Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. Not sure if this is the same problem, but it sounds like a fairly common problem on the S5. Many of us have had issues where the support material oozes during the active leveling process. The problem is that if it is extruder 2 then it is mostly hidden from view during the long leveling process for extruder 1. It just takes a small bump of material to completely thrown off the leveling. If this happens, the nozzle will be too far from the plate and the support material on the first level will not stick. Interestingly, I have two S5s, and only one of them has really suffered from this. Every time I would start a job, I would end up aborting 3 or 4 times until I finally got a good level (hint - if you see the problem during leveling and abort before the leveling finishes, it is pretty fast. If you wait until leveling is finished, abort takes several minutes). This printer had older FW. I just updated FW, and at least on the first print, it seemed to be fixed. Will see if this was a coincidence.
  2. In all versions of Cura that I have used, through 4.4, there is an annoying issue with the support tower. If I use the "Minimum Support Area" setting to keep from using support material in unnecessary places, Cura is good enough to skip the support material, however, it continues to build the support tower up to the full height of the spot where support was skipped. I have some parts where I need support material for the first dozen layers, but then there is no more support material used, and the tower continues for another 200mm+ of height. A huge waste of time and plastic. The location where it would like to build support is a very tall cylindrical hole 3mm in diameter with a flat end to it. If I add a chamfer to the end, and then set the "Support Overhang Angle" to eliminate support, then it not only correctly skips the support material, but the support tower also ends appropriately after the first dozen or so layers. On my latest print, this error would cost me 12 hours and 20g of print material.
  3. Thanks for the quick feedback. Does the expansion primarily control wall thickness? From the discussion above it seemed like a method to get the inner and outer dimensions of a part to match desired values better, but not necessarily adjust bulk scaling issues. If I understand it right, if I printed a 1cm square box, and got an outer dimension that was a little too big and an inner dimension that was a little too small, then a slightly negative value of the horizontal expansion could take care of this. However, it's also my impression that if I printed a 200 a 200 cm box, that the actual error (not the percent) error should be about the same as the 1cm box, and the same horizontal expansion adjustment should work. In my case if I print a 1cm part, and measure it to be 0.997 cm, and then print a 295mm part, that measures as 294mm, would horizontal expansion somehow scale up with the part size and fix this? I'm guessing not, and that I really need to multiple x by 1.0033 in Cura to get the right sized part.
  4. This is a pretty old thread, but perhaps people are still watching it. I have a couple of S5s, and I'm printing really big parts on it that need to mate with parts manufactured on other machines (CNC mill, laser cutting, etc). The problem I am having is that I am getting large enough errors in the X-dim to make parts not fit. I have a part that is supposed to be 295mm in length, but it is really closer to 294mm. As a percent error, maybe this doesn't seem horrible, about 0.33%, but I have bolts that need to attach the printed parts to other parts, and on an M3 bolt, a 1mm misalignment is not workable. Is there a way to perform x,y,z scaling in the printer itself to correct for measured scaling errors, or do I need to manually do this in Cura? It seems like it is really a mechanical issue in the printer, as this would appear to be imprecise math on the motor steps to mm travel. I suppose it is possible that it's print shrinkage or something, which would honestly be more frustrating since that would likely be part and material specific.
  5. Thanks for the feedback. I'll check FW versions. One of the S5s is only a few months old, so I would think newer FW, but perhaps it sat on the shelves for a while before we bought it. Looking at the tensioning gages, they seem to be about in the middle of the slot. Should we just crank them up higher? Is there such a think as too high? If so, how do we know when we hit that? With regard to nozzle blockage, what's the test/treatment for that - or perhaps this is answered in the FAQ.
  6. I apologize if this topic has been addressed already, but I wasn't quite sure what to search for, and didn't find anything relevant. I've been running a lot of pretty long print jobs (3 to 5 days) on a U3 and a couple of S5s, and while the majority of the parts print fine, on a significant portion there seems to be a change in feed-rate at random times through the prints, creating under-filled sections that are weak and easily break. The parts I am printing typically use the 0.25 nozzle and are typically very low-fill parts. The first time I noticed the problem was on a large shell structure that had 4-layer walls, and was otherwise completely empty. About 2 days in, the material feed rate seemed to drop off for a couple of hours (middle of the night), leaving about a 1/2" of build height thinner than the rest. Both below and above the thin section, the print was fine. I just finished a 5 day print, and yesterday there was a similar issue with a very thin line of under-filled material. This was even a lighter construction, with 0.48mm walls (2 layers) and modeled internal structure (as opposed to partial fill). It seems like there is a higher probability of seeing these defects on new rolls of material, although the latest 5-day print was on a roll that was about 1/2 used, so pretty light. I mainly print with PLA and CPE, and have experienced this on both. I have re-printed parts that have failed, and had them come out perfect, so it is definitely not an issue with the Cura file. I'm guessing that this is either an indication of defective material, but I only use Ultimaker material, or the feed mechanism. On all of them, the feed tensioner seems to be about mid scale, and we have never adjusted it. The U3 is a couple of years old, one S5 is maybe 9 months old, and the other S5 is just a few months old. On the first S5, after maybe 5 or 6 months I started to see issues where the printer reported that it was out of material, when clearly it was not. After doing some research on this forum it seemed that this was a known issue, and following advice from other users we disabled the sensor. This of course means that we have to plan large prints carefully to make sure we don't run out of material. The newer S5 had this issue on the first print, so we disabled the sensor immediately. The forums suggest that this is frequently caused by using oversize spools of material, or spools not mounted in the stock position, but as mentioned, we only use Ultimaker material, and only on the built in mount. Any advice, suggestions would be much appreciated, as seeing a print fail 4 days in is pretty disappointing, in particular when it is on a $6k machine.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to the Ultimaker Community of 3D printing experts. Visit the following links to read more about our Terms of Use or our Privacy Policy. Thank you!