Slashee_the_Cow

A post processor is the closest you're going to get.
(n.b. the screenshots here are from Windows, but on other platforms the process is the same)
Download and open the zip file In Cura, go to Help > Show Configuration Folder Inside that folder, go into the scripts folder


(I have a whole bunch that don't come with Cura, so don't worry if yours doesn't have many files) Drag the script from the zip file into the scripts folder
Restart Cura Load your model/project Go to Extensions > Post Processing > Modify G-Code
Click Add a script
Find Remove Spiralize Top in the list and click it

(again, I have a bunch in there you won't) It should now appear in the list, so click Close
Slice your model and save the gcode Note: The script will probably remain enabled (whatever scripts you last used are) if you create a new project, and it'll mess up the top layer of anything which isn't spiralised. To remove it, just go to the post processing scripts window and click the X on its line. You can add it again through that window next time you make something spiralised.
 
Edit: Noticed a bug in it. If you downloaded it in the first few minutes this post was up, download the new version.
 
Edit #2 (5 hours after posting): Had only tested it on @Jonysix's .3mf. Turns out it didn't work if you have retractions on. Bit of a hack, but hopefully it now works. Current version is now v3.
 
RemoveSpiralizeTop_v3.zip

Look at the prepare tab: your model is way broken:

The blue and pink dot pattern generally means faces are either missing or have their normals flipped.
 
If you're running Windows, Microsoft's "3D Builder" app (I think it comes with Windows 10 but you need to install it manually in Windows 11) is actually great at fixing models (as well as doing things like simple cuts and a bunch of other things).
 
And because I just made some brownies and I'm in a good mood... here you go:
texas1_fixed.3mf

You mean like this?

This requires slightly altering Cura's interface code. Easy on Windows. Not sure about Linux (you'd have to edit then repack the AppImage). No clue on macOS.
 
Anyway, the file you need to change is:
C:\Program Files\UltiMaker Cura 5.7.0\share\cura\resources\qml\ObjectSelector.qml
Then you're looking for (what is at least for me) line 110:

(just showing the whole thing in context so if it's not line 110 for you, where it is among the whole file)
By default that line is:
height: Math.min(contentHeight, maximumHeight) You just need to change it to:
height: contentHeight  
You might want to bookmark this page, because this will need to be changed with every new version of Cura you install.

In theory that gcode shouldn't heat the bed any slower than just setting the target temperature initially - what it's basically saying is "wait for bed to reach 15°, wait for bed to reach 17°, wait for bed to reach 19°, etc." but it's not pausing when it waits (the difference may be if your printer uses a power curve to warm up the bed instead of just doing it linearly). Using hard-coded numbers like that in your startup gcode isn't a good idea in case you want to print at a different temperature, like the way you have it set up, if you only want the bed to be 60°, it'll warm up to 75° and immediately start printing before it cools - you need to use the R parameter instead of the S parameter if you want to wait for it to cool or heat (S only waits to heat, so since it's already above the target temperature it'll keep going immediately).
 
Unfortunately there isn't any gcode to control the rate at which the bed heats up. And while @jaysenodell means well and yes what they're suggesting can be done, OctoPrint is their solution to everything, and in many cases it's akin to using a sledgehammer to get a nail into wood (n.b. please don't try that).
 
I would try using startup gcode like this:
M190 S{material_bed_temperature_layer_0 * 0.1} ; Wait for bed to get to 10% of target G4 S3 ; Wait 3 seconds M190 S{material_bed_temperature_layer_0 * 0.2} ; Wait for bed to get to 20% of target G4 S3 ; Wait 3 seconds M190 S{material_bed_temperature_layer_0 * 0.3} ; Wait for bed to get to 30% of target G4 S3 ; Wait 3 seconds M190 S{material_bed_temperature_layer_0 * 0.4} ; Wait for bed to get to 40% of target G4 S3 ; Wait 3 seconds M190 S{material_bed_temperature_layer_0 * 0.5} ; Wait for bed to get to 50% of target G4 S3 ; Wait 3 seconds M190 S{material_bed_temperature_layer_0 * 0.6} ; Wait for bed to get to 60% of target G4 S3 ; Wait 3 seconds M190 S{material_bed_temperature_layer_0 * 0.7} ; Wait for bed to get to 70% of target G4 S3 ; Wait 3 seconds M190 S{material_bed_temperature_layer_0 * 0.8} ; Wait for bed to get to 80% of target G4 S3 ; Wait 3 seconds M190 S{material_bed_temperature_layer_0 * 0.9} ; Wait for bed to get to 90% of target G4 S3 ; Wait 3 seconds M190 S{material_bed_temperature_layer_0} ; Wait for bed to get to target Okay that's still a lot of lines. But I get the feeling you're smart enough to figure out how to add/remove steps, change the target percentages or the wait times if you want it a bit more controlled than that. And yeah, those waits will add nearly 30 seconds to the process. But that's better the blowing the UPS in 30 seconds.

You need to redesign your model. Even if it printed strictly outside to inside, the weight of that layer hanging in midair is just going to fall down because there's nothing supporting it.
 
I've done pretty much exactly this sort of thing myself: you need to chamfer above the hole so that each layer can overhang slightly further in to close the gap:

It's because Support > Support X/Y Distance is high enough that the radius of the support is higher than the radius of the part below, but not higher than than the radius of the part below + its support distance, so it won't print below where it is because it would be too close to the part below.
 
The best fix is probably to increase Support > Support Horizontal Expansion to 1.4mm (not a scientific calculation, just played with the number until I got the result I wanted) or higher, this way it will expand so it's large enough to go around the lower part:

This will keep a decent distance around the lower part so you definitely wouldn't have to clean it up:

 
You could also lower Support X/Y Distance (and Minimum Support X/Y Distance) to 0.2mm:

but this will get the support very close to the part below:

 
And about trees: works fine for me, but every Cura installation is its own beast. Try upgrading to 5.7, there have been tree improvements in the last few releases.

Have you tried running an ABL from the printer's control panel to see if it will reset it internally or something? Enders can be finnicky beasts

A 0.1mm line width is incredibly hard to achieve on a 0.4mm nozzle. The general guideline is 60-150% of the nozzle diameter, which means 0.24-0.6mm for a 0.4mm nozzle. That will also make a 0.25mm thick pin impossible because because you can only print in multiples of the line width.
 
You also need to allow for tolerance: you can't print a pin the exact same size as the hole. It will be a literally impossibly tight squeeze. I usually have a tolerance of about 0.3mm to be able to put parts together.
 
Your acceleration rate is too high for precise work (it should probably be about 500mm/s²) and your jerk is far too high (should probably be about 4mm/s instead of 40). If these settings increase the print time significantly, remember: good print > fast print.
 
To have the best chances of printing something like this, you'd need a smaller nozzle. 0.2mm are fairly common. 0.1mm can be found but I've heard they're very hard to work with without just getting clogged.
 
But ultimately, I think the precision you're trying to pull off is just going to be literally impossible to achieve on any consumer grade FDM printer.

Unfortunately while I seem to be the resident TPU weirdo I'm not sure I can offer too much advice since I've never tried anything other than 95A (not impossible to find softer, but not as easy as going to Amazon and ordering some 95A, plus shipping costs in Australia tend to be on the high end so I make plenty of use of my Prime membership).
 
I'd be very much looking at retraction first - specifically, avoiding it wherever possible (and maybe limiting it using Travel > Maximum Retraction Count and Minimum Extrusion Distance Window and/or increasing Travel > Retraction Minimum Travel). 95A is soft enough that it can get ground up if it goes back and forth through the gears too much (hence why I often opt for strings rather than a failed print) so I'm guessing softer is worse.
 
But just looking at layer 11:
 
That has 17 retraction moves (the ones in light blue) in not a huge amount of filament. A lot of them are very close together (in the support interface).
 
Layer 18:

15 retraction moves.
 
Or I could be completely wrong and it's something else entirely. Make sure you're printing at the right temp and slow enough (I usually set it to 20mm/s for everything).

For most of the Cura configuration files there aren't really any guides.
 
In your case you're using the dark theme which inherits from the light theme, which means anything not specified by the dark theme (like sizes) comes from the light theme.
So in the light theme, you need to change line 511:
"print_setup_widget": [38.0, 30.0], I don't know what units those are off the top of my head. But the important part is that if you make the numbers lower, things get smaller.

Not exactly. It might just run straight through and not fill the nozzle chamber, so you might get small underextruded or overextruded bits if the extruder doesn't keep up perfectly, which it probably won't because of how the motors in it have an amount they move per step so it can't do a tiny adjustment up or down.
 
Normally when printing the flow rate is enough that you'll fill the nozzle chamber, which then basically acts as a "buffer" of sorts to make it come out at the intended rate, but printing a very short layer on a 0.8mm nozzle isn't enough flow to fill the chamber, so there's no buffer to keep it even.
 
Another thing is that there's a lot more room in the nozzle than will be taken up by a 0.8mm line at a 0.12mm layer height, so it won't necessarily come out accurately in position.

If you added the printer through the Add Printer wizard in Cura, then the print bed dimensions should be correct and you don't need to do anything.
 
Why, does something not seem right?

Thanks... that's exactly the file I needed.
 
Fixing it is trickier than I thought it might be. The idea with support interface is that by default there's an air gap of one layer below a floor or above a roof (so that it comes off more easily), but it doesn't seem to be taking into account being on the baseplate (which should give it regular support below, except that your height is exactly what it would use for interface.
 
Unsatisfactory solution #1: Disable Support > Enable Support Interface > Enable Support Roof

Gets us the base support we'll use, but it also means we have no interface so supports are going to be harder to remove (especially little ones like this).
 
Unsatisfactory solution #2: Set Support > Support Structure to Normal

That's exactly how the support should look in that situation. It also gives us the problem that there's a bunch of tiny holes that will get filled with support which is going to be a pain to remove which wouldn't be there if we were using trees.
 
Somewhat satisfactory solution #1: Set Support > Support Interface Thickness > Support Roof Thickness to 0.4mm

This makes the support roof short enough that it'll print regular support beneath it to hold it up. Is it going to make a huge difference having two roof layers instead of the default four? In a model like this, probably not. 
 
Effective but really, really fiddly solution #1: Add supports manually

I've only done it for one section in this screenshot, but you can create a support blocker, move and scale it so that it's the right position and size, and use the Per Model Settings tool to set the Mesh type to "Print as support". But you'd need to use several here due to the shapes the support area goes in.
 
And, umm... that's all I can think of for now. I would definitely advise going with the "lower support roof thickness" option.

The problem is in your model:

(enhanced contrast to show the different shading of different faces)
 
The file is also technically invalid, but not bad enough to prevent it from being loaded. That may be the cause of the wavy lines though (as that face is defined as a bunch of columns rather than the simplicity of just using two triangles).
 
What program did you use to create it? SketchUp is sort of considered a running joke about how terrible the files it exports are and Blender (or other mesh-based modelling programs) don't always get it quite right, because it's not what they're designed for. Ideally for structures made of basic shapes like this you would use a CAD program.

It's as designed. Some people run multiple versions of Cura side by side, for various reasons, some people run into bugs in certain versions, sometimes if they have more than one printer, one will only work in an older version of Cura, that sort of thing. Personally I have five versions of Cura installed side by side to help test problems are people are having so I can use the same version as them.

It's local. Just go to Help > Show Configuration Folder, it'll open the folder for that version (each version uses its own folder). Whenever you install a version of Cura you haven't installed before (uninstalling it doesn't delete the settings folder), it will look for settings folders from older versions and copy them over.
 
The "nuclear option" is to completely reset Cura by going up two levels (in Windows it'll just be %APPDATA%\) and rename the Cura folder to... well anything really. Call it cura_old or something. That way next time you launch Cura it'll be from a clean slate but if you have profiles or anything you need to restore just find them in the old folder and copy it into the new one.

The feature request form is here, feel free to submit it.
 
Personally I don't think it would be adopted - most people (even those doing 3D printing) don't think in base 2 so it would be a very niche feature. Not all printers use 0-255 for their fan scale, also: some go from 0 to 1 so you have to give it the percentage as a fraction.
 
Also to the best of my knowledge there's only about four commands in Marlin that use a 0-255 scale and Cura doesn't have support for three of them:
M42 - Set pin state (designed for connecting custom hardware which doesn't natively support Marlin so you can control it manually by setting the pin state, and PWM (pulse width modulation) pins are set on a scale of 0-255) M106 - Set fan speed (as mentioned above, doesn't always go from 0-255) M150 - Set RGB(W) colour (used for controlling the colour of case lights) M256 - LCD brightness (controls the brightness of the printer's screen, some will use caps like 0-100 but typically 0 is the dimmest and 255 is the brightest) It would be possible to use a post-processing script to convert a fan speed set in Cura on a 0-255 scale to an absolute value (you'd just have to enter it as a fraction in Cura because the fan speed is capped at 100%, so your example would be to set it to 0.4 for S4 or 0.138 for S138).
 
Software development rule #8: No matter how hard you think something will be to implement, it will be harder than that to implement. AFAIK Cura currently only has two modes for fan scale: input * 2.55 for most printers or input ÷ 100 for printers that use a 0-1 fan scale. Which one it uses is based on the printer's definition file, so it's attached to the hardware side of things, not a software setting.

When Cura loaded the preview, the fit on the bed, so that shouldn't be a problem.
 
Yep!
 
Open the gcode file in a text editor - a lot of slicers will put at either the top or bottom of the file what printer it was sliced for. But an Ender 3 is pretty standard as printers go, so unless they sliced it for something less common it should be alright. You can post the file here if you're not sure and we can have a look, or - just try it. It shouldn't be able to damage your printer or anything (the firmware should prevent that) but just keep an eye on it and if it doesn't look like the preview, cancel the print.

From the basic settings view just click the Show Custom button

Then just scroll down in the list until you get to the infill section:

 
If a box turns yellow when you enter a number, that's Cura's way of saying "this isn't recommended" but it won't stop you. If it turns red, that's Cura saying "I can't do this" and you probably won't be able to slice it.

This is a known bug. It should be fine in Cura 5.4.0 or if you are comfortable with running software that is not ready for release and contains its own bugs there is 5.7.0 pre-alpha you can you can try.

Are you trying to print through Cura from your computer over USB? You should be printing straight from a memory card in the printer.
 
USB printing in Cura is a legacy feature which is no longer supported and is a relic from the days when printers were too stupid to do anything but follow commands one at a time from a computer.

Can I be the smartarse in the room and say "just add a cube model to the scene, scale it to fit and put it in there?"
But that's alright. We have our own cubes. Use the support blocker tool, click somewhere on your model and it will add a support blocker. Now switch to the move tool, click the support blocker so only it is selected, then move it to the centre and scale it to fit inside your rectangle, up to the height you want.
 
Then we touch the magic "per model settings" button! 
Being a support blocker, it'll start as a "don't support overlaps" type:

If you want to fill the model so it's solid up to a certain height, with infill and then skin on top, just click the first button that turns it into a normal model!

Cura automatically combines models which intersect each other. So now it'll just be a filled in model with infill on the inside and skin layers on top!

It looks like it's overextruding at the Z seams. There's a bunch of ideas in here so read the whole thing before you try anything - and remember, small scale testing is your friend. In this case you really only need to print up to the height where there's a problem, because this is the sort of thing which could potentially disappear if you shrunk the whole thing.
(Don't worry, I'm sure you read all of my wisdom and most of my ramblings before doing anything 🙂)
 
 
Not sure I can give you a good answer on this one. My best guess is the route it takes to travel that corner might pick something up or is so short it can't retract properly.
This one I can definitely give you a good answer for: those white dots in the layer preview? That's where it starts a layer (or starts after having had to travel from somewhere else on the layer which there isn't a continuous route to from its previous position). Your settings have them sort of spread around the whole thing. I cover this topic (and it's definitely worth trying!) in a little bit.
 
If you want to try and address the overextrusion directly, you can try two opposite options:
Walls > Outer Wall Wipe Distance will make the nozzle continue slightly past a Z seam without extruding. The idea is if there's a small gap where it started whatever material is left in the nozzle gets to wipe it closed. Experimental > Enable Coasting will make it stop extruding slightly before a seam in case there's too much pressure in the nozzle and there'd still be some left by the time you get to the seam. In this case, I'd say "probably not". Although I've never used PP or a direct drive extruder bolted on after the fact, your retraction settings almost look like they're for a Bowden extruder - on my E3V3SE (comes with direct drive extruder as stock) the highest retraction I ever need to set it to is 3mm (for TPU, because its elasticity makes it so stringy) and I run it at 45mm/s - increasing the speed might help if your extruder can handle it.
 
Always a good idea to test that if you have overextrusion.
 
Maybe a good starting place -> Your settings have Z seams show up in all corners but only one corner is a problem? Set Walls > Z Seam Position to User Specified and then Walls > Z Seam Position to a corner which isn't the one you're having problems with. The problem might have something to do with travels so it might just move the problem to this corner but since all your seams will be on the same corner it'd be easier to fix (as in, by hand) when it's finished if it bothers you.

 
You can change relevant things like extrusion distance/speed, printing temperature, speed, etc., independently of the material you have selected. You can also create your own custom material which has all of these already set! Go to Preferences > Configure Cura... > Materials (in the left sidebar) > Create New (button in the top right). If you want to be able to change more settings for your material than it allows be default, then download the Material Settings plugin by the I-don't-know-how-he-does-it @ahoeben by clicking "Marketplace" at the top right and searching for material settings.

Slicing troubleshooting 101: play with settings until it looks right.

Ah! Sorry, misunderstood (I'm good at that).
 
I can't help but notice there's a ton of travel moves between model, support, and other bits of model:

Are you having any problems with stringing or anything? If the filament is getting pulled away before it fully sets that could explain it.
 
<looks through settings>
Okay, I think you're accelerating waaaaaay too fast. If I enable travel acceleration settings it defaults to 5000mm/s² which I'm guessing is what it will default to without manually setting it. My Ender-3 V3 SE can accelerate at 4000mm/s² and when I let it do that it's actually pulled parts of the model with it sometimes. And since it doesn't always respect the speeds Cura puts into the gcode, I actually had to turn down the maximum acceleration on the printer's control panel.
 
Your print acceleration is also set to 1500mm/s² for the most part. I don't know much about the specific PLA you're using but it's generally only high speed PLA which is designed to go down properly at that sort of acceleration. And since you're printing at 45mm/s, I don't think it's high speed PLA 😉
 
Personally for my stuff I set the acceleration for all the print moves to 500mm/s² and the travel acceleration to 1000mm/s². It doesn't actually add that much time to most prints (and even if it does, slow print > failed print).
 
<continues looking through settings>
20mm/s jerk?!?!??!?!!?? *does dramatic fake fainting, collapsing to the ground*
For most prints I use 8mm/s, tops. If it's got intricate details or I'm worried about stability, I take it down to 4. Jerk is how much the speed can change instantly on a corner (because in an ideal world you smoothly come to a stop and move off in the next direction, but in the real world that results in a blob in the corner). Higher can cause significant vibrations in the printer (on some printers, so bad you get some layer shift), but it also means that when a printer goes round a corner or finishes a section it can pull the filament with it because corners require a bit more adherence than the rest of the print or else it'll just dragged along by the print head.
 
Okay, that's it for the settings, the rest looks pretty normal. I would like to make a suggestion or two:
Create a modifier mesh - add a support blocker, move and scale it so that it covers the top part of your model:

Click the Per Model Settings button on the left, set it to Modify settings for overlaps (third option) and increase the number of walls:

This will make the insides of the bits which stick up solid walls instead of having a little bit of infill (without adding extra walls around the main area):

A lot better for adhesion and easier for it to print than tiny bits of infill. Support > Support Structure to Tree: Saves you a bit of filament and more importantly, doesn't scar the model by sitting on it to use it as a base:
Walls > Wall Ordering to Inside To Outside. The first part of each layer to go down is the most likely to have problems. Sweep it under the proverbial rug 😉 Hope that gives you some cud to chew on. Hopefully some of it works 🙂