JRE

First (PVA supported) attempt failed. But that was some simple adhesion problem I need to care about. Used the aborted longtime print to switch to the cutting mesh test. First time was not too good. Then I recognized that when inserting the cutting mesh (see screenshot), it no longer makes one smooth skin (lower part) but several smaller ones (upper part). How can I teach him not to do so? bridgetest_2.stlbridgetest_cuttingmesh2.3mf

Turns out that Edge is also chilled about the file 🙂

Wow! This is really a smart workaround ... didn't even know that feature. (Chrome wouldn't let me download your file ... says it is dangerous 😉 But I think I kind of got the idea ...) Currently, my printer is still very busy with the supported attempt. After that, I'll give both versios (full cut & superglue as well as virtual cut & iron) a try! I could imagine that by tweaking the ironing options there might even be potential in it still. I need the surface really smooth as to have optimal contact with my sealing material, so I could imagine that the 'full cut' option turns out to be the better one for me... However, this option might be very helpful for others as well! Thanks a lot for all your effort! It will take a while but I hope that I don't forget to provide feedback on the attempts.

The idea with the filament holes for fixations is smart 🙂 I agree that last attempt looks much better - so do you want to tell us about the crazy thing you tried (successfully)?

Upside down is not possible, as the upper side has exactly similar issues 🙂 But slicing horizontally and using superglue ... sounds damn stupid but may be an excellent idea! Not the way I wanted to do it, but might actually be the least pain for now! I'll see if that could work.

Thanks for trying so many settings! It is so interesting to see that the results get slightly better or worse, but the general issue of lines noch building a homogeneous layer in this case seems to remain. Interesting! I made some further tests with a non-circular testpiece. First test: Insert chamfers of increasing size into the channels until a smooth surface is reached. Idea was, that if the filament is stretched from its own weight- this should solve the problem at some point. Result: Yes...somehow. Concluding: If I don't have a channel anymore, my problem will be gone 🙂 Second test: You recommended to try the impact of PVA as support again. Also did that. Result: I need to clean up the print certainly. But the result was not too bad. Especially the combination of chamfer and support would give better results. This is not too surprising, as this is exactly what supports are meant for, right? However disappointing , as I would assume that this can easily be done without supports.

Thanks for checking that. About the distance: Yes I am aware - and would it only be that section (your pink line) where quality is bad I'd completely understand. But it is a homogeneous behavior over the complete channel. The feature you suggest sounds funny! But this is just a test geometry to improve the settings, the actual geometry is more complex (that's why I can't print it upside down). It must be some other issue ...

Thanks for the advice. Ok, the additional layer seemed unlikely to me too - an there's no such think visible in Preview mode. If I look at the layer when the channels are closed however (attached images) it makes me think that there must be a wrong setting here. Why are the lines so thin? I can try PVA as support as well. Given the low channel width however, I am quite positive that this should be well possible without support material.

No success yet. Have been trying with different settings flow flow and line width but without significant progress. It still seems to me that cura is adding a very coarse mesh in layer 14 (which shouldn't be there) just below the designated bridge layer 15. That at least explains the wrong channel depth and also why my changes to not really make a difference. Is there any such setting that might build some kind of support mesh below the bridge which might be accidentally enabled?

Thanks a lot for the reply! First point: Thanks for educating me - I simply used the default setting for .stl export from NX and wasn't aware. I changed the angular tolerance setting from 18° (default) to 2° and it looks much better. I also deleted the smallest channel from the testpiece. I think the curvature looks much smoother now. I also changed every flow setting I could find to 100%. In fact, most of them were, only initial layer bottom flow and inner wall flow was at 95%. I disabled the experimental bridge setting (but the flow setting was also at 95%). This time I added the project file (sorry for that). As you can see from the photo, the result has not really changed yet. While printing, I can see through the individual lines of the first layer covering the channels. Furthermore, the channel depth is has a depth of pretty accurately 1.3 mm which is exactly one layer less (0.1 mm) than the targetet 1.4 mm. test_02.3mf

Hi! I am trying to design a sealing channel from the below side of a flat structure. Unfortunately, the surface roughness is too high and the channel depth is not accurate. Therefore, I performed some tests with a test geometry and with different settings, but cannot really see an improvement. Attached picture is with and without the epxerimental bridge setting (brdige skin density set to 100%). I attached the test geometry .stl file as well as the g-code. The test plate should have 1.4 mm deep channels, they turn out to be only approx. 1.3 mm deep (ony layer offset?), the roughness is very high as can be seen on the photos. From Cura I cannot see why the lines are so far apart (compare Cura screenshot and photo). Filament: Winkle PLA HD, official Cura profile, no brim Layer size: 0.1 mm Ultimaker S5 Reminder: The images are taken fom the side facing the buildplate. The channels are facing downwards and rotating the geometry is not an option. I am quite sure that UM and Cura can do better and it is my mistake. Could anybody please help? UMS5_bridge_test.ufp bridge_test.stl