Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. Thank you both for the feedback. @GregValiant it was a design intent. I did set the slicing resolution to the smallest value possible and expected the sliced model to approximate as close as possible visually when printing with at 0.12 with a 0.4 nozzle but wasn't expecting the resolution error to contribute that much of an error. Although I'd imagine with the subtle feature removed, with horizontal hole expansion set to non-zero, the issue would still persist because at the change of the affected layer height, Cura no longer interprets it to be a hole and there would be a shift in the op
  2. Thank you for the response. Here are the enclosed screenshots and the project file as requested. PartB.3mf
  3. Hello Cura Community. I hope someone can provide some insight to the following issue. I have the STL file here and both gcodes. With the object laying up and the object laying flat. Somehow, with the object laying up, Cura introduced a layer shift that is not present in the STL file. Also when sliced with the object laying flat, there is no such discrepancy. I have checked and tried various options but nothing seem to remove this issue. I would think that at iteration 4.8.0 (Cura with its constant development of features and upgrades), would not introduce unwanted features/or rather feature
  4. Not sure if have this figured out yet but I do something similar except for different extrusion widths when I was running Marlin. Just changed over to Klipper now and figuring out how I can do the same so still looking into an elegant solution but for the moment I use post-processing in Cura to set my K values Basically in my start gcode in Cura I have: M140 S{material_bed_temperature_layer_0} ; Start heating the bed to initial layer temp G4 S30 ; wait 30 secs M104 S{material_print_temperature_layer_0} ; start heating the hot end to initial layer temp M
  • Create New...