Things I would like in Cura

[poshman 0]

I've been using both Cura and Simplify3D for some time now. The print quality is absolutely the best in Cura as it seems to have much better compensation for changes in acceleration.

However, there are some things I would like in Cura:

1) A machine interface so that when you start Cura you can push a button to connect to the printer and thereby control the bed and nozzle so that things get setup while you are doing other stuff.

2) A way if controlling print speed between different layers. Maybe the program could automatically calculate so that the print speed would be proportional to the time spent on each layer. Thereby the temperature distribution between the layers would be better. Is this done by the "Layer time settings"?

3) Different setups for the infill, especially a hexagonal pattern.

4) A weaker support structure that is much simpler to break of and that does not use as much filament. Ideally it would look like a fishing net of some kind. I think this could be done by making the support structure like infill but having each layer shifted sideways by 2 times the extrusion width so that no layers can interconnect to the other except in the crossing points.

5) A way of selecting areas for which to generate support, or as in Simplify3D, a way of manually entering support structures before slicing.

Well... this surely will keep the nice guys creating Cura occupied for the next year... :-)

Thanks guys for a great program!!..

 

[IRobertI 521]

1) The latest RC's of cura offer a way to build custom interfaces for this. There's already a very basic version of pronterface's interface in there. Check under File -> Preferences -> Printing window type

You can find the files that define the interface at: [installation location]\plugins\PronterfaceUI

2) The "Tweak At Z" plugin is part of cura and allows you to manually edit speeds on a layer by layer basis if you want to.

I'm guessing you're referring to "Minimal layer time"? This is used so that cura doesn't try to print each layer too fast so that it doesn't have time to cool. If you set a limit of 5 seconds a layer that would take 2 seconds to print at the speed you've specified will be slowed down so that it takes at least 5 seconds to complete.

3) I wouldn't mind that either

4) The new RC's bring back the old style support if you want. That support is a fair bit weaker. Enable it in Expert -> Open expert settings -> Support: Structure type

 

[Daid 306]

3) Why? And prove it.

5) Manual support selection is on the wish list, but it's a complex one right now.

 

[onkelgeorg 36]

6) (again)

 

Wouldn't it be good if Cura will calculate the required filament in the layers view continously while scrolling throgh the layers?

 

In addition with the z-height (displayed instead of the layer number) it would be a really good feature for calculating multicolour prints if one wants to join the different filament colours before printing.

:mrgreen:

 

[jonask 0]

i would love to setup a line spacing for the first layer. like a different nozzle size. because when i squeeze the first lines they are much bigger than 0.4 mm. i would like to print the first lines so that they are barely touching each other.

I think with this i could go for a much higher first layer speed and a better surface on the bottom side.

 

[Dim3nsioneer 558]

i would love to setup a line spacing for the first layer. like a different nozzle size. because when i squeeze the first lines they are much bigger than 0.4 mm. i would like to print the first lines so that they are barely touching each other.

I think with this i could go for a much higher first layer speed and a better surface on the bottom side.

Sounds to me as if you could improve your bed leveling. Maybe your head is just a bit too close to the bed? If you have an UM1 or a UM2 with flavor RepRap you may also add an offset to your start.gcode for correction.

I usually also adjust the flow for the first layer (to something like 90%) and get a very nice first layer.

 

[takei-naodar 0]

This wishlist may not be just software wise, but i think everyone whose printer works as intended would agree to it.

My personal wishlist for my UM2:

- Second extruder

- Water-soluble support material

- New support mode for the new material (Like a coating where ever it may be needed so you can print freely anything without needing to think about overhang etc. , + settings for the number of layers of coating)

- Speed setting for the support

-Finer nozzles (~0.2mm)

Edit:

-Triangular infill because triangles are stronger than squares ;D

 

[poshman 0]

1) The latest RC's of cura offer a way to build custom interfaces for this. There's already a very basic version of pronterface's interface in there. Check under File -> Preferences -> Printing window type

You can find the files that define the interface at: [installation location]\plugins\PronterfaceUI

2) The "Tweak At Z" plugin is part of cura and allows you to manually edit speeds on a layer by layer basis if you want to.

I'm guessing you're referring to "Minimal layer time"? This is used so that cura doesn't try to print each layer too fast so that it doesn't have time to cool. If you set a limit of 5 seconds a layer that would take 2 seconds to print at the speed you've specified will be slowed down so that it takes at least 5 seconds to complete.

3) I wouldn't mind that either

4) The new RC's bring back the old style support if you want. That support is a fair bit weaker. Enable it in Expert -> Open expert settings -> Support: Structure type

Thanks for reply/comment.

RC's - where do I find them. I looked at Github but did not figure out where to find it and what to do...

I then looked in the Cura 14.01 I run, and followed the preferences and expert settings leads you gave. Did not find anything there, so I guess I have to download a development version to get these properties ?

 

[IRobertI 521]

http://software.ultimaker.com/Cura_closed_beta/

 

[poshman 0]

3) Why? And prove it.

5) Manual support selection is on the wish list, but it's a complex one right now.

Thanks for input!

The hexagonal fill pattern I would like because it is the strongest fill pattern. I don't have the exact numbers but e.g. using an infill of 20% rect could be interchanged to 15% hex pattern - still yielding the same strength of the part. Faster printing and less material. The part becomes much more resistant to twisting as well. Good considering warping.

Prove it - well - The hexagonal pattern is much better resisting collapsing of walls as the stresses are distributed in more directions. Short description. This is my job - I do load-stress simulations.

Well - of course, if one does not care of the strength in that way - not caring of the weight of the part - then a rect pattern works fine.

 

[poshman 0]

Thanks Robert !

 

[dubtec 0]

4) really want support material to have fine interface layers on the top like KIsslicer .

also finer to save material.

 

[jonask 0]

Sounds to me as if you could improve your bed leveling. Maybe your head is just a bit too close to the bed? If you have an UM1 or a UM2 with flavor RepRap you may also add an offset to your start.gcode for correction.

I usually also adjust the flow for the first layer (to something like 90%) and get a very nice first layer.

My head is really close to the bed. But if i get a bit more distance the lines dont really stick that well to the bed because it do not squeeze it that much. So i thought when you could adjust the line spacing of the first layer i get really good squeezing on the bed and the lines don´t overlay each other.

right now i am testing new abs filament but when i´m done with it i will overlook my bed leveling again!

Thanks for the advice.

 

[Daid 306]

The hexagonal fill pattern I would like because it is the strongest fill pattern. I don't have the exact numbers but e.g. using an infill of 20% rect could be interchanged to 15% hex pattern - still yielding the same strength of the part. Faster printing and less material. The part becomes much more resistant to twisting as well. Good considering warping.

Prove it - well - The hexagonal pattern is much better resisting collapsing of walls as the stresses are distributed in more directions. Short description. This is my job - I do load-stress simulations.

Prove it.

No really. I've seen replies like yours enough. "In theory it will be stronger". However, there are tons of things I've seen that should work in theory, but do not. (Simulations are theory. The UM2 hotend should have worked in dual-extrusion, in theory. Guess how that worked out in reality)

Proof in the physical world. Sorry.

I'm willing to argue that it's not as strong as you would expect, and that a printed triangle+hex infill with straight lines will be stronger: http://i.imgur.com/jQBKaPu.png (still looks like a David star, which is why I kept the square infill for now)

Because the corners of a honeycomb infill have a weaker bond due to acceleration/cornering. While the crossing lines have very strong bonding in the corners due to the double amount of material on those spots.

 

 

 

As for raft suggestions, someone is working on it: https://github.com/Ultimaker/CuraEngine/issues/61

Feel free to share your though there.

 

[poshman 0]

Prove it.

No really. I've seen replies like yours enough. "In theory it will be stronger". However, there are tons of things I've seen that should work in theory, but do not. (Simulations are theory. The UM2 hotend should have worked in dual-extrusion, in theory. Guess how that worked out in reality)

Proof in the physical world. Sorry.

I'm willing to argue that it's not as strong as you would expect, and that a printed triangle+hex infill with straight lines will be stronger: http://i.imgur.com/jQBKaPu.png (still looks like a David star, which is why I kept the square infill for now)

Because the corners of a honeycomb infill have a weaker bond due to acceleration/cornering. While the crossing lines have very strong bonding in the corners due to the double amount of material on those spots.

 

 

 

As for raft suggestions, someone is working on it: https://github.com/Ultimaker/CuraEngine/issues/61

Feel free to share your though there.

Ok - I fold. You mention one thing that I didn't think of. That is the corners. If that would not have been an issue I would gladly have proved it to you. And - having that in mind I concur that the triangle hex infill is much better..

Will that be up for selection in the future or is that put on ice?

Thanks for valuable input!!

 

[Daid 306]

Will that be up for selection in the future or is that put on ice?

It most likely will be. We're working on a GUI code re-design so that extra settings do not mean extra complexity for all.

 

[poshman 0]

1) The latest RC's of cura offer a way to build custom interfaces for this. There's already a very basic version of pronterface's interface in there. Check under File -> Preferences -> Printing window type

You can find the files that define the interface at: [installation location]\plugins\PronterfaceUI

Okey, I tested that - looks are really nice!!.. But, I think I got misunderstood, or I didn't find it. The thing I like in Simplify3D I'm asking for is - without importing any model or anything else - being able to connect to the printer and control it. Maybe I did something wrong but I didn't find a way to bring up the printing interface without submitting a model to be printed. Nice to do bed leveling in a personal way depending on how your table is setup.

Well, of course I can just do it on the Ultimaker but for me it feels nice to do it on the screen.. Of course this will be of no function printing from a SD-card.... so maybe it's just a nice-to-have thing... :smile:

 

[poshman 0]

It most likely will be. We're working on a GUI code re-design so that extra settings do not mean extra complexity for all.

Sounds great!

 

[gr5 2,230]

e.g. using an infill of 20% rect could be interchanged to 15% hex pattern - still yielding the same strength of the part. Faster printing and less material.

I think printing hex is probably MUCH slower than straight lines because the head has to slow down at each corner in that pattern.

 

[takei-naodar 0]

Prove it.

No really. I've seen replies like yours enough. "In theory it will be stronger". However, there are tons of things I've seen that should work in theory, but do not. (Simulations are theory. The UM2 hotend should have worked in dual-extrusion, in theory. Guess how that worked out in reality)

Proof in the physical world. Sorry.

May i take a guess why it did not work? I would say you guys had real problems aligning the head on the same height. Simply somebody seems to have forgotten the thread above the nozzle would not always start at the same position. Which is a problem since the case for the heater, the temp sensor and the nozzle are one piece. There are 2 ways i can think of right now to solve this problem. Both do not require the thread since the full package will be attached in a "neutral" way.

 

[nallath 1,124]

It wasn't the height that made it not work.

 

[eldrick 65]

My wish list is short - I'd settle for a) really Random placement of periphery start/endpoints on rounded objects, and b) separate the Bottom thickness from the Top.