Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts
Sign in to follow this  

A wierdo - any ideas?

Recommended Posts

I am printing this part; this pic shows the orientation on the print bed. As you can see quite a severe overhang, I am not using supports.

side 1

My initial settings were; .300 layers, 40 mm/s, 100% fan, 210c extruder, 0.4mm nozzle, 20% infill and 1.2mm wall thickness. After my first run I had the obvious idea to swap the nozzle to 0.8mm to reduce the print time and cost. .

The print came out quite well, better than I thought it might do – this pic is looking at the overhang from underneath –



I started another print to check it with my grey filament and I noticed that in Cura I still had the wall thickness set to 1.2mm from using the 0.4mm nozzle of the first print, so I changed it to 1.6mm (everything else was the same)and started the print. I got this on the underneath of the overhang.

grey overhang Bad

I cancelled the print, changed the wall setting back to 1.2mm, and printed again; just a couple of minutes in-between prints. I got this

grey overhang good


Now I am not sure if this is a learning experience but I have no idea what is happening here. I have always thought it is best to make the wall width a multiple of the nozzle width, but this would suggest that is not true! Any ideas what was happening?




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Woah - I think you just blew my mind! :eek:

Let me summarize as you tried to be very exacting but want to be sure. There are 4 photos in your post:

photo 1) .4mm nozzle (real) .4mm nozzle (cura) 1.2mm wall (green)

photo 2) .8mm nozzle (real) .8mm nozzle (cura) 1.2mm wall (green) (Is this 2 0.6 passes? Or one 1.2mm pass? I'd have to check the code in cura)

photo 3) .8mm nozzle (real) .8mm nozzle (cura) 1.6mm wall (gray) UGLY

photo 4) .8mm nozzle (real) .8mm nozzle (cura) 1.2mm wall (same settings as photo2 but with gray filament)

Is that all correct? Could you double check?

If that's all true then the lesson perhaps is: if you print with really thick layers (.3) and fat traces (.8) it takes longer to cool and overhangs look crappy and this is more important than getting the wall width a multiple of nozzle width.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that George, nice to know someone else’s brain is frazzled :-P . Ok pretty much spot on, a couple of clarifications.

Photo 1) 95% sure that was of version printed at .8mm nozzle real and in Cura

Photo 2) I did two more prints, just a few layers with a 1.2mm wall and a 1.6 mm wall, to check.

The 1.2mm setting produces one 1.2mm pass – it measures 1.35mm but given the few layers printed and I ripped it off the bed so it is bent, that measurement may not be too accurate.

Yes the idea of single pass versus double pass did go through my mind although not as analytically as went through yours. Certainly the fans were on 100% once the slope started. The first pass will be partially seated on the previous layer, I assume, which will be cooled because of the 20% infill work before starting the next layer. Again I assume, that the 2nd pass adheres to the side of the first pass, or not!

The very first run I did was 0.4mm with 1.2mm wall, using supports added by Meshmixer. The surface on that came out well also, but breaking off the supports just left me with too much work in filing down the break points to get a smooth finish ready for painting.

I am thinking now that maybe the way to get really well finished overhangs is to go with a single pass. I have some pieces I did a year ago where I struggled to get a decent finish on the overhang (I have always used at least double pass walls) and I think I will revisit them with this new theory :cool:


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Single pass is not better as a matter of principle. But if the nozzle comes back to the same location before the extruded filament cooled down sufficiently, you are in trouble. 0.8 x 0.3 mm2 is a huge cross section, it will take some time to cool down.

Single pass with infill (and a minimum layer time setting) will always avoid an untimely return to the same location. With a double pass there is absolutely no way to control that besides print speed: time to return = perimeter length / print speed.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I understand and I agree. I cannot prove it, as I have never done any comparative testing, but with a 0.4mm nozzle I have always felt that multiple passes, versus one pass, reduce the risk of the exterior surface being affected by the infill process, particularly on circular columns; where I have improved the surface by adding another pass.


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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Our picks

    • Ultimaker Cura | a new interface
      We're not only trying to always make Ultimaker Cura better with the usual new features and improvements we build, but we're also trying to make it more pleasant to operate. The interface was the focus for the upcoming release, from which we would already like to present you the first glance. 
        • Like
      • 86 replies
    • "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!