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

Blender was not designed to produce "printable" models but it can be used. You need to be careful and check the model closely before you export it. You might have surfaces that are facing inside-out, or there might be open seams, or extra internal surfaces. If you are working on a Windows system you can go to the Microsoft store and download "MS 3D Builder" which has a pretty good repair utility. You need to figure out how to make the adjustments in Blender or this will keep happening.

There is another option here. I've gone over the script, but I've never had to use it. It's a post processor called "Retract Continue" and it will do an initial retraction of "Retract Distance" before the head starts to travel. During the ensuing travel moves the filament will continue to retract based on a percentage number that the user inputs. When the print head arrives at the start of the next extrusion the prime is the original retract amount plus whatever additional retraction occurred during the travel move. A down side to the script bundled with Cura is that it is fooled by Z-hops and consequently there is no additional retraction. If you aren't using Z-hops then it should work fine. If it doesn't work for you then I'll post my version which does work with Z-Hops.

If you have the Experimental setting "Group Outer Walls" enabled it may have something to do with the dry starts. I'm not sure why that is, but there is some evidence that it has an effect. Long travel moves contribute to the problem of dry starts. Large nozzles are also a contributing factor because they ooze more during travels. Another setting that can aggravate the problem is "Coasting" which is designed to allow the nozzle pressure to fall off during the last few millimeters of an extrusion. "Retract before outer wall" can contribute to the problem. "Retraction Extra Prime Amount" may help. The material will be part of the regular prime so it will happen before the nozzle starts moving. "Retraction Extra Prime" is fussy because if an extrusion starts after a short travel the problem isn't near as bad. If the extrusion starts after a long travel then it might need more prime. It's a balancing act. The "Extra Prime" amount is in mm³. Without going into the math, start with 0.4mm³ of extra prime (about 3mm of extrusion at .4 layer height and .8 line width) and see how it goes.

That the generic "I'm not gonna slice this and I ain't tell you why" warning. Do you have the Printer Settings plugin loaded? Are any of the Cura setting boxes "red"? I ask because some of the settings like "Max Speed Z" in the Printer Settings might be lower than a setting you have in Cura. Something like that will cause a "won't slice" condition. What computer system are you running Cura on? If you post the Cura.log file (use "Help | Show Configuration Folder" to find it) it might point to something. A Project file with the calibration cube might be helpful as well.

@Slashee_the_Cow - This one has questions. It might be a regional thing but don't cows run in "herds" rather than "hordes"? Would a stealth cow have to change the color of their spots? A chameleon cow? Also (just so I'm clear on this) would keeping an "eye out" for a stealthed cow actually work? I mean their stealthy and hard to see right? Logic would seem to indicate that removing an eye would cut the possibility of actually seeing a stealth cow just about in half. Would I need a pirate patch to cover the hole where the missing eye used to be? I'm going fishing now. These things will probably keep me awake.

"... the nozzle hit the object while passing from ..." I am not a fan of using "Z-Hops" but for some models it is unavoidable. There are several causes of the nozzle hitting a print. The two most popular are: Depending on the Infill Pattern, the infill can develop high points that are above the layer height. Enabling "Connect Infill Lines" can help with this. Feather edges develop and warp upwards (like when closing large horizontal holes). Enabling "Z-hop on Retraction" can help a lot. I usually set it to 0.50mm.

I'm not afraid of the cow. (I'm far enough away!!)

Starting with Cura 5.0 the "QT Controls" dialog boxes, settings boxes, buttons, etc. that Cura uses went to a different QT version. That Qidiprint plugin looks like it hasn't been updated in 4 years so the settings it tries to add aren't working and that causes an error. If you want to print via a network you would probably need to research whether OctoPrint is an option. There is a Cura plugin but it also requires it's own hardware (usually a Raspberry PI board).

The seam is a function of FDM printing. There will be a point on the outer wall where the nozzle starts to extrude it. The Nozzle travels around extruding the outer wall, and then ends right where it started. Those starts and ends are what makes the seam visible. There is an Inner-Wall seam, a Support seam, an Infill Seam, a Prime Tower seam, and a Support Interface seam. Even an "Ooze Shield" would have a seam. Only the Outer Wall seam is displayed because it's the only one visible on a finished print. The preview would get kind of cluttered if they were all shown.

I've had occasions when I've exported an STL from Cura, opened it in MS3D Builder to make some adjustments, and then saved it (inadvertently) as a 3mf model. When I open that 3mf in Cura the model comes in converted to centimeters instead of millimeters so it's 10 times bigger than expected. It's annoying, but only takes a second to fix. Wherever the problem is, whether it's something that Cura should know, or a consistency in translating/exporting utility's of other apps, if two programs are talking apples and oranges there is going to be a scale issue. I don't know that it's fixable. That being said, when I export a model from AutoCad and it was drawn in Inches, it comes into Cura needing to be scaled to 2540%. That's expected behavior. When I export a Benchy and it comes back the size of the Queen Elizabeth II it is unexpected behavior. In the case of Blender, it isn't really a CAD program but was intended for video game object design where models would not be required to be "watertight". You can use it, but you need to be careful that when you output the model it is watertight and all the surfaces are facing the right direction.