Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts
undeviljur

firmware surface kwality bug 14.07 vs 14.03

Recommended Posts

hello ultimakers,

I have encountered a problem with the surface quality with the new firmware (14.07).

Before I posted this i have done a lot of testing.

The tests i did, to make sure it’s the firmware causes this problem, are:

I printed 2 different parts on firmware 14.07 then i flashed firmware 14.03 and printed those 2 parts again. (The parts are printed from the exact same .gcode file and SD card)

See pictures for a side by side comparison

20140720 16243020140720 16254120140721 120638Firmware 14.09 (bad surface quality)       Firmware 14.03 (good surface quality)surface comparison (Firmware 14.10_RC5            Firmware 14.09          Firmware 14.03)

 

 

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't really think why the firmware update would cause any issues like that. You might try removing the filament, and then performing a 'factory reset' to see if that makes a difference. (Maintenance -> Advanced -> Factory Reset).

 

I'm with illuminatri on this one. I do not see how a firmware change could be causing this.

How does the 14.06 firmware compare to the rest?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't match the photo. It's the wrong gcode file. Why make us to 3 times the work if you want help.

I suggest if you ask someone to do something you do a little work yourself.

If this is the gcode with the worst quality difference then maybe post the pictures of this part.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I looked at the above gcode in repetier host carefully and also in cura carefully and loaded the settings and looked at that also.

Those sides are printed in a single pass which is good (a single line) yet they seem to show some kind of pattern that shouldn't be there.

The only theory I have right now - and I like this theory - is that your XY acceleration is different on the 2 versions of firmware. With the lower acceleration giving the higher quality results. It would be nice to see the photos and the gcode file that match each other however.

Another theory has to do with the travel speed and infill pattern but I don't want to repeat that theory without seeing matching files so I can match up the infill to the visible pattern in the photo.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't match the photo. It's the wrong gcode file. Why make us to 3 times the work if you want help.

I suggest if you ask someone to do something you do a little work yourself.

If this is the gcode with the worst quality difference then maybe post the pictures of this part.

 

Hey gr5,

I am really sorry that you think i don't work hard while asking help. I will try to do better.

But if you look at my first post, you will see an album. with 3 photo's.

That are the 3 gcode files that I posted later. The second photo will match with the "07dustfilter fork v2.gcode" file.

 

Well I looked at the above gcode in repetier host carefully and also in cura carefully and loaded the settings and looked at that also.

Those sides are printed in a single pass which is good (a single line) yet they seem to show some kind of pattern that shouldn't be there.

 

After i read this, I opened the "07dustfilter fork v2.gcode" file in cure to look for myself.

I see a pattern in the Z axis.

But i see this pattern in all my gcode files (If i save them and then reopen them in cura).

While slicing the part and looking a the layers it does not show this pattern.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm running tests to see if I can re-produce this on a printer here right now.

I'm doing multiple prints to prevent possible "one off" problems. And switching the firmware between prints, but not between every print. (to prevent 1,2,1,2,1,2 patterns)

I've not reset any settings, to make sure both firmwares run at the same configuration.

Our printer room is quite hot (30C minimal) due to the weather today. So this might effect the result in some way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double blind testing time!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-eCyPuNafw6c2Y4UkFzY3RuV2loYlpvY1RSdlBiVWxyWXhr/edit?usp=sharing

Here are 4 prints. If there is a quality difference, tell me which is 14.03 and which is 14.06. I'm not telling how many are printed on 14.03 and 14.06.

(Also asking around at the office, will post the results of that tomorrow)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double blind testing time!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-eCyPuNafw6c2Y4UkFzY3RuV2loYlpvY1RSdlBiVWxyWXhr/edit?usp=sharing

Here are 4 prints. If there is a quality difference, tell me which is 14.03 and which is 14.06. I'm not telling how many are printed on 14.03 and 14.06.

(Also asking around at the office, will post the results of that tomorrow)

 

your photo is not very good. but i think the two on the right are 14.06 and the two on the left are 14.03

But a better photo (of photo's) will be appreciated.

I only tested with 14.03 and 14.07. So I'm curious why you chose to use 14.06?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Our picks

    • Print Core CC | Red for Ruby
      Q: For some users, abrasive materials may be a new subject matter. Can you explain what it is that makes a material abrasive when you are not sure which print core to use?
      A: Materials which are hard in a solid piece (like metals, ceramics and carbon fibers) will generally also wear down the nozzle. In general one should assume...
      • 1 reply
    • "Back To The Future" using Generative Design & Investment Casting
      Designing for light-weight parts is becoming more important, and I’m a firm believer in the need to produce lighter weight, less over-engineered parts for the future. This is for sustainability reasons because we need to be using less raw materials and, in things like transportation, it impacts the energy usage of the product during it’s service life.
        • Like
      • 12 replies
×

Important Information

Welcome to the Ultimaker Community of 3D printing experts. Visit the following links to read more about our Terms of Use or our Privacy Policy. Thank you!