GregValiant

I think it just wasn't sitting flat on the build plate. The rotation tool has a Lay Flat function that should work on this.

You can do it manually but there is no setting for that. The brim is supposed to aid bed adhesion of the model and not the other way around. You could set the brim distance to 1mm and make it into a wide skirt, or just use a skirt. Your second extruder isn't going to stick to the model anyway. You can copy and paste the brim code from the beginning of layer:0 and place it at the end. You would need to sync the extruder with a G92 Exx.xxxxx at the "New" beginning of Layer:0, then a second G92 Exx.xxxxx to sync the extruder at the start of the brim, and then at the end of the brim a third G92 would re-sync back to the gcode that follows. The easiest thing is to just use a skirt.

There might be a problem with the model. You can see that the red Outer Wall is printing from the OD to the ID and that really shouldn't happen with a simple ring. If that condition is only occurring on the top layer then maybe the model isn't flat?? Post the model file and I can take a look.

What I don't know about Python fills libraries BUT Cura is highly customizable so I bothered to learn a smattering. I've made some changes to the Pause at Height post-processor (they may make it into Cura), and I've included my version of that. The other script was written by another developer. Because he included a "fudge factor" for the time-to-print I've found it to be very handy because it provides and accurate time estimate. I did add the M118 line to that so the printer bounces the message back to the Printer Response window in the Toolbox. When you come across them, my post-processors are all in VB. They open a gcode file, read it and analyze it on the fly, and write it into a new file with the changes. I'm particularly proud of "Add a Cooling Profile" although I must admit I stole the idea for it from the "IdeaMaker" slicer. A cooling profile comes in really handy when printing PETG as the fan can be controlled during the print either by-layer, or by line-type (Wall-Outer, Support, Skin,etc.). Some of the post-processors are more of the "I wonder if I can do that" variety and are actually pretty useless.

AS one VBA guy to another (we have to stick together among all these Python folks!) here is an app I wrote. This is the full monte with random things I thought would be handy. It talks to the printer through the USB port but prints from the SD card in the printer. There are some instructions (such as they are) and a readme file. The app isn't signed as that costs money so if you decide to install it you will likely have to fool your anti-virus into allowing the install. There will be a desktop shortcut to run it and an un-install app. You may recognize what I've done as controlling the printer is just short snippets of gcode that are nothing more than macros. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours. Greg's Toolbox

Go down to the Experimental section and turn off "Make Overhangs Printable". It's a specialty setting and is handy when it's needed, but that isn't often. (It adds chamfers to your model features so they don't require support. That is often not what the user wants.) Another one to watch out for is "Remove All Holes". It is now linked to Spiralize Outer Contour" and if the link gets broken it will stay on when Spiralize is turned off and cause the same sort of behavior you are getting here.

That's a very large subject and there are so many variables that coming up with a number gets unwieldy. Consequently the "Roughly Speaking" thing is a must. It will come down to your printer's extruder, whether it is a bowden setup or direct drive, the material, the hot end temperature,the mechanical properties of the material at a particular temperature, etc.. There are lots of variables of the variables.. For reference: If you are using a 0.4mm line width then at 10mm/sec and "100% Flow" the Flow Rate would be 0.8mm³/sec through the nozzle. In Cura - the default "Minimum Line Width" is 0.34 for a 0.4 regular line width setting and if Cura adjusts the line width downward then the flow could drop to .7mm³/sec. That comes into play when printing things that come to a point (like a spire on a church or a pyramid) or when doing bridging tests. I think the first variable is "what material" and the second might be "what temperature". Those directly affect the viscosity of the material passing through the nozzle. A thin material will flow much easier than a thick material. How the material adheres to the sides of the Inside Diameter of the nozzle also comes into play. If there is a lot of "stickiness" at the walls of the ID then only the center of the "flow" moves at any kind of speed while the material in contact with the walls would move much slower. As the print speed increases that will result in turbulence in the flow. My "low end" Ender 3 Pro will print PLA at 205° and at "100% Flow" down to that 0.7mm³/sec number. I've left my "Minimum Speed" at 10mm/sec because of that. Could I print slower or lower the flow%? Maybe. I've never tested for the "reliable minimum" flow rate. All the same variables affect "Maximum Print Speed". I did do a test for that and I can print large flat skins up to 175mm/sec which comes out to 14mm³/sec with 0.4 Line Width at 0.2 Layer Height. If I go faster my extruder doesn't keep up at the beginning of an extrusion. I might be able to change that by increasing the Retract and Prime speeds (but I ran out of interest as I'm not likely to print anything at 200mm/sec anyway. Knowing that I can print large things (that don't have curves) at up to 150mm/sec is what I was looking for. There are two sayings I'm fond of: "Everything affects Everything." and "A lot goes on in that little space below the nozzle."

Hi folks. I'm not seeing why @tryptamine can't use M206. It's a better solution as it's essentially permanent and probably needs to be done anyway or the midpoint of the printer won't match the midpoint of the Cura build plate. Tryptamine - can you alter your macro to tell the printer to go to something like X -10 instead of X0? I use M206 when I have to mirror a gcode file or to set the printer up as an Origin at Center printer because that is how the particular gcode was sliced. Either way there are a lot of negative X and/or Y locations. Those methods both work so there isn't anything actually keeping the printer from moving to negative numbers other than than maybe convention. @Dustin and @gr5 will need to address the UM printers as I don't know them but for those "other" printers like my Ender - M206 should be the solution provided of course that the macro can be altered to a negative location.

Well that sure looks like the support interface is poking through the model. I don't recall a support structure like that in Cura. Did you install a plugin from the MarketPlace?

I used the Settings Guide for a while. The larger help balloons take up a lot more screen real estate and so after a while I disabled it. You will notice that the "Bridge Settings" are in the "Experimental" section. They are still evolving. One problem you have described has it's basis in what goes on inside the nozzle. The restriction of the nozzle opening plays a big part in how fast the "nozzle pressure" falls off and how fast it builds back up to extrusion pressure for a given print speed. Some people are prone to having different speeds for every different feature. Outer walls at one speed, infill at another, inner walls at a third, and so on. It's better to have consistent speeds as that allows the nozzle pressure to be consistent and that allows for more consistent extrusions. Large prints don't really care as the long extrusions allow the pressure to normalize. Small models with lots of starts and stops and constantly changing from one line type to another are a different story. If your firmware supports "Linear Advance" then it might be worth looking into as it can predict pressure changes in the nozzle and make adjustments.

The white spots do indeed mark the beginning of extrusions. It is the location of the Z seam of an outer surface. The operation of removing part of one mesh by using a second mesh as a tool is a "Subtraction". The merging of one mesh to another mesh is a "Union". Putting two meshes together and only keeping the overlap between them is an "Intersection". Together, the Intersection, Union, and Subtraction are often called "Boolean" operations. I mention that so we are talking apples and apples. When you mentioned "Fusion" I thought you meant the software app. I have found that precisely locating pieces in MS 3D Builder is not easy as the program locates the center point of any shape (the Center of Geometry) rather than an edge. Paper sketches of a model showing each step in the process from the start to the finish can help you visualize what needs to be done rather than having to "undo" about 500 times to get the model the way you want it. That's what needs to be done in order to get points to line up correctly. Computers are stupid but they are also very precise and very literal. When developing a model you need to "match the precision precisely". Any application (Cura, Excel, Word, SketchUp, Blender, Fusion 360, etc.) is going to have a learning curve. In the end I think learning one of the CAD packages will give you skills that you can use to create models that are precise and that print well. I've written macros in Excel and AutoCad that are tools I use to analyze gcode files. Reading a Gcode into AutoCad and drawing each move has proven very helpful in chasing down reported bugs in Cura. The Excel macros can determine things like flow rates and actual line width, the number of retractions in a file, and some other things that would be impossibly tedious to verify without the software to do the job. All of that was another learning curve.

I think there are a couple of things going on. With your line width at .48 and the Skin Density at 100% the two outboard bridge extrusions are getting welded to the inner wall extrusion making it 3 extrusions wide. You could drop the Bridge Skin Density to 60% or so to spread the lines out. That would eliminate the triple line on the outside. The Flow rate could be adjusted as well but too low and the printer won't like it.

With the fairly fine detail on the block and a .6 nozzle you might consider dropping the line width to .6 and the layer height to .2. That should eliminate the droopy look around the letters. A large model is one thing to print with coarse settings, but for that block with that bit of detail and some unsupported overhangs on the side letters - going finer is a good idea. I don't really see a "bridge" issue there and in fact I wouldn't bother to turn it on. Spanning multiple centimeters is one thing but the tops of those letters a couple of mm's. You shouldn't need the bridge settings for that. I don't use coasting as I've found it produces more problems than it solves. It can make skins look somewhat better, but the monotonic setting is superior (but can produce a lot of travel on certain models). Your "Outer Wall Wipe Distance" of 5.0 in not good. 1/4 to 1/2 nozzle width would be WAY better so drop that setting to 0.15 to 0.30. I generally consider 3 walls and 4 top/bottom layers to be a minimum to keep infill from showing through. That varies by model but it's a decent general rule. I print mostly functional things and strength is usually high on my list of priorities. You have "Avoid Printed Parts" and "Avoid Supports" enabled in the travel section. Sometimes it's best to leave those disabled because Cura will calculate travel moves off the part. That's nice, but it also means that on some models the nozzle will drag off the print as it leaves, and then drag back on when it comes back. Those moves can leave marks so on a single print it's best to leave them off. I looked at the definition file for your printer. It inherits the BLV_MGN_Cube base file which in turn inherits the Anet3D definition file. There is an oddity in there...the Anet definition file states that your Max Accel on the X and Y is 500 but the same definition file also sets the Accel in Cura to 1000 so it's 2X the maximum. There is no way to tell what the Max is in the printer without sending an M503 and checking the printer response. There are other things I would change but it's mostly personal preference and what works on my Ender. For a 0.6 or 0.8 nozzle I scale up the cube to 30mm. It gives the bigger nozzle a better chance of making a nice print. Particularly with the 0.8 nozzle, I've found that some "Extra Prime" is required as on large models there are long travel moves and the nozzle pressure will fall off and the start of an extrusion will be under-extruded without an extra kick. Usually with PETG having the layer cooling blower on near the bed is a bad idea. Long thin sections will definitely lift from the bed. I've written myself a post-processor so I can adjust the fan speed either by layer or by feature but generally I don't run the fan below about layer 50 of whatever I'm printing in PETG. For the most part, PLA just doesn't care. Good Luck with it.

That model is all about Flow and Line Width and the two go hand-in-hand. If you are in the "Basic " Cura settings then select "Custom". The button to the right of the "Search Settings" box is the visibility control. Click on it and set the visibility to "All". Get your E-steps squared away (that has a direct effect on Flow) and then set your Quality / Outer Wall Line Width to .35. You can leave the flow settings at 100% for now but if another test shows that the sections are still getting bonded together then drop the flow to 95 or even 90%. Since neither the layer height nor the extrusion length can change then flow can only affect how wide the extrusions are. Another setting you could use is Horizontal Expansion. If you set it to a small negative number like -0.05 the gaps between the pieces will get larger. "Everything affects Everything" so look at the preview closely. There seems to be plenty of room between those pieces and there really shouldn't be a problem.

There are a couple of things you should check. Make sure the "Wall Order" is set to "Inside to Outside". Try a print with "Coasting" turned off. It can cause dry starts as it allows the pressure in the nozzle to fall off. Turn off "Retract at Layer Change" and "Retract before outer wall". If you load the model and set Cura up to slice and then use the "File | Save Project" command and post the 3mf file here someone will take a look. A Cura project file contains your printer, all the Cura settings, and the model. It's a good one for troubleshooting.

Load the model and set Cura up for your slice. Then use the "File | Save Project" command to create a 3mf project file that will contain the model, your settings, and your printer. Post the 3mf here and I'll take a look. Usually it's the flow though. Did you calibrate the E-Steps on your printer? Most Enders require that they be calibrated.

Some of those printers don't have heated beds. Cura will put a "wait for bed heating" command into the gcode file and the printer interprets it as "wait forever" because there is no bed to heat. You can open one of the Cura gcode files in a text editor like Windows Notepad. Down a few lines you might see a line like this: M190 S60 Then open one of the canned gcode files that came with the printer and see if there is an M190 line. That's the bed temperature line and M190 means "don't do anything until the temperature is reached". With no bed heater it waits forever. If that's the problem then it can be adjusted in Cura by loading the "Printer Settings" plugin from the Marketplace and disabling the "Wait for Build Plate Heat Up" setting. Cura will use an M140 instead of the M190 and that should work. You could then set the bed temperature to 0.

They are in the model in Fusion. I think it's the way you modeled it. This is the plan view in Cura (in X-Ray). You can see steps in the part in my red circles. When Cura slices this it sees those steps and the toolpath is adjusted. Cura will print the model you have so the model needs to be correct. I have Fusion but I haven't spent much time with it. In Inventor the lines of different sketches can be constrained to one another or "0.00" dimensions entered to insure that line ends meet. In the case of these line ends it looks like they could have been made tangent to the arcs. That would have worked as well. In regards to the radius, if the use of the part dictates that the two radii are different and not concentric then that's fine, but you can see that the cross section is thicker in the middle of the arcs than it is at either end. That can cause Cura to add infill when you were expecting walls all around. You can also see that the different radii cause the line ends to be staggered rather than right opposite of one another.

Good call. The alteration I was skirting around involves the addition of ONE OF THESE. The power supply wires get split to power the auxiliary mosfet board as well as the mainboard. The Bed wires get cut and the feed from the mainboard becomes the signal to the mosfet, and the output from the mosfet then goes to the bed. Since the bed is controlled by a bang-bang / on-off type of switch, moving the bed power surge off the mainboard allows smooth power to the hot end (which is PWM rather than bang-bang). I have an all day print running. I'll try to get to your gcode tomorrow.

Post the problem gcode. I've got a little PLA left on one spool that I can throw at it. If it prints well on my Ender then it's definitely something going on with your printer. I do have something in mind but it costs a few dollars and requires some modification of the bed wiring. Better to make sure of where the problem is before blindly throwing money at it. One thing you can try (and this goes along with the alteration mentioned above) is to open that gcode file and search for "LAYER:1" and insert a M140 S0 line right there. That will turn the bed off for the remainder of the print. It isn't something you would do as a matter of course but if the electric current flow to the bed through the mainboard is interfering with the hot end current flow then the print may get better as it goes up.

Hello @Thunderdonkey When you print over supports the "Support Z Distance" has two daughter commands. The "Support Top Distance" should be 1X layer height for a single extruder printer. I often set the "Support Bottom Distance" to 2X layer height as it makes it easier to break the support structure off when the support has to print on part of the model. It's that top distance that is the problem with single extruder printers. There must be a gap there or the support would be welded to the model. Because of the gap, there just isn't much squish between the nozzle and the top of the support. Another setting to consider is the "Support Interface". You should enable it. I like the pattern set to grid at 50% to 60% density. That creates a better surface for that first layer of the model to extrude onto. You won't get a great surface do to the lack of proper "squish" but it can be a LOT better than what you have there. You would also want more than a single bottom skin. It's the second skin that has a chance of squishing correctly and welding everything together.

I just saw this. Maybe I can be of service. The A20T has a 3-in-1-out hot end and is capable of mixing colors. Geeetech put mixing instructions in the StartUp Gcode. I've commented those lines out and made some minor adjustments to the StartUp and Ending gcodes. You should get one extruder at a time with the changes I made. I'm not sure that the M163 and M164 commands are actually supported by your firmware so the printer might have been confused by the commands. At any rate, those are advanced features that you may want to enable down the road when you are more comfortable with the printer. @MaxS78 when (if) you open the attached project file, Cura will ask if you want to "Update Geeetech A20T". Click on that button and select "Create New". That will keep this project file from over-writing your current printer. You will want to check the settings in Dual Extrusion and particularly the "Nozzle Switch Retraction Distance". You may have customized the numbers and I just used the defaults. They aren't spelled out in the A20T definition file that AnyCubic provided to UM Cura. You have a couple of days left. Good luck and Happy Holidays. Geeetech A20T adjusted.3mf

You printer is pretty much a clone of an Ender 3. I used your base setup in the 3mf and made some changes. Looking at your startup and ending gcode I thought they could use some touching up so I changed those. When you open the attached 3mf file you will get a dialog asking if you want to update your printer and profile. Change both options to "Create New". That way your current profiles won't be over-written. These are my basic settings. Take a look at what I've done because you know your printer best. I did drop the printing temperature to 205° and change some speeds, the accel and jerk. GV Print Calibration Cube.3mf

Yes there are through holes and blind holes and cross holes and intersecting holes. This is the same block 4 times. It has both vertical and horizontal through holes. One of the horizontal holes intersects with one of the vertical holes. There is a horizontal blind hole and a vertical blind hole that has an intersecting horizontal small hole. It's for calibrating swiss cheese slicers. The two back blocks have "Remove all Holes" turn on. The left front block and the right rear block have Horizontal Hole Expansion set to 1.0. I tried to add one with "Make Overhangs Printable" enabled but it was too hard to see at this camera angle and these small blocks. This is up near the top. And this is the top. Whether it's a bug or not isn't my call. I'm just some random retired fireman from Detroit who happens to have worked with gcode for over 50 years. But I've gotten to know this software a bit and I'm able to get what I want from it in spite of oddities like this. What I don't like is that when Spiralize was changed from 4.x to 5.x and now automatically turns on "Remove all Holes" and it is mentioned in the popup help balloons which (as a long time user) I don't pay enough attention to when a new version is released. But I look at that as a user error because it does state in there that Spiralize affects Remove all holes. I just missed it the first 20 times around.

Consider, when the piece is horizontal then that depression in the center area is a shallow hole, but the depressed area on the end is not a hole because there is no end wall at the very end of the part. Water would spill out. When it is vertical that center feature does not have a wall to the right and so water would spill out. In that vertical orientation neither feature qualifies as a hole and so they didn't get filled. Annoying, but expected behavior rather than a bug.