displaynamenotallowed

There are slicer settings that I still would like to know more about or what settings could achieve better print quality once I have an adequate honeycomb STL to work with and appreciate help with those and thank the Ultimaker/Cura community in advance.

Yes I agree absolutely. This is the primary consideration I've had. I realized that the honeycomb file (STL) needs to have cell walls vertically that don't constrain the slicer algorithm too much but need the angular walls to constrain the algorithm enough that it won't stack multiple lines in the same place or haphazardly. I've tried to model the honeycomb in that way with primatives but the precision isn't available with that type of modelling. I've decided that dedicated CAD is the only way I'll be able to do it. Now it's just a matter of learning how to use Blender or FreeCAD well enough to do that. I've recently posted to the FreeCAD forum asking for assistance with learning how to model such a grid and am as you know on blenderartists forum doing the same. So far I've only gotten responses from people that doubt it can be done or have suggested things that are irrelevant. Just have to wait and hope more experienced users will jump onboard and help me with doing it right. I know there are at least a couple ways to model a honeycomb grid in Blender and FreeCAD one is direct modelling and the other is scripting based. I have modelled the honeycomb directly in Blender but have no experience with scripting in either of those programs but I can and will learn. The challenge and results from my proof of concept testing showing what's possible are too good not to pursue.

I played around with a few settings and modelled a new honeycomb in Matter Control with primatives which worked well. Not perfect yet but definitely progress using print thin lines and Slicing Tolerance Inclusive. Lost the vertical sections which is weird considering the settings but I'm going to keep working on it and think I'll get to a good result. I think I may need to adjust resolution as the lines are broken in places and it seems like that is what that setting is used for as you had described it Slashee. Here is a screenshot of most recent results.

I'm trying to print at .15 layer height. I've played with layer height and line width and yes those both contribute to the results. For the angled sections I wanted to keep line width as wide as possible at .34-.38 for the reason of better overhang. The angles aren't particularly shallow and I was able to get them to print pretty good when I used a single cell hexagon as a test that was modelled with primatives in Matter Control. That was my best result so far. I could try applying an array to that single hexagon but the rendering in Matter Control is hit and miss when the models are more complex. As far as Blender the model I made looked very accurate but perhaps there were little parts that weren't accurate enough. I'm not experienced enough to know for sure but I think Blender is gaining the functionality of other CAD design programs and not just graphic design. For example there are now what are called Geometry Node tools. Those add a parametric nature to the design flow from what I understand. I do have FreeCAD as well and will look into modelling a honeycomb grid with it. I have also used print thin lines setting and while it dose help in certain instances there are a lot of variables going on that contribute to the overall result. It's easier for me to wrap my head around a particular geometry of the modifier STL than considering every Cura setting that may or may not have a desired effect but would like to better understand those and I have at least a little better understanding in that regard from what you told me I think. I'll keep at it. Trying different modelling software and techniques for producing the honeycomb and try newer Cura versions as well. I may also try ideaMaker to see how it handles the same task (a software I had become pretty familiar with but haven't used in a while) Another thing I worked on was increasing infill flow rate % to compensate for the angled sections. Doing that caused the vertical sections to print a line width a little wider than I'd like though. Is there a way I can apply a higher flow %, line width etc specifically to the angled sections of the honeycomb (maybe through bridging settings) and leaving the vertical sections unaffected by the higher flow rate/line width? Being that all the infill lines those at an angle and vertical are all "bridging" the part at 90° maybe that wouldn't work. Is there any other way I could achieve that?

You want me to edit my first post and include all the information in my following posts? I don't mind doing that but it would get lengthy and in my experience has the effect of people not wanting to read through it all (makes it harder to follow chronologically speaking)

https://blenderartists.org/t/new-here-and-to-blender-3d-printing-cura-help-needed/1487840 There is a link to my posting on blenderartists. I actually just realized a Cura setting I could try a few minutes ago. By the way I've been using versions 3.6 and 4.8 on my old laptop (at the moment I'm more comfortable using) but I do have a new laptop with Cura v.5.x A few settings I think (could) benefit what I'm doing is Experimental- Slicing Tolerance- Exclusive and Minimum Polygon Circumference or Maximum Resolution changes. I may want to be looking at Mesh Fixes settings as well but I'm not well versed in using these settings.

In the first picture is the glider models wing tip section and a honeycomb grid STL used as a infill modifier. The second picture shows the layer view. As can be seen there are parts of the vertical honeycomb cell walls that didn't generate any lines. In the angled parts of the cell walls there are too many lines haphazardly arranged. In previous tests I scaled the honeycomb grid larger and smaller. The results were when I scaled it smaller the angled sections were more consistently spaced and with Cura 4.8 I was able to get perfectly arranged lines. No double or triple stacked haphazard lines but nearly none of the vertical lines were generated. Conversely when I scaled the honeycomb larger all of the vertical sections had lines generated but the angled sections were haphazard. Broken, inconsistent and or doubled or triple layered.

I thought I'd ask if linking to the blenderartists forum where I'm posting would be cool. I have more specialized questions for Cura experts here but I've already posted a lot of info and pictures there. I believe an/the answer could be related to the STL model being used as the infill modifier. I'm going to post a couple screenshots here too. I'll be asking questions in anticipation for future settings that may help refine the print hopefully if the more prominent issues can be solved too.

Hello I'm posting because I may need a little help if possible. I'm working on a 3D printed R.C. model glider and while I have learned to print parts for it with excellent results using standard infill options I'm now trying to attain a more complex custom infill using Infill Modifier with a honeycomb grid pattern STL. I have a little initial success and have proven the concept is possible but I've had a little struggle getting a "clean" tool path for the infill on subsequent attempts. I know a number of settings that have made my prints nice but there are many settings that may be able to help that I don't have any or much experience with. If people can help me it would be appreciated and I think this technique I'm working on could be a benefit to many people here not only as a novelty but also as an option for producing very nice aesthetic end use parts. I'll follow up with various screenshots and a more technical description of what I'm doing and the challenges encountered thus far.

I have a bunch of files on my SD card. When I save gcode files they are written to the card located at the bottom of all of the files. I'd like to not have to scroll through all the files to get to test prints that I'm trying to quickly iterate on. How can I name the files or is there a setting that will bring them to the top?

I don't know if I had made this request already or not and it's also questions. I would like the ability to change the rotational direction of the tool path alternating clockwise/counter clockwise. It would be a good feature because it can help eliminate inconsistency in melt chamber pressure related to travels and repetitive movements. It basically evens out slight under/over extrusion. Another Feature that would be very good to have is the ability to change user defined layer start coordinates/z seam location on a layer to layer basis. My question is can one, the other or both of these be added as a plugins and be compatible with pre v.13 software? If yes what would be an effective way of championing for these. If not I still ask that they be added to the newer versions. Thanks

I figured it out sorry for the bother.

Asked about an issue having to do with probably resolution before and nobody had known what to do so I'm moving ahead and using a work around for stringing issues. Now I'm working on bridging settings. The filament I'm using is foaming PLA and it's a little tough to get good bridging results. I'm making progress with flow rates, speed and line angle. What I don't see is how to disable the shell in the bottom layer (s) and top or in the bridging layers known as Bridge Wall. I want my bridging to be from perimeter to perimeter without a wall or shell in between. Is this possible because I don't see any obvious setting to disable these.

I had used Cura mostly until I learned of ideaMaker. It wasn't fun to have to learn a new interface. I prefer Cura for the interface/ease of navigation of printing settings but was having issues that were (mostly) solved with ideaMaker "per layer settings" specifically to allow change of the layer start location. In Cura it is possible for user specified coordinates based location but it is not possible from what I know to change this from layer to layer easily. It may be possible with modifiers by creating a zone to change print settings but I think I tried that but x,y, layer start location wasn't an option. Such a feature/ability to control this is very useful. Similarly to enable or disable vase mode or surface mode layer to layer would be very useful. Lastly in my experience a feature that allows alternating line direction from layer to layer (one layer prints clockwise the next counter clockwise or vice versa) would be very nice. It may seem trivial but with highly technical thin single wall prints being able to alternate line direction can have a substantial effect on reducing the chance of voids in the surface caused by the nozzle repeatedly passing over places that the nozzle touches near or during travels. Z hop in theory would achieve the same results however in practice and especially when using low viscosity or foaming materials Zhop causes a lot of stringing/oozing.

Hi there Torgeir sounds like you are quite certain you can take away my troubles. Enjoy you're vacation.

To sum up I should be able to get excellent prints and two things will help with that. 1. the ability to save print settings with a particular model and 2. Have more ability to control the tool path by understanding what settings can help with that and/or seeing new features added to the Cura Software.

What? No one here wants to play along with me? (That's supposed to be a joke right?) I don't want to alienate a community that is particularly able to help me. Please don't take my particular comments in the wrong way. I don't seek to personally attack or blame anyone individual. There are many many hardships and frustrations in my life that I'm trying to overcome and as little an issue as it may seem (3d printing) it represents an opportunity for me not only to do something I would like to enjoy but also that I could potentially make money doing, further alleviating hardship. It is quite important to me and likely moreso than to others. I hope you can understand to a degree.

What? No one here wants to play along with me? (That's supposed to be a joke right?)

Here another picture to help you with the Where's Waldo sorta fun time. Spot the difference between the parts on the left side/middle and the one on the right.

I thought maybe I could add a description easily to each picture there but apparently not so... Picture one shows between my Ender 3 featuring SKR Mini E3 V3 and a lemon of a SLA the Anycubic Photon Zero (that hasn't functioned since new out of the box) maybe 1/4 of all the "test prints" for an "R.C. DLG Glider" called Argon that I've been working on for many many hours over the course of about a year. I don't have the CAD proficiency/there are (no surprise) no CAD software that work very intuitively or are available to me or else I would have likely designed and have had been flying my model in that time. The fact that these "test prints" are haphazardly thrown on top of the mini fridge on its side in the 1987 Nomad travel trailer that I live in is evidence of the greater troubles in my life that have caused a lack of moral or will to deal with such in a more dignified and organized way such as that which I exhibited before. I guess it's that I don't know how to prioritize. Shoulda printed one of those fancy vase mode little waste baskets beforehand huh. Onto the second picture from top. This is representing my seeming lack of proficiency with Prusa Slicer and the resulting quality is garbage. Non useable for an R.C. Glider without an unreasonable amount of post processing (would take lightweight filler putty, a 3D printing pen, epoxy and fiberglass/carbon, some type of tape or other film or a combination of those to have a part that would be suitable for such) and at that point I would be better served and could more efficiently build without 3D printing at all. Picture 3 shows the resulting "product" (you want to buy that?) of using Matter Control Slicer. The print seen in the lower part of the picture represents last night when I thought I had won the battle/war and would be able to proceed with production of Argon parts today and be flying the model soon. The print above that represents where when testing bridging settings I realized that because Matter Control (perhaps "conveniently") doesn't have the feature Z seam user specified (coordinates based) that that was going to be a losing battle no matter now "nice it was" to have better control over extrusion tool path generated. That hurt... Pictures 4-5 representing the differences that allowing me more control over tool path while extrusion is taking place has on quality of results. (Bright Orange Polymaker LW PLA and Cura 3.6 is seen to seemingly have over extrusion (it's not over extrusion in any common understanding that I have) but is related to the failure to include a section of the model with the overall part (Printing in a separate move from the rest of the part) and the associated excessive filament deposition related to that. The brown/tan "Wood" Polymaker LW PLA and Matter Control Slicer. In picture 4 the differences in the Cura and Matter Control slicing can be seen in dimensional accuracy and stringing. (The stringing with Cura while not desirable is not particularly bad or nor would it prevent me from using such parts willingly) picture 5 shows the Orange Cura part "deburred" to better allow the differences in dimensional accuracy to be seen between that and the Tan Matter Control result. Picture 6 shows two Cura "Tests" of the same basic parts and settings yet with seemingly unexplainable differing results. Can you see the difference between them? The pair of models in the middle of the picture and the one similar in the lower right hand of the picture. Come on its supposed to be fun like one of those cartoons on a cereal box! A use case that is as far as I'm concerned intolerant to many of the things that the average "maker" would accept or ignore. Obvious evidence of my (at least slight limited) proficiency in understanding the field of 3D printing software and hardware in general.

I've been battling with 4 different slicer softwares. One or the other will excell in particular areas and lack in others while others are the opposite. It kinda seems like there's a conspiracy to exclude particular usability in any one software while making the same available in another. A purposeful handicap on any one slicers functionality. And that's not even considering what should be intuitive and advertised functionality that is even more so supposed to exist. I haven't been able to "made" the thing/things I'm working on because of this and likely the design shortcomings (also probably by design) of the particular model has thwarted my ability to utilize my 3d printer and filament in a dignified, relevant, and relatively easy way. What have (I made) with the tools sold to me? Basically a pile of plastic that looks a little bit different than it did before. Not much other than failure to succeed at production of parts to a highish /acceptable degree of quality. At best Test Articles. You wanna see them?

I see that this posted to "Coffee Corner" I wanted/thought I was posting to a general/main forum. I see that my options are to post to "What you have made" "Coffee Corner" or "Buying or Selling You're Ultimaker" none of these are particularly forum titles that I think are particularly relevant to the post I'm trying to make but I guess "What you have made" is perhaps ironically the most relevant to what I'm discussing. I'll post there. With photographs of the results of my relationship with what you have made.

Here is an excerpt from posting to my New Member introduction thread. That I'd prefer to have in an unrelated thread. Like I introduced me here and don't think that should be my "blog". I basically understand the concept. However 3.6 is generating a tool path that is 90ish percent what I would like to see. I can work with that but what I don't want to accept is that my settings aren't saving when I save a .3mf file. If I'm going to use Cura I need to have focused help to address issues in a priority of greatest to least important. I have a test print that looks pretty good. However all the settings were lost because Cura didn't save them even though I saved as a .3mf. I don't know where the hidden box is that I need to check to allow what should be a innate function but I think that is priority #1 related to my Cura experience right now. I can learn more about the theoretical/highly technical calculations or abstract concepts of the algorithm at a later time especially if there is no know way to influence these offered presently. Thank You and if reading this can directly advise me on this settings saving issue please forward this to those that can or direct me to where I can find that answer please.

Have contacted two manufacturers and asked if they would entertain partnering with me. Have received contact back from one of these already and my conversation is being forwarded to they're engineering department.

Well unfortunately the issues that I thought I could solve with a particular setting(s) turned out "too good to be true" so to speak. And as I do so often I jumped on the soonest glimmer of hope telling of how nice it is to see the "light at the end of the tunnel"