GregValiant

Make sure you have "Remove all Holes" and "Make Overhangs Printable" turned off. It looks like Remove All Holes is the culprit, but I'm far away. In Cura 5.2.1 Remove all Holes gets enabled when you use Spiralize. If it is linked it will un-enable when Spiralize is turned off, but if the link isn't there then Remove All Holes will persist after Spiralize is turned off. If that isn't it then use the "File | Save Project" command and post the resulting 3mf file here.

If the speeds change by feature (60 print, 35 outer wall, 75 skins, 100 infill...that sort of thing) then the pressure constantly changes in the nozzle and consequently the line width changes. That doesn't usually last all the way around a part though. If you'll post a project file ("File | Save Project") using your normal settings I'll take a look. I had what appears to be the same problem but for me it was with white only. I started printing it cooler but that was about the same time I did a full PM on the printer so unfortunately I really don't know which fixed the problem.

Firstly, do as @Andrew1 says and make sure everything is clean and the bed is level. You may want to turn up the "Initial Layer Flow" (105%???) to get more squish. Then you won't have to read the rest of this. As the self appointed "King of WorkArounds" (hold the applause please) I have come up with a system. What you will do is create two gcode files. The first will have nothing but walls and will be a donor file. The second gcode file will have no walls on Layer:0 but the rest will be your normal settings. You will copy just the inner and outer walls from Layer:0 of the donor file, and paste them in right before the travel moves of the first "skin" of the second file. Using Relative Extrusion means the E will be synced. You will need to watch for two other things. The start point of any extrusion is in the line ABOVE the extrusion line. Make sure you copy that line over with the walls. Also make sure you leave the start point of the first "skin" extrusion when you paste in the walls code. Check your retraction lines. If the "skirt" ends with a retraction then you need a prime for the start of the walls. If the "skin" starts with a prime then you need to account for that at the end of the walls. You want the filament the correct distance from the nozzle so there is neither a blob nor a dry start. When you slice and generate the two gcode files: You can use a skirt but not a brim or raft. The first file gets sliced with 0 top/bottom skins and 0% infill. It will be Walls only. The second file gets sliced with your normal settings but add a support blocker. Size the blocker in the X and Y to your max build plate size and make it 1 layer height thick. In the Per Model settings set the blocker to Modify Settings for Overlaps, as a Cutting Mesh, and select "Wall Count" as the setting and set that to "0". Center the blocker in the middle of the build plate with the Z at 0 and do the slice and save the gcode with a different name. The preview should show you only skins (and maybe skirt) on Layer 1. Your main gcode file will have some code similar to this at the beginning of the ";TYPE:SKIN" section. This is right after the skirt finishes: G1 X46.3 Y103.161 E0.87965 -----The last extrusion of the skirt before the skin starts G1 F2100 E-6 ---------------------------Retraction G1 F600 Z0.7 ---------------------------Zhop up Paste all the walls here. Watch for retracts and extrusion start point lines. ;MESH:Eraser ----------------------------This is the blocker configured as a cutting mesh G0 F9000 X74.36 Y102.64 Z0.7 -----Start of the first extrusion of the skin. ;TYPE:SKIN G1 F600 Z0.2 ---------------------------Zhop down G1 F2100 E6 G1 F3000 X49.64 Y102.64 E0.89368 And now you can sleep knowing all the skins will be in their borders. Ha...you'll still be watching it like a hawk.

Those are good dimensional numbers. The bulge on the bottom could be related to your Z system. That is a characteristic of Z binding down low. Another thing that can cause it is Z-hops and the right end of the X beam doesn't react for some reason. It sounds like you've addressed those things though. Have you tried a different color filament? I always found white to be the hardest to dial in.

I think they use titanium oxide as the colorant in white filament. That may make it touchier about print temperature as the flow rate through the nozzle can vary and cause characteristic ridges. One layer looks inset and the next looks bulged out. I print white at 200, most others at 205-210, and silky PLA at 215 (because of their poor layer adhesion). If your prints are nice and squared up I'd go back to a temperature check. If you are happy with the mechanicals then it's likely settings. If you slice a cube and look at the gcode you'll see that every layer is identical other than skins or skirt. Another thing you can try is to print a cylinder. The constant direction changes may tell you something.

When prints come out skewed it's (almost always) because the X Y and Z axes aren't perpendicular to each other. If you look at the printer straight on from the front the X beam should be exactly 90° to the Z uprights. Looking from either side, the beam that the Y travels on must be at exactly 90° to the Z uprights and the two Z uprights must be parallel to each other. Looking straight down from the top - the Y beam must be at exactly 90° to the X beam. I've only seen pictures of your printer so I don't know for sure, but my Ender is screwed together. Using a carpenter square and a metal straight edge - loosening the screws just enough to be able to rotate the Y beam into the correct alignment should get you a lot closer to exactly square prints (all faces of a cube at 90° to each other). This is what I do to "calibrate" my frame. I check it every couple of months just to be sure. The printer should rest on a "substantial" very flat surface. It should not dance when it is printing. The Z uprights must be parallel top to bottom, and their front faces must be planar, and the uprights must be at 90° to the horizontal feet they mount to. You can use pieces of paper on one side or the other as shims if required. The Y-to-X adjustment is made by loosening the screws that come up from the bottom to hold the Y trolley beam in place. That will allow the Y beam to rotate about the Z. The Y-to-Z adjustment is made by loosening the screws that come in from the left and right sides. That allows the "cross-beam-to-Y-beam" assembly to rotate about the X. The X beam is a pain. On my printer the screws are hidden by the left Z upright. I drilled a hole in the upright so I can access at least the inboard screw head. With that one just snug and the outboard screw tight, and the trolley wheels on the right end loose, I can move the right end of the X beam up and down (rotate about the Y) until it is at 90° to the Z uprights. Then I snug down that inboard screw and adjust the right trolley wheels (and sometimes the mounting plate has to be moved a bit to align the fixed wheels to the track). Without drilling the hole I had to pull the X beam assembly up off the top of the machine to loosen or tighten those screws. My printer came as a partial kit and assembling it caused me to come up with this saying: "Do not assume that just because parts of the printer were assembled by the factory - that they were assembled correctly.". It is very rare to have to calibrate the X, Y, or Z steppers. When you print a cylinder though, it should be round. On these inexpensive printers it is always best (usually necessary) to calibrate the E steps/mm. No matter where in the Z the X beam is located, the threaded Z rod should always be parallel to the Z upright. If the angle is different when Z=0 to when Z is at max-height then you might have to shim the Z motor mounting bracket. If that angle does vary by position then you can get Z binding when near Z=0. There. That should keep you out of trouble for a couple of hours.

That is how compound curves will print. It is a function of the STL resolution, layer height, and how Cura interprets the changing "curvature" layer-by-layer. The phenomenon occurs because there isn't really a curve there but rather a number of triangular facets that approximate a curve. If you open the model file in a program like MS 3D Builder and look at how the triangles are laid out you will see what is going on. Cura slices through the edge lines of the triangles that are approximating the curve so the line segments change layer-by-layer and give that characteristic "woodgrain" pattern.

When you are in the "Custom" mode to the right of the Setting Search box is an icon with three lines on it. It is the Setting Visibility tool. Click on it and set it to "All". When you scroll down to the Support section the first selection should be "Generate Support". It is also possible to enable "Generate Support" on a Per Model basis. Select your model and choose the Per Model settings button on the left toolbar. See if "Generate Support" is one of the selected settings. When in the Preview screen there is a button for "Line Type". Click on it and make sure that "Helpers" is selected as that controls whether Support and Skirt/Brim/Raft are displayed.

Post a gcode file that shows that behavior and someone will take a look. At every layer in the gcode there should be a line like: M117 Time Left 0h21m35s Is that the format you are used to seeing (Time Left 0h21m35s)?

I think you have to turn it on in your settings or nitification settings. I was going to remind you but I didn't want to poke my nose in.

Do you have other post-processors active? They run in the order they are listed. If you have others active then maybe one of them is over-writing the M117 line in the gcode.

Yes, that happens because the second material isn't affected by disabling the extruder. It still has a set "standby temperature" and that is what you are asking for in the StartUp gcode. Before you disable the extruder - set the "Material | Standby Temperature" of that extruder to 0. The downside is you must remember to change it back, OR, re-select that settings profile and "discard" the changes. That would also change it back. With the Standby Temperature at 0 the code comes out as you would want with: M104 S0 T1 ; Start heating T1 You may also run into a problem if you disable Extruder0, or start a print with Extruder1. Your startup gcode explicitly asks for T1 to start out at Standby Temperature and T0 to start at Print Temperature. That may not always be true. You'll need to stay aware of that. A fix may to consider is adding additional printers in Cura. Each could have it's own startup gcode. I have a second Ender installed as my "TPU Printer" because the purge lines in the StartUp gcode are a lot slower than for PLA or PETG. I'm not familiar with the Snapmaker printers, but some IDEX printers have gcode commands that tell the printer what Mode to use. Raise3D uses something like M650 for regular, M651 for Mirror, and M652 for Duplicate. In that case you would install 3 printers and use the one for the Mode you want to print with and the M65_ command would be in the StartUp Gcode.

Hello @nepcior. @MariMakes should be able to help with this when she gets a moment. She will need to know more about your computer and operating system. Cura makes calls to the operating system to handle file writes so maybe something is going on between them. Is the "lock tab" on the memory card in the "write" position?

"...the 3D printing community is the blind leading the blind," I'm retired and I bought my Ender to give me something to do while stuck in the house during Covid. Searching for advice I first came across the Reddit group and yeah, it was a bunch of folks guessing. Finally I came across this forum and the people actually helped and gave advice that was sound and wonder-of-wonders it actually worked. When printing articulating devices, or print-in-place models, or pieces that must fit together, much has to do with the tolerances built into the model. In the case of that puzzle box making a change to the flow made sense and worked, but was it a fix "for all things" or a patch to get past a glitch in the tolerances designed into that particular model. Cura calculates the extrusion area as a simple rectangle and so the volume of an extrusion is just the area times the length. If you have accurately measured your material diameter (my Matter Hacker filament is consistently 1.72mm diameter) and entered it into the "Diameter" setting within the Printer Settings plugin, and your E-steps/mm is calibrated, then you should be good. On a single wall print the extrusion is un-confined on both sides and so it isn't a rectangle but rather a bulged out flattened oval. In that particular case then yes, you will be measuring the bulge and yes, it is wider than your set "Line Width" BUT the volume is right, the cross section of the extrusion is just out of shape. Also consider that the Line Width has nothing to do with the width of the actual extrusion but is rather the Index Distance between adjacent extrusions. Now the result of that Index Distance is indeed a rectangle of particular dimensions. It's the "Flow" that fills that rectangle. I'm just saying that at 85% Flow (and a lot of people end up at 85% after using a single wall calibration cube) the rectangle isn't full. "I bought a 12oz beer - how come there is only 10.2oz in my glass?" If all of that sounded like a well practiced rant, it's because it is.

I'm not sure what to think of that. Some of the holes are covered by round dots? If it's not proprietary can you post that model file?

Because of the discontiguous areas of Inner Wall - the nozzle has to jump all over. Making sure that there are retractions before any travel moves should eliminate a lot of the stringing. With those changes you will get almost 4 times as many retractions and most of the additional retractions will be before the long travel moves and so the stringing should be a lot less. Eliminating the infill will eliminate at least two combing moves per layer. I have a thing about using single wall calibration cubes. It boils down to this...when the "Volume of Filament In" is equal to the "Volume of Extrusion Out" then by definition the "flow" is 100%. You calibrate your e-steps to achieve that. Everyone who tries to calibrate using a "single wall cube" ends up at around 85% flow. So where is that 15% shortage of plastic coming from? It can't be from the length of the extrusion which is fixed, it can't be from the layer height which is fixed, so it can only come from the width of the extrusion. If your line width is 0.5mm then the index distance between adjacent extrusions is 0.5mm. You need 100% flow to fill the void below the nozzle. Calling for 85% flow means your extrusion is only .425 wide. A .425 wide strip of plastic will not fill a 0.5 wide gap. That (by definition) is under-extrusion. The best way to judge "Flow" is a skin. Scale a flat topped calibration cube to 100 x 100 x 1 and set all your flows to 100%. Make your top/bottom line directions [0,90] and print the file. About 1/2 way through the top layer tune the flow with the LCD to 85%. When it's done look at the top layer through a magnifying glass (or better, a microscope). I'll betcha the 100% flow side looks better than the 85% side. Under a microscope you might even be able to see the layer below through the 0.07 gaps between extrusions in the top layer. Now, if you ever have a need to print a model that is single walled and it is absolutely necessary to have the walls exactly .4mm (or whatever) wide then by all means calibrate for that specific condition. For everything else, calibrate the e-steps and you are done. Some materials may need a bit of tweaking but 15%? Probably not.

@HFJuli in the meantime try setting your "Initial Layer Height" the same as your layer height. I played with it a bit and that seemed to get the air gap to 1 layer high. (I was unable to get it down to 0 though.) Edit: An Initial Layer Height of 0.01 may work. There was still an air gap of 0.20 to the support but the preview shows the model with no air gap.

Hello @HFJuli. Please load the model and set Cura up to slice and use the "File | Save Project" command. Post the 3mf file here.

Hello @bcsteeve. I took a look and yeah, there is a lot of travel for such a small print. One of the problems I see is the geometry of the model itself. The Inner Walls stop and go so there is going to be travel between the areas where there is Inner Wall to print. The Infill only exists on the ends and Cura prints Infill separately so there is travel from one end to the other to complete the infill on each layer. You can try going to 4 walls and 0% infill. You have "Max comb distance with no retract" set to 30mm. Drop that to 3mm to force more retractions. That should allow you to turn off "Retract before outer wall". I see you have the retraction distance set to 2.0mm. You have a direct drive on your printer? The setting "Avoid printed parts when traveling" tells Cura to compute the travel moves off the part. I think you would be better off with as many combing moves as possible within the part. In Travel - set the Layer Start X and Layer Start Y to the same numbers as your Z seam location. With your current settings there are about 2040 retractions in the gcode. Making the changes above there are about 8000 retractions. Almost all of those additional retractions are before travel moves and that should seriously cut down the amount of strings you are getting. I see you have a lot of Flow settings at 85%. Is there a reason you need to under-extrude by so much? Single wall calibration cube perhaps? This is not a single wall print.

If those settings are turned off then use the "File | Save Project" command and post the 3mf file here. Someone will take a look. Looking into the rectangular holes in your 2nd and 3rd images it looks like "Make Overhangs Printable" might be on.

It could be a model error but the easy check is to make sure you have Mesh Fixes "Remove all Holes" turned off and in Experimental make sure "Make Overhangs Printable" is turned off.

@Barney did you look in the Manage Printers \ Machine Settings dialog? The StartUp gcode is in the lower left box. You should be able to put a semi-colon in front of the G29 line and the printer will ignore it. The line is added by the CR-10SPro definition file that was likely submitted by a member of the community.

Hello @Andrea82. Have you adjusted the "FACETRES" setting in AutoCad? It controls the resolution of the STL export file. Set it to the maximum (10 on my old Mechanical Desktop) and the facets of the STL will be much smaller.

Someone from the UltiMaker team will need to respond to the "won't run" thing. I'm good with the mechanicals and gcode and I know the software a bit but the developers can point to known issues regarding why the program doesn't want to run. @MariMakes is a liaison here and maybe has a take on the problem. One thing you can check is to make sure that your anti-virus software isn't stopping it. There have been issues where some anti-virus software was treating parts of Cura as "infected" with something (it wasn't true) and putting a file or two into quarantine. Those false positives can keep Cura from running. I see in that video the user is eyeballing the gap. Light will pass through a gap of about 0.10mm and that is around 1/2 a layer height. I use a piece of parchment paper as a feeler gauge and adjust so I can just feel the nozzle scratching on the paper. (A store receipt also works well but nothing sticks to parchment paper.) At .04mm thick it's much more accurate and repeatable than eyeballing the gap. The first layer bed adhesion is really important and "leveling" is a big part of that. Remember that the printer doesn't actually know where the bed is so it is up to the user to adjust the Z gap between the bed and the nozzle.

There isn't a fix. It is the nature of FDM that "layers" are involved. It gets better as the layer height approaches zero, but who the heck would print something that took 100 years. One solution could be a dual extruder setup. For one thing you can get by with no air gap between the support and the model since using a dissimilar material means the support wouldn't bond to the model. When the radius on the base of any model is tangent to the build plate then the support must be some distance from the model - because "Layer Height" is involved. So the outside wall of the second layer on a big radius is almost never supported. There is often a small mar on the surface because of that. It is also something that you might notice but that 99% of people would never notice. When I print something that has a small contact patch on the bed I move it up 1mm so the support goes under the model. That way the little patch is on support and the failure rate is a lot lower. If you were to do that then the support would grow properly and envelop the radius and the situation with that radius would go away. With a flat bottom like you have there - it isn't really an option as you would end up with ugly marks from the support removal on the flat area. "Adaptive Layer Height" is an option. The lower the layer height then the closer together the "steps" and that directly plays in to how the overhangs print and how well they self-support. I played around with "Support Flow" and settled on 90% for both the Support and the Support Interface. If support has to grow on the model then I make the gap between the model and the interface (the floor gap) 2X layer height. The extra gap allows the support interface plastic to cool just a tad more and it doesn't stick near as well so it comes off really clean. I always start out with Normal supports and only when I'm sure they aren't getting the job done do I move to Tree supports. A caveat to that is when the model is such that using Tree supports would allow me to use "touching buildplate" instead of "everywhere".