GregValiant

Throughout my 72 years I have found that you can never go wrong with a red clown nose. I can see how it might not work for Dumbledore, but I've always considered them to be "A nose for all occasions". Maybe you could wear one and say things like "If I ever catch the student who is responsible for this....". I found this "Nose Box" on Thingiverse. It has a wide variety of noses. By dropping it into the build plate you can get the side you want to print. Scaling it should get the one you choose to the right size. Here I've added support blockers configured as cutting mesh with 0 wall, 0 top/bottom layers, and 0 infill to get rid of a couple and also the ridge that would have wanted to print. No bottom layers, set the infill density to 20% and the Infill Flow to 85 or 90% so it breaks out easy. Maybe you could print it in red? That would make me proud. Oh...make sure you get the Z seam right or you will look silly.

5.0 and 5.1 had issues with both dialog boxes and slicing. I would advise to update to 5.2.1 which isn't as fussy about what can slice, and has had many of the dialog problems fixed. If the problem is still present after upgrading then one of the developers will have to respond. They will want to know what operating system you are using.

For problem #1 I don't think so. The "last folder" will come up whether you save as gcode or 3mf. There is no option for "last gcode folder" as opposed to "last 3mf folder". For problem #2 there are bug reports on Github about that behavior. For those of us who open a lot of files consecutively it's truly annoying and it is easy to overwrite a gcode file if you aren't paying close attention and catching when Cura decides to change the project name. The bug is easily duplicated but doesn't appear to be so easy to fix. You can look at Github #11756, #11803, #13095, #13372, and for developers it's on the backlog as CURA-8897. One poster on Gihub made this observation "...but if you save the project before saving the gcode, then the project name stays (until you load a new stl and save the gcode first). Hopefully this helps." So changing the order in which you save the project and gcode appears to have an effect.

I cheated. When I zoomed in on that second image of yours I noticed that there was no problem until the pockets started. The lower layers are perfect and then the bumps start. There is infill all the way down and that lower 2mm or so wasn't an issue.

It's difficult to tell on walls but that may be under-extrusion or possibly intermittent extrusion (partial clog). What printer is that?

If that is full scale and you need to get two wires through the hole it will be tough. Getting the support out of it ain't gonna be easy either. I'm attaching your model with 2.5mm holes. Two #24 wires should fit. I know this because I build hats. GVbrazier with 25 holes.stl

There are a couple of things in your settings that I took note of. All-in-all, the settings are conservative and don't look like a problem. The differences I have with them are purely personal preference. Now let's talk about what's really going on with that second model and it's got nothing to do with infill. It's the model and your line width. They are causing Cura to develop a toolpath to account for how close the wall of the pockets come to the main outside wall. Right at that tangency - the model goes from 3 walls to effectively 1.5 walls because the wall cross section is only 2.05mm thick there. The inner walls go in, then Cura puts in a short line (6mm long) as a connector. That short line has a prime at the start and a retraction with a wipe move at the end and bumps are developing on the print. When the nozzle comes by with the last outer wall it hits those little bumps and jostles just enough to leave a noticeable artifact in the outer wall. There are smaller bumps developing where the inner walls come together in my lovely circles. This is the same area but in AutoCad (you will need to click on it and zoom in). It looks like a highway with 6 lanes merging into 3. So the problem is that the inner walls just behind the outer wall is made up of pieces and parts rather than a continuous extrusion and there are a bunch of stops and starts at each of the 19 locations where this condition occurs. I think you have three options here. Drop the line width of the walls and maybe go with a .4 nozzle. You can put the top and bottom layers down at .65 but make the inner and outer walls .40 line width. You should be able to maintain the .30 layer height. The print time goes to 1:14 so will take about 4 minutes longer. With the wall line width at .40 Cura will be able to change to 6 lanes merging with 5 lanes and a lot of the bumps should go away. Those little areas are more akin to a miniature than a practical model. The second option is to try printing this with the wall order as "Outside to Inside". With the outer walls going down first they should harden before all the shorter extrusions go in between them. Probably not an acceptable option, but if there were 4 mm between the inner pocket and the outside wall then Cura could fit 6 lanes through there and the traffic jam goes away. The part would be 4mm longer and 4mm wider. That's what I've got. Hope it helps.

I've done extensive scans of auto accident scenes, and of buildings and smaller ones of accident damage to individual vehicles. I always sent the actual scan data to another guy who I believe used Rhino. I'd get back the files with all the dots connected and I could manipulate them in AutoCad. They weren't model files but they were similar to STL files in that they had lots of triangles but the software (as I recall) made no attempt to close edges or things like that. That was a dozen years ago and I'm sure things have moved on. FYI that laser scanner was $45,000.00 ($700/figurine if you are keeping score).

Load one of your models and set Cura up to slice. Then use the "File | Save Project" command and post the 3mf file here. Usually 3 walls will keep infill from showing or leaving marks. It can be affected y a lot of different things from under-extrusion to a loose hot end. Post the project file and maybe looking at it will at least eliminate some things.

Maybe you can scale the model in just the X? It shows as 135.6 in the X (the width?) so maybe at 135.0 the problem would go away. That would make each pocket a tad smaller though.

Cura is using it's own definition of an outer wall where it is any wall with air on one side and model on the other. If we are on the same page here, you want the insides of the pockets to print "Inside to Outside" but the exterior of the box to print "Outside to Inside". Is that right?

Choose the "Custom" settings. To the right of the settings search box is the Hamburger icon (three lines on it) and it is the setting visibility tool. Click on it and set the visibility to "All". In the wall section is "Wall Ordering" and set that to "Outside To Inside". There is an option in the Infill section for "Infill Before Walls".

"On the Cheap" is an issue and is subjective. There are small scanners that may be appropriate. Some of the cheap ones receive really horrible reviews. Looking around today I found these... Creality has a "CR Scan Lizard" on sale for $570.00. You'd only be paying about $8.75/figurine. There are several "Ciclop" scanners in different colors and by different names. They run around $150 but those are the ones with a lot of bad reviews. About $2.25/figurine. At the other end are handhelds like the Peel 3 that runs $8655.00 (Free shipping!). About $135/figurine. Whatever scanner you would decide on - even when it works as advertised it ends up being all about the translation software that takes the scanner point cloud and turns it into an STL/3mf/OBJ file. I'm thinking at least two more learning curves here.

@gr5 I agree. It's always better when the model itself is what you want rather than having to hack-and-whack in Cura in order to make it what you want. @lodebar I'm curious what scale you intend to print that at. At the size it comes into Cura - about the only thing that will fit are birthday candles.

I don't know if it's a bug or not. After I install a new version of Cura I have a second installer (of my own) that copies my custom definitions, scripts, extruders, and nozzles into the appropriate folders of the new version. When I uninstall, the uninstaller appears to leave those folders that have my custom files. I would assume that in my case it's because the files inside those folders aren't listed within the uninstaller and since they remain on the PC the folders they are in remain as well. I have to manually delete those folders. But the "Open With" menu is something different, but may be related. Maybe @nallath can cast some light on the subject.

I don't think it uninstalls previous versions by default. I need the older versions but most folks don't. If you click on the Start button and scroll down to the Ultimaker section you can right click on a version you no longer want and select "Uninstall". That should take you to the applications list where you can actually perform the uninstall.

If you want a round hole you will need to load the Cylindrical Support plugin from the MarketPlace. If you can live with a square hole then you can use a regular support blocker. Either way, select the block and in the Per Model settings on the left toolbar set it to Modify Settings for Overlaps, Cutting Mesh. Select the settings for Wall Count, Top Layers, Bottom Layers, and Infill and set them all to "0". Then size the block and put it in position over the holes I made. You can "multiply" the block and move the copies to the other holes.

I agree. Simple is best. It is rarely a word associated with 3D printing. The PC must be connected to the printer via USB. If you connect the USB cable to the printer it will see the 5volt connection and that will cause the printer to re-boot and the print will fail. That is true on any printer as the 5volt signal is used by the firmware of many printers to signal an external reset.

Yep. Flipped normal in 46. You want it like the bottom one here? I deleted 46 and copied 42 over to where 46 was. I had to add the holes as those base pieces looked like they had holes, but they didn't. I guessed at the hole size and made them .5mm at this scale. I assume you will print this at a larger scale. You can adjust the size of the holes in Cura with support blockers configured as Cutting Mesh or in Blender by subtracting larger cylinders than I used. At any rate it may not be what you're looking for but I'll attach the STL. GVbrazier with holes.stl

So you would start Cura and select a folder. Then your automation would: Load a model. Slice Save the gcode Clear the build plate Repeat The problem I see is a lack of quality control. If there were problems you wouldn't know about it until the print at least started. That could happen 152 times.

I've had mine for 3 years and that hasn't happened. You can try shimming the corners up with pieces of aluminum foil. It may take a bit longer to get an even temperature across the surface but other than that it should be fine. You didn't mention what build surface you have. I bought the Creality glass plate and it's been fine. A "four corner" leveling system can actually cause something like that. If two opposite corners are pulling the plate down then the other two corners can hold it up and the result is a bow running katty corner. Occasionally I will pull my glass plate off and level the metal by itself because I level by hand and over time I will get that bow. If the center is high and the four corners are drooping then that is different. Shimming is easy and can work so long as you don't need to stack 8 washers to eliminate the rocking. Two or 5 thicknesses of aluminum foil should work and aluminum has excellent heat transfer.

You want to select a folder and tell Cura to slice all the files in the folder but you want different settings profiles for some models? How would Cura know which profile goes with which model file? If they all used the same profile then maybe you could write a script that would work. My own experience is that each model needs it's own love and so canned profiles rarely work as well as custom settings tailored to each particular model.

The "FeedRate" as shown on the LCD is a global setting and affects every speed the printer receives. It's a modifier, not the actual Feed Rate. If you entered "60" as the print speed and the FeedRate is at 100% on the printer then the printer is printing at 60 (so long as things like Minimum Layer Time aren't involved). If you were to Tune the feedrate to 50% on the LCD then although the gcode says to print at 60 the printer/processor would drop that to 30mm/sec. If you were to print a smallish model in Spiralize then the layers go quickly. In that case the "Minimum Layer Time" comes into play and Cura adjusts the print speed within the gcode to insure that a layer takes 10 seconds (or whatever you have it set to) to complete. It's a cooling thing. You might have Print Speed set to 60 but Cura will alter that. Once again though, if Feed Rate on the printer is 100% then the print will go down at whatever speed is in the gcode. The only way to actually check the speed is to open a Gcode file in a text editor and search for F numbers. You have to do a conversion because gcode is in mm/minute and the Cura settings are in mm/second. Divide the Gcode F numbers by 60 to get mm/sec. G1 F3600 X123 Y123 E123.45678 is an extrusion at 60mm/sec.

I used MS 3D Builder to alter the model (it's included with Windows). It isn't intuitive, but it's pretty good at altering STL's and at repairing models with errors. I stuck a 41mm cylinder in the bottom and 1mm above the bottom and then merged the two pieces. I suggest a 0.6mm line width. Because spiralize often bounces off the Minimum Layer Time the print head will go slow enough that the high flow won't be a problem. GV3db_Tree.3mf

The toolpath goes from the exterior perimeter to the wall of the hole and is extruding as it makes that move. Once the inside wall completes then the nozzle "travels" back to the perimeter and starts the next layer. When the toolpath gets above the inside wall then it doesn't need to make the move anymore. Both the perimeter and the interior wall are extruded as a spiral but there will be a Z-seam on both features because the nozzle leaves and then returns. That's the way it works in 5.x versions. Some folks call it a regression, but my own feeling is that 4.x versions were ignoring model features. Your model has a 5mm deep pocket in the bottom and so it has a wall. In Cura 5.x you can get rid of those lines by making the pocket 5 layers deep (your "bottom layers" setting). So at 0.2 layer height if the pocket was 1mm deep you wouldn't notice the extrusions - but you won't get the inner wall either. Here I've altered the model so the pocket is 1mm deep and you can see that there are no cross-over extrusions. The wall of the hole is missing (as it would be in 4.x versions of Cura).