GregValiant

Try putting an M220 S100 at the beginning of the Gcode file. If that works then put one in the Start-Up gcode in Cura so it will get added to every file. You'll still want to chase down what is really going on with the high feed rates.

Thanks a lot eldrick. Mari figures it almost can't be done. I spend 20 minutes coming up with a complicated incomprehensible solution that has a .0000001% chance of working, and you stick in a 2 line fix. I'll have you know that if Xscale <> Yscale by more than about 50% that Horizontal Expansion won't work on a reindeer. So there.😜

Feed Rate % is set by M220 and there isn't one in either file. The problem has to be in the printer/firmware. In the second file the skirt is printing at a sedate 20mm/sec so at 800% it would be 160mm/sec which is really flying. Is that what it's doing? If it's moving relatively slowly then the display is wrong but the feed rate setting is correct at 100%.

But Mari - there is that other .0000001%...It's possible there is a window there but without knowing the exact model??? Now I'm not sure if this will actually work but it seems to have potential. If we bring in a cookie cutter shape that has a wedge on the bottom, and scale it up say to 200% in X and Y and leave it at 100% in the Z (so it doesn't get any taller), the wedge scales up and the walls scale up. Playing with the Cura number of walls and tops and bottoms doesn't give us much of anything. We know Cura always brings things in at their center-of-geometry so we know that point of the cookie cutter is at build plate center (0,0) We bring in the same cookie cutter file again but this time scale it to say 195.2% X and Y and leave Z at 100% (that 195.2% number I calculated would leave walls 1.2mm thick) and then move Model 2 to 0,0 so it lines up perfectly with Model 1. With the second (smaller) model selected we choose Per Model Settings and the second tool from the right Modify Settings for Overlaps. Then select Cutting Mesh (instead of Infill Mesh) and then Select Settings. From the selection of settings pick Wall Thickness, Top/Bottom Thickness, and Infill Density and set all three to "0". In the main settings window set Wall Thickness to 2, Top/Bottom Thickness to 0, and infill to 100%. Slice and dice and see how it looks. I think the key might be to getting the scale right on the smaller "Cookie Cutter Cutter" model so the wall thickness comes out acceptable. I like oatmeal cookies with raisins and nuts so If the cookie cutter thing doesn't work out, I'm good with the old fashioned "Push the dough off the spoon" technique.

The sensors would need to be present and the firmware would need to be able to translate each sensor and likely be sophisticated enough to make a decision about what to do. The printer would need to be networked and have an address book of destinations to send the notification to, as well as internet access or a phone line of some sort. The destination hardware and software would need to be constantly monitoring for messages from the printer. Once the printer decided that a particular malfunction at a sensor (let's say the "spaghetti sensor") needed to go out, it could send a text message to the users' phone where a special tone would notify the user of a problem. If this was to occur at 3am then the user's significant other would punch the user in the side of the head and say something constructive like "WHAT THE %#$@ IS WRONG WITH YOU. SHUT THAT %@%# THING OFF" At that point the user would go to the printer, look at the problem, and say to him/herself "Yep, that ain't right." and then shut it off till morning when the problem could be dealt with. The technology is certainly available for all of that. (I myself have designed a spaghetti detector that would work.) Unfortunately, it's probable that none of it could be installed as an upgrade to an existing printer, and that on top of the additional $6k cost of a new printer would be another $2k for the privilege of getting whacked in the side of the head in the middle of the night.

After all that talk what I was saying is that any problem that Gallen99 was having is not in the "W1 underextrude.gcode" file so probably not in HIS installation of Cura. I printed 40 layers of that file and it came out very well. Figuring out why we aren't getting good prints is part of doing this stuff. Sometimes it's software, sometimes it's firmware, sometimes it's operatorware. Getting to the root of the failure is important or you end up chasing your tail. You may be having software issues. Gallen99 may be having hardware issues. I may be dealing with a bad model. The Gloppy prints look the same so where do we start to fix things? That's why I like to chase stuff down. I learn as I stumble along.

Did you re-slice the model and try to print the new Gcode file - or did you run the previous Gcode that worked? Within the printer under Control / Filament make sure "E in mm³" is "Off". Looking at W1_underextrude.gcode in line 4 it says it uses 20.868m of filament. Dumping the file into AutoCad I come up with 505720.78mm of extrusion and a total E of 20.89mm. So that's whats going on in the Gcode file. With an initial layer height of .2, a layer height of .25, and a line width of .4 and doing some math (sorry grNadpa) then layer 1 is 16020.78mm extrusion and 534.5mm of filament. The rest of the file comes to 489650.5mm extrusion and 20357.30mm filament. Total filament on a piece of paper comes to 20.891meters of filament. That is a difference of .0238mm of filament which equates to about .5mm of extrusion out of 505720mm total extrusion. I would say that in the case of the W1_underextrude file that the problem is not in the Gcode. I did notice that in line 24 of the gcode file there is M92 E94.8. That number does represent your extruder E-steps right? Sincerely, Dr. Bunsen Honeydew Muppet Labs PS I printer about 10 layers and they looked good.

Back in the day people used to do a "burn in" on computer stuff. If the component lasted 24 hours it was good to put in a machine. A percentage did not make it but they didn't get put into machines either. So a company could warranty something with confidence that their Mean Time Between Failures was accurate. Very few do it anymore. It's expensive and time consuming and they just don't care. Generally if a component is going to fail in the first 6 months it fails in the first few hours. If it lasts through the initial burn-in (which used to take place in the factory instead of in my house) it's good to go for a long time before it wears out. The new business model includes "Screw'em, we've got their money". "90 day warranty" which is often a bald faced lie. "24hr tech support" which is almost always staffed by people who don't know as much as you, or are just there to put salve on irate customers. Getting into your pockets for a "Monthly Fee" rather than just selling you something at a one time price.

It's in the "Start Gcode" so Cura can't really show it in preview because Cura doesn't develop it (and I wouldn't want Cura playing with my personal settings). After you save the file to Gcode you can open that Gcode file in Cura and it will show up. If it is interfering with the print, you could then go into the Gcode file and comment out (;) the G1 lines in the startup section and get rid of it for just that print.

It was the brother's last name (Valiant & Valiant). but it's also my middle name. Mom always loved the comic strip character Prince Valiant.

You're going to have to figure out those annoying noises. Where they're coming from and why. Time to get the wrenches out. My advice is to take LOTS of pictures and use ziplock bags to keep the loose parts in. And keep your fingers crossed in the faint hope that the noises are the in-expensive kind.

That does look good. I tried PETG over PLA and it didn't bond very well at all. It was an experiment so no loss. Since you showed me yours I'll show you mine...(I went a different way. I'm a big hit at Walmart though).

The string lines are the shortest distance between the points and the arrowhead so Cura may have decided that it's the most efficient path. Have you tried Combing mode? It makes for a lot of movement on a part like that since it would want to stay over the walls at all times. Moving the Z seam and the Layer Start points can have an effect too. That's a tough part though with those inside corners. Have you tried rotating the part on the bed to put one of the short points right at 6 o'clock? Then put the Z seam in "front".

You might have to do it manually. A little non-nerdy grade school math says 20/50 = .4 or 40%. At the start of the first TPU layer in the Gcode file add a line M220 S40 to run the feedrate at 40%. At the very end of the file just before "End of Gcode" add a line M220 S100 to set the feed rate back to full. If you don't add the end line the printer will stay at 40% until you shut it off and re-start it. If you're using Cura 4.7 and it's PauseAtHeight plugin you get to add M220 S40 right there in the pause at height dialog where it says "GCODE after pause". You can get by without the last M220 S100 so long as you don't start another print without re-booting the printer first. Are you sure you'll get good adhesion between the PETG and the TPU? I hope that's non-nerdy enough for ya since it's from a guy that still uses a flip-phone.

The Gcode file doesn't have anything odd in it and it prints on my Ender. Looking back at the first post where you say it goes up against a switch and just stays there making noise with the switch light on...maybe you should take a closer look at the switch and it's wiring. If the switch doesn't work then the printer never gets the signal that the axis is home. This is a terrible pun but "The lights are on but the printer ain't home." Move the carriage all the way to the other side and then send it Home then quickly hit the switch with a pencil eraser or something similar. If the switch works the carriage should stop moving towards the switch. If it doesn't then get out of the way really fast.

Line 21 is M141 S28 and sets the temperature for the heated chamber. Do you in fact have a heated chamber? If you don't then the printer may be hanging up on that line. You would need to un-tick the Heated Build Volume box in the machine settings of Cura. You could put a semicolon in front of that line and then try to print the file.

Here's it's mate. Two pieces with the hex in the collar part. I just threaded the horseshoe so no nut there.

Yes...you're right in that you're wrong. 3d printing is nothing if not confusing. Here's what I learned in 3D 101. The line width is related to the inside diameter of the nozzle and becomes the index distance between one nozzle pass across a part, and the next pass coming back the other way. It effects the XY movement. Any size nozzle works best at a line width that is near it's own size so a .4mm nozzle will generally need a line width near .4mm. The "super quality" profile provides (among other things) a LAYER HEIGHT of .12mm and that is the distance between one layer and the next (the Z index). You can possibly get down to .08 layer height (a human hair width) on a really finally tuned printer. The printer always needs to have sufficient material coming out so that the nozzle smears it against whatever is below (be it the bed or a previous layer). Feed rate IS the speed that the head moves. It's "flow" that you're thinking of in regards to how much material comes out. Consider an example of a .4 nozzle and a .2 layer height making an extrusion 50mm long at a print speed of 40mm/sec... In a general sense (general because slicing software plays with the numbers) - Line Width coupled with Layer Height determine the area under the nozzle to fill with plastic (.4mm line width x .2mm layer height = .08mm²). The length of an extrusion gives the volume required for our line (how MUCH plastic to flow) (.08mm² x 50mm long = 4mm³) The Print Speed (mm/second) brings time into the equation and gives that amount of flow its "rate" or how FAST that volume needs to come out of the nozzle. (50mm extrusion length/ 40mm/sec = 1.25seconds) and so (4mm³/1.25sec = 3.2mm³/sec). Any slicing software MUST assume that the printer is calibrated in the X, Y, Z, and E. If it isn't calibrated then the prints can not be correct. If our first layer is set in the software at .2mm and we don't level the bed right then it isn't really .2mm and there is a struggle to get a good first layer. Mechanically - if the X, Y, and Z are not square to each other then the prints cannot be correct. They will be skewed even though that might be really hard to measure. In the real world, if it looks good it's good. If it looks like crap, it's crap. All cut and dry. Getting from crap to good is what tuning is all about and that my friend is where all the confusion jumps up.

There should be 6-7mm between the aluminum uprights and the bed. 1. You could try completely loosening the leveling screws, push the bed to the left, and then tighten it back up and re-level. 2. Drill additional holes in the uprights and move the power supply outboard where Creality should have put it. 3. Put a finger full of grease on the area where it's scraping and say "Good Enough!".

Your still under-extruding. What printer is it? If it's a Bowden tube printer the clog may have been (and still is) up above the nozzle.

In the Cura preview you should be able to see that the first layer is smaller than the second layer (especially with it set to -1). I haven't had any problem getting it to work (same printer as yours). I keep it at -.25. If there is another setting that could interfere with Initial Layer Horizontal Expansion I'm not aware of it (but there are a lot of things about Cura I'm not aware of).

Your welcome. I hate it when something fixes itself for no apparent reason. If the same problem recurs I'm just as clueless as the first time it happened.

Do you happen to have Coasting turned on? It will leave gaps in the preview (but not in the print).

I don't know how he could decide that it's "not an issue anymore" after only 12 hours and with no explanation. Have you tried using the Pause at Height with the earlier versions of Cura?

Not sure what you mean by "stuck on". Does it just keep moving the filament backward? If you could post one of your gcode files and save and post a project file from Cura that would be good.