Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Got it. In my haste I missed the change button. This is the second spool we finished fo far and we have not yet really changed spools so never used the change feature. Thanks for your reply, this issue is resolved and the printer is happily printing again!
  2. Hi again! I have a question regarding an issue with the UM S5. I started a print yesterday to run overnight, somehow the filament broke and as a result the machine "ran out" of filament. The bed is till at 60 degrees and the nozzle at 30. I found some existing topics on this issue but people there tell to pause the print and to unload the old and load new filament. I tried to do this but (1) the print job has already automatically been paused and (2) the unload button for the material in question is greyed out. My last resort would have been to pull out the filament ma
  3. @Smithy Thanks for your comment, it was in the right direction. I never knew there was a queue within Cura. Apparently there was indeed a file in there that was sliced with the wrong profile. I emptied the queue and it is happily printing again. Thanks a bunch!
  4. Thanks Smithy for your response. Is there a way to see what's in the queue?
  5. Hi all, I cannot find an existing topic on this issue so that's why I create a new one. I ran out of material on my roll of Tough PLA Black (Ultimaker) that came with the printer, so I loaded a 3rd party material (3DJAKE rPLA Black). The loading went fine and I set the extruder profile in Cura accordingly. Now I have "Generic PLA" loaded in both extruder slots within Cura. The problem surfaces when I press "Print over network" in Cura. I walk to the Ultimaker 5S and its display shows the message "Please reconfigure the printer to start the next print job. E
  6. I've noticed that indeed. The only thing still worth mentioning is is the corner handling. It looks like it cannot accurately lay down my 90 degree angles. Some ghosting is visible and it swings outside of the coner, creating a .1mm thickness increase (should be 2mm) on the corners. Is this simply a matter of decreasing the speeds? Or is there some other parameter we can tweak to tackle the bulge on the corners and the ghosting and at the same time maintain the speeds? In that case I need a tutorial from you on how to do that! 😆
  7. Okay, so I owe Ultimaker an apology. I've missed the "engineering profile" completely and I was under the impression Cura had no such thing. That believe was the fuel for my previous post. I have now tested the (unedited) default engineering 0.15 profile and am very pleased with the outcome. Thanks everyone for all help, case closed! 😅
  8. Thank you for the link, I scanned through it and it contains a lot of useful information! Nonetheless, the origin of my issue still bothers me. The fact that UM advertises their machines to be used in business environments together with the absence of out-of-the-box dimensional accuracy just does not rhyme for me. Especially with regards to the machines' price tags. If anyone could enlighten me on the reasoning of UM for the latter, that would be awesome!
  9. I use Cura solely for the UM5S and PrusaSlicer solely for the MK3S. The fact that I have to dive into (UM labeled as) "experiemental" parameters in Cura and tinker with them in order to achieve dimensional accuracy, just feels wrong to me. Like I said before, I feel that dimensional accuracy should be one of Cura's top priority defaults. The only reason I brought up that I use PrusaSlicer is because there I get dimensional accuracy from the start. I have to agree with you that, designing with the slicer's bad dimensional accuracy is something I refuse doing, I would rather switch slicers.
  10. Again, I must admit that your conversation is above my knowledge and by all means, please continue. However I must correct you on something here regarding the highlighted sentence. I've graduated my master on human computer interaction and I can tell you that your comment is quite ignorant towards other users (I do not mean to offend). I fully understand your reasoning but not all people know as much of 3D printing as you do, including myself. For you, your terminology would suffice better. However, based on my personal experience in user-testing and user interaction design, I understand their
  11. Yeh, that's what I meant, slicing the STL is part of the 3D printing process: UM machines come with their default slicer Cura. Dimensional accuracy should be at least one of the default presets in ANY slicing software, so I agree that this is indeed a problem with Cura compared to for example PrusaSlicer. However, the lack of in-slicer feedback and support is a completely different issue. In my opinion, the latter is something ANY slicer can (and should) improve at, not Cura only. It is true that 3D printers (and thus corresponding slicers) still have enough room for development in
  12. Thanks for your participation, the issue I described in the very first post was due to my personal value setting for the parameter "Slicing Tolerance", so no further investigation of a project file is required. For me personally I would still like to find an answer to the question why this parameter does not have a value for dimensional accuracy in all three directions simultaneously. Yeh true, although UM is already known for their relatively high level of "plug and play" machines, right? I guess the process of 3D printing inherently requires at least some knowledge on t
  13. That's a parameter you have control over in Cura. Or am I missing your point? What do you mean by productive environments?
  14. Thanks for your help! I've worked with "exclusive" for a while now and in the accuracy of the x-and-y-directions has improved like expected. However, it bugs me that the z-direction is off by two layers on 0.2mm layerheight. I designed something with a z-height of 11mm and it turned out 10.6mm, which is not dimensionally accurate at all ... I've tried the option "middle" but that reduces the x-and-y-derection's accuracy, just like "inclusive" does. I would like to be able to have accurate dimensions in all directions without any compromise. How come Cura d
  • Create New...