Ultimaker Cura 5.0.0

[Sandman_d 0]

6 hours ago, GregValiant said:

On any single wall print my Ender 3 Pro will have marks on the outside where the infill touches the inside of the wall.  That is the same sort of artifact as is being left by the printer in regards to the pressure changes that 5.0 dictates.

 

In this last image one of the prints was sliced in 4.13.1 and the other with 5.0.  Both are with your test model and both have the same side facing the camera. 

The question is...which is which?  A second question would be...are you getting different results?

In regards to your question "How to solve this problem" I have no idea.  In my case I'm pretty sure it's the printer unable to keep up with the rapidity of the pressure changes.  I've been known to be wrong.

Yes, the printer will have marks on the outside where the infill touches the inside of the wall, the appearance of the wall is only part of the problem. The second part of the problem is that the wall of the pocket is fragile.
The real detail I'm having trouble with is part of the fuselage of the model airplane. The part has two air intakes (pockets) and they are overhanging elements.

Now let's see how Cura 5.0.0 calculates this element. First, the outer wall of the first air intake (1) is printed, then the nozzle moves to the seam point and begins to print the outer line of the part (2).

Near the second air intake, the program makes supports for its outer wall, after which other outer and inner lines are printed.

And only at the end is the outer wall of the second air intake printed - because it is in contact with the supports, it is rigid and normally printed.

But the wall of the first air intake was printed before printing the supports - so it is fragile and poorly printed.

Both of these walls are 0.42 mm thick, but the program's algorithm is a bit "weird" and prints them in different cycles.

 

[GregValiant 1,251]

C'mon now boys.  The second photo is a SINGLE print.  I combined the gcodes from the 5.0 (on the bottom) scribbled in some transition gcode (actually I have a post-processor that does that) and then pasted the 4.13 gcode on top.  So from 0 to 7mm it's 5.0 and from 7.2mm to 14mm it's 4.13.  I knew you wouldn't be able to tell.

 

@Yamie Attached is a project file from 5.0.  You can export the STL and open it in 4.13 or just open the project in either version.  Also attached is the gcode file I put together.  It's for an Ender 3 Pro (230 x 230 bed) but there isn't anything odd in the Gcode and should print OK on other printers BUT the retraction distance is 5.5.  If you let me know your preferred retract distance I'll make up another one.  (The preview of that gcode file in Cura is interesting.)

EDIT:  Added a combined gcode with .8 retraction.

 

@Sandman_d Intake #1 is on a curve.  The extrusion can't follow a curve (over air) on the first stroke so I would expect that to be a trouble spot.  It did not turn out near as well as #2.  If that yellow line started at the outboard edge of the intake, that was a bad thing.  It looks like it didn't stick and snapped to the other edge.  It did that for about 4 or 5 layers before it build up enough junk to bridge the gap.  If it went down that way then that would account for the angle.

"...the program makes supports for its outer wall..."  I don't understand that part.  The infill printed first?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thin Wall Test Shape Combined.gcode

Thin Wall Test Shape.3mf

Thin Wall Test Shape COMBINED_8.gcode

Edited June 7, 2022 by GregValiant

[Sandman_d 0]

57 minutes ago, GregValiant said:

@Sandman_d Intake #1 is on a curve.  The extrusion can't follow a curve (over air) on the first stroke so I would expect that to be a trouble spot.  It did not turn out near as well as #2.  If that yellow line started at the outboard edge of the intake, that was a bad thing.  It looks like it didn't stick and snapped to the other edge.  It did that for about 4 or 5 layers before it build up enough junk to bridge the gap.  If it went down that way then that would account for the angle.

"...the program makes supports for its outer wall..."  I don't understand that part.  The infill printed first?

 

 

 

By support, I mean these small speeches, perhaps they should have been called additional contact points or something else. I did not see this option in 4.12.1, so on your model the walls of 0.35 and 0.4 look worse than for 5.0.0.

But in my model, in 4.12.1 the whole outer line is printed in one cycle and such problems are impossible.

[GregValiant 1,251]

Some of that depends on your Layer Height and Initial Layer Height.  When the slices are made those determine where Cura makes the slice.  A bit off here and a bit off there and exactly in the Z where the slice is made changes.  Where the slice goes through a feature can make a difference.  I've noticed that 5.0 will make multiple lines out of what used to be a single long line.  They are all in a row but pieces instead of a whole.  I have no idea why they did that but I suppose it has to do with the variable line thing.

I've been playing with some of the new settings and making changes can make a difference in the toolpath.  I'm just not sure of "how" they make a difference or when I should make the difference yet.

[Yamie 0]

I can confirm, V5 splits straight lines into multiple parts unlike V4 were it was just a single line.

So I redid my test, in V4 and V5 with and without linear advance. But it's all the same.

Not using LA didn't make a difference. And what is even more problematic, the surface errors are not the same even after running the same gcode twice.

 

There was also no unusual extruder movement comparing those runs.

I don't know what V5 is doing wrong with flow inconsistency and those errors. The only thing I know, it is not happening in V4 no matter the settings, and it is always the case with V5 code.

[GregValiant 1,251]

Hello @Yamie.

I read a post on Reddit Cura forum where one of the developers (ghostkeeper on this forum) is working on a fix for what I think you are seeing.  

[Romboombom 0]

Добрый день.Не могу запустить программу .Вот журнал ошибки

- <Event xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/win/2004/08/events/event">

- <System>

  <Provider Name="Application Error" />

  <EventID Qualifiers="0">1000</EventID>

  <Version>0</Version>

  <Level>2</Level>

  <Task>100</Task>

  <Opcode>0</Opcode>

  <Keywords>0x80000000000000</Keywords>

  <TimeCreated SystemTime="2022-06-20T08:50:20.1897826Z" />

  <EventRecordID>10815</EventRecordID>

  <Correlation />

  <Execution ProcessID="0" ThreadID="0" />

  <Channel>Application</Channel>

  <Computer>RomBoom</Computer>

  <Security />

  </System>

- <EventData>

  <Data>Ultimaker-Cura.exe</Data>

  <Data>0.0.0.0</Data>

  <Data>62836e35</Data>

  <Data>_qhull.cp310-win_amd64.pyd</Data>

  <Data>0.0.0.0</Data>

  <Data>61c11a34</Data>

  <Data>c0000005</Data>

  <Data>0000000000047dbb</Data>

  <Data>3f64</Data>

  <Data>01d88482c0b89cf0</Data>

  <Data>C:\Program Files\Ultimaker Cura 5.0.0\Ultimaker-Cura.exe</Data>

  <Data>C:\Program Files\Ultimaker Cura 5.0.0\scipy\spatial\_qhull.cp310-win_amd64.pyd</Data>

  <Data>dcd8df5d-0fe8-458b-a244-52444d00e852</Data>

  <Data />

  <Data />

  </EventData>

  </Event>

[dsp 18]

Am I the only one who encounters much longer load times when using Cura 5 instead of 4.13 

we mostly print IPT files and these can take up to 15 minutes to load in Cura 5, this alone stops me from using cura 5.

 

[GregValiant 1,251]

@dsp you aren't alone but it appears you are part of a very small group.  I seem to recall seeing a post (either here or on Github) where someone else had the problem but I don't recall if it was resolved or not.  Since so few people have reported an issue with slow loading, it might be computer system / operating system dependent.

I'm not familiar with "IPT" files.  Is there a translator utility involved when opening them in Cura?

[dsp 18]

There is a plug in from the marketplace 

Inventor integration

but seems to not work as smooth as with the older cura's 

[GregValiant 1,251]

I don't see it in my 5.0 Marketplace.  It's possible it wasn't updated to work with Qt6.

The author of that plugin has a page HERE that you might be able to contact him from.

His GitHub page shows his last commit was 2 years ago.

[greyhaven 0]

I am experiencing multiple crashes using Ultimaker Cura 5.0.0 on my M1 Macbook Pro (2020). I don't yet have a printer, but I wanted to tinker with the program to see if it is right for me before I buy a printer. Any idea why it crashes so much? I watched a youtube video where the person using his Vyper said he experienced crashes and such using his M1 Macbook Pro as well and I was wondering if this is a bug that will ever be addressed? I have a Lenovo Legion Y720 at the house, but I would much rather use my M1 MBP than my PC laptop. Thanks to anyone who has an answer for this. 

[gr5 2,172]

Sometimes it's better to go with a slightly older version of Cura.  I have no idea if this is the case for your particular Mac.  Cura 4.X is a very mature, feature rich product with very few (none?) serious bugs.  However there have been problems with certain newer Macs.  And I think the Cura team maybe switched to newer libraries that now work on the newer Macs but not the older ones?  I'm really not sure as what I read about this subject kind of went out the other ear.  I am not a Mac person so hopefully one of them who has been following the issues can answer.  I don't know a M1 MBP from an iphone.

[greyhaven 0]

Hahah. Yeah, I suppose I could try an older version of Cura. As for the M1, it's not that old. Came out in 2020 and it is the Mac previous to the newest Macbook Pro which came out last year. According to a website, it stated that Cura 5 is M1 ready, but I am experiencing bugs. As for an older version, Cura 4, it says it is not M1 ready, which means it uses Rosetta. I am not fond of Rosetta, but it works. I will try Cura 4 and see what happens.

[PLAmenPRINT 2]

Hi, I would like to share an issue that is quite strange for me about skin overlap.

You can see in the image below that when the Top surface skin layer is enabled (it is useful because the printing speed can be reduced for better top quality) or/and the extra skin wall is enabled the overlap setting is not working.

As soon as I put them to zero the overlap setting is working.

Are You going to solve this issue?

Thank You

Best Regards

[gr5 2,172]

@PLAmenPRINT - without trying to duplicate it myself, this looks like a bug to me.  Posting here may get the attention of the developers but what is much more likely to work, is to post an issue on github.  If you don't already have a github account you have to create one but it's free.  Then go over here and post the same photos as above but also please post a project file (in cura do menu "file" and then "save project as").  That will include all your machine settings, your model, and so on.  For either of the two failure modes above.

 

https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues

[daedy 0]

On 5/31/2022 at 10:05 PM, GregValiant said:

In 4.13.1 in the Marketplace the Solidworks plugin has a link to the author / maintainer of the plugin.  You would need to contact them and find out if they have a timeline for re-submitting the plugin to the Cura Team.

 

EDIT:  I found a contact form for the author and sent a query regarding the plugin and if/when it will be available for 5.0.

 

Any news about the Solidworks plugin ?

[GregValiant 1,251]

No and it's been over a month.  His website is https://thopiekar.eu/ and there is a comment regarding the plugin.