Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts
titaniumapple

UM3 and S3D g-code - 'Unable to send print job to group'

Recommended Posts

Hi, I'm trying to send G-code generated via Simplify 3D to my UM3 wirelessly by putting the S3D G-Code into Cura (v.3) and pressing 'Print Over Network' - it looks like it uploads it but then it says 'Unable to send print job to group' and won't print - any ideas what's going on? USB gives me 'error on ln. 0' and won't print either! I also had to turn automatic bed levelling to 'Never' because it kept giving me an error about the printheads being misaligned.

It prints okay if I just use Cura (but very bad print quality because it's Cura).

I bought an Ultimaker 3 because it's supposed to be just 'print and go' but I've had nothing but problems with it! My Cetus ($299 and print straight out of the box) prints in much much better quality atm!!

Thanks

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say printing with USB, are you mentioning the USB cable or USB stick drive?

Just trying to understand.

I own S3D and have printed just fine using the flash drive. But even if you are using USB cable and trying to print using Cura as the 'messenger' the problem will not change.

I did try a quick upload of S3D gcode as you mentioned and it does choke. But, I also must say that the gcode did not look proper in the viewport either, so I am assuming a mismatch between gcode flavors as Cura sees it. And, I have seen the same mismatch going from Cura to S3D, so I am assuming it may need to be edited.

So, I own S3D, paid for and all, but use Cura consistently because I find it to be quite good at what I am slicing. So I would ask what it is that you do not like about Cura?

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, s3d doesn't generate the right g-code flavour. We have to look at those to decide where the g-code needs to go.

The header can be 'faked' very easily. Ofc if Cura does new checks then it might not pass. Long ago when I had a um3 I did use their app to send gcodes, ofc it has a MB limit, but it did work. Did you guys increase the header security so only 'Cura-ted' files pass through?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes use S3D generated gcode for the UM3 (with success). The crucial change is that the 4.x firmware (for Cura Connect) makes the material-id in the gcode header mandatory. S3D is not able to generate this automatically (AFAIK) but it's very easy to add it to the existing postprocessing script.

The easiest way would be to "steal" these (one or two) lines from the Cura generated file.

On the other hand: i never noticed significant differences between prints from Cura and S3D. I can't follow your statement about "very bad print quality because it's Cura". It's indeed a "print and go" in my case. Can you explain the issues that you have with Cura prints? Do you have pictures for comparison between prints that are prepared by S3D vs. the same print prepared by Cura? And did you use the standard settings in both cases or what is different?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes use S3D generated gcode for the UM3 (with success). The crucial change is that the 4.x firmware (for Cura Connect) makes the material-id in the gcode header mandatory. S3D is not able to generate this automatically (AFAIK) but it's very easy to add it to the existing postprocessing script.

The easiest way would be to "steal" these (one or two) lines from the Cura generated file.

On the other hand: i never noticed significant differences between prints from Cura and S3D. I can't follow your statement about "very bad print quality because it's Cura". It's indeed a "print and go" in my case. Can you explain the issues that you have with Cura prints? Do you have pictures for comparison between prints that are prepared by S3D vs. the same print prepared by Cura? And did you use the standard settings in both cases or what is different?

5a334112acbdb_Ultimaker3andCuraandSimplify3Dvsothersprintcomparison-1.thumb.jpg.1358cea219f2919b9558b5284bb95aa3.jpg

Attached is a side-by-side comparison of prints (all Rigid Ink ABS and enclosed print areas) with my Up Box (Up software) and Ultimaker 3 (Cura and Simplify 3D). You can see how bad the UM3 prints are with Cura. They were better with Simplify 3D but still can't match the Up Box (Simplify 3D connection to the raft was hard to remove, Up Box comes off easily).

I'm hopeful the Ultimaker 3 is capable of matching the Up Box in terms of quality and ease of support removal but the Cura and Simplify3D defaults have poor support structures as default (and you can see that Cura's undersides are very bad).

If anyone has a working ABS + Cura + UM3 profile that I can try I'd be very grateful!

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your pics seem to indicate a temperature that is a tad too high and maybe a bit too fast on the speed. That seems to be why it is stringing and not in a tight circle. If I am correct, the stringing is from the heat and the lack of a tight circle would be cause the material is being pulled a bit.

Each machine you use will have its own 'personality.' Even with identical makes and models. Also, this could mean that your old printer ran a bit colder than the sensor reported or the UM3 runs a bit hotter. Back in the day when I did tech stuff for people, it was very frustrating to have several identical machines, doing identical work, and each would respond differently.

Also, ABS is a real pain to print. In my opinion, far worse than PVA. But that is my machine and environment. I have 3 spools here that I will probably never use.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say printing with USB, are you mentioning the USB cable or USB stick drive?

Just trying to understand.

I own S3D and have printed just fine using the flash drive. But even if you are using USB cable and trying to print using Cura as the 'messenger' the problem will not change.

I did try a quick upload of S3D gcode as you mentioned and it does choke. But, I also must say that the gcode did not look proper in the viewport either, so I am assuming a mismatch between gcode flavors as Cura sees it. And, I have seen the same mismatch going from Cura to S3D, so I am assuming it may need to be edited.

So, I own S3D, paid for and all, but use Cura consistently because I find it to be quite good at what I am slicing. So I would ask what it is that you do not like about Cura?

From a USB stick - my PC is a long distance away from my Ultimaker so I need Wifi to work! Either a high quality ABS profile with Cura (or a way to print Simplify3D via Cura.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your pics seem to indicate a temperature that is a tad too high and maybe a bit too fast on the speed. That seems to be why it is stringing and not in a tight circle. If I am correct, the stringing is from the heat and the lack of a tight circle would be cause the material is being pulled a bit.

Each machine you use will have its own 'personality.' Even with identical makes and models. Also, this could mean that your old printer ran a bit colder than the sensor reported or the UM3 runs a bit hotter. Back in the day when I did tech stuff for people, it was very frustrating to have several identical machines, doing identical work, and each would respond differently.

Also, ABS is a real pain to print. In my opinion, far worse than PVA. But that is my machine and environment. I have 3 spools here that I will probably never use.

Ok I'll try a slightly lower temp and report back.

I need to print ABS for models that I make - I've tried loads of different materials. The Up Box handles it fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your pics seem to indicate a temperature that is a tad too high and maybe a bit too fast on the speed. That seems to be why it is stringing and not in a tight circle. If I am correct, the stringing is from the heat and the lack of a tight circle would be cause the material is being pulled a bit.

Each machine you use will have its own 'personality.' Even with identical makes and models. Also, this could mean that your old printer ran a bit colder than the sensor reported or the UM3 runs a bit hotter. Back in the day when I did tech stuff for people, it was very frustrating to have several identical machines, doing identical work, and each would respond differently.

Also, ABS is a real pain to print. In my opinion, far worse than PVA. But that is my machine and environment. I have 3 spools here that I will probably never use.

Ok I'll try a slightly lower temp and report back.

I need to print ABS for models that I make - I've tried loads of different materials. The Up Box handles it fine.

You have a lot more experience with that machine and I am sure it did not print perfect out of the box. And, it would seem you are trying to apply one set of experiences to a new machine and that never works out.

These are complex machines and as good as they have become, nothing is ever plug-n-play with so many variables.

Also, when used as designed and a few accommodations are made, such as getting used to the new paradigms involved, you can do some really nifty things.

Bluntly, it is like when I see people complain that the newer, more sophisticated slicers are not as forgiving for sloppy modeling and they say it is a step backward. It is not; it is just that with more sophistication comes more attention to detail. Once that happens, it is amazing what these things can do.

Edited by Guest
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes use S3D generated gcode for the UM3 (with success). The crucial change is that the 4.x firmware (for Cura Connect) makes the material-id in the gcode header mandatory. S3D is not able to generate this automatically (AFAIK) but it's very easy to add it to the existing postprocessing script.

The easiest way would be to "steal" these (one or two) lines from the Cura generated file.

On the other hand: i never noticed significant differences between prints from Cura and S3D. I can't follow your statement about "very bad print quality because it's Cura". It's indeed a "print and go" in my case. Can you explain the issues that you have with Cura prints? Do you have pictures for comparison between prints that are prepared by S3D vs. the same print prepared by Cura? And did you use the standard settings in both cases or what is different?

With this bit of new information, I can see my original thought process was not going to work as I have not tried to print a USB stick from S3D yet since updating the firmware...too many long term prints for testing.

But it does bring to mind that it is up to the software developer to ensure compatibility, especially if it is advertised as it is with S3D, to provide the proper compatible output.

If it is just a header change and/or a few lines of code, when you set up the outside slicer (of any origin), it should be able to insert this code with no real issues, or provide a way to do so,  via custom editor.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your pics seem to indicate a temperature that is a tad too high and maybe a bit too fast on the speed. That seems to be why it is stringing and not in a tight circle. If I am correct, the stringing is from the heat and the lack of a tight circle would be cause the material is being pulled a bit.

Each machine you use will have its own 'personality.' Even with identical makes and models. Also, this could mean that your old printer ran a bit colder than the sensor reported or the UM3 runs a bit hotter. Back in the day when I did tech stuff for people, it was very frustrating to have several identical machines, doing identical work, and each would respond differently.

Also, ABS is a real pain to print. In my opinion, far worse than PVA. But that is my machine and environment. I have 3 spools here that I will probably never use.

Ok I'll try a slightly lower temp and report back.

I need to print ABS for models that I make - I've tried loads of different materials. The Up Box handles it fine.

You have a lot more experience with that machine and I am sure it did not print perfect out of the box. And, it would seem you are trying to apply one set of experiences to a new machine and that never works out.

These are complex machines and as good as they have become, nothing is ever plug-n-play with so many variables.

Also, when used as designed and a few accommodations are made, such as getting used to the new paradigms involved, you can do some really nifty things.

Bluntly, it is like when I see people complain that the newer, more sophisticated slicers are not as forgiving for sloppy modeling and they say it is a step backward. It is not; it is just that with more sophistication comes more attention to detail. Once that happens, it is amazing what these things can do.

I actually don't agree - I think for a printer that costs 2 to 3 times the amount, I would expect more attention to detail and refinement from the printer manufacturer i.e. Ultimaker.

More thought and testing should've gone into the design of the machine itself - loading material from the back is an awful way to do it, there's no door or easy way to enclose it for high-warp materials, I've had to order those separately (!!!), the glass build plate supplied doesn't stick properly so I've had to order and apply Buildtak. As for software, half the time the printer or Cura needs to be reset to even connect to it, the standard profiles supplied give terrible undersides and the list goes on - I shouldn't need to buy Simplify3D to get decent prints!

I can easily point to a manufacturer that has done things right - Formlabs.

They brought out the Form 1 and the Form 1+ (similar to the way Ultimaker brought out the 1 and 2) and they had issues. Then Formlabs solved every single issue that users had in a thoughtful way, both hardware and software and released a fully working product, right out of the box. It just works. And they supplied all the necessary kit too. If I'm spending $3500+ on a 3D printer, it should just work out of the box, especially with a material as common as ABS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your pics seem to indicate a temperature that is a tad too high and maybe a bit too fast on the speed. That seems to be why it is stringing and not in a tight circle. If I am correct, the stringing is from the heat and the lack of a tight circle would be cause the material is being pulled a bit.

Each machine you use will have its own 'personality.' Even with identical makes and models. Also, this could mean that your old printer ran a bit colder than the sensor reported or the UM3 runs a bit hotter. Back in the day when I did tech stuff for people, it was very frustrating to have several identical machines, doing identical work, and each would respond differently.

Also, ABS is a real pain to print. In my opinion, far worse than PVA. But that is my machine and environment. I have 3 spools here that I will probably never use.

Ok I'll try a slightly lower temp and report back.

I need to print ABS for models that I make - I've tried loads of different materials. The Up Box handles it fine.

You have a lot more experience with that machine and I am sure it did not print perfect out of the box. And, it would seem you are trying to apply one set of experiences to a new machine and that never works out.

These are complex machines and as good as they have become, nothing is ever plug-n-play with so many variables.

Also, when used as designed and a few accommodations are made, such as getting used to the new paradigms involved, you can do some really nifty things.

Bluntly, it is like when I see people complain that the newer, more sophisticated slicers are not as forgiving for sloppy modeling and they say it is a step backward. It is not; it is just that with more sophistication comes more attention to detail. Once that happens, it is amazing what these things can do.

I actually don't agree - I think for a printer that costs 2 to 3 times the amount, I would expect more attention to detail and refinement from the printer manufacturer i.e. Ultimaker.

More thought and testing should've gone into the design of the machine itself - loading material from the back is an awful way to do it, there's no door or easy way to enclose it for high-warp materials, I've had to order those separately (!!!), the glass build plate supplied doesn't stick properly so I've had to order and apply Buildtak. As for software, half the time the printer or Cura needs to be reset to even connect to it, the standard profiles supplied give terrible undersides and the list goes on - I shouldn't need to buy Simplify3D to get decent prints!

I can easily point to a manufacturer that has done things right - Formlabs.

They brought out the Form 1 and the Form 1+ (similar to the way Ultimaker brought out the 1 and 2) and they had issues. Then Formlabs solved every single issue that users had in a thoughtful way, both hardware and software and released a fully working product, right out of the box. It just works. And they supplied all the necessary kit too. If I'm spending $3500+ on a 3D printer, it should just work out of the box, especially with a material as common as ABS.

You do not have to agree. But I can tell you that I see a lot of people trashing on the printer and I have not personally had any of those issues I read about. And, I am a complete noob. I find it interesting that you, a far more experienced printer than I, have more difficulty than I.

Practically problem I have found is due to environmental or user error on my part. So, agree, do not agree, it does not matter. But, you are complaining that a solution d0oes not exist when you are not using the system as designed, as well as expect it to just do everything it is supposed to do without any consideration as to so many factors.

Kinda like complaining it does not run well on diesel when it is a JP5 Fuel engine.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had two Ultimaker 3’s for six weeks, loaners for a comic con

I had none of these issues you describe.

I don’t understand why you feel Ultimaker should include an S3D profile? Cura has been extensively redesigned for extremely integrated operability with the UM3

I have no problem faulting Ultimaker for real problems. But this is starting to turn into a beat down session that really lacks some merit.

I mean the door enclosure? For prints that needed it, I taped cardboard to the front. Simple fix for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don’t understand why you feel Ultimaker should include an S3D profile?  Cura has been extensively redesigned for extremely integrated operability with the UM3
It has always been incumbent upon the software maker to include the equipment profiles in their software, not the equipment to include all software. It would be impossible for any manufacturer to factor in all slicer software. Why not rail that S3D has not upgraded their Ultimaker compatibility as it would just require a simple gcode insert for them to be truly compatible.

I have no problem faulting Ultimaker for real problems. But this is starting to turn into a beat down session that really lacks some merit.
This is true, there are things that are faulty. But, honestly, it is a growth process. Someone has a good idea within a context without realizing the broader implications down the road. Favorite pet peeve right now? If you are using a dry box and the NFC chip cannot be read, you have to choose generic. If you are doing that and using a different profile or one you modified, it will cause an issue that requires manual overriding.

But, I have also seen a huge amount of positive growth in the last year I have been playing with Cura and the last 10 months of printing. Heck, I can even print without the prime tower and mostly do not even use an ooze shield. Just a few whacks with an x-acto and no crazing of the plastic and ready to go. Most times I can even get rid of those imperfections with my fingernail.

I mean the door enclosure? For prints that needed it, I taped cardboard to the front. Simple fix for me.

I taped bubble wrap over the front until I had some money to burn. The printing kit came with extra glass and stuff. And, I gotta say, I saw some nice doors with just a piece of cut plastic sheet and a couple of quick print hangers/latchings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of the NFC tag, it made all the Ultimaker brand filaments more expensive (about $11-$12 more per spool than ColorFabb PLA).

The Ultimaker 3 has seen a ton of development and improvement over the past year. New products can have issues and I can name other printers, from low end to high end, that have had growing pains and evolved into a solid product.

I agree with your point about S3D. The user community is quick to offer advice about profiles and which work best. I don't know off hand if there is one there for the UM3, have you asked on S3D's support forum?

I truly enjoyed my time with the Ultimaker 3's. I really wish I had one now that more advances have been made in Cura. Changes in how much PVA is used for support and many other things would be nice to try out!

I do hope you are able to get great use out of your Ultimaker 3. It's a great machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some of you mostly print PLA and the OP mostly prints ABS so that is probably part of the major difference in opinion. UM engineers mostly print PLA so the printer is really tuned better for that.

Also it took me a long time to get the temperature just right for ABS and I got burned many times for printing too hot or too cold but the UM3 for some reason seems to heat the filament much warmer so you need to lower the temp a lot on the UM3 - by something like 15C versus the UM2.

Also the fan speeds on my UM3 are bizarre. 15% and 100% are both full on. For ABS I like 3%. I doubt S3D would recommend 3% fan speeds but that's what you need for ABS. Anything over 5% fan speed on the UM3 is a tornado.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes use S3D generated gcode for the UM3 (with success). The crucial change is that the 4.x firmware (for Cura Connect) makes the material-id in the gcode header mandatory. S3D is not able to generate this automatically (AFAIK) but it's very easy to add it to the existing postprocessing script.

The easiest way would be to "steal" these (one or two) lines from the Cura generated file.

On the other hand: i never noticed significant differences between prints from Cura and S3D. I can't follow your statement about "very bad print quality because it's Cura". It's indeed a "print and go" in my case. Can you explain the issues that you have with Cura prints? Do you have pictures for comparison between prints that are prepared by S3D vs. the same print prepared by Cura? And did you use the standard settings in both cases or what is different?

Well that's a bit silly forcing a Material-ID to just print. What use does the material change on the printer then? Silly stuff think there. Ofc yea Ultimaker is a eco-system, but this stuff only helps Cura, not the users. Griffin should be named Slyther.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some of you mostly print PLA and the OP mostly prints ABS so that is probably part of the major difference in opinion.  UM engineers mostly print PLA so the printer is really tuned better for that.

Also it took me a long time to get the temperature just right for ABS and I got burned many times for printing too hot or too cold but the UM3 for some reason seems to heat the filament much warmer so you need to lower the temp a lot on the UM3 - by something like 15C versus the UM2.

Also the fan speeds on my UM3 are bizarre.  15% and 100% are both full on.  For ABS I like 3%.  I doubt S3D would recommend 3% fan speeds but that's what you need for ABS.  Anything over 5% fan speed on the UM3 is a tornado.

 

I agree that the differences between printing ABS vs. PLA could be a factor, but it does not negate the fact he is trying to mix incompatible gcode flavors and then complaining that Ultimaker did not go to the trouble to make it compatible with S3D.

And, to top it off, blames the entire system instead of learning the new system. Comparing any system in use for years to a brand new one is basically a false equivalent.

Whatever happened to just printing a boat load of simple things to dial in the settings? Cannot tell you how many cubes, round things and rounded corners to learn the system I printed out. And the differences in nozzle/heat response has been mentioned.

Is it fully plug and play? Nope. But neither is it when you are using various colors and materials. For instance, what ABS is the user using? Different brands do different things and not many are that good.

There are different materials to try as well other than ABS. There are some amazing materials out there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....Well that's a bit silly forcing a Material-ID to just print.....

I do see that as one of the big problems that has been introduced.

However, rather than dismissing it off as something to only benefit the company at the expense of the user, I see it as something that was tried with one thought process in mind, but not seeing the larger picture.

I see it as an oversight based on trying to give the user complete control without considering the variability of setups such as external drybox setups where the NFC chip cannot even be read. That actually points to a flaw in the NFC concept.....if the material cannot be read because it is not in the 'right place', then it is useless, even if you are using company materials.

If it was to benefit the company only, it would not hang up on Ultimaker materials as well.

Edited by Guest
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Terms of Use Privacy Policy