Strange printing since upgrading to Cura 5.1

[ic9000 0]

Hi

 

I was using Cura 4.10 but upgrade last week to Cura 5.1.  Since upgrading my prints start off ok but after so many layers up they go very weird.

 

The raft is printed perfectly, but then it goes wrong after that.

 

My printer is called a Gadget3D printer, which is version based on the Prusa MkIII.

 

I've re-calibrated the X, Y, Z and extruder (TBH there was no change)

The Printer is running Merlin 2.0.9 has been for ages now with no problems.

 

I printed a 1x1x1cm cube with 2mm wall as a test and the attached image is a result.

 

Tried printing it again with gcode previously made with version 4.10 and it printed perfectly.

 

I now have both versions of the Cura installed and the printer settings are identical as are the material settings and the print settings.

The preview on the slicing looks good to.

 

The strange thing is the movement on the printing head in the X, Y and Z whilst printing matches that of the Cura Preview.  But thats not what it extrudes.

 

See the other image for something else I tried to print.  The photo shows it removed from the raft (which printed fine) but the body has that weird repeatable pattern in it, when the fill should of been 20% hatching.

 

Any ideas???

 

In the meantime I've gone back to 4.10.

 

[GregValiant 1,320]

On the Cura menu bar go to "Settings / Printer / Manage Printers" and then "Machine Settings".  Check the box for "Gcode Flavor" and if you have Marlin make sure it is set to Marlin and NOT "Marlin(volumetric)".

 

Click on the Extruder tab and check the "Compatible Material Diameter" and make sure it is set to whatever your printer uses (1.75mm or 2.85mm).

 

[ic9000 0]

Hi

 

So I've upgrade from 4.10 to 4.13.1 and everything is still printing good, just V5 it the problem.

 

I've added the gcode files from 4.13.1 and 5.1 and STL file.

 

Also images of the cube printed using the 4.13.1 GCode looking ok, and the 5.1 GCode starts off ok and then ends badly.

 

Other images of the model I wanted to printed using the 5.1 GCode, which does the raft ok and the first few layers but then goes wrong, so I stopped the print.  The other image shows the model currently printing on 4.13.1 GCode and looking good, you can see the 20% fill ok, and the top part of the model filled.

 

I have compared the setting in both versions of Cura and they look the same.  I couldn't see a way of exporting the settings otherwise I would of uploaded them here as well.  Could only see backing up to my Cura account, which I've done (in case a Cura Staff member wants to look)

 

Cube-1x1x1_CuraV5.1.gcode Cube-1x1x1_CuraV4.13.1.gcode Cube-1x1x1.stl

[ic9000 0]

8 minutes ago, GregValiant said:

On the Cura menu bar go to "Settings / Printer / Manage Printers" and then "Machine Settings".  Check the box for "Gcode Flavor" and if you have Marlin make sure it is set to Marlin and NOT "Marlin(volumetric)".

 

Click on the Extruder tab and check the "Compatible Material Diameter" and make sure it is set to whatever your printer uses (1.75mm or 2.85mm).

 

G Code Flavor set to Marlin already

Compatible Material Diameter already set to 1.75mm (Which is the PLA I am using)

 

 

[GregValiant 1,320]

I looked at the extrusion rates using MSExcel.  They look fine but it's hard to tell with 5.x because the line widths change and I can't account for that with my macro.

So I printed them.

One of these is your 4.13 file and the other is your 5.1 file.  I made no changes and didn't tune anything during the prints.

I'm sitting here staring at them under a magnifier and if I hadn't marked which is which I could never tell them apart.

 

So what does that tell us?  I have to let Cura off the hook on this.  The 5.1 on the left (or is it the right!!) has no ringing while the 4.13 print (which is actually on the right) has very minor ringing,  That is the only difference I can see between the two prints.

The startup gcode of each file is the same as well.  There just doesn't seem to be anything about the two gcode files that should cause your printer to hiccup on one and not the other.

 

 

 

[ic9000 0]

17 hours ago, GregValiant said:

I looked at the extrusion rates using MSExcel.  They look fine but it's hard to tell with 5.x because the line widths change and I can't account for that with my macro.

So I printed them.

One of these is your 4.13 file and the other is your 5.1 file.  I made no changes and didn't tune anything during the prints.

I'm sitting here staring at them under a magnifier and if I hadn't marked which is which I could never tell them apart.

 

So what does that tell us?  I have to let Cura off the hook on this.  The 5.1 on the left (or is it the right!!) has no ringing while the 4.13 print (which is actually on the right) has very minor ringing,  That is the only difference I can see between the two prints.

The startup gcode of each file is the same as well.  There just doesn't seem to be anything about the two gcode files that should cause your printer to hiccup on one and not the other.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for checking the gcode, that is greatly appreciated.

 

I am now left scratching my head on what to try next.

 

Out of interest what printer did you use?

 

I'm currently running 2.0.9 of MarlinFW, I've just noticed there is a 2.0.9.5 (minor patched version) so think I'll give that a try next and see what happens.

 

This is so strange, because I was convinced it was the Cura software as it was the only thing changed.

 

[FaithV 0]

Hey! I have heard from multiple different questions and comments that Ultimaker Cura 5.1 is very difficult to handle, and is causing them the same probs...

[GregValiant 1,320]

I printed on my Ender 3 Pro with the 1.1.5 8 bit mainboard and Marlin 1.1.8.

I've been thinking on this and I MIGHT (big might!) have an explanation.

Gcode is gcode and the printer just goes where it's told.  The toolpaths within the gcode are different, but that really shouldn't cause a quality dropoff like you are getting on the 5.1 print.

 

5.1 has one difference that maybe your printer doesn't like, and it is in the gcode.  The default Wall Order in 5.1 is "Outside to Inside" and equates to the 4.x setting "Print outside walls first".  I'm not sure why Ultimaker made the new default that way, but my Ender is not fond of it.  I've made the default "Inside to Outside" like 4.x was.

Outside to Inside might be OK for some things, but overhangs certainly hate it as there may be nothing for "Outside first" to connect to when the outer wall goes down.

Edited August 15, 2022 by GregValiant

[GregValiant 1,320]

Hello @FaithV 

When Arachne first came out I played with it a bit but only really used it for special occasions.  I liked 4.13 a lot.  When 5.0 came out I said to myself, OK, this is the future so get with it.

I've been using 5.x exclusively since then.  5.0 had growing pains (a slicing bug and the new dialogs and controls were glitchy).  5.1 is much better though it certainly isn't perfect.

There are some new settings in 5.x that have no carry-over from 4.x.  There is a learning curve to get the new version to perform the way users want.  I have had no trouble with Cura 5 once I figured out where the differences were and what to watch for.  There are a few main differences.

• Wall Order default is "Outside to Inside".  I changed my printer definition file to make "Inside to Outside" my default.
• The "Line Width" is now more of a suggestion that a rule.  Line Width defines the upper limit of the width.  In concert with that are 5 new settings in the Walls section starting with "Minimum Wall Line Width".  They can make a big difference regarding the toolpaths consequently the outer quality of a print.
• "Flow equalization ratio" is in the Speed settings.  The default is 100% but that isn't right for all models.  People see the print speed varying and figure it's some sort of error, but it's Cura changing the speeds to maintain the flow rate through the nozzle.  If you want the speeds all the same?   No problem.  Set Flow Equalization to 0%.

I had to smile when I saw a post on Reddit "Cura 5 is ruining my prints".  C'mon man, learn the software.  It's an industrial strength, complicated program that requires an effort on the users part to learn.  There appears to be a lot of people who look for the "Easy" button but they want thousands of custom features.

 

There is no easy button.

Users need to put in some effort.

 

That's todays rant.  I usually do that on a Sunday but I was fishing.

[Marvin1412 0]

I have a very similar problem with huge underextrusion but only on 5.1 and did not find a fix (4.5 works so i believe it is not hardware site). I honestly think similar to "Cura 5 is ruining my prints" since i do not see an obvious reason for this problem and as far as i read this thread there is no obvious reason for it and it has nothing to do with 

 

Quote

It's an industrial strength, complicated program that requires an effort on the users part to learn. 

since there seems to be no real setting which affects it. Did anyone find a real reason for this? @GregValiant, @ic9000? I will try to set Flow equalization ratio to Zero and see if it changes anything.

I also have a script which reads the extrusion lengths and i will try to compare it in the future, for now it is a lot easier to just use 4.5. 

Greetings

[GregValiant 1,320]

I moved to the 5.x versions.  There have been glitches in dialog boxes and 5.1 in particular had slicing problems on Windows installations and with particular high resolution models.  My prints have been fine.

I thought 4.13.1 was excellent so you might consider installing it.  You can keep your 4.5 installation as well.

 

If you still have 5.x installed please load a Benchy or calibration cube and slice it.  Use the "File | Save Project" command and post the 3mf file here.  Sometimes things stick out and either way, the developers may want to take a look at what's going on.

 

I have a couple of macros in AutoCad and Excel that I use for gcode analysis.  The "variable" line width of the 5.x versions make the flow analysis difficult as there isn't any way to tell how far one extrusion is from the one next to it.  Without knowing the line width the flow rate can look off but actually be correct.  If a user sets up with different line widths for different things (infill at one line width, support at another line width, outer walls at a third line width and inner walls at a fourth line width) then my analysis quickly becomes useless.  The same problem occurs with any on-line analysis software.