GregValiant

My printer lists a Zmax at 250. I didn't like the way the bowden and cables were bent when it's that high so I lowered it to 240 in cura. I can still use the 250 if I need it. I go back into Machine Settings and move the height back up for just that print. It doesn't happen often (I think once for me). There is a slicer (PrusaSlicer?) that does math in the StartUp and End gcodes but I'm not sure if it can do logic.

Yeah, it's in a lot of places and some files override others depending on the load order (which I'm not sure of). You can make adjustments to particular settings within Cura and then select the "current profile". A dropdown list will appear. At the bottom is an option "Update Profile with Current Settings/Overrides". That will make changes to the defaults. I think that's the easiest way to do it but if you have a lot of profiles it can take a bit of time. I'm on Windows and with my own "Trailers PLA 75" profile active then doing the above will make changes to a file in: "C:\Users\Home\AppData\Roaming\cura\5.0\quality_changes" and in my case the file is named: "creality_base_extruder_0_%2315_trailers_pla_75.inst.cfg" Under [Values] there will be lines (or you will add lines): retraction_amount = 5.5 retraction_combing_max_distance = 5 retraction_extra_prime_amount = 0 retraction_extrusion_window = 5.0 You can make changes there and when you use that profile they will be the defaults until you make changes and then save them to the profile. The actual printer definition file that Cura uses is in "C:\Program Files\Ultimaker Cura 5.0.0\share\cura\resources\definitions" and that is the main file where you would add your overrides. But I think that one loads before the "Settings Profile".

If you use a hole saw go really slow. The plastic will heat up in a hurry and gum up the cutting edges. I have an old hand drill I use for putting holes in. Even on slow speed the power drill gets gummed up and then starts to make the hole bigger.

Some of that depends on your Layer Height and Initial Layer Height. When the slices are made those determine where Cura makes the slice. A bit off here and a bit off there and exactly in the Z where the slice is made changes. Where the slice goes through a feature can make a difference. I've noticed that 5.0 will make multiple lines out of what used to be a single long line. They are all in a row but pieces instead of a whole. I have no idea why they did that but I suppose it has to do with the variable line thing. I've been playing with some of the new settings and making changes can make a difference in the toolpath. I'm just not sure of "how" they make a difference or when I should make the difference yet.

You would need to add overrides to your definition file. The settings are: {retraction_amount} {retraction_extrusion_window} If you open the Ender 3 Pro definition file in Notepad you can check the overrides section and add your own.

It does not support logic or math in the Start or End gcodes. Unless your prints are always at max height you can use a relative move of 5 or 10mm's to get the nozzle off the print.

C'mon now boys. The second photo is a SINGLE print. I combined the gcodes from the 5.0 (on the bottom) scribbled in some transition gcode (actually I have a post-processor that does that) and then pasted the 4.13 gcode on top. So from 0 to 7mm it's 5.0 and from 7.2mm to 14mm it's 4.13. I knew you wouldn't be able to tell. @Yamie Attached is a project file from 5.0. You can export the STL and open it in 4.13 or just open the project in either version. Also attached is the gcode file I put together. It's for an Ender 3 Pro (230 x 230 bed) but there isn't anything odd in the Gcode and should print OK on other printers BUT the retraction distance is 5.5. If you let me know your preferred retract distance I'll make up another one. (The preview of that gcode file in Cura is interesting.) EDIT: Added a combined gcode with .8 retraction. @Sandman_d Intake #1 is on a curve. The extrusion can't follow a curve (over air) on the first stroke so I would expect that to be a trouble spot. It did not turn out near as well as #2. If that yellow line started at the outboard edge of the intake, that was a bad thing. It looks like it didn't stick and snapped to the other edge. It did that for about 4 or 5 layers before it build up enough junk to bridge the gap. If it went down that way then that would account for the angle. "...the program makes supports for its outer wall..." I don't understand that part. The infill printed first? Thin Wall Test Shape Combined.gcode Thin Wall Test Shape.3mf Thin Wall Test Shape COMBINED_8.gcode

New experiment. This time I used my own model. One half of this was sliced with 5.0 and the other half with 4.13. The gcodes were combined and printed one on top of the other. Those who correctly determine which half was sliced with which version (AND explain how they could tell) will win a possibly wonderful virtual prize possibly suitable as a screensaver. It will not include Flying Toasters. First is the thin wall side (.45, .40, .35 left to right): Second is the thicker walled side (1.00, 0.80, 0.60 left to right).

@Sandman_d In 4.13 there were no changes in flow in the outer wall. The line width was fixed. In 5.0 you are asking for different wall widths and to accommodate that Cura must change the flow. The outer wall path is no longer a straight line. The 0.3 wall dictates that the centerline of the nozzle is .15 from the outside surface of the model. The .45 wall dictates that the centerline of the nozzle is .225 from the outside surface. That means jigs and jogs so the outside surface is planar. At every jig and jog the flow changes as well. Coming in from the left is the extrusion of a single wall, then the "buttress" feature, and then another single wall. You can see the jig-jogs (inside my circles) at the buttress as the line width changes and Cura makes the adjustment to keep the outside surface planar. The line coming from the left is not co-linear to the line exiting on the right. Here is the same area in 4.13.1. In this case the left line is co-linear to the far right line. There is still a jig-jog. As you point out, this behavior in 5.0 leaves artifacts on the outer surface of that particular model. I will assume that the artifacts are the result of the real world intruding as the printer struggles to keep up with the rapid nozzle pressure changes. Maybe some sort of Pressure Advance or Linear Advance would help but in a mechanical contrivance I think there will always be a lag time and hence artifacts. In my test print I did not notice any real "strength" difference as everything seemed to bond together correctly. Under the microscope I can see that the wall is planar and that the printer left bulges at the direction changes. Trying to measure them isn't easy but they appear to be about .01 to .03mm tall. Enough to catch the light. The areas between the "ridges" appears to be planar. On any single wall print my Ender 3 Pro will have marks on the outside where the infill touches the inside of the wall. That is the same sort of artifact as is being left by the printer in regards to the pressure changes that 5.0 dictates. In this last image one of the prints was sliced in 4.13.1 and the other with 5.0. Both are with your test model and both have the same side facing the camera. The question is...which is which? A second question would be...are you getting different results? In regards to your question "How to solve this problem" I have no idea. In my case I'm pretty sure it's the printer unable to keep up with the rapidity of the pressure changes. I've been known to be wrong.

For a non-Ultimaker printer you bring in a model (STL, OBJ, 3mf, etc.) set up the settings how you want and hit the big Slice button. When it's done slicing that button will change to "Save to Disk". When you save the file it will be your gcode file. Copy that to the SD card and stick the SD in the printer and print it. If it is an Ultimaker then someone else will need too reply to that.

Congrats!!! I had a feeling it was a thermal issue. I wanted to back away from the theory so I wouldn't get tunnel vision but it was sticking in my head. If you had told me it was going to go by me at 160 I'd have told you not to worry about how it looks. 🏍️

You can kind of do it. Right now your cutting mesh is leaving it's own cavity and since the main model has "walls" the new cavity is getting walls. Your cavities in the main model are too deep. They should be just deep enough to sink the speaker mounting flange. Behind those your "cutting model" must be configured as an Infill Mesh and not a Cutting Mesh. 0 walls, 0 top, 0 btm, 0 infill. In Mesh Fixes turn on "Remove Mesh Intersection" After printing you will need to use a hole saw and cut the holes in the shell (Your model can have printed pilot holes as drill guides). The inside of the shell will be as you want it. No infill where the rest of the speaker fits. That interior baffle - I suppose that would need to be a separate mesh. This is my model to demonstrate. You can see the gap in the infill from the cutting tool. With the face of the pocket cut away the speaker gap will be revealed. The round shadow under the sphere is a flat feature 1mm thick that I sink into the Cura build plate. I put them on both models so I can precisely locate them in Cura.

I'm not getting that problem. Check in the Experimental section and see if you have "Make Overhangs Printable" checked. It should NOT be checked. Also check in the Mesh Fixes and make sure "Remove all Holes" is NOT checked. BTW...both of the models have errors in them. They aren't bad errors but they need to be repaired.

There is an option to switch between "Orthographic View" (which doesn't center) and "Perspective View" (which does center). From the Cura Menu it's in "Preferences - Configure Cura - General" under Viewport Behavior. The setting is called Camera Rendering. There is also a button to the right of the "front", "top" and "side" view buttons.

A settings profile? That is so model dependent that having more than a couple is useless as you are constantly tweaking them anyways to get it just right for the model. What kind of things are you looking to print? If it's large flat stuff they need to be printed one way. Tall skinny things need to be printed another way. If you are printing with PLA it's one group of settings. Moving to PETG it's another. I have three profiles. PLA, PETG, TPU. I installed separate Ender 3 Pro's for each material because I wanted different StartUp Gcodes dependent on the material. I use the Settings Visibility option and set it to "ALL". Once I've picked the printer and material it's: Slice, look at the preview, make changes, slice, look at the preview, make changes. Keep doing it until it looks good. I suggest you start with models that don't need a lot of supports and are fairly regular. They are the easiest to dial in. Starting out with a complicated figurine / mini or a busy "building diorama" is tough and it's easy to get frustrated. So keep it simple, keep your speeds under about 50 to start, and make a few good prints. Then as you get to know the printer and what it likes and doesn't like you can start getting more aggressive with your settings.

The Sermoon D1 definition is included with Cura 5.0. You should be able to install the printer in Cura. Once the printer is installed there should be a couple of profiles available (Draft, Standard, etc.). You can change to the "Custom" menu and make all settings visible and customize to your hearts content. Then go to "Manage Profiles" and save the settings under a new name. I'm not sure what you mean by a "driver". That's a WiFi printer? If so then you should be able to find it on your network. If not then print from the SD card until you understand how all the complicated stuff works.

@H3nshy I haven't received any response. Have you tried contacting SolidWorks?

It looks to me that as the top-end slicers have evolved that one of the things they've gotten better at is finding and reporting defects in the model. An unfortunate side effect of that is that they are fussier about those defects. When I get weirdness in a slice I always start troubleshooting by checking the model.

What is the Wall Order setting? The new default in 5.0 is Outside to Inside. In 4.13 it was Inside to Outside.

Your print temperature of 230 sticks out. The material is listed as PLA and I would expect 200 to 210. If it is PLA then it's really loose at 230 and just wants to run out of the nozzle like water. That's a real problem with all the travel moves you have there. I looked at it with a couple of different combing settings and there isn't much difference. Lots of travel = lots of oozing + lots of heat = lots of boogers. Again, if it is PLA you might want to also consider turning on the layer cooling fan. Unless you already know that you don't want it on - consider 35% at least and you might want to go to 100%. You want the plastic to harden fast so it stays where it was put and printing at 230° - that isn't easy with the fan off. Single wall models with lots of long travel moves are tough. There is going to be some oozing even if you were to print at 200°C as it's just the nature of the process. The means a new extrusion after a long travel can start out dry until the pressure comes up in the nozzle. With more walls that defect gets hidden. With a single wall it looks crappy and can seriously impact the structural integrity of the print. You might want to consider using "Retraction Extra Prime Amount" at about .15mm (EDIT .40) which would equate to about 5mm of extrusion. Mostly though I think you're printing too hot. I've printed RC boat hulls on my Ender 3 Pro and they turned out pretty well at .4 line width and printed at 205° (and the bed at 50). They were a lot stronger at .6 line width but a boat isn't as sensitive to weight as a plane.

" its obviously higher from the bed than it used to be for some reason." Open the gcode file in Notepad or some other text editor. About 6 or 8 lines down will be a line like this: ;MINZ:0.2 Then just before the first extrusion of the skirt/brim there will be some lines something like this: G0 F9000 X81.638 Y127.923 Z0.2 G0 X81.55 Y128.472 ;TYPE:SKIRT G1 F2100 E0 G1 F4500 X81.638 Y127.923 E0.01759 So in the gcode file I copied those from the initial layer height was 0.2 and that number was reflected by the MINZ line. What does one of your gcodes say?

With the file loaded and Cura ready to slice use the File | Save Project command and post the 3mf file here. How has the machine been printing? You have the retraction dialed in and the E-steps calibrated?

I think much of this can be fixed with more practice with TinkerCad. I don't use it myself but a lot of people do. You always need to watch for inverted faces and things that can confuse Cura. This is a complicated model. It was an ambitious effort on your part. I used the Cura Mesh Tools - "Split Model Into Parts" function and two pieces came loose. You can see mesh 2 but the third is infinitely small. The Origin arrows in this picture are indicating the third mesh. In regards to the "e" you can go back into TinkerCad and try moving it into the main model a couple hundredths of a mm. It's possible to "Union" in Cad with the parts not in contact with each other. That leads to the rather technical issue of "funkiness" in the model and I guess Cura isn't into Funk. Rock n Roll might be OK.

The model has errors. When you load the STL does the "Not Watertight" warning come up? After looking at your slice and then slicing it myself I thought you may have uploaded a different model. Here the model on the left has been repaired and the model on the right is the one you uploaded. I don't have your settings (you can pass them along but using the "File | Save Project" command and posting the 3mf file). This is the layer before the "e". In this one I added a model repaired at https://formware.co/OnlineStlRepair. It's the left bottom one. All three models sliced differently which is bizarre in itself. So it looks like there are some disconnects in the model. I used MS 3D Builder to repair the left top model but none of the models look right to me. Although TinkerCad is fussy about how the surfaces go together and which side should face outside (see Inverted Faces in the report), this problem seems a bit different. I don't know if that directly has anything to do with your adhesion issue but as you can see my slices look different than yours. This was a .4 nozzle at .2 layer height. I went down to a .05 layer height and the slicing was pretty much the same. Regarding having Cura inset the "e" deeper into the model, no. That's a CAD operation. If the "e" was a separate model then it could be inset further. Here is the repair report: --> 0 Naked edges (?) --> 0 Planar holes (?) --> 0 Non-planar holes (?) --> 14 Non-manifold edges (?) --> 23 Inverted faces (?) --> 2 Degenerate faces (?) --> 0 Duplicate faces (?) --> 0 Disjoint shells (?)

If I understand...You would like the layer number displayed on the LCD during a print?