GregValiant

Tree supports are an option under Support - it's the second setting down "Support Structure" - Normal or Tree. Cura automatically adds the M140 line to heat the bed and then M190 that means "wait for bed temp". Those are followed by M104 hot end temp and M190 "wait for hot end". Cura purposely staggers the heating because some printers can't handle the power draw of heating both at the same time. If you put them into your start Gcode (after the G28) you can alter the order and whether to wait or not. The words in the curly brackets are Cura keywords and Cura will fill in the settings. You would need to make a decision about auto-leveling if you have it. M140 S{material_bed_temperature_layer_0} ;Start heating the bed M190 S{material_bed_temperature_layer_0} ;Wait for bed M104 S{material_print_temperature_layer_0} ;Start heating the Hot end M109 S{material_print_temperature_layer_0} ;Wait for hot end Changing them around like this is quicker if you have an Ender 3 Pro or something with an equivalent power supply. M104 S{material_print_temperature_layer_0} ;Start heating the Hot end M140 S{material_bed_temperature_layer_0} ;Start heating the bed M109 S{material_print_temperature_layer_0} ;Wait for hot end M190 S{material_bed_temperature_layer_0} ;Wait for bed In the second example, if you put a semi-colon in front of the M190 line then you won't have to wait for the bed to heat up. That's OK for PLA but for PETG where the bed needs to be 80 or 85 degrees, you really want it to be up to temp before printing starts.

It looks good to me, but what I don't know about Python fills libraries. Did you try leaving a message on Brad Fetts GitHub site? Were you able to add a second extruder in the Machine Settings / PrintHead Settings / Number of Extruders?

@gr5 - I think he means the tall vertical supports that are trying to get to the upper triangles. That is an extremely tough model to print. The thin walls mean that there will be bridging on all the triangles that have a flat edge on top. Those flat areas are on a curve. With nothing to press against - the plastic will come out of the nozzle and stay in a straight line until it crosses the gap. That will be true even with perfect supports as there has to be some gap or the supports become part of the print. The thin walls mean that any support that gets built in the gap of a triangle will likely fall out and fail. I would suggest using "Normal" support "Touching Build Plate" and allow the bridges to form across the gaps on all the triangle features while supporting the convex bottom. A couple of layers above the triangles the print will straighten itself out again and resume the curve.

There are an amazing number of errors in that model. At almost every interface between the various parts, there is no connection. Even within some parts the pieces do not actually connect. You will need to go back to SolidWorks and properly merge all the pieces into a single solid. I would suggest that all the pieces be solid - no pipes. Just solid rods and sub-details. In the Cura X-ray view the problem areas are apparent. That is why it slices so poorly. You can see the dis-connects throughout the model. The near pipe only slices the top half. That infers that some surfaces are flipped the wrong way.

I think the retraction occurs while the nozzle is still in contact with the part. Moving 30mm takes a bit of time so you get a deformed area. You could try setting the Initial Retraction distance to 2 or 3 or even 0. It would end much quicker and the print head would go to the location without spending so much time in contact with the print. You can also try using Pause at Height instead. It's slightly different but I like it for filament changes because I can set the stepper disarm timeout to 1800 seconds (30 minutes) which I find to be much better than the 2 minutes that it usually is. I don't use the initial retraction at all. On the restart I just pull about 3mm of filament back after pushing enough by hand to change colors. That keeps it from leaving a blob on the restart.

I think this is what you want HERE. You copy and paste a bunch of lines from the log file (that you download), and paste it into your Machine Settings End-Gcode. It's an older file and you might have to cross-reference the keywords to make sure they are all included and that none have been deprecated (they are HERE). The plan is that when you generate a gcode file all the keywords get replaced by the actual values from the settings in Cura. I haven't used it (too much information) but it looks like it would be laid out nice and neat without all the newline characters that are in the partial current Cura settings at the end of a file.

#2 is getting the first layer down. It's the base for the rest of the print. @gr5 is a moderator here and put together a nice video on bed adhesion. It's a tad long and you might want to make some popcorn, but it covers a lot of material. CHEP videos (Filament Fridays) on YouTube are pretty good. He's kind of Creality centric, but a lot of the material crosses over to different machines very well. #3 Print. The best way to get going is to make mistakes and learn to trouble-shoot. Most of the stuff people call upgrades are just bling for the printer BUT you're printing and learning. #4 Practice disaster recovery. Emergency pauses can save a print, but you need a plan. If a print is looking bad, instead of simply aborting and starting over, use it for a bit of practice. Pause, do a hot pull of the filament, re-feed it and restart the print. It can't hurt - the print was junk anyway. #5 The machine uses Firmware as an operating system. The slicing software resides on your computer. A GCODE file goes between the two. Spend some time going over the various gcode commands at Marlin or RepRap just to have some idea of what you are looking at in a gcode file. #1 Put the machine together square where required and parallel where required. Put it on a nice solid surface. Calibrate the E-steps. Check everything on it. Tighten screws and nuts and belts. That gives the printer it's best chance to make good parts for you. Just because some (or all) of it came pre-assembled doesn't mean it's right.

Reflowfilament.com? "recycled from the Benelux region"

I've never seen those before. For support you will have to go to QIDI or maybe Flashforge.

Both the LotMaxx version and the Cura version have definition files for your printer (the file name is the same "lotmaxx_sc60.def.json"). The definitions are slightly different. In the Cura version the printer name is "Lotmaxx Shark" and in the LotMaxx version the printer name is "Lotmaxx SC-10 Shark". There are a couple of other subtle differences and a couple of added settings. The physical size of the printer is the same in both definitions.

The firmware flavor is important as the different flavors may have commands that only they use. I believe your gcode flavor should be set to Makerbot. You need to check the QIDI site to make sure. As to which Start-Gcode applies: The regular Start-Up gcode lines get entered at the beginning of the Gcode file. The extruder gcode lines get inserted every time that extruder gets activated. That makes them extruder specific. You can test by entering these for the appropriate extruder and then creating a gcode file that uses both extruders. Open the gcode in Notepad and then search for M117. It should be in there multiple times. ;Start Extruder 1 M117 Ext 1 ;End Ext 1 ;Start Extruder 2 M117 Ext 2 ;End Ext 2

I make no recommendation. It is my sincere belief that when I tell the printer to extrude 100mm of filament, and 100mm of filament gets extruded, that my flow calibration is both complete and sufficient. If filament diameter varies (and I do check it) then I might revisit the calibration or adjust the material diameter setting in Cura. Consider that if 1 filament is 1.75mm diameter and the second is 1.73mm diameter and I don't re-calibrate (or make the adjustment to the Material Setting) for the second, I will under-extrude by 2.25%. For me, that is easily adjusted (using my finely calibrated Mark I eyeball) by kicking the flow up during the print. In my End-Gcode in Cura, I have M221 S100 to re-set the global flow rate. There is also an M220 S100 to adjust the feed rate just in case I made a change during the print. Consider a single line of extrusion. It isn't trapped on either side and is free to flow where it wants. Is that the usual real world scenario? Is the resultant width of a single-line wall a number I want to calibrate too? In vase mode (always single wall) I usually push the .4 nozzle at .6 line width. The resultant print is stronger because the flow is higher and the wall is thicker. It's a personal preference for that single scenario. A dual wall cube has 1 index move (the line width) of the nozzle. The outside edges are free to flow and the measured width is a function of not just E-steps, but also the line width. I have to ask myself again, do I need to calibrate the Flow volume to the wall width? Should I consider a shrinkage factor? Should I re-calibrate every time I change filament spools? I voted no to all of that. I got into this to print things. Sorry about the rant. I shouldn't have had the third cup of coffee.

I was hoping to dazzle everyone with my brilliance. Instead, once again I find out how much I don't know. I loaded the LotMaxx Cura version (4.2.1), loaded a calibration cube, sliced, saved the gcode. The gcode contains the 300 lines of bitmap. Here is the log file. lotmaxx.log

I read that. I'm not talking about a 30% change as a permanent fix. Going from 100% to 105% when changing a material is acceptable to me. If you were to print a lot of PETG then it might be worth re-calibrating. For a few prints, and if the percentage is low, then rather than re-calibrating every time I changed spools (necessary if they spend time sitting on a shelf absorbing moisture) I would just tweak the flow rate. Some folks will no doubt consider that quick-and-dirty. There are arguments both ways regarding calibrating with a "single wall cube" versus a "double wall cube". Good luck.

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.

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.

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. GV_BmFrtLtS.3mf

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.

"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 T0 But with a skirt set to Extruder 1, the gcode starts correctly T1 M82 ;absolute extrusion mode M135 T1 You 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.