I will check this first thing in the morning!
Thanks for the insight, hopefully this is it
I will check this first thing in the morning!
Thanks for the insight, hopefully this is it
Similar visible deformation could also occur when the layer surface to print brutally changes from very big to small. Thus when the part suddenly gets a lot smaller (with a step, not gradually). This gives very different layer cooling times for the big surface and then the small surface. The small surface may not have enough time to cool, and thus deform. This often gives similar lines too in my prints at such changes in print layer area.
Similar visible deformation could also occur when the layer surface to print brutally changes from very big to small. Thus when the part suddenly gets a lot smaller (with a step, not gradually). This gives very different layer cooling times for the big surface and then the small surface. The small surface may not have enough time to cool, and thus deform. This often gives similar lines too in my prints at such changes in print layer area.
I never actually considered this to be honest. I'll have to spend some time trying to create a more gradual transition and see the results.
That being said, I've done 100 micron to 40 micron transitions countless times with never having an issue, but certainly something to consider.
Thanks for the input!
Just to make sure: it's not about layer thickness, but about layer surface. (I use Cura 14.09, where all layers have the same thickness, except the first one.)
If I have a model which has - at a given point during printing - a surface area of 10cm2 on let's say layer nr. 86, and then that surface area suddenly changes to only 1cm2 on layer 87, then that big change in surface area will be visible on the side walls. It causes a "thick line" on the side.
On models where this is an issue, I usually print multiple parts at the same time (so each layer gets enough cooling time to almost environment temperature), or I print a dummy block next to it.
I have also tried designing a small "complementary dummy model" to print together with the real model. This complementary model would have the opposite shape, a sort of negative, so that each layer would get exactly the same surface area. But that was way too much work and wasted too much material. So that was a once-only thing, without conclusive results.
Recommended Posts
neotko 1,417
I will open the file later but I bet that your second process has a different 'first layer height' than the first process.
If this it's the problem you can see it on his gcode preview, rotate the camera zoom and look at the height of the second process first lines.
Edited by GuestLink to post
Share on other sites