GregValiant

There are things in your settings I would do differently, but they are just personal preference. Nothing sticks out as interfering with other settings. While I was sitting here watching my machine come to a color change I played with your model. Again, it's just personal preferences but it's how I would do it. GV_InnerSkeletonV1.3mf

No, the problem occurs well off the bed. Do you have combiing or coasting enabled? It looks like it might be having trouble getting the extrusion to start when it comes around that bad corner. If you could use File | Save Project and post the 3mf file that would be good.

The platforms are usually 3mf files and are located in "...\Ultimaker Cura 4.x.x\resources\meshes" so copy your platform file to that folder (you may have to translate it to a 3mf format). In your machine definition file in "...\Ultimaker Cura 4.x.x\resources\definitions\geeetech_A20T.def.json" (open with Notepad or any text editor) there is a "Metadata" section. Add: "platform": "geeetech_a30s_platform.stl" which will be the name of the file you want to see as a platform. Take care to watch your punctuation. Since you based your machine on the 20T definition that's the file you need to change. I think that's all you need to do.

No, you didn't miss a tool. Rotation with snap off can't be recovered from (there is a GitHub request for a textbox so a person could enter an angle instead of using the grips, but it is deferred). What you can do is select the model, right click and "Reset all model Transformations". That sets it back to the original orientation. "Also, I’m puzzled why there is still no specific profile for the Ender 3 V2?" It would be impossible for Ultimaker to write profiles for other manufacturers printers. They would have to buy at least one of each machine, and upgrade them as a manufacturers made changes. That would be really dumb for a company that manufactures and sells it's own printers. So a printer company like Creality contracts with a third party ("Trouch.com" for Creality printers) to develop the printer definitions, extruder definitions, and base meshes (like the Ender logo that appears on the bed in Cura). That third party submits the definition to Ultimaker for inclusion in Cura. Ultimaker is gracious enough to include it. A lot of people seem to equate "Open Source" with "Non-Profit" but it isn't true. The "clip areas" are just rectangles across the front and the back. You can't put a clip near the wire attachment point of the bed but it is included in the disallowed area. The file you need to alter is "Creality_Ender3.def.json" and is in the Ultimaker program folder "...\resources\definitions" and is a text file so you can open it with any text editor (like Notepad). The Overrides section looks like this (when altered for my use): "overrides": { "machine_name": { "default_value": "Creality Ender-3" }, "machine_width": { "default_value": 230 }, "machine_depth": { "default_value": 230 }, "machine_height": { "default_value": 240 }, "machine_disallowed_areas": { "default_value": [ [[-115, 115], [-115, 115], [115, 115], [115, 115]], [[-115, -115], [-115, -115], [115, -115], [115, -115]] ]}, Because I have my bed defined as 230 x 230 (useable area) I changed all the numbers in the disallowed area to 1/2 of 230. Now the disallowed areas are of zero width and effectively disappear. The stock file has "117.5"'s and "108"'s to define the disallowed areas. Change all the 108's to 117.5's leaving the negative signs in place. I had to share the folder with myself to be able to save the file. (Python is fussy about punctuation placement so I just changed the numbers instead of deleting the section. It worked.) @gr5 is a moderator here and has put together a VIDEO regarding bed adhesion. It is longish but covers a lot of material.

I believe Cura does automatic port polling to find which port is connected to "something". The baud rate and other port settings are also automatic. That means there is no manual control of a port. The USB Printing function of Cura has not been maintained or updated because no Ultimaker printers use it. With the printer turned on and the USB cord connected to that same COM5 port then Cura should find the printer. If you are trying to connect both the Ender and the Sidewinder at the same time - I don't know if that would work. Cura might just find the first printer it comes to and say "good enough". My Win10 laptop will configure any USB port I connect to the printer with the CH340 driver. My Win7 desktop only connects if I use a specific USB port.

Not Cura - Creality. Creality calls it a 220 x 220 build surface and that's what "Trouch.Com" (the developer of the Creality printer definition files) put in for all the Ender 3's. In addition, there are "disallowed areas" defined for the clips that hold the glass down (there were on my Ender 3 Pro). Another thing that affects the size is skirts and brims. If you look you will see that on the left and right of your Cura build surface there are lighter gray areas. Those are there because you have a skirt or brim defined and Cura is reserving those areas. In the front and back you see darker gray areas that are defined as "disallowed areas" in your printer definition file and are not affected by skirt and brim settings. In Printer Settings set the X width and Y depth to 230. On the printer use the LCD to Auto-Home and then move the nozzle to a point 2.5mm in from the left edge and 2.5mm in from the front edge of the build surface (close is good enough) and at Z=0. Select "Set Home Offset" and then "Save Settings" on the LCD. In Cura - if you set the Build Plate Adhesion to Skirt and make it 1 loop and 1mm from the part it should then fit on your build surface. If you rotate the part 45° it may fit on your build surface. In the Creality_Ender3.def.json file you will see this: "machine_disallowed_areas": { "default_value": [ [[-117.5, 117.5], [-117.5, 108], [117.5, 108], [117.5, 117.5]], [[-117.5, -108], [-117.5, -117.5], [117.5, -117.5], [117.5, -108]] That defines the darker areas on the front and rear of the Cura build plate but they don't extend up the sides because you can't put clips there. You must alter that file to get rid of the clip areas.

Cura shows the "Not Watertight" warning immediately upon opening the STL. Cura is attempting to build two outer walls in that area. Either a wall is flipped and faces the wrong way, or the model was created with the cross piece line-to-line with the peripheral piece. The model is 4 pieces that almost connect together. The picture below is the first layer with Initial Layer Horizontal Expansion set to -.10. You can see numerous holes around the peripheral piece as well. That's a bad model. Cura's Mesh Tool is unable to fix it. Here is the same model after being repaired at Service.Netfabb.com. This will print, but I would set Initial Layer Horizontal Expansion to 0. There are still some errors at higher layers. Bad model. Attached is the STL of the repaired model. 1609520774_cortanteflorcapsula1_fixed.stl

If the layer number for that area is correct then the gcode will be correct. The problem is with the preview display, but not the slicing. Sometimes if Cura is shut down and restarted that bug goes away. I believe the bug has been reported on GitHub as well as here.

What material? What printer? What build surface? Are you using anything to promote adhesion to the build surface? What temperatures are you printing at? Are there any drafts (heat or air conditioner outlets) around the printer? Are you printing in an enclosure? If you will use "File | Save Project" in Cura and post the 3mf file here it will contain your settings.

The Xmin and Ymin are print head settings. They are used when printing One at a Time so Cura knows where the crash points are around the nozzle. In those settings the zero is the centerline of the nozzle. Gantry height is the distance from the build plate to the x beam that the print head travels on. Don't worry about those right now as they aren't involved. On the left side of that dialog under Printer / Printer Settings you have the "X (Width)" as 220 and "Y (Depth)" as 120. If that is the measurement of your build plate that's fine. Auto-Home the print head. Where is the nozzle in relation to the left front corner of the build plate? Use the LCD Movement controls and move the nozzle until it is directly over the left front corner and at a Z of 0. Then find "set home offset" on the LCD menu and click it. Then find "Save Settings" on the LCD and click it. When the machine auto-homes it will go to the switches. When you tell it to go to 0,0,0 it will go to the left front corner.

OK. Here we go. Virtual vs Real vs Useable Over there is a computer with Cura loaded. When you tell Cura the "Useable" build plate size in Machine Settings then Cura sets it's virtual build plate to that size. X0 Y0 is exactly at the left front corner (assuming it is not a Center Origin machine). On the other side of the room is a 3d printer. Neither the printer nor Cura know where the build plate is. When you Auto-Home the printer it goes to the switches. The printer now knows where the print head is. You need to tell it where the build plate is. When you set the Home Offsets you are telling the printer where a certain X and Y will be over the build plate. When you level the bed (set the Z gap) you are telling the printer where Z is. So now the printer has a second X0 Y0 Z0 that it uses to locate the virtual build plate from Cura gcode. The gcode 0,0,0 will be related to the Home Offset 0,0,0 and the print will show up on the bed and it will be centered. "Useable Area" The bed has areas that shouldn't be used. My plate is physically 235 x 235 but it has a 1mm bevel all around. Now it's 233 x 233. I add another 1.5mm all around as a safety and that makes my "Useable Area" 230 x 230 with a border of 2.5mm all around. So I use the LCD button and move my nozzle to a point 2.5mm in from the left edge and 2.5mm in from the front edge (my border dimensions) and at a Z of 0 and set the Home Offset at that location. This is where the 0,0,0 of a gcode file will be placed. I set my build plate X and Y size in Cura to 230 x 230 since that is all I want to use so it is my Useable Area. The X and Y coordinates of the Absolute 0,0,0 have now been altered. When I Auto-Home - the LCD shows the location of the Auto-Home position as measured from the Home Offset 0,0,0. That's why there are often negative values when at the Auto-Home location. If you were to have X10 Y10 Z10 as the Home Offset then the print would shift 10mm to the left and 10mm towards the operator and be 10mm below the build plate. Not good. If the Home Offsets were X-5 Y-5 Z-5 then the print would shift 5mm to the right and 5mm away from the operator and would print 5mm above the build plate. I hope some of that makes sense.

You didn't mention your printer. My Creality machine has an End G-Code that Cura inserts at the end of any gcode file. I would make an adjustment there. If you have an Ultimaker printer you might still get it to work. An option would be to add it manually to the end of a gcode file. There will be a line "M140 S0" that turns the bed off. Comment that out and put the following at the end where it will execute last. I'm assuming a bed temperature of 60°. ;M140 S0 ;Add a semi-colon to make the line a comment M190 R60 G4 S3000 M190 R50 G4 S3000 M190 R40 G4 S3000 M190 R30 G4 S3000 M140 S0 The M190 R tells the printer to wait until the bed cools to the indicated temperature. The G4 command is "dwell" and the S is in seconds. The above snippet sets the bed to 60 and waits for it to get there, then pauses for 5 minutes, sets the bed to 50, waits to get there, and then pauses for 5 minutes, etc. It shows 10° steps and 5 minute dwells. You could adjust the number of steps, the degrees / step that the temp falls, and/or the dwell time between steps. Don't allow drafts on the part. I would still consider a cover because the top of the part will want to cool first. The plan is to allow any stresses to relax at the same rate so no one area will pull at another area.

Just thinking here. IdeaMaker reported "14 non-manifold edges". If we consider them gaps where triangles come together, then scaling the model down narrows those gaps. Maybe it narrows them enough that the gap falls below some threshold in Cura and they become too small to notice? I did a quick test and scaled the original model up by 140%. I still can't reproduce the extra surface though. It was a nice theory until reality got in the way.

It's PLA and typically the shrink % is pretty low, but it isn't 0. The shrinkage is affected by cross-section, variations in thickness, uneven cooling, moisture content, and other factors. PLA suffers from cold flow deformation at fairly low temps. Maybe you could use that to "anneal" it. It would require some experimentation but If you were to put one of your finished parts on a flat hot plate, cover it, and bring it up to say 120°C(?) slow enough so that it heats evenly, and then turn the temperature down over the course of some period of time (an hour?) so that it cools evenly, you may get the part to "relax" onto the flat plate. Be advised that starting at too high of a temperature could turn your nice part into a puddle of PLA possibly causing you some personal embarrassment among your co-workers.

I made a feature request back in April of last year. It was deferred. You could push it forward again. I still think it would be a good idea.

Yeah. If it isn't reproduceable (and I can't) then the Cura team won't be able to do anything with it. I think there is something going on with the model and maybe with your install of Cura. Not being able to put a finger on the problem makes troubleshooting impossible and we're left with what I'm doing which is guessing.

Not back side, the top edge of your photo. Without a file or something to look at (other than a photo) it would just be guessing.

"Looks ok so far." - Said the guy that jumped off the skyscraper as he passed the 10th floor. This is the back side of the print from your image. Something is going on because nothing is welded together. It's just a bunch of lines. It's really easy to see the layer below the top layer.

That looks seriously under-extruded. Use File | Save Project and post the resulting 3mf file here along with that gcode file. What printer is that?

Post that gcode file and someone will take a look. You could open the Gcode file in Cura and see how it looks as well. Cura uses a separate program to read in a gcode file so it wouldn't involve the slicer side. 4.9 seems to be having issues, but this sort of thing isn't one of them. (Of course you could always be the first!) Have you tried any other prints from earlier gcode files since you noted the problem?

If you will use File | Save Project and post the 3mf file somebody will take a look. If you can't post that model (if proprietary) it can be a similar model - but it must have the settings for the problem model and with the mesh modifier set up the same way.

As gr5 says...until Longer3D puts some profiles together and submits them to Ultimaker/Cura, there probably won't be one. My own printer is an Ender 3 Pro and the definition file was written by "Trouch.com" who I suppose was contracted by Creality to write the definition files for all their printer models. This is from the Longer3d site: Add Longer 3d printers into Cura 4.8 and 4.9(WINDOWS). I didn't view it but according to the title the video would seem to cover the topic.

If you would use "File | Save Project" and post a 3mf file here someone will take a look. The usual suspects are: "Combing" (long moves allow the nozzle to ooze and loose pressure and any Prime is insufficient). "Coasting" (pressure is allowed to fall by design and there is a slight lag when extrusion re-starts).

There are a lot of comments about slicing problems with 4.9 on GitHub. I'm sure the Cura team is working on the situation. In the meantime, load a model and use "File | Save Project" and post the resultant 3mf file here. Then go to "C:\Users\...\AppData\Roaming\cura\4.9" you will see the Cura.log file. Post the log file here as well. The Cura team will need something to work with to find and fix the problem and more information is better. I know it won't make you feel any better but I'm not having any problems on my Win10 machine so not everything is broken. Hopefully whatever is wrong will be easy for the team to find. Edit: Perfect. Hopefully all will be resolved as well.

"There's a good chance this is a non-issue for them." I would hope so. But it only takes one person to wreck something for everyone else. It could be well-intentioned too. Having a backup copy of the firmware handy is a good plan.