GregValiant

So there is an offset between the nozzles. That needs to be entered into Cura Machine Settings. Typically the T0/Extruder1 nozzle will have X=0 and Y=0 (no offset) and the T1 Extruder2 nozzle will have the offset (Example: X=24 Y=0). I'm not noticing any layer cooling fans. A typical situation with a cooling fan for each hot end would have them numbered as "0" for T0 (extruder 1) and "1" for T1 (extruder 2). If a single fan is covering both nozzles then both extruders would be numbered "0" which is what you have in Cura. The temperature commands do appear in the gcode. Getting the printer to respond to the commands should be your priority. You have "Dual Extruder" firmware installed?

I don't see any problem in the gcode. At the end of the StartUp sequence - T0 (PVA) is at 215 and T1 (PLA) is at the standby temperature of 175. Later when T1 becomes active they switch... T1 G92 E0 M104 T0 S175 ;PVA extruder to standby temperature M105 M109 S190 ;PLA extruder to Printing Temperature M104 S180 ;PLA extruder to Initial Print Temperature Switching back to T0 for the support... T0 G92 E0 M104 T1 S180 M105 M109 S205 ;MESH:NONMESH G0 F5400 X117.348 Y96.152 Z2.71 G0 X114.681 Y96.873 M104 S215 That all looks like the way you have it set up in Cura. If they aren't heating correctly then it looks to be a printer problem either hardware or firmware. In your StartUp gcode this line is no good: G1 F{speed_travel} The "speed_travel" replacement pattern is in "mm/second" and the printer wants "mm/minute" so your G1 travel speed is being set to 120 instead of 7200. In addition the G1 command is for extrusions and so you are attempting to set the extrusion speed to your travel speed. Take that line out. Cura sorts it out later in the gcode. You stated that your printer has two separate print heads but the Machine Settings don't show any nozzle offset. Is that the way the printer is (no distance between the nozzles)?

With your models loaded in Cura and the settings the way you want - use the File | Save Project command and post the 3mf file here. It should be a project that utilizes both extruders.

If I understand what you mean by a "bias" - isn't that the triangle cross section creating that? It's an orthogonal view of a polygon with an odd number of sides so it's only symmetrical about one axis. When viewed from the second or third axis it looks "off" unless the view is exactly square to a "point" of the triangle. Since it is a triangle and since the view is orthogonal then the distance from the point to the top of the rib is X distance and the dimension from the point to the bottom is sin(30) * X distance = 1/2 X. The bottom "half" of the model will only have half the layers of the top half (in this limited view). Here is a side view with the bottom model rotated 30° about the X. That will certainly slice differently than the top model because the orientation is different. In addition, the top rib in your orientation is viewed straight on and so the top "edge" will be a radius. The other two ribs are at 30° angles to the view and so their edges are ellipses and not radii. Again, that will produce different slicing. A round Tee would not have the problem since no matter how you view it from the side, the top edge and the bottom edge would always be equidistant from the point rather than some trig function introduced by the unequal number of sides. So I don't see any bias, just Cura slicing the part as you presented it. Here are those same models but viewed from the top. They appear to have switched but it's just a question of orientation of the parts when sliced. Either that or once again I've over-thought something and I'm totally wrong. More coffee might help.

When the nozzle oozes on long travel moves prior to starting the outer wall extrusion then it can take a few mm's of movement before the pressure comes up in the nozzle. The coasting setting can make it worse. The problem can really show up on horseshoe shaped objects as the nozzle has to travel a long way on a combing move to avoid jumping across the gap. If you aren't using Z-hops then there is a post-processor called Retract Continue that spreads the retraction across the travel moves instead of pulling the filament back and then traveling. It might help. One of the new settings in 5.0 is to print the walls "Outside to Inside" and it is the default. With the outer wall first after a long combing move the initial low pressure problem is visible so try setting it to "Inside to Outside. If the problem occurs on an inside wall then it usually get hidden by the outside wall.

There was at least one printer definition file that had the Support Wall Count and the Support Density set to "0" if tree supports were selected. If a user would switch to tree supports the settings would go to zero and there would be no tree - just the brim. What printer do you have? I can't remember which one had the problem.

The winding of the extrusion around the center is pretty typical for unsupported "roofs". The formula for the max unsupported angle is: 90°-ArcTangent(LayerHeight/LineWidth) = Max Angle with No Support. At any angle greater than that the width between layer steps is greater than your line width and so lines of extrusions of one layer cannot connect/bond to the layer below. Since they aren't bonded to the previous layer the extrusion can't stay where it belongs and instead it gets pulled by the nozzle in a straight line. That pulls the the extrusion towards the center and you get what you got. There is a slight change that the wall ordering of "Inside to Outside" might help that, but really - unsupported really doesn't work. Here is a project file. It's just some changes I put together in an effort to get the middle wall to show up, and to support the roof. No guarantees it's what you want of course, but I'm trying. EDIT: This just occurred to me. If you were to slice the model at 100% flow then the toolpaths are more in line with what you want. After generating the Gcode you could insert an M221 S50 line at the start of "Layer:0", an M221 S45 line at the start of "Layer:1" and an M221 S100 at the end of the print (to re-set the flow rate for the next print). That might work nicely. GV_Nose_Cone_Curav5.3mf

There are a couple of firmware flavors that use G162 to home to maximum. If the values on the LCD are the max bed size at the home position (in the right rear) then 0,0,0 should be the left front. That also implies that Origin at Center in the Cura machine settings should not be checked. A simple gcode file like G28 G0 Z10 F300 G0 X0 Y0 F3000 G0 X220 G0 Y110 G0 X0 G0 Y0 Should auto-home, move up, move diagonally to the left front, then move to the other three corners and end up back at the left front.

News. I ordered the boards on March 13 and with $0.20 shipping they showed up today. Installation may be tomorrows project. The printer is due for a regular maintenance anyway.

Newer printers put the gcode origin at the Home Offset position. Most rectangular (cartesian) printers have the origin at the left front corner. A possibility is that the printer you are setting up is an "Origin at Center" machine. In that case you would need to check the box in Cura's Machine Settings. When you "Auto-Home" the printer- where does it go(?) and what does the printer display show as the location of the Auto-Home position? You can open NotePad and put in a short set of commands, save it as a gcode file and print it. Where the print head ends up will be a telling clue. G28 ;AutoHome G1 Z10 F300 ;Move up G1 X0 Y0 F3000 ;Move to the XY origin

@milcent This looked like an opportunity to play around with the new wall settings. What it looks like to me (as @ahoeben mentioned) it's about the flow. After slicing the project with your settings I moved all the flows up to 100% to make a comparison. For the lower layers there is no room for the middle wall line. Higher up when the slicing creates wider spaces between the inside surface of the model and the outside surface of the model, then Infill is introduced but still no middle wall. I cleared the build plate and started over. After fooling around some more I found that the "Add Middle Line Threshold" at 20% allowed Cura to add the center wall above the step that occurs in the model at layer 4. Lowering the setting further to 5% made the wall appear from the build plate up. Then I started thinking about that material. Since the filament is going to expand - do you really want the middle line? Going back to the preview with the flows at 100% there isn't room for the middle line. Maybe adding it will cause a problem similar in appearance to over-extrusion as you may be introducing more material than is necessary (although that flow of that middle line would be miniscule). Maybe a way to look at it is "Yeah, flow is at 45% but the 100% preview is what I'm really going to end up with because of the expansion." and looking at it that way the Preview you got with your settings in 5.0 may be what you want. Test prints would seem to be in order. I'm not a betting man but if I was I'd bet that stuff ain't cheap.

No applause unless it does actually work. It would be a shame for me to stand up to take a bow only to be hit in the head with a rotten tomato.

Bug reports go Here on GitHub. If you have a screenshot, cura.log file...something to help them troubleshoot the problem that would help.

You've gone way beyond me here. I try to keep it simple. I have custom materials that are set to what I actually print. Diameters, preferred temperatures, retraction settings, etc. I own 1 printer but I have 3 printers installed in Cura. If I'm printing PETG then I select my "PETG Ender 3 Pro". The difference is in the StartUp Gcode where the purge line speeds and flow have been adjusted for my preferences for PETG. There is also a "Search and Replace" that is specific to my retraction and retract distance for PETG. (Post-Processor plugins attach to the printer so that works). Then I have a Settings Profile for PETG that gives me my preferred speeds, flow rates, etc. I did the same thing for TPU. When I print it I use the "TPU Ender 3 Pro", my TPU Material, and my TPU Settings Profile. That has worked for me and it's easier for me to keep straight in my head. Any modifications I make during the course of a Cura session (things that are model specific) I either toss out when I'm done, or I save a Project File that will re-create everything I did. Because I load so many 3mf Project Files that were generated by other people (here and on GitHub) I found it necessary to have my own set of printer definition files that have my overrides so I have something to revert to if my installed definitions get overwritten. I've have my own simple "installer" that copies my files into any new installation of Cura. It's something that works for me and yes, there is some maintenance involved in doing that. Changing the FDMPrinter.def.json file will lead to BAD JU-JU down the road. I got caught in that trap once and it won't happen again.

Many (if not all) of the settings are contained in "fdmprinter.def.json". I'll use my Ender as an example as I'm most familiar with it. At the top of the creality_ender3pro.def.json file is a line "inherits": "creality_base",. OK I open creality_base.def.json and there is a line "inherits": "fdmprinter". Progress. So all the settings in the fdmprinter.def.json go to the creality_base file which is much smaller and where there is a section for "overrides". Any settings in the "fdm" file that don't fit the Creality line of printers get changed in the overrides section. The final file "creality_ender3pro.def.json" is specific to my printer and also has an overrides section. Those final overrides tweak the settings for my particular machine. The "kossel_mini.def.json" file has an overrides section. That is where you want to put your changes to settings. In line 1988 of fdmprinter.def.json you will find the section dealing with the infill types and yes the "default_value": "grid" is in there. If you were to add (properly formatted and punctuated) lines to the override section in your machine definition file: "infill": "infill_pattern": "default_value": "gyroid" Then when you start Cura it will be read in. I keep copies of my personalized Ender files in a folder and when I update Cura I overwrite the stock Cura files with my own files. So I can do things like add up to 4 extruders on any Creality printer because I've customized the creality_base.def.json file. I have my personalized Start and End gcodes in there as well. Those are "machine specific" things. If you changes are "preferences" (like Gyroid instead of Grid) then an easier way to do it is with Settings Profiles. When you have the settings in the Custom view then Profiles become available. Clicking on the active profile will open a drop down list and at the bottom are some options. One is "Create Profile from Current Settings/Overrides". Then you get to name it. I have one for PLA fast, PLA slow, PETG, and TPU. The speeds, temperatures, infill type, etc. are all in there. No matter how I make changes for a particular model if I click on PLA Fast I get that set of defaults and I can start customizing for another model. Those profiles carry over from version to version where custom machine definition changes do not.

I don't have a dual extruder. What I have is a virtual multiple extruder Ender 3 Pro in Cura that I school myself with. Playing around with it - this seems to work: (Extruder 1 is numbered as T0 in gcode and Extruder 2 is numbered as T1 in gcode.) With your model in the Cura workspace bring in a support blocker. Scale the blocker to cover the entire model in the XY. Scale the Z for however many layers you want Extruder 2 to print. Move the blocker into position around the model and set the Z height to the first layer you want Extruder 2 for. With the Blocker selected on screen - on the left side of the Cura screen select the circled "2" to set the blocker to Extruder 2. With the blocker still selected - use the "Per Model" tool (just above the support blocker tool) and set it to "Modify Settings for Overlaps" and then as a "Cutting Mesh". Now the blocker is considered a Mesh Modifier. Click on the Select Settings button in the Per Model dialog box. Select "Wall Count", "Top Layers", "Bottom Layers", and "Infill Density". Those settings should come in with numbers you entered in the main settings area on the right, but you can change them (like if you want more walls or something). You CANNOT change the Support Extruder so if the area covered by the Mesh Modifier contains support structure it will still be printed by Extruder 1. Slice the model. Whatever the color that Extruder 2 is set to in Cura should now be apparent in the preview and it should print like that. Below you can see a Mesh Modifier surrounding the model and the preview shows the area within it as a different color. This particular model has support running up through the Mesh Modifier and I think a prime tower is in order as it will need to change extruders twice per layer since Support was set to Extruder 1 in the main settings. The rest of the Dual Extrusion stuff you will need to figure out yourself. If you have a multiple-in-one-out hot end then you need to load the Printer Settings plugin and check the boxes for "Extruders Share Heater" and "Extruders Share Nozzle". I see there is a new setting in the Machine settings as well "Apply Extruder Offsets to Gcode". I don't know about that one and there isn't a tooltip yet, but it sounds like it's for a conventional dual extruder setup with separated hot ends and nozzles. Good Luck!

There are a couple of difficulties beyond the fact that Cura can't do an export like that. The gcode moves are all lines with no relation between them. A circle is comprised of a lot of very short lines and has no center point. You can read the gcode into Excel with a streamreader, or open the gcode in Excel as a delimited text file, but either way the data still needs to be parsed to pull the X Y Z numbers out. I have a couple of macros for analyzing gcode data but the main analysis tool I have is a macro for reading a gcode into AutoCad. Each layer is then a collection of lines that describe the geometry of the layer. All outside dimensions are 1/2 line width off from the actual model outer wall. That isn't a problem with something regular like a cube. If you were to slice 25mm cube with a .4 line width then the periphery of the lines would measure 24.6 x 24.6. (That's one of the reasons when re-creating a model from a gcode file is so time intensive.) Within a Cura gcode file there are "comments" that describe what the upcoming commands are for. If you were to limit yourself to "TYPE:OUTER-WALL" and within the Outer-Wall further limit yourself to G1 commands then that would be a start but an inside cavity would also have outer walls and would need to be subtracted from the area of the slice. Anyway, I don't see this happening with just Excel. Here is a gcode read into AutoCad (which by the way will start out reading and re-creating the file at around 1200lines of code/second but as the screen populates with more and more items then the data rate will fall to around 300 lines/second. It sounds like a lot until you realize the file is 1.7million lines long. Here is layer 161 of that file on the left, and on the right I copied over the Outer-Walls and the orange lines at an offset of .2mm to emulate the actual periphery of the model. Querying AutoCad for the area of the orange polygon returns the 147.142 I stuck in on the right.

Those bad corners are at the same end. They may be direction-of-travel specific. You can try mirroring the model and see if the problem moves to a different corner(?). I'm sticking with a mechanical problem for now. I'm not sure why or how, but it still looks like a problem in one axis. You can edit the gcode file with an M201 command to limit the Accel in either the X or Y. I don't know what your settings for Acceleration are but something like "M201 X1000 Y250" before the first layer would limit the Y axis while leaving the X alone. Then at layer 25 (or whatever) you could switch it with "M201 X250 Y1000" and see if there is a difference. As I recall the Anet A8 is a bed slinger and on those types of machines (like my Ender 3 Pro) it can sometimes be an issue. If I'm printing a tall skinny model I often limit the Y accel above about 150mm or the model can be toppled by the bed movement.

I have noted a slight difference but I think it is mostly aesthetics. I have made a local change and made "Inside-Outside" the default. It is one less adjustment that I have to make. It will be nice to get the dialog boxes working as they should but as to the internal changes to the slicing, it looks good to me.

I didn't know that. I suppose I must have always had something to pass along. @fvrmr is there something the OP can do or that you can help with? Looks to be a non-install because of the "Looking for OpenGL 2.0" thing (#11856?). @kallend I'm pretty sure nothing will happen until Monday.

MS 3D Builder was able to repair it also. Since it's for a good cause here is your graduation present. The support blocker is configured as a cutting mesh to keep all the little things that don't print well from printing at all. I think it would look pretty good in Silky Gold filament. GV_Sax.3mf

Well this would do it... -> Analyzed your file: --> 2041 Naked edges (?) --> 35 Planar holes (?) --> 91 Non-planar holes (?) --> 1 Non-manifold edges (?) --> 51 Inverted faces (?) --> 0 Degenerate faces (?) --> 2 Duplicate faces (?) --> 0 Disjoint shells (?) -> Vertex count changed from 39462 to 48011 (+8549) -> Triangle count changed from 76715 to 97056 (+20341) The web service was able to repair it. Whether it's right or not I don't know. Your model is on the right. The pink areas indicate errors. You won't print this with a .4 nozzle at 100% scale. You would need to go to 200% to have a chance and the line width would need to be .35. A .2 nozzle would be a better choice at full scale. Some of the supports would be difficult to remove without trashing the print.

When I first installed 5.0 I had problems with a glitch between 5.0 and my video system (Intel HD 4000). @ahoeben was able to chase it down and put a fix in. I'm sure when they get back to work on Monday this will get looked at. In the meantime could you report this on GitHub? There have been bug reports for this happening on some Linux systems but I don't think a Windows bug report has been made yet.

@sierradays your not giving us much to work with here. What printer is that? What do you want to set back to "default" factory settings? Cura? The printer? With your model in Cura and the settings the way you like - use the "File | Save Project" command and create a 3mf project file. Post the 3mf file here.

Here is a different shape to try. At least it will be something different to look at and it has different types of moves. You can scale it in the Z to 5mm tall (or something) so you don't have to use as much filament. Printing it in vase mode is also an option. GVCalibration_Shape.stl