Looseness around holes

[mnis 11]

And yes you can try another surface pattern, but it should still be seamlessly closed with any surface pattern. For example, I like concentric surfaces, but these are not properly closed in Cura v3.3.1 in the center.

[kmanstudios 1,120]

21 minutes ago, Deve said:

Does this mean in Cura to change flow to 110% and try that? Its fresh a .4 nozzle. There are so many settings that I have tried different things but probably was too stupid about how things work to make an intelligent decision on what to try. Also, I realize you are trying to tighten up the printing, but does my suggestion of changing the top layer pattern to go to the edge of the hole make no sense? Thanks everyone. 

This is literally my method of troubleshooting:

1. Do as @mnis said: Make a test object and test it on all three machines to make sure results are consistent. This is most imperative as it may point to a flaw in a machine compared to others. That allows you to troubleshoot the mechanics.

 

2. If all machines prints work equally well, start by adjusting one parameter at a time to see what changes. If you make more than one change, then you are not sure what worked if it did work.

 

3. About the gcode flavor, someone who has experience on other machines will need to advise you properly for that.

 

4. You can start with the most obvious things like maybe playing with line widths as well as suggested, flow.

 

5. Use simple quick printing objects that allow for quick turn around. Nothing worse than an all day print that wastes materials and time for one silly flaw.

 

And, keep coming back with results as we chug though this together.

 

 

[JCD 28]

 I see in your settings that you did'nt check "enable Ironing"

 

Check it and keep the "children" parameters" like this

 

'Iron only highest layer' unchecked

'Ironing line space' 0.1mm

'Ironing flow' 10%         >>>> very useful to put some material in the missing holes

'Ironing inset' 0.2mm   >>>> prevents jagged edges on the skins

'Ironing speed' 22 mm/s   >>>> the lowest the speed the smoothing the most

 

[JCD 28]

otherwise i succed to suppress the walls on the top surface with that trick

 

put a support blocker on the surface where are the holes

change its dimensions (with 'uniform scaling' unchecked) to

z 0.2 mm

x the width of the surface

y the length

 

change z coordinate of the blocker to the height of surface minus 0.2mm

change 'mesh type' of the blocker to 'modify settings to overlap with other models'

 

click 'select settings' and check 'wall thickness' and in the window put zero to the wall thickness

 

then clic for slicing and look at the result, there is only one skin (but there is a skin on the surface at the edges of the blocker !!!)

 

Hope this help

 

 

[Deve 5]

Thanks to all who are working for a solution! Wow! I have been asking on other forums and had no idea how helpful this one would be. SOLD! Anyway, I have been afraid to make the flow higher than 100% because I didn't want some arbitrary mess and my 3 printers run all day and all night on large projects so taking the time to test is hard. I upped the flow to 110% and that closes all the gaps without adding size. There is no difference in size between 100 and 110% flow, but I did notice a little extra buildup on the top layer which is okay. So I will try it at 105 because the less that works the better. 

 

I still think over the long term, a top layer should have a different pattern to help lock the piece together rather than allowing those rounds around the holes to be done the same. By going up to the edge on layers, this problem would never exist because everything else IS connecting just fine. 

 

The pictures suck, but looking at all four you can see the one on the right is the one with badly connected circles at 100% flow and the one on the left is the one at 110%. JCD, I appreciate the thought you put into your reply, and if this persists, I will try it, but I do not personally like ironing. It makes the piece look totally different and I like the look of the raw print. The jury is still out on whether or not that shortens the life of unclogged nozzles too.  But since they added flow to the mix, something I might try again.

[kmanstudios 1,120]

3 minutes ago, Deve said:

I still think over the long term, a top layer should have a different pattern.....

You can make the top layer a different pattern in the current versions. You may have to unhide settings to do so though.

 

5 minutes ago, Deve said:

...had no idea how helpful this one would be....

Stick around :) a good bunch of folks with different ways of doing things. This gives you many options.

 

Nice progression too on your prints. Very happy you are making progress. :)

 

[AbeFM 35]

Or maybe "Top Surface Line Spacing"

 

I've been struggling with gaps on a MK3 and a CR-10. Concentric leaves holes, no question.

 

Mostly just watching, because other than "I've seen this" I don't have a lot to add.

[mnis 11]

5 hours ago, AbeFM said:

Concentric leaves holes, no question

In earlier versions of Cura 2 ... or was it 3 ... I occasionally printed concentric and I did not notice that such large holes remain. It was obviously only in Cura 3.3.1 ... sad, because I liked to print a few things in this way.

[AbeFM 35]

2 hours ago, mnis said:

sad, because I liked to print a few things in this way.

I just use concentric for the outermost layer, then lines inside. It fills in the gaps, enough

 

[JCD 28]

Concentric leave holes

 

Here is a trick to prevent this to happen

 

I did this with 0.4 nozzle and line width of 0.4

 

1) here is a picture of 6 models with width of 4.0 4.15 4.3 and 8.0 8.15 8.3 mm

 

As you can see, cura is not managing correctly when the final gap is less than the line width

 

2) Change the parameter (in the shell parameters)  Horizontal Expansion to 0.2

 

here is the result for the same models

 

 

As you can see Cura now is managing more precisely the problem

 

And you can modify the Initial layer Horizontal expansion to -0.2. This has the advantage to prevent also the Elephant Foot effect

[kmanstudios 1,120]

1 hour ago, JCD said:

Concentric leave holes

 

Here is a trick to prevent this to happen

 

I did this with 0.4 nozzle and line width of 0.4

 

1) here is a picture of 6 models with width of 4.0 4.15 4.3 and 8.0 8.15 8.3 mm

 

As you can see, cura is not managing correctly when the final gap is less than the line width

 

2) Change the parameter (in the shell parameters)  Horizontal Expansion to 0.2

 

here is the result for the same models

 

 

As you can see Cura now is managing more precisely the problem

 

And you can modify the Initial layer Horizontal expansion to -0.2. This has the advantage to prevent also the Elephant Foot effect

I would do an actual test to see if that is indeed the result. I remember that freaking me out when I first started but it was just a graphic effect and not the real deal.

[mnis 11]

@JCD Thank you for this solution-way, I will definitely try it out soon and give a feedback.

But I like these patterns better than crossing lines. The real problem is programming the creation of the concentric lines, which would have to create closed surfaces without fine adjustments just like out of the box, because I think nobody wants it the way it was done at the moment. And as I mentioned at the beginning, it has already worked better once, I believe so.

 

@kmanstudios

Your statement has now unsettled me a bit, but trying it out will bring it to light :-)

Edited June 6, 2018 by mnis

[kmanstudios 1,120]

13 minutes ago, mnis said:

Your statement has now unsettled me a bit, but trying it out will bring it to light ?

Which statement?

[mnis 11]

4 hours ago, kmanstudios said:

I would do an actual test to see if that is indeed the result. I remember that freaking me out when I first started but it was just a graphic effect and not the real deal.

It's all good ... Just a little kidding from me :-)

[kmanstudios 1,120]

Ohhhh...ok...I have known of people that assume the representation is dead on. But, I have found it to be an approximation for the most part.

 

[Deve 5]

I thought I had it with flow, but I don't. That works that way with test pieces for me. I have to actually spend the 5 days on the long prints to find out! In this case it was just a day. I REALLY wish we could change the pattern of the top layer to go to the edge of the holes. Maybe this thread will give the programmers some ideas.

[kmanstudios 1,120]

That may be a skin expansion thing or something. I am not sure since I do not meddle with that.

 

Sometimes, you just gotta get in there and punch buttons.

Edited June 6, 2018 by kmanstudios

[Deve 5]

This is just nasty. You mentioned about unhiding some features, Ill try anything at this point. You could actually push on this hole and all the rings would come out. There is no top or bottom layer around the holes. This is what I am talking about. We need the layers to go to the edge of the hole. 

[kmanstudios 1,120]

The biggest difficulty you are having, as I see it, is that people with your printer are not posting tips. You are on a third party printer and that will create issues as far as I can see. Each brand is very different. So, we are here to advise you, but I know I am not familiar at all with your printer brand.

 

But, we endeavor to persevere. :)

[Deve 5]

It is ALL being sliced by Cura and the point here is, while printers are different, to accomodate all of them (not a small task by any means and kudo's for you guys trying!) you need to have different slice capabilities built in. In the case of more than one of us obviously, the layers need to be different from the infill in how they handle edges. The concentric thing doesn't work very well. So lines would be more appropriate in this case. In all of the wonderful choices (settings) for the love of GOD I can't find where I can make the top layer just different in ANY way to the infill around holes. When you can see all the way through those rings, there is something very wrong.

 

In any case, we are all appreciative of your efforts! Do NOT abandon us! The reason I don't purchase a ready-built printer is because I am a tinkerer, and it would be blasphemous to just purchase an off the shelf printer. I would have to take up drinking if I did that! ?

[JCD 28]

Myself, I have an Anet A8, the great bonus is that you can see and change hardware and software, so it's easier to understand what's going on.

 

Deve,

 

have you try the various options we talked about ?

Otherwise if you want a smarter working space, I made an stl file to put in the Cura folder, to have a picture of the printer on the cube where cura put the models (like the ones existing for the ultimaker printers)

 

 

[Deve 5]

Can I get that from you? I would be interested in knowing what settings work best for you. Do YOU have this same problem?? ONE thing the programmers for Cura could do that would be so nice is... let us print out the settings in .txt. Just the ability to do that, rather than scroll through tons of settings, lay the text file on the table and start sorting through things would be really nice. Maybe they already have and I am missing it. 

 

Maybe I am just getting old, but I cant figure out what impacts what. I am very happy with Cura and do not want to change slicers. I am committed to learning this program. Everything mentioned I am slowly working through as the printers are vacated.

 

I have one of them that uses Ramps 1.4, the other two use the stock A8 mobo. There is no difference whatsoever between the two as far as print quality. I get really great quality except for around holes. I have been trying to fix this on every print for the past two years changing every setting available as new ones come out. Frustrating sailed a long time ago!

[JCD 28]

@kmanstudios,

 

Maybe the real result is not exactly what cura draw in theory (for instance in an overhang situation), but I think it's not in the case for the layers drawing Cura is doing.

It's the graphical result of the gcode instructions.

 

Just an information if you want to understand How Cura is G-Coding, you can use CraftWare (a slicing software), open in it the gcode file cura has created.

The great advantage in this sofware is that you can see in parallel the Gcode cura has creted and the movements of the extruder on the different layers. It's a great bonus to understand what's happening

 

In this case why do I use Cura? Because it'better for coding for instance on supports, and also the "support blocker' option (which i have told about a few posts before)

[Deve 5]

I use Octoprint for that. I can see in real time exactly what will happen next. Support blocker is also a major bonus. We are all very happy Ultimaker has allowed everyone in on the game. Don't lose faith, your team is making tremendous progress. 

[JCD 28]

@Deve

 

Do'nt despair with you age, myself I'm older than you (born 1/31/1951) but I'm shy about it so I did'nt give it in my profile.

 

For the stl file I shall put it in another post for the other printers category, and i'll tell you at this moment.