine that is connected to the same router can be contacted anytime, from anywhere, no problems.

Hi, in case you are still struggling with this: For this igus material (I150-PF) the problem is indeed moisture uptake, along with maybe a little bit too high temperature. When filament with some moisture content gets "boiled" in the nozzle, it degrades, changing its color and becoming less viscous - sometimes even dripping out the nozzle. This effect also leads to the material expanding when extruding, which looks like overextrusion. The result is the buildup of material around the nozzle, which gets deposited on the part when the nozzle hits the spot where material was stuck before. Try drying your spool at 65 °C for around 4-6 hours, then print using around 98% flow and start at 235 °C - if layer adhesion becomes an issue, go up 5 or 10 °C. This also explains why it was working fine one year ago! While not as much of an issue with I180-PF, this material also benefits from drying. HTH, Niklas

there are smartphone apps that can measure sound frequency, which should make it possible to measure the print head's shaking frequency due to the sound it makes. I for example use such an app to tension my printer's belts to a certain value.

FWIW, I've been using most of the recent Cura versions both at home and at work, since at least 3.5. I've encountered the same issue that Cura gets really, really slow (read: not usable), which gets better for a short period when restarting the program. Interestingly, this (so far) only happens on my work computer (notebook with i5-6300U), not on my home computer (previously i5-4560K, now Ryzen 5 3600 - this one shows the best performance). It seems to have become better with 4.4.1 however. We'll see how this develops.

Hi, can you elaborate on that? I've used 3rd party hoods on our older UM3 and UM2s before, and am at this moment using the Air Manager as a "pretty hood" without it being connected... It helps to elevate the build chamber temperature and thus yields stronger prints. What can go wrong? thanks, Niklas

Hi Smithy, thanks for the quick answer. On our machine, the nozzle is pushed against the bed strongly, to the point that it bends the rods of the xy-gantry notably when the print head is in the middle of the bed while leveling. Knowing no better, I assume that this is intended, and the first layer comes out okay (albeit sometimes a lot thinner than I would wish). With a standard brass or steel nozzle, I see no problem, as the metal is softer than the glass and thus nothing should break. With the ruby nozzle, a very hard tip touches a very hard surface, and I get afraid that the less hard of the two might crack (this was, again, the statement from our reseller). But I take it that I shouldn't need to worry about this? Best regards, Niklas

chiming in on this topic - I'm currently setting up to print with the 3D Solex hardcore + Everlast ruby nozzle on the UMS5. Our reseller told me that with the CC red core, the active leveling is automatically disabled (by the firmware I suppose). Is this true? ...I'd rather have my printer be "a little less reliable" and being able to disable auto-leveling every time risking that a first layer might not be perfectly consistent, than risking the nozzle and/or build plate being cracked during leveling - this might be a risk with the ruby/sapphire insert in the nozzle, or so I'm told. I realize that I'm not doing it the way Ultimaker is "envisioning" it, e.g. using the CC core, but the issue is bigger to me than just using the 3DSolex core. best, Niklas