Dadkitess

Please, get a proper title... Your description is fine, why not spending 3 seconds to tune a title that will attract helpers ?

I don't see much feedback, I see that as a good thing because it seems like there is not a lof ot bugs. Previous 5.X version were quite not ready for updates. Can I update without worrying on this one ? I can't multiply the update because of IT policy in a sensible company, so I update only once / 6 months globally, I'd rather avoid a bad version. Edit : nevermind, just like the previous 5.X version, this one seems to be crippled with slicing bugs, that will take forever to achieve, or won't achieve with an obscure error, or will just stall per astra ad espera... Please, pretty please, provide a 5.X Pro-Compliant version that you'll ensure it will work 95% of the time. I'm struggling with 80% of my slicing, from 5.1 to 5.3...

This look promising to finally get "decent" print duration !! Look forward to install the stable version, even if I'll wait for a week or two after the release to get proper patch haha. Edit : I might add that i'm pretty always tweaking the different speeds : if this is all what have been changed or have the more impact it won't help me much 😕

Anytime I can, I use my Prusa mk3s+ rather than the 10 more expensive UMS5 that is sooooooooooooo slow and has and larger chance of failing. This is such a pity and such a shame 😕 I still need the UMS5 because of its dual extruder, but that's it basically. I must say that she's unbeatable when it comes to first layer, never had a SINGLE fail with all the material i'm using, the glass plate and the initial calibration is incredible. But that's it and all the new competitors are doing good as well now. Just waiting for Bambulab to release a true dual extruder, and that's it. I don't see Ultimaker ever looking to compete, it looks like they're not interested by that, just relying on the S5 fame when it was ok.

AA and BB, I don't know. AA and AA, yep, it works fine.

Mmh i'm still with 5.3, and still having issues, especially with the layers view. I've just noticed that it's using the integrated GPU and not the A1000 dedicated GPU ! It's stuttering at 100% and it will by crazy slow for medium to large STL. Even small one are problematic. So, what's about the A1000 dedicated GPU ? Is is supported ? Is there a way to force it ? Does 5.4 help solving this issue ? Thanks

Can we expect a patch / minor update soon to benefit from 5.4 without all the bugs stated ? 5.3 is not really stable either and I can't really ask for admin rights again and again to test various versions, I'd like to wait for a 5.4.1 or 5.5 if something is planned already ?

Hey Greg, I remember a kind of ranking of available slicers which included some fork / non official version. I can't find it anymore, can you repost it here or in Private Message ? Thanks !

@MariMakes Sorry to bother you, I don't know if it's a good thing or not to ping you for theses kind of suggest. Do you know if something like this is coming soon or if it's something that has not been suggested yet ?

Thanks ! Yup but then it actually change the ratio. I can do that even manually, but not what i'm looking for, unfortunately 😕

Hey there, I'm pretty sure I've already asked about it, and maybe other did, but no proper answer yet : can we get a Vertical Expansion setting, just like we have the Horizontal Expansion one ? I use pretty often the Horizontal Expansion with generous positive number so that tiny parts became printable but also and mainly to make sure that tiny adjacent geometry actually merge each other without a functional gap. It would help a lot to get the same feature for vertical dimensions, for the very same reason + making sure that rood / floor are thick enough without needing to modify the original CAD which can be very very tedious to do. Let me more explicit : imagine a whole car assembly. A real one, like, I have access to Porsche CAD assemblies which include everything, the very CAD they use to design an engineer the car. It's an example, I (really) don't have access to theses files haha, but I guess it'll help to figure out my issues. In this assembly, everything has tolerances, mountable, for real, so that there is NOTHING merged to nothing. Like... The engine is mounted to its support, using screws and stuffs, and between each elements, there is 0.1mm for instance, or less. If I would print it, CURA would add some support between theses elements, while I obviously don't want it, because then when using PVA, the elements would separate each other after dissolving. Also, the engine cover (I don't know the exact translation but you get it, the hood that you can actually open to access the engine) is something like, say, 5mm thing. When scaling down to 1/32 scale, it would be too thing to be correctly printable, and let's assume that I can't / won't modify the original CAD to thicken this cover. Believe me, if you're not used to, it's not trivial haha. So yeah, a Vertical Expansion setting would very much help in many situation and I'm quite surprises it did not make yet. Can we have it ASAP in future releases ? Do you know some workaround that would help me with this 2 (main) issues ? Thanks ! EDIT : By the way, I would say that using some "generous positive number" for horizontal expansion really tend to fail CURA slicing : like using +0.5mm for instance. I'm facing A LOT of issues when trying that. I would guess that since it applies to every external curves, when there is a lot of them, it's not easy to calculate, or it does not like handling the new path since close geometry would merge and define a new overall geometry. Think about 2 thin tubes being very close, like 0.5mm apart. I know they won't print well and I actually want them to merge to reinforce this part that would, for instance, be the only point of attachment of a wheel. So I will apply a 0.4mm Horizontal Expansion. They will enlarge and actually merge at their interface, somewhere in between, shaping a kind of "8" figure. Do we agree ? Can it be the reason why it tends to fail when this is not something as trivial as this example ?

Gosh the PET-CF is damn expensive oO

Nope, not proper one, except that bridging is not very well handled in CURA so far compared to some other software, IIRC.

Thanks for you answer, it's my bad, I was convinced that I saw a solid wall on the long edge xD The question remains the same though, if you print a "long" rectangle with the 4 walls, and hope for bridging to deal with the roof while not using any support (because... Because, it's an example ^^), I'm very often facing Cura to draw lines in weird suboptimal direction and can't change it, apart from rotating the part itself which is so weird and can't be used all the time (multiple sub optimal bridges with various direction in the same part for instance). I would really like to get an update focusing on bridging, most other slicer deals with way better.

Sorry to interfere, just reacting here, I'm often facing the issue where the bridging is the worst direction possible. Is this possible to adjust it so that it uses the shortest distance, perpendicular to the one shown here ?

So I can't try the 5.4 yet but I've faced some "issue" with the 5.3 Tree Support that might be useful. I very often use the PVA support and often print part that don't have a single flat surface to be printed on, PVA is a good solution to make a soluble bed that will hold the whole thing while preserving the bottom curvature. But it works well especially with basic support, like this : The Tree Support will be a mess of tiny branches that will grow for as low as a few 0.1mm layer, and then we have the interface 80% dense support, and then the actual print. You know how PVA is difficult to print, it WANTS to fail so these little jags everywhere are really really not a good idea. But I'd like to use Tree Support more often, for instance in this very same print, it would be convenient. So yeah, is there a way to avoid this weird way to print support when there is very few layers ? This is something that we face a lot whenever there is a rounded edge at the bottom : sure, it's something that you want to avoid by design but sometimes it can't be avoided.

Can't confirm, but I do relate that lowering the print speed will definitely help printing TPU. I was struggling with my UMS5 lastly, I've always been struggling with TPU printing actually, flow sensor would trigger the "no more material left", while it would resume perfectly fine. I tried lowering the speed to 75% in the machine control and I did it fine for 3 consecutive prints that would have failed systematically at 100%, after less that an hour printing. Note that I was already using the TPU preset speed, and I even set it lower at 20mm/s instead of 25mm/s IIRC. It was still to high, apparently... So yeah, you can print TPU on UM machine, but at damn slow speed, insanely slow I'd say, 15 mm/s is really too slow, even for a bowden machine.

Okay ! Donc c'est essentiellement la non-rotation du ventilo avant qui peut poser problème, pas d'autres éléments au niveau de la tête d'impression qui pourraient entrainer la sous-extrusion voir l'interruption d'extrusion, en dehors bien sur d'une buse bouchée / mal nettoyée ? Et sans parler de l'extrudeur de l'autre côté bien entendu.

Je rebondis sur ce topic, je ne trouve particulièrement aucune info sur les isolateurs téflons pour les UMS5, il y a une raison ? L'UMS5 est équipée différemment ? Avec toutes nos galères, je sens que c'est quelque chose qui pourrait advenir, comme pépin, et j'aimerai disposer de la pièce de remplacement au cas ou ^^ A moins que ça ne soit solidaire d'un PrintCore et que c'est ce dernier qu'on change en entier ?

Yeah, I'll contact the support indeed after some other tries. And I was using Engineering Profiles, as specified.

Hey there, So I've been ask to print some basic can with cover recently, cylindric shape, nothing fancy, and I'm using PLA Tough. I can't manage to get proper horizontal expansion... Margins are way too high. Sure enough, I could test it with iteration, find the sweet spot, and save it for further use. This is what anyone with an Artillery, an Ender or a Prusa would do, and it's fine. I've been doing it, and i'll continue on theses machines. But if i'm buying a 6000+€ UltiMaker S5, it's also because UM is bragging about CURA Profile, ready to use, plug and play, so that another operator which has not spend 500h printing so far can use it reliably. So yep, the Engineering PLA Tough Profile, which is the one supposed to guarantee the most adjusted dimensional precision, is off my more than half a millimeter, the cover can move so much in the can. This is not a rant, more a demand : can you provide some double checked / verified official profile that we can rely on ? It won't be perfect, it's impossible, Z-Seam will be tricky, curvature and acceleration will add some inaccuracy, etc, that's fine. But here it's a VERY large 120mm can, perfectly round shaped, and I have more than half a millimeter loose with the most basic material, no support, etc... (Oh, and by the way, the printer stopped at 3mm from the end after 23h of printing : no message, no error, just the screen being black while printer still on, nothing helped recover it, had to shut it down and start it over to find out that, yes, now there is an unknown error and unable to get back to print. Yeah, gonna print this 3mm ring separately haha).

Haha, if it was only my choice, I would sell you our 2022 UMS5 right away, and I'm in France ! It's been a machine able to print very good and complex things that the other would not have been capable of, but most of all it's been the worst machine i've ever had, so much trouble x) It's even more frustrating than a conventional paper printer wifi connected haha. I can hardly understand how UMS5 would be a good choice for anyone, let alone a student for home printing. Except if you're using soluble support / 2 head printing on a daily basis. Otherwise... Well, Bambulab and way other brands would suit the budget and the performance better 😛 Anyway, good luck on your research and enjoy printing on whatever machine !

Thank you both for your feedback 🙂 I'll try one spool along some more recognized brands available on RS.

Clé USB. J'ai testé dans l'exact même fenêtre CURA une autre pièce qui est passée sans souci sur la machine. Donc rien de spécifique machine ni spécifique CURA. Et j'ai tenté pas mal de choses sur les pièces problématiques, en vain... ... Sauf là ou je viens de refaire un test en changeant le profil pour revenir à du Qualité 0.15mm tel quel et... Ca a marché. J'suis a peu près persuadé d'avoir testé d'emblée quand le probleme est apparu et m'a résisté pendant 10min, mais j'avais peut être pas pu me retenir de tune 1 ou 2 paramètres que j'estimais safe, pas bien xD Puis j'ai itéré entre le PC et la machine en ajoutant progressivement mes paramètres que j'avais changé. A priori, c'est entre la tour de purge et la hauteur de couche adaptative (j'adooooore ce truc mais c'est parfois susceptible). Faut que je teste une dernière fois mais j'ai lancé sans les deux pour commencer, fallait vraiment que je lance. Je vous tiendrai au courant. Pour les remarques qui ont suivi : support hors de cause dans la mesure ou je suis de toute facon très loin des bords, l'expansion joue pour 3mm par défaut et en général je mets à 0 ou 0.5mm. Mais en tout cas j'ai bien besoin de support ^^ A moins que je n'ai pas compris ta dernière remarque. Jai testé le BuildPlateAdhesion sur none et idem, le problème persiste. Et pour les dimensions malheureusement ça n'aiderait pas puisque une pièce plus grande, déjà imprimée avec succès, droppée dans la même scene CURA (sans changer le moindre paramètre) fonctionne direct. Donc ouais, va savoir pourquoi, y'a une sorte de conflit sur le GCODE tel qu'il est édité par CURA, dans le cas des couches adaptatives et / ou de la colonne de purge. Bon, comme les deux sont pas essentiels, j'ai lancé sans purge et en 0.15mm constant, et je verrai semaine prochaine pour discriminer les deux. Merci pour vos suggestions ! Edit : dans mes précédents messages, j'avais testé la plaque support sans le texte... Et je viens d'essayer vite fait sur CURA, s'il n'y a qu'une seule buse active, la fonction de colonne de purge se désactive. Et ça marchait quand même pas, donc... Ce serait les couches adaptatives, très curieux et à confirmer semaine pro ! Si c'est bien le cas je ferai un billet je pense et je partagerai le 3mf avec les vraies pièces, après avoir validé que ça ne pose pas souci.

Purée j'ai pas d'idée de comment me dépatouiller du truc, faut que je lance aujourd'hui... J'ai vraiment rien qui dépasse sur Catia, j'aurai voulu faire un tour dans MeshMixer mais pas installé sur cette station et faut les droits admins, et j'ai pas non plus accès au DMU Optimizer de Catia pour refaire une enveloppe histoire de tester.