However, looking at the code in CuraEngine, it appears that in surface mode the lines in each layer can either be closed loops (aka polygons) or they can just be lines that don't join up. The polygons will be printed taking into account the z-seam position but it appears that the lines ignore the z-seam position. Perhaps that could be changed, although it's not immediately obvious what the right strategy would be.
1
24 minutes ago, ungutknut said:Here on 4.5 z-seam alignment seems to work as expected (tested with user specified). Maybe you're using 4.6 which suffers from a regression concerning z-seam alignment: https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/7557
It's supposed to be fixed already in 4.6.1
I was using 4.6.0, but upgraded to 4.6.1 in the hopes it would resolve the issue. I just tried 4.5 but again I get he same behaviour.
22 minutes ago, burtoogle said:However, looking at the code in CuraEngine, it appears that in surface mode the lines in each layer can either be closed loops (aka polygons) or they can just be lines that don't join up. The polygons will be printed taking into account the z-seam position but it appears that the lines ignore the z-seam position. Perhaps that could be changed, although it's not immediately obvious what the right strategy would be.
Unfortunately that's exactly what I'm trying to print (four lines instead of a closed polygon as per the attached image). Note the base isn't visible in the picture (I have it as a second model so I could use different print settings). I was hoping to have the 'seam' at the end of one of the four lines so visually it would be hidden away toward the middle of the object.
I don't suppose there are any spiralize hacks I could use? I tried with the same model but it seems to fill in the gaps in the surface. Stringing is actually perfectly fine in this application. There's no reason why the gaps in the model can't become a 'mesh' of stringing instead.
Have you tried selecting a user specified seam position with the coordinates exactly in the center (or with a slight offset towards the preferred corner) of your model?
14 minutes ago, ungutknut said:Have you tried selecting a user specified seam position with the coordinates exactly in the center (or with a slight offset towards the preferred corner) of your model?
I have yes. I tried at a variety of different X/Y coordinates all over the build plate, at center, with and without the relative box checked. Burtoogle (above) seems to have mentioned that Surface Mode does override seam location if the surface is not a closed polygon (which is true in my case it consists of 4 separated surfaces which slice into 4 lines, not one closed polygon).
I have attached the model below for reference:
Ok, then it was probably just a coincidence that it seems to work here on a different model. I tried yours with cura 4.5 and can reproduce the issue. I don't know if that's an option but you could try solidifying your sheet model in CAD to just above nozzle size and see what happens then.
2 hours ago, ungutknut said:Ok, then it was probably just a coincidence that it seems to work here on a different model. I tried yours with cura 4.5 and can reproduce the issue. I don't know if that's an option but you could try solidifying your sheet model in CAD to just above nozzle size and see what happens then.
No luck with solidifying either. I need to be able to print a lot of these quickly so I can't have it doing two lines thick and nearly doubling the print time. I have nozzles up to 1mm so one layer is strong enough. The best I got with some tweaking in normal mode where one of the four walls printing as one line where others all having an essentially empty second pass.
I tried adding the gaps as surfaces in a separate model with 5% flow. This did put the seam where I wanted it (maybe because there was a continuous polygon but it did print out of order, not as a consecutive line) but the gaps printed with far too much material and ended up essentially solid.
I tried spiralized with the same settings but it seems to override the reduced 5% flow rate on the gap surface model and just print at the full flow rate.
Next I went back to surface and put a little vertical element in the middle with almost zero cross section (in the hopes this may change the seam location). This didn't work and it went back to the automatically calculated seam location.
It may be about time to give up on this one.
Hi aaerelon,
Not sure if I understood this right, -but you wanted to print your model in spiraling mode, so I made a test with Cura 4.6.1.
The model was sliced ok, but a check of the "print file" with the gcode viewer, shoved two issues: a small sector of a single line was missing and one small missing overlap(?). I thought this was strange as the model is made in sprialing mode..
Today I've been using my S3D for some viewing of old sliced print I have. This made thinking about your problem, so I just loaded up your model, sliced with Cura 4.6.1. To my surprise, your model come up without any error, perfect sliced!
The "simulator" in S3D showed a proper spiralized model. So I installed Cura 3.6.0 again, gcode viewer showed the same as S3D.
Here's some pictures:
The sliced model with Cura 4.6.1
The picture of "gcode print file" showing two errors, viewed with the viewer of Cura 4.6.1.
And lastly the same gcode file viewed in S3D with no error!
Here is the gcode file of your model sliced with Cura 4.6.1:
AI3M_G_100Dx100HS_test_1.gcode
Thanks
Torgeir
Edited by Torgeir
Hi,
Forgot to mention that your model was sliced for you printer; Anycubic i3 Mega..
Torgeir
31 minutes ago, Torgeir said:Hi aaerelon,
Not sure if I understood this right, -but you wanted to print your model in spiraling mode, so I made a test with Cura 4.6.1.
The model was sliced ok, but a check of the "print file" with the gcode viewer, shoved two issues: a small sector of a single line was missing and one small missing overlap(?). I thought this was strange as the model is made in sprialing mode..
Today I've been using my S3D for some viewing of old sliced print I have. This made thinking about your problem, so I just loaded up your model, sliced with Cura 4.6.1. To my surprise, your model come up without any error, perfect sliced!
The "simulator" in S3D showed a proper spiralized model. So I installed Cura 3.6.0 again, gcode viewer showed the same as S3D.
Here's some pictures:
The sliced model with Cura 4.6.1
The picture of "gcode print file" showing two errors, viewed with the viewer of Cura 4.6.1.
And lastly the same gcode file viewed in S3D with no error!
Here is the gcode file of your model sliced with Cura 4.6.1:
AI3M_G_100Dx100HS_test_1.gcode 715.79 kB · 0 downloads
Thanks
Torgeir
Thanks for putting in the time! Ideally what I am trying to do is print the model with the vertical gaps between the four pieces. This does work in Surface Mode. But because I want to print with the gaps, the cross section slice is not a closed loop. It I stead consists of four lines.
Now the issue comes down to Cura's automatic placement of the seam. I am specifying a seam location. However because the slice is not a closed loop, Cura ignores this and chooses a seam location of it's own. The location Cura chooses ruins the aesthetics.
Maybe if I could see the code used in the program for this seam location decision I could physically change the model to force the location somewhere. I don't think I have the knowledge to change the code and prevent this override.
I guess to sum things up:
In Surface Mode, if the slice is a closed loop, Cura will use the User Defined Seam location.
In Surface Mode, if the slice is not a closed loop (one or a series of lines for example), Cura will not use the User Defined Seam location. Instead it overrides and ignores that location.
I want to turn off this override, or find a workaround.
Even if it means modifying the model geometry. But I do need the gaps between pieces (required for air flow).
Edited by aaerelonIs this what you are after, allways starts the new layer at the start of the same line.
I sliced this with Burtoogle's cura build
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s43vqzmi4d2bqe2/AAADdYdSu9iwcKa0Knqgurm4a?dl=0&lst=
1
Hi aaerelon,
Oh yes., this was quite different for sure, this object is kind of difficult to print as there is no platform/bottom.
I'll think someone in here mention that is better to dimension wall thickness in the stc file, as this is better for Cura slicer to recognize.
So maybe define wall thickness same as you print, might be worth a try?
I've also tried to use Cura 3.6.0 and found this one better, Cura also made one (or more?) version that's traveled along the mid wall. Made my prints nicer for sure.
Anyway, whatever path you take, good luck.
Regards
Torgeir
7 hours ago, obewan said:Is this what you are after, allways starts the new layer at the start of the same line.
I sliced this with Burtoogle's cura build
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s43vqzmi4d2bqe2/AAADdYdSu9iwcKa0Knqgurm4a?dl=0&lst=
If that line started at the bottom of the screen and went clockwise to that point then yes! Which version are you using? I downloaded the latest Burtoogle version (2020/05/15 Windows 64) at the link you provided and I seem to be getting the same slicing behaviour as in 4.6.1.
I did do a test where the surface mode lines took into account the user-specified z-seam position and it worked for most of the lines in that model but not all. As I mentioned somewhere (on github, I think), something weird happens around layer 215.
Anyway, I can make a new release with that change in if it would be useful.
27 minutes ago, burtoogle said:I did do a test where the surface mode lines took into account the user-specified z-seam position and it worked for most of the lines in that model but not all. As I mentioned somewhere (on github, I think), something weird happens around layer 215.
Anyway, I can make a new release with that change in if it would be useful.
It would definitely be useful to myself (and I would think others as well). The fine grained control is great when the design also requires optimized aesthetics.
I would be happy to help test this and any other new features going forward.
Within the next hour a 20200525 release for Windows-64 should be on Dropbox. It heeds the user-defined z-seam hint position when outputting surface mode lines. YMMV.
3
Hi burtoogle,
This was a great upgrade, work much better than before!
Cura need to adapt more of your ideas. 🙂
Thanks
Torgeir
1
6 hours ago, burtoogle said:Within the next hour a 20200525 release for Windows-64 should be on Dropbox. It heeds the user-defined z-seam hint position when outputting surface mode lines. YMMV.
It's beautiful 👏
Slicing seems to be perfect. I have a few little prints this morning but then I'll swap over filaments and give it a go. Much appreciated!
ArunC posted a topic in UltiMaker Cura,
.thumb.jpeg.0b7a05eafc09add17b8338efde5852e9.jpeg)
Dustin posted a topic in Firmware,
Recommended Posts
ungutknut 4
Here on 4.5 z-seam alignment seems to work as expected (tested with user specified). Maybe you're using 4.6 which suffers from a regression concerning z-seam alignment: https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/7557
It's supposed to be fixed already in 4.6.1
Link to post
Share on other sites