GregValiant

I printed both of the gcode files. As you've noticed - the extra walls aren't in the gcode and they didn't show up in my prints (Ender 3 Pro). ( I threw out the brim as it made photographing difficult.) Here is the 1e That leaves us at the printer. One thing about the gcode is that the toolpath alternates between clockwise and counter-clockwise. I wonder if there is some slop in your X system (like a loose belt) that is causing a different path when going one way than when going the other. Also - the skins of your 1e print are very sloppy and look over-extruded and they look curved. Have you calibrated the E-steps? As you see in my print of the 1e the skin lines are straight.

Ultimaker isn't going to put any money into fixing it since their printers don't use it. That means it either works for you or it doesn't. My normal response is to either invest in a Raspberry PI and Octoprint, use PronterFace/PrintRun, or use Repetier Host as a print server. Your problem is a little different though. For the most part people complain that USB printing just doesn't work at all. Understand that what I don't know about Python fills libraries. Maybe one of the Cura software engineers can tell if either of these hacks has a chance to fix the "quits after a while" problem. (You will notice I use the word "maybe" a lot.) Since it is working for a period of time maybe Cura is just losing the Com Port because of what it might perceive as a lack of activity(?). Maybe that is because all the communication is one-way and there is never a response from the printer to any command Cura sends during a print. There is a gcode command M113 that is "Host keepalive". You could try putting "M113 S5" in your StartUp Gcode. When the printer is busy doing stuff it will send "echo:busy: processing" back through the USB every 5 seconds. I don't know if it is enabled in your firmware though. It is on my Ender 3 Pro and the default is 2 seconds (M113 S2). Another code you may be able to use in your StartUp Gcode is auto temperature reporting. M155 S5 will cause the printer to send a temperature report (example: "T:210.26 /210.00 B:60.44 /60.00 @:127 B@:127") every 5 seconds. M155 should be enabled in the firmware. It would require an M155 S0 in your end gcode to turn it off.

So the difference in offset was 0.70? That's very close to the 0.80 error you measured in the part. I think you may have fixed it.🥂

I don't see it listed in my Cura v 4.6 folder. Wanhao might have pushed out their own version of Cura and it had the definition. You can try starting 4.6 and with your printer active and a benchy or calibration cube loaded use the "File | Save Project" command. The 3mf file will contain your settings and your printer. When you open it in the newer version of Cura the proper printer definition might come in. An alternative is to manually copy the definition files from the Cura folders in 4.6 to the folders in 4.13.1. There may be a few files you will need to copy. All the file names start with "Wanhao_". There will be a file in "definitions", in "extruders", and maybe a custom bed file in "meshes". It doesn't appear that the Wanhao printers use nozzle files but they would be in the "variants" folder.

The Auto-Level system has a setting for "Z-Offset". I think yours must be set wrong. The Z offset is supposed to be the difference between where the probe hits the bed, and the end of the nozzle. The printer uses it to adjust the Z height. In your printer menu on the LCD can you find a setting for Z-Offset? I would guess it is in the Auto-Level menu. Maybe there is some instruction in the printer manual.

The Ender 3 profile has an area set aside on the bed for the glass clips. The Ender 3 Pro definition is a better choice as it doesn't have the safety area. I put this together a while ago. Unzip the ender3max.zip file. In Cura 5.0 for Windows: The "creality_ender3MAX.def.json" file goes into: "C:\Program Files\Ultimaker Cura 5.0.0\share\cura\resources\definitions" The "creality_ender3MAX.stl" file goes in "C:\Program Files\Ultimaker Cura 5.0.0\share\cura\resources\meshes" Unzip the nozzles file. All the nozzles go in: "C:\Program Files\Ultimaker Cura 5.0.0\share\cura\resources\variants" In previous version of Cura the folders were arranged a little differently, but the folder names are the same "definitions, meshes, and variants"). I'm pretty sure that a MAC would have the same sort of arrangment. It is an un-official definition so if you upgrade Cura you would have to go through that again. It appears that Creality is pretty punctual about adding definitions for their printers. The next release of Cura may have a definition file. creality_ender3MAX.zip creality_ender3max_Nozzles.zip

Not just the brim. It's putting skin in there as well. (If the model is not proprietary) use the "File | Save Project" command and post the 3mf file. If it is proprietary then use a model that shows the same behavior and pass along a project file of that one. You can also try repairing the model with Cura's Mesh Tools, Microsoft 3D Builder, or use an on-line STL repair site. Sometimes when a logo is embossed the walls have gaps. That might be what is going on. That sort of thing has been reported before though so it might be a bug.

OK. On Sunday it is. They are Delta printers, and so probably Origin at Center. Quebea is gone as you probably noticed. Since you can get it/them to move and print with KissSlicer then they should work with Cura.

Here are nozzle files for the Ender 3 Max. In Cura 5.0 and Windows they go in: "C:\Program Files\Ultimaker Cura 5.0.0\share\cura\resources\variants" In Cura 4.13.1 and earlier versions they go in: "C:\Program Files\Ultimaker Cura 4.13.1\resources\variants" Unzip the files and copy them to the appropriate folder. When you restart Cura hopefully they will be there. creality_ender3max_Nozzles.zip

Post your startup gcode and post the gcode file that printed. I can't find anything on a Qubea printer. Did you mean QiDi?

But it is wearing a Tee Shirt with a big "M" on it. Did it know ahead of time??? Possible insider trading going on??? Or maybe it was having an affair with a cute Makerbot???

Hello @Gotreck I don't see a printer defintion file for an AnyCubic Kobra Max. The gcode you posted was sliced for a Creality CR10. Your AnyCubic may be looking for something that should be in the StartUp Gcode, but is not there. Does your printer have an Auto-Level system? The AnyCubic site says it has "LeviQ". There is no command in the Gcode file that calls it. "LeviQ" is supposed to do a 25 point leveling routine - does your printer do that before the actual print starts? The Gcode itself appears to be fine (for a CR10). It starts out at 0.28 layer height for the purge lines and when they are finished it drops to 0.2 for the skirt. From there layer-by-layer it indexes 0.2mm until it gets to Z=20 and finishes the top layer. As I said, there is no M420, G29 or other command that would tell the printer to Auto-Level. "...that the printer first print the bottom, than 4 wrong layers and than he will start with the project." There are no moves like that in the gcode. I'm sure that cube would print fine on my Ender 3 Pro. You may need to get some support from AnyCubic. It's a new model printer.

I did a little analysis myself. The outer-wall flows for layers 1, 2, and 3 are all exactly the same and are all at 100.00% of the theoretical numbers for .2 layer height and .6 line width. After slicing the file in Cura the Preview looked good. When I opened the gcode file in Cura, Layer 1 looks under-extruded and Layer 2 does look over-extruded. Excel says no that isn't so. In the gcode all the outer walls line up exactly. So I think there may be something going on with the gcode preview in Cura. I had some left over PLA (wet and old) and printed the cube (Ender 3 Pro). I change the print and bed temps to 210/50 which are my preferences. Other than minor problems from pushing my .4 nozzle at .6 line width (a little bulging in the corners), looking at it under the microscope and specifically what was going on mid-wall it looks perfect. I don't have a camera mount for the microscope but here is the print. There was some elephant's foot but I generally run initial layer horizontal expansion at -.25 and I did not for this print. That gcode preview showing a problem, and your print matching what it shows makes for some confusion. My normal response for something like this (squished layers) would be to check your Z system and see if there is something loose, or binding, or something. One thing we know for a certainty is that the problem isn't in the gcode. The extrusions are exactly right and the movements are exactly right. I don't think the firmware would do something like this. That leaves the mechanicals of the printer. The Cura Preview? There might be an issue with that too but it would have nothing to do with the print. Only the gcode goes to the printer.

Pardon my English. If you open a Cura Gcode file in a text editor you will see the maximum and minimum numbers for the print. The skirt or brim is included in the X and Y numbers. What is your Maximum Z? These are lines 5 through 10 from a Cura gcode file: ;MINX:42.368 ;MINY:56.906 ;MINZ:0.2 ;MAXX:189.281 ;MAXY:173.404 ;MAXZ:25 You can see that my print could not have been 25.8 because the print head never went that high. (As a matter of pride - this one printed at exactly 25.00.)

Mother and two daughters. The mother is Initial Layer Speed. The daughters are Initial Layer Print Speed and Initial Layer Travel Speed. The Initial Layer Print Speed is what you will get in the gcode file for speed during extrusions on Layer0. This is from FieldOfView's (AHoeben's) page on the Cura replacement patterns: {speed_layer_0} Initial Layer Speed The speed for the initial layer. A lower value is advised to improve adhesion to the build plate. Does not affect the build plate adhesion structures themselves, like brim and raft. {speed_print_layer_0} Initial Layer Print Speed The speed of printing for the initial layer. A lower value is advised to improve adhesion to the build plate. "Initial Layer Print Speed" can be linked or be a different number than what is in the "Initial layer Speed" box. Maybe "Initial Layer Speed" shouldn't have a settings box and be just a heading for the other two settings? The number may be used somewhere else though.

Yeah, but you're off the hook because you pointed out my self-inflicted wound on the the "Line1 Line2" thing. I know I'm in that particular dialog more than most people but from a "consistency" point of view having an explicit option to "save" or "cancel" would seem to be the way to go rather than using the Cancel/Close "X" to exit the dialog. I'm aware it has to be a pain to re-write all the code for all the controls on all the dialogs but I think from a users point of view consistency does matter. "Wait...how do I get out of here?" is a question that shouldn't come up and neither should "I wonder if my changes got saved?" I'm sure I'll get used to it but that's my 2 cents worth.

Sorry. I meant "You" in the collective sense, not you individually. In the collective sense, I think the controls made more sense in the previous layout. An analogy would be a book. It's easier to glance down to a footnote than to have to flip to the appendix. Is that the same designer that decided that the dialog "dismiss (X)" would be the same as combining a Cancel and Save button? (I'm thinking about the Machine Settings dialog there.)

@nallath You may have drawn too fine a line there. They were right out in the open and now they aren't. Spacing would have left them visible, understandable, and without the "where did they put 'em" moment. (Activate)(Duplicate)(Remove)(Rename) (Import)(Export)

I'll take a wild guess and say you will end up between 5.5 and 6.5. Besides the retraction distance have you adjusted the speed? Faster isn't always better. Your printing temperature makes a difference. Cooler will not string as much. Within Cura's Travel settings are "Retraction Minimum Travel" and "Max Comb Distance with No Retract". Both need to be set to a distance that is shorter than the distance between the towers but greater than "0". That might be why those 4 models look so identical - maybe there weren't any retractions. If you haven't done so - turn off Z-hops. They can create a string when the head lifts and the nozzle will pull it to the other tower.

If the model is not proprietary then load it in Cura, set up the slice, and use the File | Save Project command. Post the resultant 3mf file here.

@4N6 is that wider layer showing up in prints? I sliced your 3mf file, saved the Gcode, cleared the plate, and opened the Gcode in 4.13. I don't see the wider layer. Looking through the gcode all the outer walls are identical square movements by the nozzle. I switched to Relative Extrusion to see how much filament was going down in case of an over-flow situation. It wasn't there. If you open the gcode file in Notepad you can do a search for "wall-outer" and see what the coordinates of the layer movements are. If you go to Special Modes and enable Relative Extrusion it will be easier to read. This is what I got in the gcode for Layer:0: G1 F900 X184.7 Y184.7 E0.96787 G1 X184.7 Y175 E0.48393 G1 X184.7 Y165.3 E0.48393 G1 X165.3 Y165.3 E0.96787 G1 X165.3 Y184.7 E0.96787 This is Layer:1 (the second layer) G1 F2850 X184.7 Y184.7 E0.96787 G1 X184.7 Y175 E0.48393 G1 X184.7 Y165.3 E0.48393 G1 X165.3 Y165.3 E0.96787 G1 X165.3 Y184.7 E0.96787 The start points were occasionally different, but the numbers are always the same. It looks like the Z seam is in the middle of a wall. The Cura gcode reader is separate from the slicer. This may just be a glitch in the display but you need to take a look at your gcode file and compare the moves on layer0, 1 and 2.

That's a nice analysis. In the end though, it looks like we're talking about a difference of what...a few microns? It's fine to look at a theoretically perfect representation (is it really?) but at some point the real world is going to intrude. If instead of pointy ends the representation of those extrusions were drawn as ovals (which is a lot more likely to be true) would you draw the same conclusions? Starting with the extruder - will it in all cases be perfectly adjusted to a 1:1 "volume-in : volume-out" ratio? The actual size of the nozzle will vary with the size of the drills that made the hole in the nozzle and the machining tolerance of the lathe, automatic screw machine, or other gizmo that made the hole. The actual diameter of the filament. The moisture content of the filament. The temperature of the material as it extrudes. The shrink factor of the material. The efficiency of the layer cooling. The rigidity of the printer in holding it's path and the ability of the mainboard to explain that path to the steppers. The elasticity of the material as it is drawn around the corner. How close the visualization is to reality. Did the software designers nail it(?) or more likely, is there some possible error involved between the interpretation of the image in the software and the actual display? Can we assume the blue line that indicates the edge of the part is perfect? Can we assume that the pointy edges of the extrusions (which will definitely not be pointy edges) are also perfect and are placed exactly where the unconstrained-after-leaving-the-nozzle hot plastic is going to end up? I think it's more likely that those extrusion ends should have some sort of tolerance drawn in to indicate a likely "minimum" and the likely "maximum"? I think there will be some fuzziness in there and that it isn't being shown. Again, what I'm seeing looks like a few microns. My printer is pretty dialed in and I know it wouldn't be that consistent from print to print. By increasing the flow by maybe 1% would the ends of those extrusions move outward? In theory they should. I can also move them using the Horizontal Expansion setting, Outer Wall Inset, and other settings in Cura. Those are things a user can control. I think there are things a user cannot control and mostly they are at the production end. In the world of sheet metal - it's why tools have shims for all three axes. All the software along the way may have been perfect, but the fender that comes out of the press will not be. This is why we always referred to our technical drawings as "cartoons". What we designed and what we ended up with were rarely exactly the same. That is how I view that representation - as a cartoon. Speaking of tolerances and as an aside - software has no concept of scale. If you tell Cura (or AutoCad, SolidWorks, Catia, etc.) that your object model is 200 x 200 x 200 the software doesn't know if you mean nanometers or parsecs. It's going to display whatever it's displaying at it's internal maximum resolution as it plays with the numbers. In AutoCad that resolution was to 12 decimal places but the display was to 8 decimal places. The display was good, but there was a tolerance if you zoomed in close enough. In closing...I may place the ball perfectly on that "perfect" tee but there is an excellent chance that the ball is still going to end up in the lake and the tee will be in two pieces.

It looks mirrored about the "Y" to me. That isn't hard to do when you want to, but it's near impossible unless you're trying. I guess a second option would be that somehow the Z got flipped? I have no idea how that could be done - or undone. Maybe the Z is moving negative steps (in a positive direction?)??? To mirror about the Y on purpose: All the X coordinates must be multiplied by -1 and the home offset is set to be X{plate width}. The effect of that is to have the print show up in the -X, +Y, +Z octant instead of the +X, +Y, +Z octant. The plan view of the Cura build plate actually looks like this (X=0 at the left and +X going to the right, and Y=0 at the bottom and +Y going up). But what you printed is this configuration. The X=0 is on the right with -X going left. The Y is the same as above. Another way to view this is that the Z direction is wrong and +Z should be going down through the build surface. So my best guess (and it is definitely a guess) will be what I think is the simplest explanation: Something is wrong with the Z. Putting another guess on top of that guess - something changed in the firmware and it's interpreting the Z moves wrong/inverted/wonky/bonkers and the print is in the +X, +Y, -Z octant, but on top of the build plate. At the beginning of a Cura gcode file are the Max and Min X, Y, and Z coordinates. What do they say? What are you using for the Auto-Home command (G28 or maybe M162?) What are your home offsets? (I think I just set a record for the most question marks I've ever put in a post.)

@tato1989 Can you post that Gcode file here? What material is that?

The usual problem is that the Z switch is adjusted to where the top of the old build surface was. You can move the Z switch up 3mm or you can build a shim 3mm thick so the gantry trips the switch at near the height of the new glass bed. Here is my shim. It slips over that wheel bolt. When I want to go back to the magnetic bed I just take the shim off. For the Auto-Home command "G28" there isn't really isn't any other option. The command sends the XYZ to their respective end stop switches. If your Z switch is too low, and the nozzle is over the bed after homing the X and Y then the Z will definitely crash the nozzle into the bed. If you Auto-Home and the nozzle doesn't crash the bed then yes, there are gcode commands you can use. A G92 Z-3.0 right after G28 would tell the printer that the current Z location is -3.0. If the next line is G1 Z0 then the Z will move up to the level of the glass bed. You could also adjust your Home Offsets to tell the printer where "0" is. What you would be doing is creating a situation where the nozzle could crash hard into the glass bed. My suggestion is to move the switch up or if you can't do that for some reason then make something that will cause the switch to be tripped during Auto-Home. Then you can manually adjust the bed height to the new Auto-Home Z=0 location.