GregValiant

Please understand that I don't work for Ultimaker nor do I own an Ultimaker printer. I do use Cura. It seems to me that the 4.x versions accomplished spiralize on certain models by ignoring some of the geometry. The 5.x versions do not. Consider this model. In 4.13.1 it spiralizes like this and has a hole in the bottom, but where is the tube that should come up the center? The same model sliced in 5.3.1 doesn't have the hole because by default when you turn on Spiralize you automatically enable "Remove all Holes". But if you turn off Remove all Holes you get the mess BUT the inside tube that is part of the model geometry prints. So if I want this model to be like 4.x would print it (with the hole in the bottom) then I have to make an adjustment. There are things you can do but certain models just aren't suitable for spiralize. In my estimation the best spiralize is the Smart Avionics fork of Cura. It's based on the 4.x versions of UM Cura and along with some other fixes it adjusts the flow of the first spiral layer to get rid of the hump that UM Cura puts into the print. I own about 10 hammers. They are all different and I use the one suited to the job. If you print a lot of models using spiralize then you need to pick the best tool. If you don't feel you are getting what you want from the UM 5.x versions then yes...use another. At some point the Cura team will slow down from putting out the fires and have time to assess things like the spiralize behavior. They may not change it, but I'm confident they will look at it.

@Nawar welcome to the forum. "What else I need to do that I might missed during the process?" I'm going to stay away from that one. The printer definition files for non-Ultimaker printers come from the open-source community or from the manufacturer of the printer. You can check with the manufacturer (Monoprice??) and see if they have some files to download. In the Cura Marketplace (button in the top right corner of the Cura workspace) there is a plugin for "Monoprice Select Mini V2" that may help with WiFi connectivity. If you are trying to communicate via the USB then things get iffy. The "USB Printing" function is not maintained by anyone so it either works for you or it doesn't. It does depend on the "USB to SERIAL" drivers having been installed. If you are on Windows you can connect the printer to the computer and go to the "Device Manager" and the "Ports (Com and LPT)" section. You may see a line like "USB-SERIAL (CH340) COM3". That would indicate that the computer sees the printer and that it happens to be connected on "COM3". If it isn't there then you have a port driver problem. I don't have any problems either sending to or receiving from my printer but I always print via the SD card.

You are going to need one of the professional people for this. They will be back on Monday Maybe @Dustin can help?

@shiftylilbastrd FYI...The fix for the Raise3D IDEX printers is similar. They have to install three printers, one each for Normal, Duplicate, and Mirror. They pick the printer they need for the function they want to use. Each printer has a different M602 command in it's startup gcode and it is that command that tells the printer what mode to switch to.

It has to be something in your settings. I sliced this with the outer wall speed at 100 and I'm not getting any variations. Use the "File | Save Project" command and post the 3mf file here.

It might if this was MakerGear Cura. Since it is Ultimaker Cura it doesn't work that way. My understanding is that it is always assumed that the left nozzle can reach the left side and the right nozzle can reach the right side and that neither nozzle can move beyond the limits of the bed. It sounds like your right nozzle can actually move beyond the right side of the bed. I think you will need to install a second printer in Cura with the X dimension of the bed 31mm wider than the bed really is. Use that printer when you want to print with extruder 1 only, and use your original printer instance when you want to print with both extruders. When printing with "extruder 1 only" you will need to remember that the extra 31mm you see on the right doesn't actually exist so don't put models in that area.

Congratulations, you've come up with your first workaround. There will be more. Trust me on that.

Hi folks. I was just wandering by when I overheard. Looking at the S1 Pro definition file versus the regular Ender 3 Pro definition file there only appears to be one difference and that is the Z height. @JCENFORCER if you install a regular Ender 3 Pro in Cura you can change the name to whatever you want. Then go to "Settings/Printers/Manage Printers" and then "Machine Settings". Set the Z(height) to 270. You should be good to go as the regular Pro has nozzles from .2 to 1.0. Another option would be to go to the "C:\Program Files\UltiMaker Cura 5.3.1\share\cura\resources\variants\creality" folder and find the "creality_ender3s1pro_0.4.inst.cfg" file. Open it in a text editor and do a Save As simply changing the .4 to .6. Inside the file are two lines you need to change. Below is the entire contents of your 0.4 nozzle file. You just need to change the Name line and the "machine_nozzle_size" line as shown below. You could keep doing that (SaveAs and change two lines) and make a whole set of nozzles. BUT they may be overwritten the next time you update Cura. The regular Ender 3 Pro nozzles will not as they are included with Cura. [general] definition = creality_ender4 name = 0.6mm Nozzle version = 4 [metadata] hardware_type = nozzle setting_version = 21 type = variant [values] machine_nozzle_size = 0.6 As I mentioned, the name for the 0.6 file would be "creality_ender3s1pro_0.6.inst.cfg".

I believe that Cura makes calls to the Operating System for things like file management. I know my VB apps do. So you might have something going on with your OpSys or the way Cura is talking to the OpSys. I seem to recall there was a problem with Linux systems and Open and Save dialogs. If you go to THIS PAGE on Github and scroll down to Cura 4.13.1 and click on the Assets button you will find the installation files. When Cura 5.0 was released it was with a complete makeover of the dialogs and controls. Maybe reverting to the earlier dialogs will make a difference. It's quite odd that dragging and dropping isn't working though. (I liked 4.13.1 a lot and that's why I picked that one out of the crowd.)

There are a couple of things that could be going on. When you choose the "File | Open" command the dialog box should come up. Just above the Open button is a drop down list. It should be set to "All Supported File Types". If it was changed to something else it does not self-reset. Occasionally a model will come into Cura at some ridiculous location in space. For example, a model file could have the location as X0 Y0 Z5000. In that case there would be a shadow of the model on the Cura build plate but the model is nowhere to be seen. By right-clicking on the build plate you could "Select All Models". You would then choose the move button on the top of the left toolbar and set all the dimensions to zero. That would bring a lost model into view. If you are dragging an STL into the workspace then Cura should open it. If it isn't then it's something beyond my limited understanding of what goes on under the hood.

Yes you can, but it's a pain and there are a lot of different files that need to get copied over. You are probably better off using the Ender 3 Pro definition and then making changes to whatever Cura settings are different for the S1. Looking at the S1 definition in 5.3.1 - the only difference I see is that the S1 is 270mm tall while the regular 3Pro is 250. You can install a regular 3 Pro and then go to "Settings/Printers/Manage Printers" and then "Machine Settings" and change the "Z(height)" setting to 270. You can rename any printer to whatever you like.

There are a couple of bug reports on GitHub about it. Without a picture it's hard to tell if your Ugly Blobs actually equate to other peoples Zits.

Well, there is no such thing as a "Pause Between Objects". It could be an M109 which would wait for the temperature. At about 2°/sec it will be a 10 second wait for the temperature to raise 20°. M109 can inflict it's own additional 10 second wait (but it doesn't always do that as it is dependent on the printer-processor clock cycle). BTW In the project I made up I'm not getting temperature changes after the first model and I think I should be. Use the "File | Save Project" command and post the 3mf file here. Post one of those gcode files that you don't like and I'll take a look at that as well. I've been working on post-processors for "One at a Time" projects but I haven't gotten to temperature changes yet. In regards to the temperature over-shooting, that's on your printer. It's usually only 1 or 2 degrees and then it settles down at the set point. I would think nearly all of them do that to a lesser or greater extent. My printer is also calibrated and it over-shoots on temperature change. It's over-shoots worse on cooling than on heating. Part of it may be the response time of the thermocouple/thermistor.

You can try but it may have side-effects that you don't want. Select your model and then: On the left toolbar (the bottom button if you have no plugins running) is the Support Blocker tool. Click on that and then click somewhere on your model to leave a blocker in the scene. With the blocker selected use the Scale and Move tools to make the block the size you want and in the location you want. Back on the left toolbar, the button above the Support Blocker button has the Per Model settings. Click on it. The second button from the right is "Modify Settings for Overlaps" and that's the one you want. Now the Support Blocker is a Mesh Modifier and by setting it to act as either a "Cutting Mesh" or an "Infill Mesh" it can do different things dependent on the settings you pick for it. Keep in mind that you are not altering the model, you are changing what happens in the over-lapped portion of the model. That is not the same thing. Using Support Blocks as Mesh Modifiers takes some practice (that's my official under-statement of the day).

There is no setting that will "pulse" the extruder like that. There is "Fuzzy Skin" that varies the tool path but it's random so the effect would not look like ribbing

I don't understand. Is that a section through the model and planar-parallel to the build surface? Is that a single toolpath (one layer in spiralize) with those wide spots being over-extruded and then the narrow spots being under-extruded?

5.3.1 with a .4 nozzle and 4.13.1 with a .4 nozzle Different models, different continents, same result. A user should not have to deal with that, or with this.

It was only a question of time. This morning This Bug Report showed up on GitHub. This is a demonstration model. The slit on the right is .15mm and the left slit is .50mm ( .05mm increments). 5.3.1 4.13.1 In my estimation, they aren't even close. My earlier comment that 5.3.1 can't be trusted would appear to be right on.

The best start is probably to go to the Cura Marketplace (link is at the top right of the workspace) and install the "Settings Guide". I don't know how that will work with legacy versions like 4.8. Cura 4.8 was popular with some printer manufacturers (Creality in particular). It's fine to use. I think 4.13.1 would be a better choice but that's one user's opinion. It somewhat depends on the printer. If (for example) you have a belt printer then your choice is severely hampered.

All the open frame cartesian printers are necessarily similar. The rotation of the "Y" beam about the "Z" is adjusted by loosening the screws that come up from the bottom of the lower main cross beam. The rotation about the "X" is adjusted by loosening the screws that come in from either side and are below the "Z" uprights. The rotation of the "X" beam is adjusted by loosening the trolley brackets that ride on the "Z" uprights. On my Ender it's a PITA because the left screws are hidden by the bracket. I've drilled a hole in the left Z upright to allow me to pass an allen wrench through and get to the inboard screw. I leave the outboard one tight and let it be a pivot point. That allows me some up-down movement at the right end and I can get the "X" beam perpendicular to the Z uprights. The Z uprights must have their front faces parallel. The adjustment is to loosen the mounting screws that come up from the bottom. They must also be parallel when viewed from the front. The adjustment is the top crossbar. The "snugness" of the trolley wheels is accomplished by adjusting the cams of the wheels that have hex features. When adjusted correctly, you should just be able to turn each wheel with two fingers. Belts should "twang like the strings on a bass guitar". The Z lead screw must remain parallel to the Z upright as the X beam travels upward in the Z. The adjustment is to shim the Z motor mount (I ended up with .012" shim behind the motor mount). Calibrate the E-steps. My monthly PM is to go back over all of that to make sure nothing got out of whack. I level the build plate without the glass on it because I level with a piece of paper and the constant adjustments can cause it to have a slight bend cross-corner. Lastly, I trim back the bowden tube at the hot end fitting by about 6mm and leave a nice square cut. The tube constantly rotates in that fitting and gets chewed up by the blades in the fitting and loosens over time which can cause a gap to form between the back of the nozzle and the bottom of the tube. That can cause clogs. When all of that is copacetic, the printer will print dimensionally accurate parts. The "Flow" may need to be touched up for particular materials (EX: I run PETG at 105% flow for all features) or for particular models (rare unless of a special situation like a single wall model). You always need a good baseline and starting with a printer that you KNOW is accurate is a big part of that.

"...how to fix the print came out not square" That is a printer problem. if the "X" and "Y" axis are not exactly "perpendicular / 90° / Square" then the "Y" bed trolley is running crooked to the "X". Everything starts with a calibrated frame. You need a carpenters tri-square and a long-enough steel straightedge

When there is a lot of flow through the hot end then the stream of plastic is quickly removing heat and in that case most people find that higher print temperatures are necessary. If you are printing fairly slow (which I find necessary with PETG) then a higher print temperature may not be required. Each printer is going to be at least slightly different. The accuracy of the thermocouple comes into play as well. At room temperature my build plate and hot end are always 2 to 3 degrees different. It's quite likely that they are both wrong. I see a lot of project files and gcode files and people are printing PLA from 190 to 220. That's a pretty fair spread but on an individual basis it must be working for them or they would change it. At higher temperatures PETG can be gooey and stringy but at lower temperatures the layer adhesion can suffer. I print white PLA at 200 and almost all others at 205, but I print silkies at 215 because they have really poor layer adhesion and I try to make up for it by putting them down hotter. They require more benchwork to clean up because at the higher temp I get more stringing. If you are happy with the print quality you are getting from the temperatures you decide on then those are the temperature you want to print at regardless of what it says on the side of the spool.

There are a few settings that can effect the final size of a model but a 10% increase should be easy to find in the settings. In addition, the Cura preview will show your model at the printed size. With all the settings visible, look at the Horizontal Expansion numbers and in the Material section look at the Shrinkage numbers. At the beginning of the gcode are the Maximum and Minimum numbers of the print. These include the skirt/brim but with a calculator and some patience you can get the model size from those numbers. You could slice the model with Bed Adhesion turned off and then check those numbers. The width should be 5 inches minus (1) line width. The problem can also be on the printer side, but that's a very, very low probability as the XYZ steps/mm pretty much never need to be changed.

I can also confirm. It's troubling in that this would appear to be the type of bug that indicates that 5.3.1 cannot be trusted. This is the report on the model from formware.co online stl repair: --> 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 7378ms ------ -> Vertex count changed from 29547 to 29547 (+0) -> Triangle count changed from 59098 to 59098 (+0) This is the first model I've submitted that got straight "A"'s. EDIT: Looking into this, toggling "Print Thin Walls" on and off will cause that cross-over to disappear and re-appear. In particular the "Minimum Feature Size" seems to play a role. When it is a small number the slice is fine. Once it gets above 0.31 the slice is wrong.

Feature requests go HERE on GitHub. When you create a new Issue you will have an option to report a bug or make a feature request. But wait...there's no need to wait...I have a workaround. On the left I've placed a Support Blocker and in the Per Model settings it is set to "Mesh Type: Normal Model" (rather than the default "block supports"). It's sized to cover the area where the support grows and I made it 2 layers thick only because that seemed like it would be thick enough. So Mr. @bbarham for absolutely no charge you get the regular air gap between the raft and the block, and since you asked in the last 10 minutes you get todays UM Forum "Buy none get one" special - the regular "Floor Distance" air gap between the block and the first layer of support for absolutely no extra charge!! It's two air gaps for the price of none!! Sincerely, Ron Popeil