Jump to content

paxpring

Member
  • Posts

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by paxpring

  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 manually but unfortunately the nozzle has cooled down to 30. I ran out of options.
  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. Extruder 1: Tough PLA Black (Ultimaker)." So nothing prints and it wants me to switch back the Ultimaker branded PLA. I have rebooted both the printer and the computer (and thus Cura). "Generic PLA" in the second extruder has worked fine and still does. Both extruders hold the stock AA0.4 extruders. Hope you can help me.
  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 choice of terminology. For a lot of those "gentle" less experieced or knowledgeable users (like myself), the terms Cura uses right now do mean more than any of the terms you suggested.
  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 different directions but I guess your expectations are way above the current status quo of 3D printers. We are not there, yet. This analysis is way over my knowledge of 3D printing, printers and slicing software. However, what I am trying to explain is that in my opinion Cura is lacking a default set of parameters and values to deliver prints which are dimensionally accurate in all directions, a preset just like any other existing preset they have upon installation. It should be possible as this is a non-issue for for example PrusaSlicer. Even more so, I feel like it is a MUST for UM machines as they market their printers to be suitable plug-and-play business applications, which increases the need for dimensional accuracy.
  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 the topic, even with so called "plug and play" 3D printers.
  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 does not treat dimensional accuracy as their default? I know it is important that prints look good and that that might affect other parameters but I am a strong believer that aesthetics do not have to compromise dimensional accuracy. At least this isn't an issue with PrusaSlicer and my Prusa MK3S.
  15. How I interpret it was like this cura support page explains. The parameter affects all axes. https://support.ultimaker.com/hc/en-us/articles/360012614559-Experimental-settings
  16. Hmm okay, I've set that setting to "Exclusive" in order to achieve better dimensional accuracy in the x- and y-directions
  17. We're only human 🙂 Thank you for helping out, much appreciated! Edit: and thanks to the others for the input
  18. @SandervG Okay, I feel like this topic has drifted slightly so I'll get back to my question. I understand better now, I guess. To sum up: it is procedure for the nozzle to touch the bed for the purpose of measuring bed-nozzle-distance. However, downwards moving beds and upwards flexing x-and-y-rods as a result of the nozzle pressing downwards are not okay. I see that two people already posted the total height of their bed module (being 28.67mm). Mine is currently at 31.34mm. When I check if I am close to the 14mm you mentioned, I see a red layer on the bottom of the bed. Measured without that red layer, the distance between the bed and the base plate is 6.4mm and at no point that distance even approximates your 14mm. I must admit I am a bit lost ... Looking at the image you included in your post, I can only guess that you might have a different base plate? Is this discrepancy something I can fix by turning the knobs the appropriate amount and redo the manual bed leveling procedure, which is available through the settings menu of the UMS5?
  19. it is not a single-wall model, just solid. At the moment I do not have access to the printer but I figured that the project file wouldn't help me in this issue as it could very well be just a very specific single parameter I should adjust in Cura. Or am I wrong?
  20. Hey all. I have a short question. Why is it that Cura does not "fill" the entire 3D model with layers? It looks like Cura is compressing the model in the x-direction (see the grey area on top and above the edge on the bottom). It could easily fit another layer. At .3mm layer height it could even fit 2 more layers inside the grey area. I could not find a similar topic so my apologies if this is a recursive question
  21. I have only touched the screws during the manual bed leveling procedure, meaning that I moved each screw only a maximum of 1 mm. So, you say that it is okay for the nozzle to touch the bed and pressing it down? SandervG said otherwise.. By all means! I must admit, the first layer (and first few layers) on the UMS5 is (are) a pain indeed. I have been playing with the initial layer line width in cura, which helps only slightly. This is not an issue with my Prusa MK3S, which has auto bed leveling enabled too...
  22. Really short question about the UMS5: The nozzle is pressing into the glass bed during each measurement of the auto bed leveling procedure to the point where you see the bed moving downwards, is it supposed to do this?
  23. I know my message is a bit late considering this thread took place back in March but I was struggling with this issue too. I know now what the solution is thanks to your response, yet, I am still left with one question. I am into 3D printing for several years now and for my employer I've bought the UMS5 and your statement (highlighted above) got me puzzled. How come 'dimensionally accurate' goes hand in hand with 'ugly' prints? Would you be willing to elaborate on this?
×
×
  • Create New...