dmanthei

It looks like maybe feature requests should be submitted at github but I don't have an account there and prefer not to start one for just a single comment. What do you think of building in a user-entered pause (or multiple) after a specified layer is complete? I don't see it getting a lot of use, but it would be very handy for those who do want that functionality to install magnets, metal inserts, or other components in voids that are to be printed over or encapsulated. I've recently done some embedding of electrical wires, electromagnets, permanent magnets, and experimented with dropping in steel flange nuts then printing a 'roof' over them. This functionality could help make such activity easier...though it is not without risk if a nozzle were to strike an object that's taller than it should be...warnings might need to be thrown to drive that point home. Thanks!

I did not find any results for "Preliminary" case-insensitive. I found these results for "peak" and included the few lines after "peak" occurs: cap_Ultimaker-S5-01_2022-07-20_13.58.52_N1_X264.5Y193.5.log # peak found # z 8.58191 8.09000 609 302525 0.00 3 9 7 2 # done 8.58191 cap_Ultimaker-S5-01_2022-07-20_13.59.06_N0_X286.5Y193.5.log # peak found # z 7.12554 6.61750 814 483325 0.00 3 8 5 3 # done 7.12554 cap_Ultimaker-S5-01_2022-07-22_13.26.20_N1_X264.5Y193.5.log # z 13.86628 13.40250 288 178475 0.00 3 10 8 2 # done 13.86628 cap_Ultimaker-S5-01_2022-07-22_13.26.25_N0_X286.5Y193.5.log # peak found # z 13.79476 13.50000 284 146975 0.00 3 9 7 2 # done 13.79476 cap_Ultimaker-S5-01_2022-07-22_13.28.52_N1_X264.5Y193.5.log # peak found # z 14.24934 13.76250 268 239900 0.00 3 7 5 2 # done 14.24934 cap_Ultimaker-S5-01_2022-07-22_13.28.57_N0_X286.5Y193.5.log # peak found # z 13.09327 12.86000 327 163250 0.00 3 9 7 2 # done 13.09327 cap_Ultimaker-S5-01_2022-07-22_13.44.47_N1_X264.5Y193.5.log # peak found # z 8.65690 8.10500 608 357975 0.00 3 14 12 2 # done 8.65690 cap_Ultimaker-S5-01_2022-07-22_13.44.51_N0_X286.5Y193.5.log # peak found # z 14.39473 13.93750 286 101475 0.00 3 10 7 3 # done 14.39473 cap_Ultimaker-S5-01_2022-07-22_13.46.42_N1_X264.5Y193.5.log # peak found # z 8.52497 8.04250 599 349225 0.00 3 9 7 2 # done 8.52497 cap_Ultimaker-S5-01_2022-07-22_13.46.49_N0_X286.5Y193.5.log # peak found # z 12.19153 11.87250 364 167850 0.00 3 8 6 2 # done 12.19153 cap_Ultimaker-S5-01_2022-07-22_16.54.25_N1_X264.5Y193.5.log # peak found # z 13.36184 12.87500 324 181075 0.00 3 10 8 2 # done 13.36184 cap_Ultimaker-S5-01_2022-07-22_16.54.30_N0_X286.5Y193.5.log # peak found # z 13.79867 13.26000 294 136175 0.00 3 11 9 2 # done 13.79867 This was using "findstr" on Windows for all the log files on my USB drive. I cannot do the same search exclusively on my log file "ultimakersystem-0030d6262a40.7.0.3.boot0.log.gz" because it's an *.gz file for which my organization doesn't have an archive manager installed on my locked-down PC to decompress it. I can look at home later today if that's going to be helpful in some way.

I didn't reply to this earlier because I'm not certain the failure mode has been consistent. Most recently it has touched off on the first nozzle ok and makes very little attempt to touch off on the second nozzle before it fails (it's probably 4-8mm from the plate when it 'gives up' on the second nozzle). This is why I hoped manual leveling would help but it doesn't. Myself and other users in my workplace have also seen it touch off on both nozzles in what appears to be a successful process but it then fails after the second nozzle touches. I'm searching for what you suggested in 2), but it takes some time...I'll report back.

Wow, thank you for all the helpful feedback everyone! glx: The area where we keep the printer is free of other devices for at least a 4 meter perimeter. At the edge of that perimeter is a small office air handling unit on a different electrical circuit. Beyond that, it's 4 offices with laptops and desktop LCD monitors which likely share an electrical circuit, but these shouldn't be noisy devices. Would trying a surge protector or UPS help or hurt the situation? SanneM: Thank you very much for providing your sensor value. I agree that's a significant difference and I assume this is a lower-is-better situation. I will contact support at this point. gr5: All good points and I tried to consider each. I did a fresh calibration of the lift switch and that seems fine, though it also seemed fine before I did that calibration. I wondered about spring issues so I checked during another manual-levelling to ensure there was sufficient pressure in the build plate springs. They seem good. I have a spare (but used) AA 0.4 nozzle on-hand so I changed that out to see if it helped with respect to your nozzle height comment. Unfortunately it did not. I did just grab the log files in preparation for contacting support. Now, I have no experience or knowledge of how to read a log file, but the file created during the capacitive sensor test was this: capdac 0 value 4312 capdac 1 value 425 capdac 2 value -5981 capdac 3 value -12337 capdac 4 value -18761 capdac 5 value -24946 capdac 6 value -31088 capdac 7 value 32767 capdac 8 value 32767 capdac 9 value 32767 capdac 10 value 32767 capdac 11 value 32767 capdac 12 value 32767 capdac 13 value 32767 capdac 14 value 32767 capdac 15 value 32767 capdac 16 value 32767 capdac 17 value 32767 capdac 18 value 32767 capdac 19 value 32767 capdac 20 value 32767 capdac 21 value 32767 capdac 22 value 32767 capdac 23 value 32767 capdac 24 value 32767 capdac 25 value 32767 capdac 26 value 32767 capdac 27 value 32767 capdac 28 value 32767 capdac 29 value 32767 capdac 30 value 32767 capdac 31 value 32767 capdac 1 value 411 capacitive_baseline 427 o010F93 Now again, I don't know what I'm looking at, but as an engineer I suspect the repeated "capdac 32767" lines mean a capacitive digital to analog converter input is reading 32767 which is the maximum value of a 16-bit signed value. That seems like a problem like an electrical short or accumulated static charge or something, but again I don't know...it just looks wrong to me. So hopefully support can help me out from here. Thanks again everyone! You helped me determine my problem is not some silly operator error and actually warrants reaching out to support staff.

I have had very frustrating "unrealistic height difference" errors on our Ultimaker S5 from multiple users. Here's what I've tried: - Manual bed level twice - Unload and reload materials - Unload and reload print cores - Clean build plate - Remove and reinstall build plate glass ensure strong contact to metal clips - Power cycling - Changing outlets - Attempting to print with core #2 completely removed (not an option?) - Running level sensor diagnostic test My question lies with that last point: What are acceptable results for the level sensor test? I see that Firmware 7.0.3 now reports a numeric result. Is this in percent? Millivolts? Decibels? The outlet I was using reported 44.9. I switched outlets, power cycled, and got 35.3 but I don't know if this is good or bad, an improvement or loss, or if the scale is linear or logarithmic. Any feedback on what these numbers mean would be greatly appreciated so I can continue to troubleshoot this problem. And I apologize if this information is available somewhere but I couldn't find it. Since this numeric readout for the diagnostic test appears to be a feature just introduced in the latest firmware I suspect documentation is limited or not published. I checked the release notes but there's no detailed explanation of the readout's meaning.

Thank you very much for this response and the pictures. I had the exact same issue. We had a tiny pellet of the previous spool break off and lodge in the feeder perfectly so the next material we installed kept failing to feed. We took the feeder apart, found the debris, and cleaned the whole thing out but in the process we must have dislodged the spring tension adjustment screw so it looked just like your picture. And indeed when I looked at extruder B I could see the screw was below the surface. I took it apart and put the screw where it goes and I think this will solve our 'material has run out' issue. Very frustrating issue so thanks again for the pics and explanation!