nitro2k01

Well, it would seem that if you don't fill out a required field, the application is discarded. If some required fields don't apply, you can't fill out the form completely by definition, and the request will supposedly be discarded.

Thanks for the heads up. This part of the terms and conditions seemed a bit ominous:

I just got an e-mail about a sweepstake for an Ultimaker S3. When filling out the form I noticed that the fields for company, company size and company phone are required fields. However, when checking the terms and conditions, they mention nothing about entering on behalf of a company being a requirement. Is it possible to enter the competition as a private individual, or do you have to enter on behalf of your company/employer? Thanks for any guidance.

Without knowing the specs I'd say, yes, you need a better computer, or at least a better graphics card. Cura should still work, just very slowly. That said, even an absolute low-end, but modern card like a GTX1030 or GTX1050 would make a world of difference in terms of responsiveness if you can afford it. You should be able to find it new for below $100 or used for $50 if you look. However, that won't help with slice times. You may also want to double check that you have drivers installed for whatever integrated graphics you do have.

Have you done a quick visual inspection in preview mode between the two to see if anything looks very different or wrong? Preferably with color scheme set to line type to see if the new version does any weird choices with how it categorizes various parts of the model in terms of top/bottom/shell/infill.

Since the announcement asked for feedback, here's mine. Would it perhaps be a good idea to add a free text field for specifying other (non-Ultimaker) printers? I appreciate that this is Ultimaker's forum, but Cura is one of your supported products. This information might actually be useful for answering questions in that subforum, (moreso than a simple "other") the same way that the other choices are relevant for the "Ultimaker only" parts of the forum.

And also, besides checking for a second M140 command, this theory can be tested by looking for material_bed_temperature_layer_0 in the settings dump at the end of the G code file.

I apologize for not reading the question properly and answering based on that. The only other way I can imagine that command being created is through the profile setting "build plate temperature initial layer" which is hidden by default. If that were the case, there should be a M140 S50 command later on in the G code. (Edit: Shown in your screenshot, but possibly overwritten by a profile change at that time.)

These are set in two places. 1) These settings originally come from the material profiles. In the top of the screen, there's a menu bar with three sections. Click the middle section to reveal a window with a selection of material and nozzle size. Click the material and select a profile or click manage materials. Here you can create material profiles with custom settings. 2) However, if you are experimenting in day to day use, it's probably more common to use a temperature setting override. Click the right part of the same menu bar. This reveals a window with settings for the layer height, infill, support and adhesion. In the bottom, click custom, and you will see a long list of settings you can change to override the profile, including bed and nozzle temperature.

In this case, Cura sees that the gap between the walls is exactly 1 nozzle width, and reckons it might as well fill that in with a straight line. This gives a slightly higher material use, but a stronger part. However, it also comes at the price of printing those walls at a fairly slow speed. My recommendation in this case would be to set the wall thickness to 3 (which will indeed print like your top picture with the equivalent of 100% infill). Then change the inner wall speed to 100% of the main print speed. (You may need to show the inner wall setting since it's hidden by default.) The higher inner wall speed should work ok in this case since your walls are just straight lines, and with this change, this should print at a speed comparable to or faster than the low infill version. It's easy to see why logically, since the nozzle has to travel the same distance whether printing infill or a straight line of plastic, except now it doesn't have to start and stop periodically to fill in the infill segments.

Could you share the stl for the object, and the settings you are using? Does the pattern look identical if you zoom or move the position of the view, or does it change shape? Does the pattern disappear when you zoom in really close? The most likely explanation on first impression is that this is a 3D rendering issue (moiré pattern) because the lines are smaller than one pixel and that whatever artifacts you're seeing in the print are unrelated salmon skin effect.

Doing G29 before heating the bed and nozzle is a bad idea. Things expand when they are hot, so the readings will be slightly off when the print starts. If the objective is to save some time, it's not a bad idea to start heating the nozzle and bed simultaneously, assuming your power supply can handle the extra load for a couple of minutes.

The algorithm prints the all the perimeters before the bottom layer, so it needs to first print the outer and inner perimeter (ie the hole). The outer perimeter happens to end at the far end of the print with the unsightly line, so it needs to travel that long distance to reach the inner perimeter. A way to control this in a hopefully somewhat predictable way is with the Z seam settings. Z seam position should be set to user specified, Z seam value to a corner or edge of your choice. Now rotate the parts so that the hole is facing that corner or edge of the buildplate, so the path from the seam position to the inner perimeter is shortest. "Front" is probably recommended in this case because that's where the purge line ends and so that's where the first perimeter will start. Again though, you may need to fiddle with these settings to get it right. Another possibility is to enable Z hop to lift the hotend during travels and hopefully minimize the leakage of filament onto the bed. I don't know how the part looks on the other side, but if physically possible, flip the part around so the visible side is printed as the top layer. Then enable the ironing feature, which will smooth out the surface and make it look nice. I'm also noticing a possible underextrusion issue. I would check the following: Is the bed levelled correctly? Does the nozzle diameter setting match the actual nozzle diameter? You may want to calibrate e-steps. (Search for guides.)

First of all, is it the bed you want to keep heated or the hotend? And are you sure about that temperature? 190 ºC is very hot for a bed temperature. If that's a typo, even 90 ºC is hotter than the print bed temperature set in your G-code, which is 75 ºC... Secondly, you may have gotten the commands wrong. M140 Sxx ; Set bed temperature to xx M104 T0 Sxx ; Set first extruder temperature to xx M104 T1 Sxx ; Set second extruder temperature to xx Notice the difference, M140 vs M104. The quick fix solution is to use a G code post processor. Go to extensions, post processing, modify G-code. Add one instance of search and replace. Enter search: M140 S0 replace: M140 S90 (For these values, I'm assuming that you want to keep the bed heated at 90 ºC, not 190 ºC. Adjust the commands to match the components and temperature you want.)

I was looking into where the M105 command is generated and it's in the functions writeTemperatureCommand and writeBedTemperatureCommand in the file gcodeExport.cpp of the CuraEngine project. Here's the code responsible for the M105 command: if (wait && flavor != EGCodeFlavor::MAKERBOT) { if(flavor == EGCodeFlavor::MARLIN) { *output_stream << "M105" << new_line; // get temperatures from the last update, the M109 will not let get the target temperature } *output_stream << "M109"; extruder_attr[extruder].waited_for_temperature = true; } else { *output_stream << "M104"; extruder_attr[extruder].waited_for_temperature = false; } So looking for ways to disable M105 your options are: 1) Choose a flavor of G code that's not from Marlin in the printer settings. (But then something else will almost certainly break because of other differences in the generated g-code.) 2) Change the code in the CuraEngine source code and recompile it. By far the simplest option would probably be to continue using search and replace. When you say search and replace I'm assuming you mean the post processing plugin and not opening the file in a text editor and doing it manually. In case you didn't discover it yet: Go to extensions, post processing, modify g-code. Add a script and select "search and replace". Here you can enter M105 and remove the command automatically every time. May I ask you why you would want to disable M105 though?