GregValiant
-
Posts
5,207 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
213
Content Type
Forums
Events
3D Prints
Posts posted by GregValiant
-
-
One by one is better but this is a frustrating hobby and the impulse to just start changing things can overwhelm. When the machine is working correctly, and you've got the feel for leveling, the filament is fresh, the first layers go down like they were ironed on, it's all good. Then the nozzle hits a lip and pushes the print and breaks it loose. Oh well.
Thick first layers take care of things like slight variations in the surface and being slightly off on leveling. At the start of the second layer the build surface is pretty darn flat and level. Glad to see you are getting a handle on it. It took me a couple of months to get a routine down. Now it's all automatic. Occasionally a first layer might lift. Then it's a quick abort and a fresh start. Remember to practice emergency pauses and restarts. It's something a bad first layer or the end of a filament spool can be used for.
-
The best way to check is to adjust the flow during a print using the LCD control. Once you get it dialed in to an acceptable percentage then you can change all the flow settings in Cura to that number, and save it as your PETG profile.
II don't know if it's a slightly different diameter of filament, different coefficient of expansion, or what it is but there is an effect there that makes it different than PLA.
-
gr5 - please forgive my snickerin'. It was totally unintentional I assure you.
-
1
-
-
I don't get that when I slice the part. Opening the 3mf file, "Generate Support" is de-selected as it should be. All those vertical rods "print as support" and they don't appear in the overlap areas.
This is a very difficult part and will take 33 hours to print as you have it configured. In the upper jaw area between the "teeth" you can see in the preview that each layer will be printing in air until it gets to the next tooth. Not good. At the midpoint of the "brow" above the eye slot, the print starts in the center and prints in the air until it gets to your next support. There is no question of "IF" it's going to fail there...it is going to fail there.
I know you have a lot of work into your custom supports. Now that you have the 3mf file with a full record of all that work, try going back to just the STL and use the Cura supports. Tree supports take a long time to process but they don't tend to grow on the part. You are going to have a lot of benchwork where the print touches the support interfaces. Tree supports will eliminate the need to sand and finish any areas where the support might have grown on the print itself. Additionally, tall thin structures (like your custom support rods) are prone to failure. You are going to have a lot of time into this. Avoiding the heartbreak of a failure on such a large part should be your primary concerns.
Here you can see that tree supports hold up the overhang. Yes, it's going to take 48 hours to print. Yes you are going to throw away a lot of plastic support material. But the odds of having to throw away the part along with the support material is way lower.
In the attached 3mf file, I raised the part a couple of mm off the build plate to get some structure under the chin. That's why the photos show different layer numbers for the same area. I'm not suggesting you have to print it like that. Look at it as an option and change settings to see if you get something doable.
-
If it's a brand new model then it's likely no one has submitted a definition file to the Ultimaker Cura Team. If you happen to know what other Anycubic printer it's close to then you can load that one, change the name, adjust the bed size, etc. If you get the Gcode flavor correct ("RepRap (Marlin/Sprinter)" is common among Anycubic printers) then the rest is just detail work. After looking at the Mega X on the Anycubic site I don't see another one quite similar to yours. It actually looks more like a Creality CR-10.
A second alternative is to open an Anycubic definition file (that is close to your printer - same problem as above) and using a text editor and making adjustments to the information in the file (it isn't terribly hard to read) and then do a Save-As and change the file name. Re-starting Cura should make your new definition file visible in the drop-down.
You can also add a CustomFFF printer and go through the machine settings and set them all to match your printer. Again, getting the Gcode flavor correct is the biggest single thing to get right. The build size is 300 x 300 x 305. The Center Origin is probably not the center, but rather the left front corner.
Therefore the answer to your question is a definite maybe.
-
So @stienfromarden what have you printed on Godzilla?
-
After PLA PETG is a good choice. It isn't as brittle and doesn't cold flow as much. Print temp is around 245 and the bed at 80 so it would work for your printer. It does tend to warp more than PLA, but a lot less than ABS. Long skinny parts are an issue. Brims help. If I have a long skinny feature I know is going to lift I add "elephant ears" to the part to give it more surface area on the build plate. It's placing 25mm diameter x 1mm tall discs that contact the part.
-
"Kind of useless" may be an understatement. "Confusing" is another word that applies.
-
1
-
-
"Is this a bug in Cura or is there something wrong with the printer profile?"
That's always the question.
The printer profiles are developed by third parties and submitted to Ultimaker for inclusion in Cura. I'm more of a Marlin guy - but explicitly setting the extruder for the skirt/brim seems to work at setting "initial_extruder_nr" correctly. When the gcode flavor is set to "Makerbot" I still get a "T#" at the start of a gcode file even with the M135 line first in the Start-Up gcode.
With no build plate adhesion and the part set to Extruder 1, the gcode file appears to incorrectly start with Extruder 0.
T1
M82 ;absolute extrusion mode
M135 T0But with a skirt set to Extruder 1, the gcode starts correctly
T1
M82 ;absolute extrusion mode
M135 T1You might want to play with that a bit and maybe search GitHub to see if the behavior has been noted before. There is a form on GitHub available for filling out bug reports, and this appears to qualify. Be sure to mention that the printer has Makerbot firmware as the problem doesn't seem to occur with Marlin.
-
I don't know the vector of the load. For radial and longitudinal loading I would design internal spokes rather than rely on the infill. My only criteria in the exercise was to align the travel moves. I didn't pay any attention to the number of walls.
A few months ago I made a feature request on GitHub for "Radial" infill. The Cura Team made a thoughtful reply but determined that because the varying density (as a function of the distance from the center) made it seriously problematic to program, coupled with the very few people who would see any benefit, declined.
"Triangle" infill with "Infill Line Directions" = "[0]" and "Infill Line Multiplier" = 5, and with the "Wall Count" = 5, makes a very robust part that would take 30 hours to print. I'm not sure what to make of the "rattle" criteria. I've never noticed it as a problem.
-
It isn't support...Cura is making the overhangs printable buy putting chamfers in to support the ceilings...or something.
Go to "Experimental" and de-select "Make Overhang Printable".
-
1
-
-
I can't get my Ender up to 110, but it will hit 109. I don't print a lot of ABS (serious fumes) but when I do I put a plastic garbage bag over the printer. ABS is extremely prone to warping, splitting at layer lines, and pulling off the bed, if it cools the least bit unevenly. I don't like having the motors in such a hot environment either. Most folks build enclosures, but the fumes are still an issue.
You can change the ABS setting in the printer firmware by putting these two lines in a text file and saving it as a *.gcode and printing the file.
M145 S1 H245 B109 F0
M500
The "S1" indicates the second material (usually ABS) "H" is hot end temp, "B" for bed temp, and "F" for fan (in PWM so 0 - 255). M500 saves the settings.
You cannot change the names of the materials as they are hard coded in the printer.
-
If you use "File | Save Project" and post the 3mf file here, someone will take a look.
-
The gray areas that Cura shows on the edges of the build plate are tuned to the skirt/brim width and their distance from the part. It's a disallowed area because Cura needs it for the bed adhesion structure. If you turn bed adhesion off you'll see the part will fit.
Use a narrow skirt (3 rows) and keep it close to the model (2mm) and you should be good. Another thing you could do is to rotate the part 45°.
-
Still over 10 hours to print. I just kept fooling with it. 7% grid infill.
The angled area is still kind of random. Z-seam is "User Specified", "Front", "Seam Corner Preference" = None.
-
I've never considered a translation from one flavor to another or from one diameter to another. #1 would be to find out if the print will physically fit on the S3 build plate. The Home Offset might have to be adjusted to move the print. I suppose the bulk of the translation could be done simply using a macro in MS Excel. As gr5 notes, the opening Gcode would have to work and there might be a couple of lines of hand coding at the beginning. At the end - who cares. The print is done.
Rather than the ratio of the squares of the diameters, I think the ratio of the areas of each filament. Going from 2.85 to 1.75 would be all E values * 2.652245. Going from 1.75 to 2.85 would be all E values * .377039. I wonder what the printer would think of the retraction distances. If 2.85 was being retracted 5mm and the 1.75 was being adjusted to retract 13.3mm would the printer clog? Going the other way would 1.9mm of retraction be enough or would there be stringing issues?
I've got 1/2 hour into it already and no code is written.
-
"...very thin extruder, like 0.06mm." NO. That would be the layer height after the initial layer. You are thinking of the nozzle diameter. A .4 is likely OK so long as it extrudes correctly. Any under-extrusion and you could develop pinhole leaks.
The layer height would be a huge hit on time-to-print. Likewise the print speed would be a big hit. The amount of infill, wall thickness, top and bottom thickness all play a part in how long a print will take. Cura is actually pretty good at time calculation. Every printer is different though so the real print time will vary. Slicing a model with different settings will give you a good indication of time though. If Cura tells you a configuration will take 60 minutes and another configuration gives you 120 minutes, it's a pretty sure thing that the second one will take twice as long.
-
My understanding of speed in Cura generated Gcode is that a line like "G1 F4500 X2 Y 22 E222.12345" simply tells the printer where to go (including the E) and at what speed. If acceleration and Jerk are enabled, then the firmware handles the further calculations of Accel, Decel, and applies the Jerk setting. It times the steps to be sent to each motor so that they all arrive at the same time. If the extrusion is short, then dependent on the Accel setting, the print head will not be able to reach the speed. It will spend half the move accelerating and half decelerating.
-
You can do a Search and Replace to get rid of that line.
I found that using Search and Replace and changing "G1 F1500 E-6.5" to "G92 E-6.5" works for me. It provides extra prime at the start of a skirt (or whatever). The down side is that if I change my retraction distance, I have to remember to change the plugin Search criteria.
If Z-hops are enabled I don't believe the line "G1 Z2.0 F300" shows up. Instead it's "G1 Z(initialLayerHeight+ZHop)" so in many of my prints it becomes Z0.7 as opposed to Z2.0.
At any rate, extrusion doesn't start at the elevated height, but rather at the working height of the first layer. I have never found any problems with bed adhesion that can be blamed on Cura. For me, it's always been "Userware".
-
They aren't there to support that radius feature because it is more than 55°. My guess (since they are rectangular) is that they are attempting to support the rectangle above. Moving the support blocker up higher might help.
-
Use "File | Save Project" and post the 3mf file here. Nobody likes to make a dumb guess, and a 3mf will have the model along with all your settings. Then we can make an educated guess. Huge difference there.
-
Geert_2, that takes all the fun out of it.
Fortunately, Cura can be fooled into providing proper assembly geometry if each sub-assembly has a plate the same size as the build surface. What I propose is a hardware solution. A Sine Plate would introduce another axis.
Please understand that this is quick and dirty and just off the top of my head.
A hinge affixed to a piece of aluminum that replaces the build plate. A simple wedge to set the angle. There are two parts to print...the first is just the bottom layers. The second is the upper portion of the part missing the bottom layers.
Scribble this up in design software and export the STL once with just the bottom layers on the sine plate, and again with the top part rotated about the sine plate axis into it's print position.
Strategically place a couple of Cutting Meshes. Slice a part that represents just the bottom layers.
Bring in the rest of the part (bottom layers missing) and slice it.
Combine the files with a pause at the transition so the angle can be adjusted.
Dependent on part geometry, this may still require a long nozzle to provide clearance for the print head.
AHoeben's solution would be more elegant. I'm more of a sledge hammer guy.
Here is a hinge. The bottom layers get printed.
Here is the second portion of the part sans the bottom layers (and with the hinge missing). Slice with no supports.
-
"...A bit of filament was still hanging from the nozzle as the print head..."
The technical term for that is "booger" and it is the result of some oozing from the nozzle. The retraction setting would likely help, but then you need a prime ("Extrude Amount" in the settings). If the Extrude Amount isn't just right it will result in a blob. My system is to hold the booger with a pair of long nose tweezers in my left hand, and hit the button with my right hand. Off it goes.
In Cura under Manage Printers | Machine Settings the Gcode flavor is noted. In 4.6 check that you are using Marlin(M0) to pause. As I said, if there are Z-hops in the Gcode file then the Plugin has trouble finding the working Z height. "By Layer" should work fine.
-
I often use Z-hop if a print has a largish horizontal hole or arch that may want to curl up during printing. If the curl catches on the nozzle it can push the print. My preference for those types of parts is 0.5 to 1.0 of Z-hop.
I know it's a question of semantics, but reading it carefully "Z-Hop only over printed parts" limits Z-hops within a particular part. It isn't the same as Combing mode. And as gr5 says, there are numerous other settings that have an effect on Retraction and subsequent Z-Hops. It isn't an easy setting to understand (but what in 3D printing is?).
-
1
-
Cura 4.8 and Ender 5 pro - setup and print issues
in UltiMaker Cura
Posted · Edited by GregValiant
Welcome to our world.
For most things and certainly for any gcode files you print, the origin is at the left front corner. There are some things (like the printhead settings in the right side of your screen shot) that use the center of the nozzle as the origin. It's an easier point of reference for a moving part. Those numbers are the size of the interference area of the print head. If you have multiple parts on the build plate, you can choose to print them one-at-a-time. If you do, then Cura will check those printhead size numbers and notice if the printhead will crash into a model that might already be built up. If you play with that setting, you will see a gray area on the build plate around each model. That's the interference area and they can't overlap or Cura will refuse to slice. The gantry height (build plate to the bottom of the X beam) determines the "Z" limit for printing one-at-a-time. It's usually about 25mm.
In Cura, models are brought in by placing their "center of geometry" at the center point of the Cura virtual build plate. When fooling around with the settings for model placement (top tool on the left toolbar) the center point of the virtual build plate is the origin even though (with Origin at Center turned off) all gcode will be created with 0,0,0 at the left front corner.
If you open a Cura gcode file it will list the MINX and MINY right near the beginning of the file. If either of those are negative numbers then the file was sliced with "Origin at Center" checked. The printer will try to get to the negative numbers but it can't, so it will just make a lot of really ugly noises as it keeps trying while you fumble madly for the shut-off switch.