GregValiant

Once you get down to the single assemblies you will be able to print them in whatever orientation you want. When I sliced that front wheel I see that there is Support structure within the interior of the wheel, but not everywhere. That is odd. Since I had turned on "Remove all Holes" (yes, you have to remember to turn it off) there must still be gaps in the model. That's a tough project and will take a long time to print. That single front wheel was over 9 hours.

Wow. Is that ever a mess. There are 258 separate meshes assembled to make up the 4 wheels. The lug nuts are full of flipped normals. In it's current form that "assembly" is not repairable (I tried) and consequently it isn't printable. If you want to print those you will need to jump through some hoops. Load the Mesh Tools plugin from the MarketPlace. You will have to restart Cura after loading it. Load your model and select it. Right click and the top command will be Mesh Tools. One of the tools is "Split Models into Parts". Do that. Piece by piece delete one of the rear wheel assemblies. Piece by piece delete one of the front wheel assemblies. Right click and choose "Select all models". Cross your fingers. Right click again and choose "Merge Models". If it works the model may jump off screen. Select "Select all Models" and manually set the XYZ location so it's back on the build plate. If that worked (it did on a single front wheel) then go to the Mesh Fixes settings and enable "Remove all Holes". Hopefully it will slice. This is without touching up the settings. It still needs a lot of work.

I've attached a project file. I think this looks pretty good. "Outer Wall Inset" = -0.8 and "Horizontal Expansion" = -0.14. The hole is created by a support blocker in the bottom that is exactly as thick as "Bottom Layer Thickness". It's configured as a Cutting Mesh with no top or bottom layers, no walls, and no infill. GV_Vase_Dominik_Cisar.3mf

I don't work for UltiMaker (actually, I don't work at all) so I don't know what they would include in an "alpha" version. My guess is that it would be kind of hit-or-miss as not all changes and additions might be ready to publish. All additions and changes to Cura have to pass some tests. The Thunder definition might have passed in Windows but failed for the Mac. I don't really know.

If you are using Cura 5.1.1 then the only option for the base is "Concentric". There was a lot of complaining about that and it was changed so that other patterns could be used. I can't remember if it was 5.2 or 5.2.1 but I use 5.2.1 and as you can see - "Lines" is once again available. Did you figure out how I got the hole in there? It's a test ya' know.

It looks like the "Thunder" definition was added on 12-13-2022. Cura 5.3 will be released shortly and your definition should be in there. In the short term you could try adding a different Geeetech printer that has the same number of nozzles. Change the bed size to match your machine and it should work.

You can see that the gcode ends without the "End of Gcode" line that Cura always adds. Something is going on there. Like most applications, Cura counts on the operating system to write files to any drive. Here is a gcode file sliced in Cura 5.2.1 (sliced for my Ender 3 Pro). You don't have to print it, just open it in Notepad and see how a proper file ends. I don't know about the bad write to the hard drive. It's just a text file so it isn't like anything complicated is going on. I'll think on it and maybe someone else here can chime in. ShortCube.gcode

I'd start by formatting the SD card again. If there are bad memory sectors on it there is no way for Windows to tell. When Cura asks Windows to save the file a chunk of it may be written to a bad sector. The printer doesn't know and so when the data runs out it stops in mid-stride. If you save the gcode to your hard drive, and also save it to the SD the files should be identical. You can open them in Windows notepad and compare them (open the file directly from the SD card). Scroll down to the end of each file. A good file will have a "settings" area at the end. A corrupt file will end abruptly or with a lot of computer gibberish. If you want to save those stock files then make sure you copy them over to your hard drive before you re-format the SD.

If I understand correctly - what you want is the other way around. If you set "top layers" to a number > 0 then the "Top Surface Skin Layers" setting is enabled. When that is > 0 then "Top Surface Skin Flow" is available. So your general settings would be to get the intermediate layers correct, and then have separate flow setting for the number of "top skins" you set. If your printer allows for it - have you calibrated the E-steps? When Cura tells the printer to push 100mm of filament then exactly 100mm's of filament should be fed through the extruder.

How do layers 2, 3, 4 look? If they are OK and if you are printing 100% infill anyway then maybe changing to 50 top/bottom layers would be better than 100% infill on that piece. It's possible a flow adjustment might be in order. What size nozzle and what is your line width?

There are settings in the Wall section that will fix much of that. "Wall Transition Length" and "Wall Transition Angle" are two of them. Another setting is the Line Width but you can only drop a .4 nozzle to about .35mm. Features that come to a "feather edge" are tough.

This is what I usually do. The left hole has one of 5axes cylindrical support blockers configured to "Modify Settings for Overlaps" and 5 walls. Screw connections do much better with more material for the head of the screw and the nut to put pressure on. They will still deform over time, but not near as readily.

It depends on what it is printing over. If it's sparse infill then adding another top layer should fix it. From what I can see of that image there looks to be a checkerboard pattern. That can be indicative of the infill still affecting the layers above.

Line Width. Once the walls of the model get too small the nozzle can't fit in there. You could try setting "Remove All Holes" or maybe "Make overhangs printable" but that would make the model mostly solid. You would need to check for side effects with those settings. You can print with a 0.4 nozzle at .35 line width. An option would be to go to a .3 or .2 nozzle. If you slice at a .2 line width you will see the walls come back, but a .4 nozzle won't print that skinny.

In Cura, load a calibration cube or benchy and set up a slice. Use the "File | Save Project" command to create a 3mf project file. Post that file here and I'll take a look. Those "kodak begin" lines in your StartUp gcode appear to mark the beginning and end of the startup section. That's a pretty sparse section. The startup itself does show that "G1 X100 Y100" line that moves to near the center at 50mm/sec. I don't see a reason for that in there. That G0 travel line is inserted by Cura after the startup and that G0 speed is undefined and so it is likely traveling at the homing speed which is pretty slow. Your startup can also be affected by extruder change code. That will show up in the project file.

STL's don't have any location information in the file. Some 3mf files do. The models have to know where they belong in space. If that information isn't in the file then merging doesn't work. Cura isn't an assembly modeler. You can fool it, but this is one of those things where there is no "Easy" button. If you bring your models into a CAD program, or MS 3D Builder, you can usually locate them in the orientation you want fairly easily. Then make a plate just smaller than your printer build plate and extending downward below Z=0 by 1mm. Attach a copy to each of your models when you save or export them. When you bring them into Cura set the location of each model to X0 Y0 Z-1. The plate will dictate the "bounding box" and so each model will be in the correct orientation to each other. It's a workaround, but isn't terribly difficult and you should get what you want regardless of the lack of location information in the files.

AHoeben has put together a list of the Cura keywords HERE. They are essentially the variable names used within Cura. Certain ones you can put into your StartUp and Ending Gcodes and when the gcode is created Cura will replace the keywords with the actual setting value. M104 S{material_print_temperature_layer_0} would be replaced by your "Initial Layer Print Temperature". M140 S{material_bed_temperature_layer_0} would be the bed temperature. In the ending gcode a line like G0 F7200 X0 Y{machine_depth} would bring the build plate forward (or nozzle back depending on the printer). That makes it easier to get a print off the plate. There are some speed words like {speed_travel} but they are in mm/sec and gcode is in mm/min so they end up being really slow. Cura would replace {initial_extruder_nr} with the extruder that was first up for the print. If it's the last line in your gcode then even if your startup had switched extruders for heating that would get straightened out before the print actually started. It's a picky situation though. You don't want to heat an unused extruder, but it's hard to configure the StartUp gcode for that. You may want to install another printer that you use for "extruder 2 only" prints. That way you could configure the StartUp gcode specific to that situation. I have a separate defined printer I use for TPU because the PLA purge lines are way too fast.

Ah, I see. You can try lowering the "Wall Transition Length" in 5.2.1. This is the default (0.35 I think it is tied to the Line Width). This is with the setting at 0.10

I liked 4.13.1. It's very stable and worked well for me. In the end though, if the gap is full of plastic it's full of plastic. You can only see it when it's printing. Functionally have you noticed a difference? I don't really see one.

I don't know 3.2 but the newer versions use a "Project File" that is a special 3mf file and contains the printer, all the settings, and the model. You might find it in the "File" menu as "Save Project". What operating system are you on? The latest versions don't work on Win 7. 4.13.1 was very good. The 5.x releases are coming along but aren't quite there yet. As for the user manual - the latest releases have a plugin available from the MarketPlace that has excellent descriptions of all the settings. It is appropriately named the "Settings Guide".

M141 S sets the chamber temperature. M191 S sets the chamber temperature and waits while it gets up to temperature. M191 S{build_volume_temperature} in your startup should work. M191 must be configured in your firmware.

Kodak, DaVinci, Bamboo, and a couple of others appear to want users to stick with their slicers. They are very proprietary and for the most part only their slicers communicate correctly with their firmware. There are work-arounds but they need to be "discovered" and that can take a lot of trial and error. If you have StartUp Gcode defined in the Cura Machine settings what does it look like? Is there a T0 line in it that might be causing the switch? The fdmprinter.def.json file (and the associated fdmextruder.def.json) are the base definitions for just about every printer in Cura. It has everything in it. There is a hierarchy and as an example my "ender3_Pro.def.json" file "inherits" the "creality_base.def.json" file which in turn inherits the "fdmprinter.def.json" file. There are overrides in the creality base file that simply apply best to all their printers. In the Ender 3 Pro definition there are additional overrides that are specific to that model printer (bed size, startup gcode, number of extruders...things like that). My printer has a single extruder but I've added my own over-rides so that I can configure any Creality printer with up to 4 extruders. I did that just to play around so I would have at least a passing knowledge about multi-extruder printing. For multi-extruder printing, Cura puts the initial extruder call in front of the StartUp gcode. Cura doesn't actually "read" the StartUp Gcode and so if you have a T0 line in there the original T1 line that was inserted gets over-ridden. A fix could be as simple as adding T{initial_extruder_nr} at the end of your StartUp Gcode, or if you have a T0 line in the startup then replace the 0 with the Cura keyword. Cura does read things that are in curly brackets and will put the correct number in when the gcode is created.

When you Auto-Home the printer your LCD should indicate an X Y Z position. Those numbers are the current Home Offset numbers. If they are X0 Y0 Z0 and the nozzle is somewhere off the build plate then the Home Offset was never entered and so the printer puts the origin of a gcode at that Auto-Home Position. If that is the case then you can try this... After Auto-Homing, raise the Z a bit and move the nozzle to a point 2.5mm in from the left edge of the bed and 2.5mm in from the front edge of the bed. Whatever that location is defined as on your LCD will be the basis for your Home Offset. Like other things in 3d Printing the numbers are positive when they need to be negative. So multiply the X and Y values by "-1". Example: After moving the print head to that point 2.5mm in from the edges, the LCD reads X2.11 Y11.444 Z5. The Home Offset would then be X-2.11 Y-11.44 Z0 (the Z is always 0). Open a text editor and create a new text file. Type in the following using the numbers you came up with. M206 X-2.11 Y-11.44 Z0 ;set the home offset M500 ;save settings G28 ;auto-home G0 F600 Z5 ;move the Z up G0 F6000 X127.5 Y105 ;move to the mid point of the bed Save the file as "Test.gcode" or something equally snazzy. Stick it on an SD card and print the file. At the end the print head should be near the center of your bed. If it isn't then the "printable area of the bed" isn't really 255 x 210. More adjustments would need to be made in the Cura settings. Let us know how you make out.

You may also find it under "Settings / Extruder #". My Ender has "variants" and so the nozzle sizes are listed in the box. If you load the "Printer Settings" plugin from the MarketPlace there is a box in there as well but I think that one may just be a repeater and the setting doesn't actually change. Seems like a glitch there. I don't know how important the actual nozzle size is to Cura. The "Line Width" seems to be the important setting. I've run my 0.4 nozzle at up to .8 line width and other than slowing down so the extruder can keep up, I haven't had any issues.

Load the model and set up your slice. Use the "File | Save Project" command and then post the saved 3mf file here. Somebody will take a look.