GregValiant

I've never seen Cura add a negative Z value. Here is your startup gcode: Are you running OctoPrint? Everything is commented out except the last line. That last line appears to be missing the "close curly bracket" at the very end. The only post-processor I see running is Insert at Layer Change is that correct?

Support blockers have options. The button above the Support Blocker button gives you the options of Print as Normal Model, Print as Support, Modify Settings for Overlaps, and Support Blocker. When Modifying Settings for Overlaps the block can be configured either as a Cutting Mesh or as an Infill Mesh and each has different effects on the main model. The blocks can be scaled and moved like any other mesh. It takes some playing with and not all settings are available but you can make alterations to the model that rests within the Modifier Mesh block. In the project file there are two rectangular blocks and a cylindrical block (this from a plugin that is loaded from the MarketPlace). Select each and you will be able to see how they are set up. GV_magnet holder.3mf

Something like this? There are 3 Support Blockers set to Modify Setting for Overlaps and as Infill Mesh.

I looked at the software side. VERY PROPRIETARY. Don't expect to use Cura (or PrusaSlicer or IdeaMaker) with a Bambu printer. The G-code is formatted a lot differently (for example there are 900 lines of preliminary code before the print even starts). I would assume that the firmware is also proprietary. Here is a snippet from a Bambu gcode file. (These are lines 463 to 500): ;G28 ; home again after hard wipe mouth M106 S0 ; turn off fan , too noisy ;===== wipe nozzle end ================================ ;===== bed leveling ================================== M1002 judge_flag g29_before_print_flag M622 J1 M1002 gcode_claim_action : 1 G29 A X179.662 Y98.165 I28.6086 J74.781 M400 M500 ; save cali data M623 ;===== bed leveling end ================================ ;===== home after wipe mouth============================ M1002 judge_flag g29_before_print_flag M622 J0 M1002 gcode_claim_action : 13 G28 M623 ;===== home after wipe mouth end ======================= M975 S1 ; turn on vibration supression ;===== check scanner clarity =========================== M972 S5 P0 ;===== check scanner clarity end ======================= ;=============turn on fans to prevent PLA jamming================= ;Prevent PLA from jamming M106 P2 S100 ; turn on big fan ,to cool down toolhead M104 S220 ; set extrude temp earlier, to reduce wait time ;===== mech mode fast check============================

The Cura Team and the main contributors are some very sharp people. I think it's terrific that they willingly share their knowledge about Cura. This forum made things a lot easier when I was starting in on 3D printing as a hobby.

@MarioLange1983 if you scale your model up in the X and Y to about 150 x 150 I think you will get a better idea of what is going on. Because it's a single model the infill from the lower cube is going up into the "A". That results in a gap in the skin so the infill can keep going. You can try setting the "Skin Expand Distance" to a higher number so it closes the gap where the infill sneaks through.

Until the next 3-in-one-out owner shows up.

It probably needs a Quality profile. I run on Windows and my printer is an Creality Ender 3 Pro so as an example: "C:\Program Files\UltiMaker Cura 5.2.1\share\cura\resources\quality\creality\base" Contains my stock Quality files. I would open one that is for the material I wish to use and then "Save As" using the same file name convention: Example for a 5.0 nozzle "base_0.2_PLA_super.inst.cfg" becomes "base_5.0_PLA_super.inst.cfg" and inside the file the line: variant = 0.2mm Nozzle would become variant = 5.0mm Nozzle Computers are dumb so you need to get the file naming convention just right or the file will be ignored by Cura. That may not update when you move to a new Cura version. I save my custom files like that to a separate folder and then copy them into the new version of Cura BEFORE I run the new version.

There are a couple of ways to do it. If you go to Manage Profiles you can Export a settings profile. Your friend can then import the profile. Sometimes there are incompatibilities (ex. nozzle size needs to be the same on both printers) between your printer and their printer but you should be able to overcome that. You can create a Project File in Cura ("File | Save Project") and your friend can open the project. There will be options regarding the printer, the setting profile, and the material. Your entire setup will be contained in the project file including your printer, StartUp and Ending Gcodes, the material, and the printer settings. If he doesn't want to overwrite his own StartUp Gcode then he can select the "Create New" option for the printer and afterwards delete the printer instance that gets created.

Hi @Dustin and @ZeitRapha, This "incomplete raft" problem has been reported at least a couple of times on Github (#12276 is one and #13696 is another and it's on the Cura backlog at CURA-9349). I noted in one of the Github reports that moving the model away from the mid-point of the Cura build plate fixed the issue.

"Why not just adjust accordingly to start with?" That's what I'm saying too. Your eyeballs are the best to determine how the printer is doing with your settings. A magnifying glass is fine. I picked up a microscope for cheap at a garage sale. It's always been great for removing splinters, but it's real good at seeing how layers went down, and if there are gaps or ridges between the extrusions of a skin.

If you alter the stock "Machine Settings" it gets noted in a .cfg file in the "app data\cura\5.3\definition changes" folder. When you update Cura that will get used when the printer moves to the new version.

In regards to the speed, you are probably bumping up against the "Minimum Layer Time" which has a default of 10 seconds. You can set it lower but the print may not have a chance to cool properly before the nozzle comes back around. A related setting is Minimum Speed. The settings are in the Cooling section. Unless you intend to print a lot of models that have single walls and need the walls to be some exact thickness, don't calibrate using a single wall model. Just calibrate the E-steps and you are done. The best way to tell if you have the flow dialed in is to use a decent magnifying glass and check a top skin.

It's a json file and coded much like Python. You must have the punctuation exactly correct (a tab character is not the same as a space character) and a correct new-line character between commands. If you open the cura.log file you should find the exact error described. If you alter the definition file - if/when you update Cura to the next version, you will lose your changes. The easy thing to do is just edit the StartUp and Ending gcode in the Machine Settings in Cura.

You said two things there that are kind of contradictory. "...with 2 cr10s and 1 pro." That indicates that you installed CR-10S which would have used the CR-10S definition file in Cura. "...the custom printers I created." That indicates that you installed a "Custom FFF" printer which would have used the "fdmprinter" definition in Cura. In the first case you can alter the Metadata section of your "CR10S" definition file to match the "CR10SPro" definition file. They are both in: "C:\Program Files\UltiMaker Cura 5.3.0-beta.1\share\cura\resources\definitions" In the second case...forget about it. You really don't want to change the base "fdmprinter" definition file.

The 5.x versions are different in regards to the walls and (recently) the support structure. I liked 4.13.1 a lot and 4.12 was fine. I moved to the 5.x versions full time when they came out. I still do some slicing with 4.13.1 (but no printing) because chasing Cura bugs on Github has become a hobby and your comment actually comes up quite a bit. My printer is an Ender 3 Pro with the stock 8 bit board running Marlin 1.1.8. It isn't new. It does an excellent job with either version of Cura. I'm a retired fireman from Detroit and have nothing to do with UltiMaker other than spending time here and on the Github site. I also occasionally use PrusaSlicer and IdeaMaker just to keep my hand in. Migrating to the new version takes a bit of effort in that the new settings in "Walls" take some getting used to. There is a bit of a learning curve when moving from the 4.x versions to the 5.x versions. All that being said, I really haven't noticed any difference in my prints from Cura 4 to Cura 5 except in those cases where I have a thin walled model. Using 5.x, those models are stronger and less features are dropped (do to line width) than in the 4.x versions. Load a model in 4.12, set Cura up to slice, and use the "File | Save Project" command to create a 3mf project file. Do the same using 5.2.2 with the same model. Post the project files here and I'll take a look. On something like a calibration cube you shouldn't see any difference at all.. A Benchy is different as it has a lot more detail, overhangs, and whatnot. Either one would be fine.

I don't know Blender. Maybe you can make a copy, scale the copy (maybe) 2mm larger and place it on the outside of the real model. A mask over a mask sort of thing. Then somehow seal the edges between the two masks. The shot below is a model I put together in MS 3D Builder. When I first opened it in Builder there were errors. In a huge break - when Builder fixed the errors it created a solid backside. I subtracted a cube from that model to give it clean edges on the backside. After that I did what I described above. Made a copy, scaled it up, and subtracted the small one from the back of the larger one. It doesn't look too bad. 3d head 1cut 4.stl

There are a couple of things going on. When I slice your model with your settings at least three of the walls disappear. The line width is too wide and Cura can't fit the nozzle in there. You can see they are gray in the shot below. This is with a 0.4 nozzle at .5 line width. You can see the travel lines in blue. You have "Avoid Printed Parts When Traveling" enabled so the nozzle moves to avoid the print. This is with "Z Seam Relative" at 0,0 and "Avoid Printed Parts" is turned off. This is about as good as this model will get as far as travel moves go.

If you do a search around here you will find an excellent rant of mine regarding "single wall calibration cubes". It boils down to this: When you calibrate to a single wall cube, your printer will make excellent single wall cubes. How often do you print single wall cubes that need a perfect wall thickness? Because other than that specific condition...everything else you print will be under-extruded.

I didn't. That's your first model without the blocker. I measured the cavity you wanted, opened the model file in MS 3D Builder, brought in a cube, sized it, located it, and subtracted it. It's the sort of thing you need to do to give Cura the model you want rather than "this is almost it except..." which rarely works out well. Cura is good when changes you want to make are in regards to slicing. It's poor when you ask it to do CAD work. It's just not what it was built to do. I like MS 3D Builder. It's good at modifying STL files but as I said, it's not very intuitive so some things take a bit of trial and error. Actually, in some cases things take a LOT of trial and error. I struggle mightily when I want to put sunken lettering on a model and it's something I've done a number of times.

I'm guessing over here. Box with a cavity.stl

Cura is not a CAD program. The block does not "cut" the model, it just tells the slicing engine that anything inside the block is to be treated differently. The model itself is not changed. Load the model in Cura and use the "File | Save Project" command and post the resultant 3mf file here. If you have a model with the weight in place and can pass that file along as well that would give me a better idea of what you are shooting for.

This is starting to sound like one of those things where the model you are giving Cura to slice isn't really the model you want. If you are on Windows you can download "MS 3D Builder" from the Microsoft App Store. It's not an intuitive program but if you open your model in it you can bring in a cube, size it and move it where you want, and then subtract the cube from the model. You get a model with a cavity and it should get supports.

I typed this earlier and then walked away without submitting it. Sorry. If I understand correctly - Typically your insert becomes the support. Whether its a nut (a problem because of the hole) or a magnet, you know it's thickness so make your "Mesh Modifier" block that thickness. Set a Pause at Height at the proper layer, insert the weight and then allow the print to resume. It will simply print over the weight and put a roof on the cavity. It will be messy for a couple of layers. You could put a piece of painters tape on the weight to make it more "bed like" so the extrusion would stick. If you do that you have to account for the added height so the nozzle doesn't whack it.

Yes, the project file contains the model, all your Cura settings, and your printer including any customizing you did to things like the start and end gcodes. It's an excellent tool for trouble-shooting. Here is the Cura preview of your model. This is the backside and you can see down low the white marks indicating the starts and stops where Cura had not yet started to spiralize. If you look at the rest of the model you will see that these are the only starts and stops. Here it is from the top. There is the phantom Zseam. It isn't the problem. What is a problem is that the loops of the walls no longer touch, and this area will fail and fall inside the model as a modest bowl of spaghetti. Below is the gcode read into AutoCad. I've erased the front so you can see the area depicted above. This is not a "cartoon" like Cura shows but is the mathematical representation of the actual gcode moves. If you squint you can see that there is no seam. This snippet of gcode is from that vase. 1 F2885.7 X117.597 Y176.343 Z53.444 E4088.42483 G1 X114.873 Y176.599 Z53.448 E4089.00723 G1 X112.157 Y176.743 Z53.452 E4089.58618 G1 X109.42 Y176.776 Z53.457 E4090.16883 G1 X106.682 Y176.697 Z53.461 E4090.7519 G1 X103.97 Y176.508 Z53.465 E4091.33059 G1 X101.24 Y176.205 Z53.469 E4091.91528 G1 X98.556 Y175.795 Z53.473 E4092.49324 You can see that the Z is sneaking up a little bit with every extrusion. That's spiralized and there is no Z-seam. So when I sliced it Spiralize worked and there would be no Z-seam when printed. What we probably have is a poor rendering (a bad cartoon) in Cura.