GregValiant

@Torgeir is good with the UM 2 printers. Maybe he has a suggestion?

I don't like to guess, but this is a guess. Cura doesn't see a bunch of walls, it sees a bunch of square holes and each hole has "outer-wall" around it. The fact that the distance between holes is about 1 line width means that each square hole shares a wall with the adjacent hole. That might be what is giving the funky toolpath. You can try playing with "Group Outer Walls" and "Optimize Wall Printing Order". You may end up with a different toolpath, but not necessarily a "better" toolpath. As AHoeben suggests, if you make that area solid, and use a properly spaced "Grid" infill (you might have to use a Mesh Modifier and adjust the line distance rather than the infill density) then Cura will print the grid as lines from one side to the other, You can rotate the grid so it is perpendicular to the structure by adjusting the line directions to something like "[0]" as the default (empty brackets "[ ]") is 45°.

My older 8 bit mainboard can print from a sub-folder on the card, but not from the LCD. The file has to be called out in a very particular fashion and can only be done with a script calling out the file with an M23 command sent to the printer and using the DOS 8.3 filename. That took some cogitatin' to figure out. The form for a file in "NewFolder" is: "\NEWFOL~1/SUBFOL~1.GCO". Removing the drive letter wasn't bad but having to replace the back-slash with a fore-slash was NOT obvious.

Have you tried saving to the hard drive and then coping the file from there to the SD card? You could also try formatting the SD card. They can develop corrupt memory sectors and those areas can't be written to. If you go for fomatting, remember that it will wipe out all files on the card so back up any you want to save. (If there is corruption on the SD you might not be able to get your files off it.) What printer is it? Some don't like file names over 16 characters and others can't handle large capacity memory cards.

I didn't have any trouble slicing it. What version of Cura are you using? The Ender 3 definition file has changed over time and some of the early definitions had "disallowed areas" that were reserved for the bed hold-down clips. Changing the build plate size in Cura would not change the disallowed areas as they were hard coded in the definition file. This is in 5.7.1.

There is a post processor called "Search and Replace". You would need two instances. Search = M204 Replace = M8008 and Search = M205 Replace = M8007 Those will work as long as the units are the same and the parameters are the same. Cura will use the S parameter for Accel. Other parameters for Accel would be X and Y for each axis or P and T for print and travel. You might have to get fancy with the regular expressions if there are numbers between the parameters. Jerk is by axis so it always uses X Y parameters. I think Search and Replace will start at the first layer (raft or model) but you'll need to check to make sure. Search = M204 S(\d*) Replace = M8008 P\1 T\1 Use Regular Expressions = checked would go from M204 S1000 to M8008 P1000 T1000

It turns out that I'm like the 17,000th person to have the idea.

You need to talk to Elegoo about that as UltiMaker won't be involved in someone else's hardware. On the other hand, the "variable line width" of Cura means that the nozzle size isn't near as important as it used to be. You can make up a custom profile of settings you use. When I print in spiralize I often kick the line width to 0.60 or 0.80 with a 0.4 nozzle. That works fine. You can't really go smaller though as there isn't enough squish. You can also add a nozzle size by editing a nozzle file (in the variants folder) and doing a Save-As. You might have to do the same thing with at least one "Quality" file for a material. Quality files contain a line that mentions the nozzle size. Between the nozzle file and a quality file there might be 3 or 4 lines that need a number changed (like from 0.4 to 0.5). When you do the Save-As make sure you use the same file naming format as the original file.

The under-extrusion is most likely the printer itself (knowing which printer we're talking about would be good). I think the first parameter to calibrate (or re-calibrate) is the E-steps/mm. That print does show some serious under-extrusion. The top skin should be nicely welded together with no gaps, and no ridges. To a great extent, that's the problem with the letters as well. If you happen to have used some sort of "single wall calibration cube" to tune the flow, throw it away and just calibrate the E-steps. With the Cura flows at 100% you should get a good print. If the gcode asks the printer to push 100mm of filament and the printer only pushes 85mm then that's under-extrusion and it's a problem. The E-steps being off aren't the only cause, but it's a big cause.

I'm leaning towards the printer. I keep the tail ends of filament rolls around for things like this. On the left is your original project, printer, and profile. I adjusted my home offsets to account for the Origin at Center of your delta printer. On the right is my setting profile. Both were printed on my Ender 3 Pro (cuz that's what I've got.) I know my camera isn't great, but I don't see the step on either of them even under a magnifying glass. I'm starting to think that maybe the long travel moves between the legs are having an effect. Maybe there is some shaking or something going on. It might be worth your while to do a preventative maintenance check on the mechanicals. Things can come loose, get out of adjustment, whatever. It may help, and it can't hurt. I have a regimen I go through once a month and I always find something that needs re-adjusting. In regards to settings, you might try changing the infill from gyroid to grid (not as much motion) and consider dropping the Acceleration from 5000 to 1000. I know your machine can handle the 5000 - but maybe not today.

I look at too many of these things and I got two projects mixed up. OK. It's a good name brand printer. I'm not familiar with the mechanicals on a delta though. Do all the legs show that layer shift? Are they all moving away from the seat centerline like the one in the image?

Ya know, I was trying to sneak that by. There may be some issues with the "Tiled Infill" plugin (at least on certain systems). Since they are both in the back end I thought I'd mention it.

There really shouldn't be anything different just because there are islands. I'll think about it but off the top of my head, whether it could be something in the settings or a hardware trick that is in the the printer, I don't know what could cause that. If you printed cooler than the 230 you had, then the plastic will have reacted differently. PLA is by nature very brittle. If you make the seam location the mid point of your build plate then the seams on the legs should face inward. That's about the best you can do. Your build plate is 202 x 202 so make the X and Y of the seam location 101 and 101. Lets go back to the beginning here. What kind of printer is this? You've called it a Betaminion, but I don't see it come up in my search.

I see a plugin in the log "PauseBackendPlugin" which I guess your "...pause it and un-pause it..." comment is referring to. It appears to be associated with an error in the log. Try disabling that plugin and see if things improve.

"Can I exclude hardware issue since I only get this issue on this specific model " Not yet. But you need to look at your settings as well. I know the colors aren't good here and it's kind of hard to see. This is the gcode read into AutoCAD. The red lines are the Outer Walls of the gcode file. You can see that the bump doesn't exist here and the Cura preview also reflects this. That's why I'm thinking that the possibility of a printer problem shouldn't be discounted yet. BUT it could be the way the printer is responding to the commands it's getting. I also read the Gcode into MS Excel, the line widths are all 0.48 thru that area of interest and that is your setting. Since the line widths are consistent through those layers-of-interest, and the layer height is consistent, and the toolpath is consistent, it could well be a printer problem. (Only having the problem on this one model would say it isn't a printer problem). It may be significant that the problem seems to occur when the model goes from a single piece, to three "islands" when the legs start. In regards to the settings - I agree with Slashee that they are all over the place. You need to go back to a simple, consistent set of settings so you have a baseline to work from. I won't go further into it, but yeah, a minimum line width of 0.01 is just silly. Printing PLA at 230 would seem to be way too hot, but all printers are different and your thermistor may be reading incorrectly and needs to be compensated for. This is how I'd set up the slice. I sort of used your numbers but don't simply print this without checking things like the print temperature. GregValiant.curaprofile