GregValiant

The model is not watertight and so you will get some weirdness. Your bottom layer pattern is set to Concentric but since it is only 1 layer thick, and since you asked for "1 Top Surface Skin" then Cura made most of the rectangular part "Lines" as part of a Top surface, but since the other areas are thicker they were actually a bottom layer and so are Concentric. Cura put down the Lines first and then would go back and fill in the Concentric areas. At least that's what I think is happening. At any rate, if you change the Top Surface Skin = 0 I think you will see the change it makes. Alternatively you can make both the top and bottom either Lines or Concentric. The fact that they are different and that the outside area is 1 layer thick is affecting the print pattern.

In the Prepare screen - click on your printer name, then Manage Printers and then Machine Settings. Start and end gcodes are at the bottom. I usually have to stretch the dialog box vertically so I can see it all.

C'mon Man... They sell the aluminum replacements at a premium. Everybody who buys any Ender model or a CR10 ends up paying more because they must replace the arm and that replacement is always sooner and never later.

Well AHoeben nailed it. When the warning comes up indicating that a model "isn't watertight" then usually the model needs to be repaired. There are some models that will slice with errors but those errors can cause Cura to become confused and make mistakes. If you haven't done so - you can load Mesh Tools from the Cura Marketplace. In this case it couldn't repair the model but it did point to problems. I used https://formware.co/OnlineStlRepair for the repair. Here is the report: -> Analysed your file: --> 5312 Naked edges (?) --> 66 Planar holes (?) --> 0 Non-planar holes (?) --> 0 Non-manifold edges (?) --> 0 Inverted faces (?) --> 0 Degenerate faces (?) --> 0 Duplicate faces (?) --> 0 Disjoint shells (?) -> Repairing: 100.00% ----- Repair completed in 43592ms ------ -> Vertex count changed from 34504 to 34440 (-64) -> Triangle count changed from 64920 to 68944 (+4024) Here is your model before the repair. You can see that the top surface is an error and when I opened it the warning came up. Here is the repaired model sliced in 4.12.1. Much better. FYI MS 3D Builder repaired it as well. 6.6mmdiaholes_fixed.stl

Yeah as Smithy says, once it's cool it should come off. I'm not an Ultimaker guy but provided the glass comes out you can stick the glass with the part on it into your refrigerator to hurry things along. Then it's just an edge tap or two with a thin putty knife or a spatula.

The winner of the "Worst Extruder Arm from Creality" contest is over on Reddit. It was broken right out of the box. That's an incredible "Mean Time Between Failure" rate of 0.00000.

From what I see in the gcode from your 3mf file that shouldn't print at all. Your starting gcode is just enough to keep Cura from adding the temperatures. The results are this: ;Generated with Cura_SteamEngine 4.12.1 M82 ;absolute extrusion mode START_PRINT BED_TEMP=80 EXTRUDER_TEMP=235 G92 E0 G92 E0 G1 F2400 E-6.5 ;LAYER_COUNT:25 ;LAYER:0 M107 G0 F12000 X95.924 Y95.614 Z0.2 ;TYPE:SKIRT G1 F2400 E0 G1 F1500 X96.458 Y95.173 E0.0254 That says the first extrusion is happening with a cold nozzle and cold bed and no homing. How are you handling all of that? Are you printing via Octoprint or something? When you vary the line width like you are then the flow rate through the nozzle varies. That causes varying pressure in the nozzle. On a personal note - I never use Retract Before Outer Wall or Retract at Layer Change as I have found them to cause under-extrusion at the start of a layer. On a small part like you have there it may not be the issue, but on large parts that can have a lot of travel before the start of a layer I have found it can have negative effects. For reference my printer is an Ender 3 Pro and my StartUp Gcode is vastly different than yours.

With your model loaded and Cura set up to slice - Under the "File" menu is "Save Project". Use that and post the 3mf file here and someone will take a look. Off the top of my head and from far away it could be a couple of things like Retract at Layer Change, Retract before Outer Wall, or it could be that your retract speed is slow and so the retract and prime are taking too long. The 3mf file is the best to troubleshoot with as it will have your printer, settings, and the model in it.

I used your settings and then turned on Adaptive Layers. I thought it looked better. One problem is the model. The outside ring around "Army Catering Corps" is 3.13mm tall on the left and 2.65mm tall on the right. It's not quite as bad top to bottom, but the difference from left to right is about 3 layers. Because that top face is on an angle compared to the bottom surface it will be tough to get it to slice nice. Angled surfaces means there will be steps. Looking at the Cura preview with adaptive layers turned on gave me the clue to look further. There are circles but they aren't centered on the medal. You can make small angle adjustments using Microsoft 3D Builder and I think that's what it needs. Rotate the part a little bit to make the top of that outside ring square to the world, and then when you bring it into Cura sink it into the build plate .5mm or something to get rid of the angle that you now have on the bottom of the piece. I also used MS 3D Builder to repair the model. There may have been a couple of small defects but it wasn't much. The repaired file is 1mb larger though. The triangles that make up that file are very small. That gives it a nice finish but makes for large file size. Maybe simplifying the model would help as well. There is software that can do that. Maybe @gr5 can suggest something. I hope that's clear (probably like mud) but even if it isn't - Happy Thanksgiving from sunny Florida. Here. I played some more. It takes a while to slice. Greg_ARMYCATERINGCORPS.3mf

The green lines are inner walls and the red lines are outer walls. They always follow the outside boundary of the part. The yellow lines are Top skins. You can change the Top/Bottom pattern from Lines to Concentric but they won't be concentric to the center of the medallion but rather they will be concentric to the shape of the walls. Switch to concentric and you will see what I mean. You could try upping the wall count to a high number and see how it looks. You can also play with Extra Skin Wall Count and see if it helps. Areas of infill would have "Wall Count" number of walls and areas of skin would have "Wall Count + Extra Skin Wall Count" number of walls. Another idea is to change the Top/Bottom line directions. It looks like you have the default [45,135] which is displayed as empty brackets ( [] ). If you were to change that to [0] then all the top skins would print in the same direction. Right now it looks like a couple of layers visible tops are at 45° and others are at 135°. As an aside - If I have to rotate a model 45° in Cura for some reason, I usually change the skin line directions to [0,90] so they don't run parallel to the walls. With all the tops running in the same direction you might do some good by enabling Ironing. He doesn't come to this part of the forum much, but if you go to the "What have you made" forum and look for a user that goes by Cloakfiend you will see what he has accomplished with plating of 3D prints.

I have no idea what might have happened to cause all that. There are some basic things to check. Check the Z switch and it's wires. When the X beam lowers it should hit the switch and the switch tells the processor it can stop moving the Z. You can take the build plate off or raise the Z switch and try to get the Z stop function working without smashing up the machine. If the Z switch is faulty then you can try swapping it with the X or Y switch (they are often the same model switch). Going beyond that there are things like a firmware factory reset, but really, the X beam shouldn't be able to go low enough to drive the nozzle into bed. That's the whole purpose of the limit switch there. The Auto-Home routine is a macro in the printer memory. The speeds and so forth are in there as settings and the Z should move slowly. If it isn't moving at like 10 or 15 mm/sec then maybe it is a firmware glitch. To perform a factory reset - write down your personal settings (Home Offsets, PID, steps/mm, etc.) and then send M502 (or print a one line gcode file consisting of M502) and then re-enter your personal settings and then Save Settings on the LCD. It might make a difference. When one problem is camouflaging another then that second (or third) problem down can be tough to locate.

Please don't do that. Over time, it will disappear on it's own. Trust me on this.

Well, the 3mf is 134mb and when it finally opened there was no model. The file may have become corrupted. You can try making a 3mf again, or post the STL file.

I'm still using my old Mechanical Desktop (father of Inventor) and it also does a fine job creating STL's. Looking closely I see that Cura has decided that the path that creates the apex of the point should be a short line segment. It builds on that segment and that's what we see regarding the inner walls. This makes the "Wall Thickness" nearly correct off the point. PrusaSlicer is extending the walls rather than truncating it's movement. If you were to decrease the angle, you would see the PrusaSlicer paths extend further and further from the point. So the Wall Thickness off the point would increase. I think Cura is being more accurate. If we view the Prusaslicer paths we see this: The dimensions indicate "Wall Thickness". I think it is clear that the black dimensions indicate a true wall thickness and that the yellow dimension is a trig function of the angle. Looking at Cura paths they appear to maintain the Wall Thickness about the point. Doing a line study on a 15° angle I get this. The white lines to the right are the part and the white lines extending left indicate walls 1.2mm thick. The Cura path (red lines) leaves a wall off the point of 1.77mm where the (suspected) Prusa paths (cyan lines) leave a wall 9.19 thick off the point. Thinking about that - I decided to go a bit further. Here is a part with the angles lowered to 15° and sliced with Prusaslicer. It looks much like what your larger angle sliced like in Cura. My guess is that the angle has gone below some threshold in PrusaSlicer maybe to maintain the accuracy of the wall thickness off the point. Since I'm just a user and unfamiliar with what actually goes on inside Cura I can't tell if my wonderful logic is actually true. I don't generally speculate, but in this case I thought I'd throw my thoughts out there. @ghostkeeper and @ahoeben are two of the real "nuts and bolts" guys of Cura. Maybe they would have a take on this?

Noise is usually a combination of the stepper drivers (stepper whine) and cheap fans. I swapped all the fans out on my Ender and with decent quality ball bearing fans it's a lot quieter.

I just saw your post. Have you fixed the problem? Usually it happens because something is crooked on the printer.

I'm not sure if it would be easier than hand editing but the Search and Replace plugin can add multiple commands when you separate each command with "\n" (backslash+n) For example: You see in the Cura preview that you want 100% fan for layer 125. (Remembering that Cura uses base 1 numbering for layers and Gcode uses base 0 and that fans are PWM) a Search and Replace instance would be configured to: Search = ;LAYER:124 Replace = ;Layer:124\nM106 S255 That would result in your gcode looking like: ;LAYER:124 M106 S255 Additional Search and Replace instances could turn the fan off or whatever. Layer numbers are consistent and easy to search for. You don't have to put the layer number back in during the replacement, but it makes it easier to check that the process worked. I put in a request over on Github for a new feature to add a cooling profile. IdeaMaker has it and I've written my own post-processor to do the same thing. I think it would be handy (I almost typed "cool" but that would have been a terrible pun). I don't code in Python (and have no intention of learning how) so we'll see if somebody picks up the ball on that.

There is a plugin for "Cylindric Custom Support" and it includes cylindrical tubes. I find that plugin to be clumsy to use. For fully custom supports you would need to design them in a cad program. At times I have designed easy to remove features into my part so they would be the support structure.

Welcome from wet Florida. If you are referring to the white line - it is the Z seam. it marks the beginning and end of the outer wall extrusion. There is always a Z seam. Cura has options to move it around and it can be hidden in corners on a part with corners. On a round part there are really just two options. The seam can be "random" (which results in little blobs all-around the part) or you can designate a "location" in which case the Z seam is a line (but is easier to sand off). Because your part is threaded you would need to make a choice. A triangle file will remove a "line" very easily from male threads. "Random" doesn't require any post-process of the print but will make the threads slightly larger and may cause issues with the fit between male and female threads. You can make adjustments to things like outer wall wipe distance or try Coasting (which can have secondary effects) to alter the size of the bump, but there is always a Z seam. Previous versions of Cura didn't highlight it.

Set Cura up with the model and your settings and then use "File | Save Project" and post the 3mf file here. Off the top of my head (and from far away) that looks like a candidate for Tree Support. I'd want to play with the settings though. Sometimes it's the XY distance or you need to enable Z overrides XY. Those tall skinny supports won't complete and whatever they are suppose to support will fail.

There isn't any problem within the gcode files. No G2 or G3 moves, no weird movement away from the part. The first image is the "Body_back" file read into AutoCad. The green line at the top is the wipeout move that is in your End Gcode and the magenta line coming from the lower left is the first travel after the purge lines. (The magenta lines filling the part are the travel moves.) I read in the other two files as well and they show the same lack of a problem. No moves outside of the part. Here is the Front part with the travel lines turned off. The fact that the PrusaSlicer files print OK is odd. If not for that, I'd say the most likely possibilities are: 1) Octoprint has something enabled in it's setup that is interfering. One way to check is to bypass Octoprint and print from the SD card. If Octoprint is somehow dropping lines or characters or is causing buffer over-runs then the printer will act oddly. The printer just goes where it's told. 2) The firmware in your Ender has gotten boogered. I've had to do a reset on my 3 Pro a couple of times as the firmware just got weird. If you write down your PID, Home Offsets, steps/mm, etc. then you can send M502 to the printer and it will re-set the firmware back to factory defaults. Then re-enter your settings and then "Save Settings". 3) I'm not sure how you have your Ender configured but the line "M117 Autobots! Roll Out!" can cause a problem if you are using Decepticon firmware. As an aside - those are tough models to print without support.

Sorry about my answer in English. When a part slices differently dependent on where or how it's located on the build plate then my experience is that the problem is always in the part. I used both MS 3D Builder and https://formware.co/OnlineStlRepair for repairs and both repaired parts sliced OK. Attached is the one from the OnlineStlRepair site. Here is the report from the repair site: -> Analysed your file: --> 0 Naked edges (?) --> 0 Planar holes (?) --> 0 Non-planar holes (?) --> 0 Non-manifold edges (?) --> 0 Inverted faces (?) --> 0 Degenerate faces (?) --> 0 Duplicate faces (?) --> 0 Disjoint shells (?) -> Repairing: 100.00% ----- Repair completed in 403ms ------ -> Vertex count changed from 1447 to 1512 (+65) -> Triangle count changed from 2890 to 3020 (+130) CuraBadPart_fixed.stl

I have no idea why that happened but I thought I'd give you an award for showing up with the weirdest problem I've seen in a while.

There was a SnapMaker post yesterday over on Github. There is an error in the base Snapmaker definition file "snapmaker2.def.json" that affects your StartUp G-Code. Click on your printer name and "manage printers" and then "machine settings". Within your Startup Gcode are four temperature lines with Cura Keywords inside curly brackets. "{material_bed_temperature}" and "{material_print_temperature}". Those are wrong. They should say: "{material_bed_temperature_layer_0}" "{material_print_temperature_layer_0}" Without the "_layer_0" portion, if you use different initial layer temperatures for the bed and/or hot end they get ignored. (The underscore characters are required.)

I got the 3mf file. Could you post one of the "bad" gcode files? I'll take a look at it later and see if there is anything odd in it.