text:
Do you have trouble with 3D printer on UPS during short power outages?
Using a Gearman RepRap with Slic3r, printing from an SD card, with an uniterupted power supply (UPS), and both PLA and ABS filaments, short power outages often result in x/y-axis offsets (see image).  During an outage the power is not as clear from a UPS as from a power conditioner.  If both x and y axes offset the results look like Why did my print fall off its raft?.  Are you experiencing these same issues?  Have you solved the issue.

The image above shows an x-axis shift that occurred evenly across eight parts distributed across the bed.  The filament was ABS.  The parts still adhered to the bed.  Note: the G-code file normally prints well.  Thus, the file is not corrupt.

If the UPS does not work optimally, what can the 3D Printing.SE community advice? A better UPS may be an option, one that doesn't cause power ripples maybe? The question does ask for experience of other users, that is not specifically an SE question.

Was the shift at the moment power failed? Seems likely the switchover just wasn't fast enough to keep sufficient current to the motors.

Note that "an x-axis shift that occurred evenly across eight parts" is nothing special. A shift is a one-time event where the logical and physical position of the axis become desynced due to inability of a motor to accelerate or decelerate at the rate the controller is attempting (missing steps). After that event, everything will be offset by the same amount (unless/until another such event occurs).

@R.. So, you're saying the robot motors temporarily lost power while the computer kept stepping through the program. In this case the x motor. So, we need a UPS rated for robotics not just computers.

Part of your self-answer:

What is puzzling is why did the 3D printer run as if the computer was still operating it, when is was printing from the SD card? Was the circuitry getting power from the USB cable from the computer?

is more of an extension of the question, which I'll answer. Generally, yes, the logic of many (most?) 3D printers can be powered by the USB connection. You can try it sometime with the printer not plugged in to the AC power source at all. Under such a power configuration, the motors (not to mention the heating elements) should not operate at all, and I think the firmware has logic to detect this condition and not try to print under it, but I may be mistaken. However, in any case, in the event of an outage during printing, the logic board will remain powered if it's connected by USB, and especially if the outage is short enough, it might not even notice that the motors and heating elements are not functioning, yielding a result like what you saw.

I believe I resolved this issue.  The next power outage will tell.  After getting a larger UPS used for robotic testers, when swapping out the UPS, I noticed the 3D printer was plugged in to the surge protector side without the battery, probably because the  smaller UPS was only rated for power to the computer.  Now, with the larger UPS, the 3D printer also has power backup.  What is puzzling is why did the 3D printer run as if the computer was still operating it, when is was printing from the SD card?  Was the circuitry getting power from the USB cable from the computer?
Note: If one is running their 3D printer using a notebook with a charged battery and the 3D printer doesn't have a UPS, it would have similar behavior.

Yes, most likely the logic components were getting their power from the computer during the brown out event. The steppers may have turned off while the micro controller kept sending out step commands.


text:
Flashforge Adventure 3 printer
Recently bought the printer for my son, right from the start it didn’t print well. We made some adjustments and got it working somewhat but now it keeps printing (Benchy) only half way up and starts knocking off top half over leaving it unfinished.
The bottom heat plate looks to be crooked maybe by a 1/16” (1.6 mm) to 1/8”(3.2 mm) off.

Hi Nick, welcome to 3D Printing.SE! Please expand by [edit] what adjustments you made and please add some pictures of the failed print, preferably just after failing on the heated bed.

Nick, welcome to 3D Printing SE.  I concur with Oscar.  Descriptions of 3D printing disasters and problems are much more helpful when accompanied by photos.  If the bed seems warped, take a picture of it against a straightedge.  If an anomaly occurs during printing, photos of the result soon enough after the problem occurs so that it all isn't lost is a birdsnest of stray filament may help people understand what has happened.  I look forward to your participation here, and your son's.  All levels of experience are welcome, and helpful!

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Did I just destroy my MKS Gen L v1.0 board by shorting the stepper driver?
I was attempting to install new TMC2208 chips on my MKS Gen L v1.0. Everything was going swell, I just had one more thing to do.
I was checking and tuning the Vref for TMC2208 by measuring voltage across the GND pin and the through-hole shown in this pic (from Stepper drivers - TMC2208):

However during very last measurement on the X-axis stepper I slipped and the probe on my meter shorted the GND and VM pins on the TMC2208!! Pic below:

Immediately my board turned off, LCD went out, then I unplugged the printer as fast as I could, but the damage was done. My board now does not power on completely when connected only to the PSU.
The LED D7 will flicker on and off, as will the LCD screen. However, if I connect the board over USB I am able to connect and interact with the board just fine.
I have meticulously checked the board for blown components but can't see any damage. The two fuses near the 12 V power on the board are not blown.
Is anyone able to offer some insight on this? Does it sound like a salvageable board?
Comment responses:
@Oscar: Thanks and yes I've (attempted) to power the board without anything plugged-in/attached to see if it works, but no dice.
@Tom: There is a lot packed into your comment that required searching for info to even respond. The 5 V voltage regulator on my MKS Gen L v1.0 board looks to be an MP1584en chip. Seen in pic below from MP1584_r1.0.pdf:

When I connect the board via USB and test the Vin pin, I see a steady ~4.2 V . When I remove USB and connect straight to the power supply I see a unsteady Vin between 6-7 V .
So I would like to trace from this MP1584EN back to my 12 V power source on the board. However, after searching it appears that the schematics for the MKS Gen L v1.0 are not available openly. Unless there is an avenue to find the schematic which I have overlooked. Anyone that can link me to them would be much appreciated.
@R: OP's level is a green-horn baby kitten at its very first rodeo. However your suggestion appeals to me because it sounds like a quick easy soldering fix. To better understand, do you mean to take my 12 V from the power source then connect it to different regulator (usb car charger) and then on the secondary side of the car charger, connect it back into my board?
If you're willing to give a bit more of a description this is something I'd definitely be willing to try.
Thanks for all the responses.

12 V power is not getting to the 5 V regulator. Try tracing out the board schematic, tracking back from the regulator to the power input. Somewhere along there, something is blown.

It might be possible to just bypass the regulator on the board (disconnect it) and add an extra DC-DC converter (e.g. USB car charger) to power the logic even without much electronics experience. Not sure what OP's level is.

Did you ever get to the bottom of the issue? I know it has been a while, but if you have a solution, it could be useful for someone else... after all a simple slip of the probe is an easy (and surprisingly common) mistake to make.

The OP said he still had the same issue with nothing "plugged-in/attached" however I still question if that included removal of all TMC2208 modules. An answer might want to explicitly include a note of this. I think that this is important as it's easily likely a module was damaged in a event like this and is dragging down the 5 V rail. Also if true would be one of the easiest ways to fix a issue like this. Checking the resistance of 5 V(unpowered board) rail to ground might also assist in troubleshooting.

However, after searching it appears that the schematics for the MKS Gen L v1.0 are not available openly.

Here is the schematic.
Anyway, the problem is the MP1584 regular is toast. There is no reverse biased protection diode going from output to input (arrow pointing towards input) in the schematic.
Most buck or linear voltage regulators aren't meant to be operated with Vout being higher than Vin, even briefly. There are internal parasitic diode structures inside that will get turned on by voltage in the wrong direction (higher Vout than Vin). Once turned on, the output capacitor happily dumps its charge through these diode structures and out to Vin.
This kills the regulator.
What results is typically an internal short of some sort in the chip.
So when you shorted Vm, that was also shorting the input to the 5V regulator and the input capacitor there, so suddenly there was 0V at Vin and ~5V at Vout. Poor chip never stood a chance.
What results is typically an internal short of some sort in the chip.
This is not your fault, this is poor design (or a reckless cost saving decision), as accidentally shorting Vm is very easy to do on accident. A suitable diode would have cost ~1.3¢, not even two whole pennies and would have made accidental shorting of Vm be harmless. There is no valid reason not to include such a protection diode on the board.
Regardless, your only options are to either desolder the MP1584 and solder a new one onto the board, or, since you can talk to the board via USB (which provides its own 5V power to the board), desolder the MSP1584 (since it is shorting the input power to some degree) and simply keeping a USB charger of some sort plugged into the USB port (I wouldn't leave it connected to your computer since it doesn't have any USB isolation) to provide the 5V power rail instead.
The main problem is that bad chip. You gotta get it off the board before anything will be able to work unfortunately. Desoldering is relatively easy, especially if you don't care about the chip you're removing. Just be sure there are no shorts between the pads after you're done.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How to decide print orientation?
Please Note: This question is not about the design. It's about deciding print orientation after the design.
I have a small, but complex piece which I need to print. Here are two images of different orientation for you:

No matter how I orient it, it will require a support structure. Any which way I print it, I believe there will be pros/cons to doing so. My question is, Is there a thought process for how to orient the part for printing? What are some of the things to consider when deciding print orientation?
Note-1: For a size reference of the part, looking at the second image, it is approximately 60 mm from the top of the long bottom part with the two "claws" point down, to the top of the vertical piece which has the two larger chamfered holes in it. In the same image, the left part will be at the bottom when put into use, though will be suspended (the chamfered holes will have wood screws in them, with a block of wood on the other side from the chamfers.
Note-2: For this example, I will be using Priline PLA filament on an Anet-A8 printer.

@AndrewMorton - There are constraints for the print. The part you're talking about is the width of the piece of wood. The "L" portion with the "T" in it is there for support. I've printed out several other pieces with this same configuration and they turned out rather strong. The big difference is, those other parts I were able to print with a large flat portion right on the bed.

Related, but not duplicate: https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/6726/what-special-considerations-must-be-taken-when-designing-parts-for-3d-printing

@Trish - That Q/A thread is quite a repository of information ... thanks for sharing :o)

(Love the question and here is my 2 cents).
Firstly, you want to minimize supports. Even if you have dissolvable supports, you would still want to minimize the usage.
For Example:

At first glance of the finished object, it is not obvious at what angle it was printed. Upon close inspection the overhang in the part is designed such that it can be printed without supports. This brings me to my first point:
Design with fabrication in mind
I've often designed myself into a corner with parts that are complex and are impossible to print properly; or they use up too much filament in the supports. To this end I try to think about the shadow that the part will cast on the bed if there was a light source directly over head. I often orient the part so that it will
Cast the smallest possible shadow.
Then there are the features. Does the hole need to be round? Does this flange need to be strong? If so then I try to ensure that the feature is oriented in the XY plane as much as possible, because the Z axis is the weakest. Therefore if you have a hole, and it needs to be strong, then it should be printed perpendicular to the Z axis.

To answer the generic question "Is there a thought process for how to orient the part for printing?", I would say "Yes there absolutely is such a process!".
Part of this though process can be aesthetics, structural strength, limiting filament waste, print duration, etc.
For the given example I would try to think of the load case (if it has to bear a load) that subjects the part and prevent a perpendicular load to the deposition plane. If the load is low or non existent, you could orientate the print such that you minimize wasting material, or get the best aesthetics (removing supports can leave its scars).

First of all, if it were me, I'd split this into two parts at the "obvious" place (where one protrudes from a large flat surface of the other) and connect them after printing, with a push fit and glue (or solvent welding if it works for your material), or holes for threaded fasteners.
With that said, if you opt to print it as one part, this interface is going to be the weak point of the whole print if you use the second orientation, with the "T"-like bracket part sticking up from a flat top surface of the "C" part. This is because the walls of the top part will be sitting on infill or skin, not matching walls going all the way down; even with 100% infill the walls won't be aligned and bonded with coresponding extrusion lines below them.
I would print this either with the lightest-gray faces facing us in the second image against the bed, or with the dark gray rectangle face in the lower-right of the second image against the bed (same orientation as the first image, as I interpret it). Both of these will require significant support structure, and I'd be tempted to model the support rather than auto-generating it, but Cura's "experimental" "support tree" feature works very well for this kind of situation and might do just as well or better.
Either of these orientations makes the above interface simply part of the layer contours, rather than two parts loosely stuck to each other. The holes should print fine either way - bridging works well for holes - and the pegs will need support one way but not the other.
Andrew Morton noted in a comment:

Could the part with the screw holes be the same width as the other part?

And indeed I would also think about modifications you could make to the part that would facilitate easier and stronger prints.

This is good stuff for my current print, however the gist of the question is: What is the line of thinking for orientation of any part you're going to print? I'm not sure your answer covers this?

@Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2: I framed the answer around the particular part, but I think it at least partly shows the line of thinking. Avoiding having subparts joined at a horizontal surface, instead joining them as combined layer contours. Etc.

This part is quite complex and there are 3 orientations it could be printed at. I will assume picture 1 shows the item in orthonormal XYZ orientation: Z up, X to the front(-rightish) corner, Y to the (backish-)right. Using these we can chose have an XY (Pic 1), XZ (Pic 2) and YZ (Unpictured) plane of the build to touch on the build plate. Luckily this object is symmetric along the middles, so we won't need to look at two cases each.
To evaluate the best print orientation, we can look at the loads that will come to the part, the aesthetic (we get better resolutions in the Z than the XY on printers!) and of course the need for support structures and thus waste material.
Aesthetics are probably not an issue for this structural part, so let's take this part as an example and look at the three orientations and how to reason which orientation might be best.
XY
Using the lowest XY plane as build contact we will need to support the upper arc of the bracket and the back-branch with the T-support also needs support. So we need quite some support material, which is a con.
Also, the layers in the C-Clamp are aligned in such a way that the clamp might easily break in its long line, but due to the length, it might be able to bend quite some. Remember that PLA is brittle though, but you could post-process the part by baking it to generate better inter-layer bonding.
On the upside, the T-stiffening is in its most sturdy orientation and the back extension has the most stable print orientation. You might want to add extra bottom layers to fight the loss of layers that are printed on the support structure though.
XZ
The Orientation in the 2nd Picture has moved the interlayer boundaries to be on the short arms of the C-clamp, making it more fragile than the XY orientation.
The T-stiffing and back-branch are also significantly weakened and might break on stresses into the direction we had defined as Y in the premise.
It also needs to support the whole back of the C-Clamp during print, which is a considerable amount, though probably lower than in the XY orientation.
YZ
The unshown orientation puts the C-clamp in such an orientation that each layer has a complete C. This makes the clamp as sturdy as it could be.
The back-branch is quite solid along its length (Y) and the stiffening T comes as an integral part of the perimeters, making it good to take loads from the branch.  It does suffer from weakening the long part against forces splitting it along the long axis, which would be directed in the X-axis of our premise.
This orientation also reduces the needed support to a minimum, as we don't necessarily need to support the "bridging" part of the T-support.
Conclusion
I would choose the YZ orientation based on both material need as well as the physical benefits of achieving the least weak configuration.
Optimisation
The print object could be slightly optimized to reduce the needed support at the cost of increasing the part weight in the YZ orientation:
As suggested, widening the T to touch the build plate and the accompanying part to do too would make the part larger and would turn the support into an integral part of the print.
One could also turn the T into a Y structure with an overline for a shorter bridge and longer stretches of the shell that can dissipate the forces on the T-bar to the clamp more effectively.


text:
Creating "pie slice" in OpenSCAD?
When making a cylinder, sometimes I need to only take a pie slice. I'm currently using this neat trick to make pie slices for angles under 90 degrees. However, I have need of a few angles over 90 but under 180 degrees. Is there a way to generalize/extend this to work for these bigger angles?
module pie_slice(r=3.0,a=30) {
   intersection() {
    circle(r=r);
    square(r);
    rotate(a-90) square(r);
  }
}

pie_slice(r=10,a=15);

I think the easiest would be to use difference. Circle minus two cubes with sides 2R. (Or one of size 2R and one of size R.)

IIUC, this is similar to my current workaround (I've posted below for reference). I use union instead of intersection. Unfortunately, you have to examine how many degrees the caller wants and use one or the other - I have yet to find a universal method

Think of it this way: you have two rectangles that cover each half of the circle. Then you open a gap between them of the angle. That should work for any angle between 0 and 180.

Oh snap, that sounds perfect. I'll give it a try, thanks

Or use a module that can make pie slices, e.g. Chamfers-for-OpenSCAD.

This is what I use:
module pieSlice(a, r, h){
  // a:angle, r:radius, h:height
  rotate_extrude(angle=a) square([r,h]);
}
pieSlice(110,20,3);

My current workaround is to use union instead of intersection. Unfortunately, that means I have to use an if clause which makes the code have two paths instead of one clean approach. Also, unlike the above method, this does not result in a clean cylindrical shape but must instead by combined with a proper cylinder to get the final pie slice
   size = length + 2;
    if (angle_deg <= 90) {
      translate([0,0,-1])
      intersection() {
        cube(size);
        rotate(angle_deg-90) cube(size);
      }
    } else if (angle_deg <= 180) {
      translate([0,0,-1])
      union() {
        cube(size);
        rotate(angle_deg-90) cube(size);
      }
    } else {
      echo(str("FAILURE - Angle cannot exceed 180"));
    }

Although generating complex shapes by combining primitive OpenSCAD shapes is a well-established tradition, and is often all that is needed, it would be more elegant in this case to generate a pie slice directly using the polygon function and a list comprehension.
module pie_slice(r=3.0, a=30) {
  polygon(points=[
    [0, 0],
    for(theta=0; theta<a; theta=theta+$fa)
      [r*cos(theta), r*sin(theta)],
    [r*cos(a), r*sin(a)]
  ]);
}

Note that the above code is a little crude, since it does no error checking, but it works. It uses the $fa special variable for the step angle.


text:
Why don't LCD printers use subpixels in color panels?
The LCD resin printers I've looked at have pretty standard resolutions like for a smartphone and I understand they use the same technology. However, color LCD screens have three RGB sub-pixels for each color pixel. Check for example this magnified picture of an S-IPS LCD screen:

It seems like they could just omit the color filter and have three grayscale pixels for each color pixel.
3D printing just uses one color - UV. So why don't they have resolutions that are multiples of three of the usual resolutions?
All results about sub-pixels that I could find are about anti-aliasing, which is different (using the existing pixels better vs. having more pixels).

(As a reply on a now self deleted comment) I think that the OP is asking about LCD resin printers.

@Mick That is correct.

Too speculative to be an answer: Probably because nobody has thought of doing this before. Or maybe people are doing it and we don't know about it? I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't work. As a side note, the resolution would only be tripled in one direction.

@TomvanderZanden I can hardly believe this, but if so, then I would be glad to triple the amount of pixels on mine. :D And yes, it's only tripled in one direction. And it also depends on the subpixel layout how the resolution would be increased exactly.

I just realized it's possible they use smartphone panels including the color filters. Then the blue sub pixels would provide most of the light and the other sub pixels would be useless.

Why adding complexity (handling each subpixel) when the quality attainable would not significantly improve (the resin printing has limits), but more expensive electronics would be required to process the data?

@FarO It's possible in theory that the current resolutions are already at the maximum that makes sense (citation needed, personally I doubt it), but the electronics are exactly the same. It's not like 3D printing is a high-bandwidth application, any lcd driver which can display 1fps of greyscale can do the same for color.

@Nobody ok but the CPU has to handle them. The current LCDs have about 3.7 Mpx, splitting by three would mean 11 Mpx per frame. It could be that the additional resolution achieved is not worth the expense, especially now when the current DLP printers already improve resolution over FDM by a large margin

If what Thomas Sanladerer states is correct, the Mars 2 Pro (monochrome LCD, no color filter) has a layer time approximately 1/3 as long as the Mars/Pro printers (where color LCDs are used):

This would indicate that the light passing through the LCD, when the color filter is present, is 1/3. Put it in other words, only ONE subpixel is capable of transmitting UV light.
Consequently, using all of them would not improve resolution because the other subpixels are always opaque.

It should be as simple as using a monochrome LCD.  You don't actually want any color filters to interfere with the UV light.
Do we know that LCD printers are not using monochrome LCD panels?  It always seemed so obvious that I assumed it was the practice.  All you need are the front and back polarizer layer and the LCD itself to rotate the light.

"Do we know that LCD printers are not using monochrome LCD panels?" That's the question. Resolution wise, they look like repurposed smartphone color panels (i.e. front and back polarizer layer and the lcd).

The Wanhao Duplicator 7 apparently uses the LS055R1SX03 LCD which is an RGB LCD. These are obviously repurposed smartphone LCDs. There is very little demand for monochrome high-resolution LCDs so they would probably be prohibitively expensive (if available at all).

I agree that demand is low.  Making anything in low volume is expensive unless you can piggy-back on the key tech.  That said, some modifications are less costly than others.  It is possible that a run of a few thousand panels could be done without the filter layer, or, perhaps more likely, with the filter layer but without colorants in the filter layer.  The Alibaba site offers to ship the LS055R1SX03 LCD without a backlight specifically for resin 3D printers, but say nothing about the filter layer.  It may be that all three colors are similarly transmissive of UV light.  Only testing tells.

@TomvanderZanden That's the printer I own (well, plus version). :) Thanks, I will definitely try to make use of the subpixels then. I guess it's possible (even likely) that  it would be sufficient to just use color .png instead of monochrome .png (i.e. the borders of white areas would appear in funny colors). That and a microscope to figure out the subpixel arrangement. Could probably use an existing slicer without modification by increasing the resolution there and then converting the output image files with a simple script.

Different colors transmit UV differently. It may even be that only the blue color is transmissive and the other ones always opaque, even when theoretically ON. Using subpixels would require different exposure time and difficult or impossible calibration.

authors: Секс СПринтер


text:
Using a XYZ printer on Linux
I have a da Vinci miniMaker and am trying to find a way to get XYZware on my computer which is running Ubuntu Linux 19.04. On the XYZprinting website I found references to a version build for Ubuntu, but it was an outdated version with no download link. If anyone knows any way to print to any XYZ 3D printed on Ubuntu, it would be appreciated if you could let me know.

XYZprinting is a company known for vendor lock-in (even filament), so it's not surprising that their software's Linux support is bad, but apparently it is possible to ditch their XYZware and get it to print gcode from whatever slicer you like. Check out the miniMover repository:

This is a project that lets you send GCode to an XYZ da Vinci prniter. It will also convert from a .3w file to .gcode and back, and can monitor and setup the printer as well. This works with newer printers that implement the version 3 serial protocol. These include the Nano, Mini W, miniMaker and Jr. line of printers among others.

You'll also need to setup a profile for your printer in a slicer (I'd recommend Ultimaker Cura), but it looks like the thread linked from the README has information on settings needed.


text:
Digital vs. analog pins
In the RAMPS v1.4 board, it seems like the X, Y, and Z motors all use at least one analog pin, while the extruder motors are entirely digital. See just the top left block of this photo:

Is there any advantage to using analog vs. digital pins in the motors?
As far as I can tell the traditional thermistors have to be have an Analog pin input because of the way they are read and processed. The MOSFETs for the heated bed and hot ends (and fans) should be digital because of the way transistors work. The end-stops are also digital because they are on-off switches.
But besides that, I can't tell if there is any other requirements or advantages to using some pins in analog / digital, especially for the motors which have seemingly contradictory pin assignments.
There are also three digital pins I don't recognize: MISO, MOSI, and SCK.
Right now I'm looking to add 2 new motors using 8 total pins (6 Digital pins, 2 for ground). It seems to me I could use any combination of the  D pin available in the image:

MISO/MOSI/SCK are pins for a SPI bus.

I might pose this as another question, but is it possible to connect two 3D printer boards of the same kind through that SPI and communicate through one to the other using G code? I couldn't find any tutorials online, but when I googled SPI just now it seems like that is exactly what it is for.

I just want to basically have double the pins of every pin on my current board... Right now I am collecting MOSFETs, thermisters, motors, etc, but the simplest possible circuit would help a lot. I don't want there to be a significant delay from one command to the other (like using Repetier-Host's "execute" command would entail)

I don't think that would work for synchronizing them at a reasonable precision, but I may be mistaken. SPI is rather awful.

"Analog pin" is misleading nomenclature. Every pin is a digtal pin, but some digital pins happen to also be connected to the analog-to-digital converter and can thus also handle measuring analog signals.
Every analog pin can also serve as a perfectly good digital pin. The reverse is not true; if something requires an analog pin you cannot use a digital pin. The only things that require analog pins are the thermistors, for the rest (motors, MOSFETS, endstops,...) you can use either a digital pin or an analog pin.


text:
Where did I go wrong by trying to add an extra motor to my board?
I'd like to add an extra motor to my board and I'm not sure where I went wrong. The motor will be used to spin a rotating wheel/carriage of potential hot ends to switch to. Because it's just a motor it doesn't need a heatrod or a temperature sensor.
I had just a MKS_BASE 1.0 board, so I purchased a RAMPS 1.4 board from Ebay to be its extender.

(( **Warning ** this board is cheap because it was improperly produced and is a fire hazard: https://reprap.org/wiki/RAMPS_1.4 . I recommend using a CNC shield instead ))
This red board is meant to fit an Arduino Mega, but I figure I can use the extra pins on the MKS_BASE1.0 and connect them with jumper wire to the RAMPS 1.4 board. It made sense in case I want to add other things to the original MKS_BASE 1.0 board (like more hot end heater cartridges).
I connected the 5V and one GND pin from my MKS_BASE 1.0. I also connected some of the SERVOS pins from the MKS_BASE 1.0: D37 is the 'Dir', D35 is the 'Step', and D17 is the 'Enable'. I also connected the 12V power supply to the RAMPS 1.4 board too.

When it came time to modify Marlin everything was a bit annoying because although Marlin makes it easy to add more extruders, adding just motors is  a little more difficult. I had to change the number of extruders to be 3 (from dual extrusion to dual extrusion + extra motor), enable an extra temperature pin (which i am leaving empty) and also modify the pins.h file.
I probably wouldn't have had simulate this motor as an extruder if I knew the raw Arduino commands for spinning a motor using calls to D37, D35, and D17, so I figured simulating an extruder would be better, but now I'm second-guessing that decision.
Here's my modification to pins.h:
#define E2_STEP_PIN 35
#define E2_DIR_PIN 37
#define E2_ENABLE_PIN 17

#define HEATER_2_PIN 17

//#define TEMP_SENSOR_2 3 in Configuration.h

#define TEMP_2_PIN 3

// Marlin 0-indexes these pins, so "2" is actually for the "3"rd extruder

First thing I have to do is allow for cold extrusions by using M302 S-80. The other (real)  extruder motors will all move after this command, so I have that part working.. .
In Repetier-Host I am just selecting Extruder 3 and trying to "push filament" through it but the motor isn't moving. I'm using an A4988 stepper driver on a Kysan 1124090. Actually, I did this whole process with two motors because I wasn't sure whether the hardware itself would be an issue, so with another set of pins I'm using a Suncor Motor and it also doesn't respond and I also don't know why.
It would be really helpful to debug if I could run a single G-code command just to get the motor running at a speed, and take that out of the equation. it doesn't have to be a command to an "extruder" but just a command to a pin out, like M42 D35 S100 (but I don't know the raw command for just testing a motor's connections).

I'm using Ramps 1.4 and has no fire hazard, just the green connector has to be changed and Is better than CNC shield.

I got it to work using a CNC shield. Still haven't figured out the RAMPS 1.4 board.
It doesn't work using D1 and D2 inside Aux-1 because they are used in serial communication to an LCD. So every time you send a command over USB, they get clogged. I ended up using ports 4, 5, and 63 and it works perfectly (no pin mapping needed like in other answer).

    #define E4_STEP_PIN    4 // D4
    #define E4_DIR_PIN     5//  D5
    #define E4_ENABLE_PIN  63// D63

D35, D37, D17 are the pin labels on the Arduino Mega. These do not correspond to pin numbers within Marlin.
I believe that D35 actually corresponds to marlin pin 49 and this is the number you should enter in your firmware. You can find the mapping in fastio_1280.h:
Hardware Pin  : 02 03 06 07 01 05 15 16 17 18 23 24 25 26 64 63 13 12 46 45 44 43 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 60 59 58 57 56 55 54 53 50 70 52 51 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 22 21 20 19 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 04 08 09 10 11 14 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 47 48 49 61 62 65 66 67 68 69 79 80 81 98 99 100
Port          : E0 E1 E4 E5 G5 E3 H3 H4 H5 H6 B4 B5 B6 B7 J1 J0 H1 H0 D3 D2 D1 D0 A0 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 C7 C6 C5 C4 C3 C2 C1 C0 D7 G2 G1 G0 L7 L6 L5 L4 L3 L2 L1 L0 B3 B2 B1 B0 F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 K0 K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 E2 E6 E7 xx xx H2 H7 G3 G4 xx xx xx xx xx D4 D5 D6 xx xx J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 xx xx xx xx xx
Logical Pin   : 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx

Look on the top row for the pin number (e.g. D35 corresponds to 35), then look on the bottom row to find the pin number to use in Marlin (in this case, 49).

I don't think this is true because the D numbers I refer to are from the MKS_BASE1.40 board not the Arduino mega (see second image). When I plug in a pan to pin 49 in the second image and run it with M42 P49 S100 it spins so the Marlin numbers are corresponding to the numbers i'm using.

M42 does some translation of pin numbers which the motor diving code does not do.

My CNC shield came today so I wound up foillowing the guide here; https://reprap.org/wiki/Adding_more_extruders#RAMPS_using_CNC_Shield But it doesn't translate the numbers like you suggested... At the same time, I can get my motor to run very slightly (or at least shake) on the price of a button, but it runs "twitchily" and not smoothly. And I don't know how to fix that.

I think you might be right and i don't know how to translate the numbers correctly... In the above MKS_BASE I'm using four of the AUX-1 pins (5V, GND, D1, D2). I'm also using D63 in AUX-2. Going by your translation, my PINS.h  should be... what? 0, 4, 15, for D1, D2, and D63? When I do this nothing moves as opposed to when I use 2,1,63 it at least moves a little

Since I wrote the answer I linked to, the pin mappings have changed. I will update the answer with the new mappings.

It doesn't move at all with 0,4,15 for D2, D1, and D63 .... I'm just using the MKS_BASE circuit from above, not a raw Arduino Mega

Also why doesn't the Guide i link to take this into account ?


text:
Models are printing with a scratch on the side
I just recently got an Ender 3 and have been trying to learn the do’s and don’ts. My first model looked like it had under extrusion and stringing, but my second model looks like it has frequent “scratches” along the sides. I printed it with two materials, a white sample PLA that came with, and a black Sunlu PLA.

I could use some insight on how to improve it, I’m seeking to make some fairly smooth looking models similar to Fat Dragon games.

Hi Scarrol, welcome to 3DPrinting.SE! Please use the SE internal image storage instead of external links. The SE images are retained for as long as SE exists, links to external sites may suffer from link rot after some time.

What is meant by Fat Dragon games?

Along with what @0scar stated, an image with resolution to see detail would greatly improve our understand of what you're talking about.

The vertical lines you are referring too are the result of ringing or vibration. This is commonly encountered with high print speeds, high acceleration values or if a sudden change in direction takes place.
This can be solved by printing slower, decreasing acceleration values and checking for mechanical issues. E.g. the belts may be too flexible (or contain a tension spring) or there may be a loose part somewhere.

Thanks! I tightened the z axis belt and it seems to have done the trick. Gonna run a couple more prints and see how it goes. Will adjust as you recommend!

That is probably the X axis belt you refer too, which falls in the mechanical issues category.


text:
Changes rods for linear rails
I would like to know if it is possible to change the rollers for linear rails, just replacing or some calculation should be done and take some precautions.
In my case,  I have a Core XY DIY printer.

I was reading about need to migrate of 8 Bits to 32 Bits, because for get better resolution, results and should be update more things, like add autolevel, etc.

Pedro, please post the 8/32-bit question in a separate question. You will receive far better answers for both your questions that way.

When i say about 8/32 Bits, was just for know the recommendations than i read, It would be more profitable to have a card that works at 32 than one of 8, nothing more.

I've seen mods for the Hypercube (and Hypercube Evolution) using linear rails (e.g. this mod), so yes that is possible. You need to redesign a few parts and make sure you have the correct length, but that shouldn't be too difficult.

Thankas for your answer. Although in the description of the model it says that it is for a 300x300x300 model, and in my case I have one of 200x200x200. How do you recalculate for the desired size?

@PedroMiguelPimientaMorales First design new idler X-Y mounts and Y mounts, from there you can calculate how long the linear rails need to be. If you buy the rails larger than needed (e.g. outer size of the cube, or between the aluminium profiles), you can cut them to size later.


text:
How can I print a 1 cm overhang with minimal supports?
Here's the thing I want to print.

The red ring is 3.5 mm above the bottom of the orange cylinder. The red ring is 1cm thick. I'd prefer not to use supports because I tend to break as much as I clean up.
I know this could be done in two pieces but then I'd have to make sure the pieces fit and then glue it in at that's too much. It'd be ideal to print this as one piece. How can I do this with as few supports as possible?

It seems like technically this should be possible by making short chord-like bridges along the circle, to provide support for the next layer. But I'm not aware of any slicer that would support a strategy like that. You could edit the g-code manually (just the first layer where the ring begins), but that is quite laborious.

Three ideas

If either side of the red ring can have a chamfer to meet the cylinder, add the chamfer and print with the chamfer side down.
If both sides of the red ring must be perpendicular to the axis of
the cylinder, can you print the cylinder lying on its side?  You
might get good enough print quality, especially if printing with
thinner layers toward the top.
If that is unsatisfactory, try explicitly adding an inner support
ring as part of the model. Don't depend on the slicer to do what
you want, do it yourself.  You would then be bridging to make the
red disk, but that can work surprisingly well with a good cooling
fan and printer.

In all three cases, consider the slot holes you have in the red ring.  For case 3 you may need to add a support around those holes as well.  In case 2, they would want to be pointed vertically.  In case 1, the chamfer would be modified to have holes of cavities matching the slot holes.

Not OP, but can you elaborate on idea 3? Do you mean add a ring under the 2nd orientation and leaving a small gap to the actual model? Wouldn't this just be support that's difficult to pry off? Or do you mean a cylinder at the same height/position as the ring so the entire hole is covered? How would you remove that afterwards?

I meant a cylinder that came up to the hole in the red ring.  It would support the end and the ring would bridge onto the cylinder.  Yes, it is support y hff at would need to be removed, but you would control where it was placed.  The inner hole diameter could be reduced and the support cut away with a rotary file.  Your choice, but it would be your choice based on what was easy for you to remove.

Ah, that makes sense. I kept thinking you'd have to make the support ring as wide as the red ring, but making it so it only touches the inner diameter is clever!

You can print the support as a separate piece, then when the time is right pause the print, insert the support part into the ring and the resume printing. I guess you might have to use PVA glue on the support to ensure that it comes off easily when the time is right, but I'll leave that experimentation up to you. Note: This is going to be very much trial and error on your part.

I'd go for extra supports, raising the entire model half a centimeter above the plane and constructing it completely on top of supports.
That way, the supports will be easy to break off.

Most slicers have extensive settings to control the layout of the support structures, the distance to the overhanging part, line thickness, etc.
If that doesn't work out for you, you can always change the design to add custom support structures yourself to not having to fiddle with the support settings.

Assuming that the red flange needs to be flat on both sides, your best approach for printing in two parts may be a 45 degree conical cut through the flange. This will allow both parts to be printed flat on the bed, and (assuming a low layer height) should give a tolerable overhang result.


text:
What is stepper motor binding? (When belts are too tight)
Recently I have been getting some layer shifting starting at layer one. I have had layer shifting at higher layers due to various reasons but mainly for the belts being too loose. But now I am reading that layer shifting can also be caused by belts being too tight.
The RepRap wiki page for layer shifting simply gives the mechanical reason for this as "binding". Can anyone explain what binding means? I thought it meant that the rails were crashing into something but apparently it doesn't. Then I thought it meant that the X and Y axes weren't perfectly perpendicular.
Does it mean that the "teeth" of the belts stay "stuck" to the gear for too long when moving in one direction? Why would this happen in one direction and not the other? Because the pulleys/gears are at different heights? Or just because of the belts being tighter? Or one of these reasons?
Just trying to understand what its happening so I can debug it for my particular 3D printer.

I think the RepRap wiki is using the word "binding", which translates to "stick together or cause to stick together in a single mass" (from Google dictionary), to indicate that some sort of friction is experienced (as you experience when things are sticking together).
When there is too much tension in the belt, pulleys and bearings experience a larger radial force stressing the balls of the bearings and pulley shafts. This causes extra friction for the stepper motor to overcome (as the friction force, tangential, is related to the radial force); this means that the stepper has to work harder and can skip steps (for more insight please read below).

While ball bearings are used to reduce friction (opposed to a bush bearing), each ball has a little friction from a couple of sources according to this reference:

The sources of this friction are: slight deformation of the rolling elements and raceways under load, sliding friction of the rolling elements against the cage and guiding surfaces.

These effects are generally captured in a single friction coefficient called "μ". The relation between friction force (tangential) and bearing loading (radial) is written by $$P_{friction}=P_{load} \times \mu$$ so the higher the belt tension ($P_{load}$), the higher the frictional force ($P_{friction}$), the harder the stepper has to work.

Layer shifting basically equates to the machine not being able to get the extruder to the right location at the right time. Therefore when the command to move to location xyz is executed the machine ends up short of that location.
Binding may most likely be as a result of the liner bearings sticking on the rails. Check that the carriage and bed move freely at all points. If you feel a sticking sensation at a particular point then perhaps it's time to clean and lubricate those rails. If however you feel a sticking sensation that occurs at regular intervals, then it could be a broken bearing in either the stepper or the idler.
Failing that, try cutting the print speed in half. It could just be you're pushing the machine to hard. It could also be the drivers overheating and periodically shutting down while printing. If you think that's the reason then see if you can get more cooling air moving over the control board.

It is the bearings that are binding (dragging), due to lateral forces caused by over-tight belts. It may be the bearings in the stepper motors that are binding, but it is more likely to be the bearings in the idler pulleys.


text:
Printer keeps pausing during prints
I'm having a rather strange issue in that the printer pauses randomly during prints. This was first noticed when printing a large and complicated model (from SD). Since then a 20 mm  calibration cube has been printed (from USB) with no issues (paused briefly after printing the skirt), it was used in conjunction with M92 G-code command to calibrate the stepper motors. Now i'm trying to print a temperature tower but it pauses multiple times even on the first layer (tried USB and SD). How do i ensure that the printer does not pause during prints?
Here's a link to a video of the printer pausing (trying to print a temperature tower).
Slicer details:

Ultimaker Cura 4.0
Also tried slic3r 1.3 32 bit
The temperature tower had a change temperature at Z injected into the G-code but none of the others did.

Printer details:

Anycubic S
Firmware 1.1.2
filament PLA+
firmware reprap/marlin

Is the printer equiped with a optical filament sensor? I had similar pauses on a different printer and it was caused by filament sensor sencing false alarms.

The printer does not have a optical filament sensor

Does your gcode have multiple M109 (wait for new temp) commands?

It does but the temperature on the printers screen does not change to indicate that it's trying to change temperatures

Could it be the z-hop bug (at speed=c, yes c the speed of light)? It was a ridiculous cura bug.

I had a similar problem some time ago. The problem in my case was, that in the slicer I had a minimum layer time, which was pausing the printer until that time had passed. I can't remember the name of the settings and I'm not at home right now, but the slicer can either print full speed and pause or it can slow down, to maintain a minimum layer time. I guess the idea is to give the plastic time to cool down.

Do you mean Cooling Thresholds > Slow down if layer print time is below: ?

Yes. That will slow down. I have also seen that it will print full speed and wait. There was also a setting to make the hotend hover above the object. The problem is, that if you slow down, you will have the hotend melt the already printed parts. A pyramid, for example, will get the tip melted, if the hotend slows down. In that case, it would be better to print at full speed and move away and wait

See https://ultimaker.com/en/resources/52674-cooling in the "Lift head" paragraph. Quote: "[...]The print head will wait until the minimum layer time has passed and will then move back to the print to continue[...]"

This setting should just be removed, imo. What happens is melted filament will leak out of the nozzle during the wait time, and when you resume it's gonna end up in a bad place. Plus, the now the nozzle is short filament that will be needed elsewhere. Instead, they should estimate the time to print the layer, and if it's less than the minimum layer time scale the speeds (except travel speeds) appropriately so meets that layer times. I know some slicers have options to already do this. But this "wait in one place" setting is just not helpful and should be removed.

Yeah. Scaling the time exists as well. Problem is, that if the head moves too slow, it will heat up the part that is already printed. I usually print other parts at the same time, if that seems to be a problem or I just add a tower. Somewhere I have an STL of a 10mm diameter disc with 1mm height and I just scale it to the same height as the object I'm printing. The time spend printing this cooling tower is usually enough


text:
First layer prints too thin causing gaps everywhere

I'd assume insufficient z offset but some areas of the first layer look fine. I've been struggling with this problem despite lots of attempts including z offset, infill overlap, belt retensioning, etc.
Anyone else experienced this type of issue and have suggestions to fix it properly?
I'm using polylite PLA and a E3D steel nozzle. 60 °C bed temp, 230 °C first layer.
Edit: Print speed is 30 mm/s first layer, 60 mm/s normal. This issue occurs on the first few layers then the rest get increasingly better, with the final layer being excellent.
Edit2: Despite lowering the temp to 205--210 and increasing the z offset downwards, the problem persists, though to a lesser degree. Just gaps at ends of infill lines and between straight and circular walls. But seems it only occurs on the lower left and upper right (birds eye view) of the print.

Edit3: The lower left and upper right being further from the nozzle coincides with my removal process using the knife on the lower left and upper right.. Maybe this part of the problem I'll have to bend back in place?
Nozzle bed measurements below:

Edit4: Optimizing the Z offset according to the first layer thickness remained only a partial solution especially as my bed unevenness (1mm+) was past the auto-leveling limitations (<0.5mm), but I found a great thread (link below) with a "correct" solution that worked for a lot of people! After I try this I will come back and write about my experience with the solution.
https://forum.lulzbot.com/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=7904&hilit=bed+leveling+SOLVED

Welcome to 3dPrinting.SE! Wow, 230 °C seems a LOT hot for printing PLA filament. You might want to try it in the 190-200 °C area. I don't know if this will fix your overall issue, but it's a good place to start. Also, you don't mention your print speeds. Would be helpful to know.

Is the problem ONLY on the first layer, or do you have the same problem on SOME layers, or on ALL layers?

try to print at 195°C and speed of 60mm/s. the Z layer height should be 80%  of your nozzle size as maximum, if lower is better.

Thanks for warm welcome paulster. I've added print speed info and I'll try lowering the print temp as you and fernando suggested and get back with the results.

Davo I think the problem only occurs severely on the first few layers but what makes it weird is, say on the 5th layer there's only gaps in some areas and other areas are fine. It gets increasingly better until the final several layers which are actually great.

Please add new images, it is hard to help out without those, thanks!

Picture added! Also, I tested the paper method and I've confirmed that the bed is noticeably lower (0.3mm to 0.7mm or so) at the bottomleft and topright of the pei pad (XY)! For some reason the auto leveling is not compensating for it.

From the picture it is clearly seen that the filament is not flattened properly. This implies that your nozzle bed distance is too large. Try decreasing the gap by leveling the bed at temperature and have a piece of "A4" or "Letter" print paper between the nozzle and bed have a little friction when pulled.
Also reduce the temperature, 230 °C is too hot for PLA (unless your printer temperature is way off, but that is not very likely), try 200 °C.
Another thing that you could check is if the extruded length is exactly what is instructed to be extruded; i.e. calibrate the extruder.

White PLA is some of the nastiest stuff to print with, it's very impure. Could you try to make the same print, but with another filament?
230 degrees might be a bit too high of a temperature, normally PLA is printed between 215-225. Try to decrease and increase the temperature with 5 degrees to see if there is any differences as well.
Also, could you show us a completely flat, 1 layer print? Basically just a rectangle. Basically I want to see your first layer height.


text:
Under extrusion when starting outer wall
See the pictures below. I have a severe under extrusion when the printer starts the outer wall, which is resolved by the time it finishes the outer wall. It starts the layer in the same place every time, so it results in this vertical line, on one side of which is fine (where it finishes the layer) and the other side has bad gaps and the wall is much thinner.
In this picture, the problem is on the outer wall (see red outer line, the print head is moving counter clockwise.

And here is the print showing the issue. Just fine on one side, but terrible on the other, precisely where it starts the layer.  Strangely, this only occurs on the layers with infill. The top layers seem fine (despite starting in the same place).  I have disabled retraction with no effect.
Here you can see it start at the tip and get gradually better as it progresses.

Here you can see that by the time it finishes, it's just fine, and also what a contrast is between the start and end.  That should be a flush edge, there.

Another view

Is there some setting that I should be tweaking?  I've exhausted my own ideas of different tweaks to no avail.
The printer is a Monoprice Maker Select V2.  I'm using Ultimaker Cura 4.1.0.

Material: PLA
Layer height: 0.24 mm (in the pictures, but replicated with 0.16 mm also)
Temp: 205 °C, here (but tweaking this hasn't had any effect)
Retraction: Disabled

This doesn't happen on layer changes.  Although it does line up with the Z seam, you can see from the G-code visualization below that the outer wall is the very last thing it does.  The issue occurs at the start of the outer wall (still on the same layer) that it has the issue, but by the time it ends the wall (just before switching layers) it is fine.
I've tweaked a few other settings, one by one, and seeing if any have any effect.  So far, not really:

Outer Wall Wipe: 0.2 (default), 0.8, 0.0
Jerk Control - Wall Jerk max velocity change, 5 mm/s
Outer Wall before inner (Yes instead of No)
Wall Line Count (3 instead of 2): This improves it some, but I suspect just by making it a little more difficult to see

What have I done since...
I reset all settings in Cura to a default "Draft" setting and then set layer height to 0.24 mm, and turned off Infill. Then I have tried prints with different settings for "Retract Before Outer Wall" and printing temperature.
Here are those results:
These pics seem to suggest a very clear lag in extrusion.  1 and 2 are different temps.  2 and 3 are different retraction.
205 °C, 0 % Infill, Retract Before Outer Wall: Off

195 °C, 0 % Infill, Retract Before Outer Wall: Off

195 °C, 0 % Infill, Retract Before Outer Wall: On
Note: the retraction setting resulted in a noticeable pause before printing the outer wall. Retraction distance is 6.5 mm, and this is not a Bowden fed device.

There doesn't seem to be anything strange about the G-code, either.  Here are the G0 travels just before the outer wall followed by the wall.
...
G0 F7200 X106.319 Y93.413
G0 X106.26 Y93.909
G0 X107.213 Y93.658
G0 X107.8 Y92.542
G0 X107.286 Y90.844
G0 X107.509 Y90.394

; (outer wall of outside)
G1 F1328 X107.985 Y90.707 E116.98713
G1 X108.38 Y91.128 E117.01098
G1 X108.658 Y91.623 E117.03444
G1 X108.813 Y92.18 E117.05833
G1 X108.832 Y92.751 E117.08193
G1 X108.713 Y93.315 E117.10575
G1 X108.463 Y93.837 E117.12966
; (first curve complete, on to straightaway)
G1 X99.631 Y107.716 E117.80936
G1 X98.912 Y108.59 E117.85612
...

Even more done...
These are retraction off, and 205 °C
If I set the "print speed" in Cura to 20 mm/s (normally 60 mm/s), the outer wall speed is reduced from 30 mm/s to 10 mm/s. The result is quite good.

If I leave the "print speed" at 60 mm/s and adjust only the outer wall to 10 mm/s, it's still quite good.

So it seems like an acceleration thing.  If I can figure out how to get it to slow down in just the right spots or compensate in some way, then perhaps I can make this problem go away with minimal sacrifice in total speed.

Based on other comments, answers, and question edits so far, in addition to your original question, I believe there are possibly two things going on here: incorrect retraction settings, including a misunderstanding of which settings are relevant and what they do, and issues related to slow acceleration. Both relate to misdepositing/loss of material.
First, some basics. When the filament is advanced to the point needed to extrude material and print at the intended volumetric rate, it's under significant pressure, compressed between the extruder gear and the nozzle. My understanding is that your printer has a direct drive extruder, not a bowden, so there's far less compression than with a bowden setup but it's still there. This means that, if you try to stop extruding, it's material will continue to come out of the nozzle, just at a decreasing rate, until the pressure dissipates. This effect is reduced but still present if the nozzle is held-against/moving-over already printed material, and heavy if moving over empty space, even moreso if moving across sparsely-filled space like infill where it will bond with the already-deposited material and get "stretched"/"pulled" out.
The idea of retraction is to pull the filament back when the print head is moving to a new location without trying to deposit material, to relieve this pressure and prevent unwanted misdepositing/loss of material, and to reverse the process, putting the filament back exactly where it was when the last printed line ended, the next time it starts trying to deposit material.
The relevant options in Cura are:

Enable Retraction - must be on
Retraction Distance - should be at least 5-6 mm for bowden setups, probably more like 0.5-2 mm for direct drive.
Retraction Minimum Travel - should be 0
Combing Mode - try different settings. Off is probably the best relative to your issues, but hurts your print time a lot for certain models, and can hurt quality in other ways.

Everything else related to retraction is fairly irrelevant, especially "Retract at Layer Change" is a niche option and not typically useful. As I understand it, turning just "Retract at Layer Change" on does not mean retraction is on.
Now, your other issue may be acceleration. Extrusion works best as acceleration speed approaches infinity, because the extrusion rate and pressure needed to extrude will be fairly constant for the entire line/curve. If acceleration is very slow, pressure will be wrong during the start and end of lines. It's likely that, due to high pressure, excess material will get deposited at the end of one line while slowing down, then after moving to start the next line, even if you retract the filament, you'll have insufficient pressure at the nozzle after reversing the retraction to start the next line.
A jerk limit of 5 mm/s is really low. I'm used to more like 20-30 mm/s. You don't say what your acceleration limit is, but it's probably also low. Slow acceleration has minimal impact if your max speed is slow, because you quickly reach the max speed and most of the print speed (and thus extrusion rate) is steady. But if you want to print at high speeds, you need high acceleration. Try and see if you can increase it. Or accept printing at slow speeds.
Another option, if you're open to hacking on your printer, is replacing the stock firmware with a recent version of Marlin with the Linear Advance feature. It does the math to model the filament pressure as a spring, with a spring constant you can tweak, so that it can compensate for varying print speed and end lines with approximately no pressure remaining.

I have managed to reproduce this behavior under much more controlled conditions and was able to definitely see that the issue is plastic leaking out of the nozzle during travels.  The longer the travel, the longer the under-extrusion persists once printing resumes.  This was also correct: "including a misunderstanding of which settings are relevant and what they do".  In particular, retraction in Cura only occurs when traveling outside the model.  If you want retraction at other times, there are other settings for this.  I still have not found the best settings, but I'll work on it further.

@Warren: "Combing" is what prevents retraction from happening inside the model. I have an open issue with CuraEngine which explains a lot about what might be going on for you: https://github.com/Ultimaker/CuraEngine/issues/1084

In the absence of a fix for that issue, if you're getting oozing inside the infill area and it's causing problems, you probably just need to turn combing off entirely. If you do that, it might help to increase min retraction distance from 0 up to roughly your nozzle size or slightly larger (maybe 10-25% more); otherwise you can get retractions at each line direction reversal on top/bottom "skin" fill and the print will be very slow.

As @user77232 points out, you may have a general flow rate issue which can be adjusted in your slicer.
However, it looks like your machine might be retracting during some of the center layers. Notice the first few layers extrude relatively normal, then it under extrudes, then it goes back to relatively normal a few layers before a ceiling. Also note that the under extrusion seems to stop exactly where the z-step occurs (see the z-step seam).
This link shows that it's possible it could be your retraction settings before each layer. I'm not sure what it is with Cura, but in MakerWare and older slicers you could specify a retract distance before each layer. I would try reducing this. Also, these older slicers had different retract rates/distances for bases, floors, main wall, supports, bridges, top layers and more. So, this could be why you have different results throughout Z in your part.

Although it does line up with the Z seam, you can see from the G-code visualization above that the outer wall is the very last thing extruded in the layer.  The issue occurs at the start of the outer wall (still on the same layer) that it has the issue, but by the time it ends the wall (just before switching layers) the issue is gone.  This does look very much like the images in that link, I'll go read through that more closely.  Retraction was promising, but I tried disabling retraction entirely and it had no effect.

Physically, how would retraction make this happen? Retraction prevents losing material; it shouldn't be able to cause it.

@R.. Maybe I've been misinterpreting the setting, but I thought retraction was where the machine physically retracted the filament (running the stepper in the reverse direction) to avoid additional "ooze" or stringing at the end of each path. So, if your machine is actively retracting too much filament or too early, then you end up with the results seen in the images.

@Warren Firstly, your photos are great, very helpful. I still think your initial issue was a retraction issue. If you slicer is retracting too much or too early, there may not be enough pressure built up in your nozzle, so starting your next layer may become "stringed" as filament+pressure builds up in your nozzle.
The Z seam definitely warrants its own question though if you're looking to further improve your prints.

@tbm0115: Yes, but what you're missing is that retraction is fully reversed before the next line is printed, bringing the filament position to exactly what it was before the retraction. It's not just left retracted like your mental model seems to have it. Retraction before travel eliminates the pressure at the nozzle that leads to material oozing out and being lost (and making strings all over the place if it's not in the interior of the model) during travel.

Aside from being unsightly and possibly contributing to weight imbalance on prints where it matters, oozing causes there to be a deficiency of material deposited immediately after the travel where the ooozing occurs, and unless you can accurately model the oozing mathematically, there's no way to adjust extrusion to compensate for it, and there'll be insufficient (if you don't compensate) or too much (if you try to compensate but do too much) material deposited for a while after the travel that oozed.

From the sliced image you it appears as if long travels are present. High temperature (205 °C is on the upper side for PLA) slow travel moves and long moved allows filament to leak out into the infill region. Once it reaches the outer perimeter, there is not enough of liquid filament available and it will start under extruded.
Lower temperature with 5 °C increments (down to 195 °C) and increase travel speed with increments of 10 mm/s.

This should not happen unless retraction length is too low. I suspect OP has something else wrong.

@R.. the OP has no retraction set, so this is perfectly viable.

Indeed. I read "I have disabled retraction with no effect" as saying the OP was first trying with retraction, and turned it off to see if that would help (should expect the opposite ¯\(ツ)/¯). But indeed if retraction was always off or was low to begin with and then turned off, this is almost surely the problem.

I wouldn't call 205 high for PLA though. I print PLA at 210 (215 first layer). I might try to see if lowering the temp is viable now that I have firmware with linear advance though; I suspect adjusting the spring constant could make up for difficulty extruding at lower temp.

I have now printed at 195 and 205 and with "Retract Before Outer Wall" on and off.  The temperature has no discernible effect on this issue.  The retraction, when on, definitely seems to make the issue much worse.  I will add pics of these.

I experienced almost the exact issue printing PETG, where severe under extrusion happens at the start of a new layer.
After going though the tool path in Cura I determined that the root cause of this is because the last printing step at each layer is to fill the small gaps. The extruder would extrude very little material while going though the small gaps in the printed layer. The melted plastic in the print head would get dragged out, therefore more material would be lost than what was accounted for in Cura.
Because of the uncertainty of how much material would be lost in the process, there is almost no way to compensate for it. The best "solution" I came up with is to add a small sacrificial cylinder to the model. The printer will fill the small gaps in the main object, then print the dummy cylinder and then print the next layer. This completely eliminated the under extrusion problem at the expense of a bit more material usage. Of course the printed sacrificial cylinder would look really bad with severe under extrusion at the z-seam.
I believe the same solution will also fix your problem: just enable printing outside wall first, and add a dummy cylinder to your model.

Welcome to 3D Printing SE and thank you for your contribution. When you get a chance, please take the [tour] to understand how the site works and how it is different than others.

The problem seems to occur in the same area; along the z axis. You also seem to have an elephant's foot from the first layer being squashed. Change the flow rate in the slicer. Re tram (level) the bed and clean your nozzle.

The issue occurs where the outer wall starts, and that happens at the same X/Y coordinate, so it does cause the issue to align on the Z axis, however, to be clear, it isn't happening on the layer change, since that happens at the end of the outer wall at which point the issue is not there.  I've tried different flow rates.  I have suspected a nozzle issue and tried cold pulls etc to clean it, but also the sheer consistency of the issue makes me doubt that it could be any sort of clogging of the nozzle.

I was experiencing exactly the same problem (CR-10S, Cura 4.5, all mechanical issues fixed, new nozzle, new fans, good quality PLA), I would like to add one observation that might contribute to a solution (yes, I know this thread is old but many people are still experiencing this issue (a lot actually) any everybody seems to be stuck in the "you need to level your bed" loop) but this discussion here is going beyond this and is by far the most constructive I have seen so far:
Ok, here goes: when measuring my hotend with a thermocouple probe (Uni-T UT320D) right behind the nozzle (after removing the Bowden tube), I can observe a significant deviation between the displayed temp (= the same one I entered in Cura) and the temperature the filament gets to see. This is around 20 °C in difference @ 200 °C, meaning a setting of 205 °C is actually closer to 185 °C. For the bed the offset is only 1-2 °C. After swapping the glass bead NTC just for fun (Ohms were OK) ...nothing changed. Others have observed this offset in CR10 machines as well (original firmware).
Combined with the fact that we CAN produce nice prints at insanely slow speeds (10 - 20 mm/s), this somehow gives me the feeling that some bug (somewhere) has reduced the heating capacity of the hotend in the affected machines / set-ups... Now this could be a parasitic loss due to a bad connection somewhere but this would quickly lead to other problems (fire) as well (which it didn't - at least in my case).

What worked for me was enabling outer wall wipe distance to around 3 mm, that's all that I enabled and it instantly fixed it, no prime amount or anything, just outer wall wipe distance

try retract before outer wall off.

Hi and welcome to SE 3D Printing! Whilst your answer may be technically correct, it is lacking detail, and, as such, it has been recommended for deletion, unfortunately. If you could expand it then you may get a more positive response. I would recommend that in addition to reading some highly voted answers to gauge the standard expected, that you take a look at the help section relating to answering questions, in particular [answer], and take the [tour] for more information on how stack exchange works. Thanks :-)

As stated in the question, the OP already tried that.


text:
Export Revit file for Fusion 360 3D Print
I have a 3D printer hooked up with Fusion 360. I have a 3D drawing in Revit. What format should I export to in order get from Revit to Fusion 360?

In Revit
Use STL Exporter 2019 to customize and export your Revit model to an STL file.

Click Add-in tab -> STL Exporter panel -> STL Exporter.
On the General tab, specify your STL file options.
On the Categories tab, specify which element categories will export to the STL file.
Click Save to create the STL file.

In Fusion 360

Click on a valid project then click the Upload button. Then, click the Select files button and navigate to the STL you wish to import.

After selecting the STL file you want to convert, click the Upload button, this time the one in the lower-right corner of the file upload window. Then, the STL file you selected will be imported into Fusion 360. The process can take a few minutes.


text:
Please suggest parameters for 0.5 mm diameter nozzle
I am building an FDM machine on my own. I am not using any commercial software. So I have a lot of questions regarding the right parameters to choose. I am having 0.5 mm diameter nozzle. What are the parameters that I am supposed to choose? The general parameters that I need to know are:

Extruder head speed (mm/s)
Layer thickness (mm.)
Road width (mm)
Filament feed rate (mm/s)

What do you mean by you are not using any commercial software?

Hello Sri!  Welcome to the 3D Printing SE Site.  I hope that you will find this a great source of information to help you with your projects and also a place where you can share the knowledge that you develop.  It would be a great help to people who want to help you with answers if you could add more details about what you are building, including perhaps pictures of the printer itself.  The more youcan tell us, the better each member can align their experience with your questions.  Could you please edit your question to add more detail?

Hello Sri, your question is not very clear, please update the question to make it more clear what you mean with not using any commercial software and the parameters that I am supposed to choose. Typically this is done by a slicer, there are open source and commercial software slicer applications that can do that for you. As the question is not clear it is put on hold, when you update the question it can be re-opened.

@sri-harsha Use the same parameter for 0.4mm nozzle.Slic3r will help you to get all parameters, just test if you printer can support vibrations and shaking.

These parameters are not fixed. FDM printers are designed to work over a range speeds, feed rates, layer heights, extrusion temperatures, etc, depending on the type of print job and the filament type used. If you design a printer to work with fixed parameters, you are unlikely to get good results.


text:
Why keep the bed heated after initial layer(s) with PLA (or PETG)?
I'm printing on an Ender 5 with the default flex/magnetic build surface.
I read that PLA and PETG may sometimes be printed without any bed heating at all and also that bed heating is the main contributor to the power consumption of a printer.
As I do see that bed heating definitely helps with the first layer adhesion I did not want to turn it off completely, but I did start experimenting with turning off bed heating after all solid bottom layers have printed (using the ChangeAtZ script in Cura) and so far I haven't seen any negative effects, especially no warping (I am usually printing with a brim or raft; I think that might also help in that regard).
Am I missing something? Why is anyone keeping the bed heated for an entire print?

3D printing has a lot of variables, and it may work for one setup but not for the other to switch off heating. Anecdotally it works fine for me in  the summer, but not so good in the winter. Also I have some glow in the dark PLA that just doesn't want to stick very well at all..

I print the first layer at 70 degrees to ensure a good fit then lower it to 40 degrees for PLA. Proved to be the most efficient strategy. With CF Nylon the bed can be turned off completely after the first layer, other materials require 50-60 degrees.

There are three reasons (I can think of):

A large problem you'd face with allowing the bed to cool after first layer is you stand the chance of losing adhesion after it cools. When you heat the bed, it expands somewhat. When it cools it contracts. It has been known for parts to actually pop off the bed if left on there to cool (after a print). If you allow the bed to cool fully, you could ruin a print due to it losing the adhesion, popping off the bed, then the printer keeps on going.
When you're dealing with 0.1 mm layer height, that's not a lot of wiggle room. When you level your bed before printing, it should be done after everything is heated. If you were to turn off the bed after you start printing, you could very easily shift the bed enough to take up the worth of an entire layer, which means your print has adjusted and will then have major imperfections. This isn't a given, but definitely a concern ... especially for larger or taller prints.
Whether PLA or PETG, the extruded filament needs to have heat in order to stay. This is not only heat in the extruder, but heat in the print itself. If the print cools off, this could affect subsequent adhesion for the filament getting laid down. If you turn the bed heater off after print start, you'll lose that heated environment. The print will cool off and you'll start seeing variations in the print, which, if the print is large enough, would most likely be more noticable. Think of it as a heated environment, not just putting piling host plastic on top of each other.

There may be other reasons, but I believe these are very good reasons not to turn your bed off after print start. If you are worried your power supply isn't providing enough power, then get a bigger power supply. If you're worried about power consumption overall, once the bed is heated, consumption goes way down (as @r_ahlskog stated in their answer).

At the risk of getting snarky,  Changing the layer height to the max possible (depending on nozzle size and aesthetics of product) reduces the total print time & thus reduces the total energy consumption.

Another way to reduce the power consumption of the heated bed is to insulate the underside, e.g. with a cork mat and adhesive/sticky tape that will withstand the temperature.

Depending on the printer, reason 2 may be very important.  I've gotten very different "bed leveling" settings depending on the temperature state of the bed.

Absolutely correct about the power to initially heat and reheat the bed being equal. However, during re heating the printer will only be adjusting the temperature a degree or so every few seconds. When the heated bed is first turned on the difference between the target temperature and the actual temperature is much larger than when re heating. Therefore, power consumption will be cut way down after the target temperature is met due to the fact that the heating element will only be activated for a short amount of time every few seconds rather than being on continuously.

PETG requires a heated bed otherwise it will shrink, detach from the platform and begin curling at the edges.
PLA, however in some situations does not require a heated build platform. It depends on the build surface. Some surfaces need to be hot to work, and some do not. Keeping it on helps stop the part from cooling too quickly as well. However with the correct first layer height, this tends to be less of an issue.
I've had PLA parts stick so well to a PVA coated glass bed, that picking it up also lifted the printer. Once the bed cools on PET-G however, it practically detaches from the bed itself.

PLA doesn't require a heated bed, but if bed temp drops after the first layer, all the corners will curl up due to uneven cooling rate. You want either unheated or consistently heated.

For long prints, if turning off bed heating saves  money, throwing out the filament from a detached print costs you more.  The risk to gain ratio is very skewed.  The “savings” in turning off the bed are considerably negative, and, as pointed out, the risk of losing the print is increased.

All the valid points of bed shrinking and dislocating your parts when cooling from the other answer aside there is also the added complexities both in testing reliability of such a thing that may or may not be applicable to all materials.
The added complexity to the slicers to figure out when it is safe to turn off the bed which I would imagine depends on part footprint. I also sometimes print several parts sequentially in the same job so then it would need to know that and time the bed heating correctly or pause and wait for bed between parts.
I would also categorize printer power use as trivial (order of three 60W lightbulbs), but considering millions of machines worldwide economics of scale does kick in.

Well, my print jobs usually run over night (or actually over several days), so I'm typically not there when a print finishes to start a new one before the bed had a chance to cool down. It's especially the multi-day, tall prints where constant bed heating feels wasteful... Apart from that you make a good point. Also, thanks for pointing out that power consumption for bed heating mainly applies to heating up, rather than maintaining heat...

It is incorrect to suggest that it takes more power to re-heat the bed vs. maintaining the temperature throughout the "first" print.  This is basic Thermodynamics.  The amount of energy per unit volume per unit temperature doesn't change.

You are absolutely right, I should have known that.

In my experience, watching the temperature curve with constant energy input, it is not the case that keeping the bed hot is relatively incidental.  There are substantial heat losses from the hot bed, and these must be constantly overcome to maintain temperature.  Keeping the bed hot only consumes energy.  There is no condition where it saves energy compared to turning off the bed heater.

Lets edit out my thermodynamics violating statements, keeping a bed warm uses energy, heating it uses the amount required to to reach that equilibrium but since we don't want to wait approx infinite time we expend more over a shorter time to reach it and the optimal strategy is to heat as quickly as possible, maintain temperature and then cut heat as soon as it is not needed. Up to the point where powersupply and mosfet losses start to exceed design capacity.

A way to save energy would be use a pretty tight enclosure around the printer, I think a pretty thin layer of insulation would be enough to reduce power usage by a large factor. I've not build one myself yet but there seems to be so many benefits.

That won't give you a large power saving, it will heat up the enclosure, also this may introduce other problems like hotend cooling and electronics cooling.

OK, I had the impression if you want to do any serious printing you use an enclosure? The air in the enclosure will be the same temp as the bed, I guess around 50-70C, don't think that will damage the electronics. The air will not be warmer than that if you have some little ventilation, so my guess is that this will be pretty ideal conditions for printing and pretty power efficient. But this is all in theory :-)

Oh, and you say the power saving won't be large, I would say it will be proportional to the quality of the insulation.

its up to you do some own test and see how its working for you:

yesterday decrease temp to 50* after some time no issue
today decrease temp to 30* some small disform but its keep printing ok
also you can add paper glue to bed
keep in mind that when temperature decrease bed is moving down due to lost heat
if is large print then its stay on bed, small print can detach when decrease temperature


text:
Square sheet in middle layers
I'm using a Tronxy Ultrabot (looks very similar to Anycubic Photon) and I'm still on my first prints.
Things that happened thus far: many failed prints that stuck to the resin tank, one which I had to carefully scoop off.
What I'm finding odd is that this sheet (for lack of a better term) only seems to happen on one half of the whole thing.
I'm suspecting the FEP film is the culprit here, due to earlier failures.
What else could be causing this error?
Other info that might be important, the model is using 6 layer, 60s cure time for base; 0.04mm layer size, 10s layer cure time, 1s delay between layers. The resin is Suen Ching
Edit 2: Here's the manual

Hi, please provide a link to your printer model - or better yet the User Manual.  That will help people understand what is supposed to happen (illumination method, e.g.) . In general, a problem on half the build plate suggests improper levelling, but I am not familiar with your printer.

The model is this one
https://www.aliexpress.com/i/32843892253.html ; i'm looking for the user manual, but i can't seem to find it online. It's in terrible english, but I can scan it later if needed

not an answer to your question but your print looks over exposed, you many want to try shorter than 10s for your layer exposer time.

what software are you using as your slicer?

This is a guess but it may be a problem with the sliced file. Take a look though the layers of the sliced file to see if your software is adding a layer there. sometimes it looks fine in the 3d model but it can add a layer while slicing.

The problem were the models themselves. I had to run them through Windows 3D Builder to fix whatever invisible problems the slicer would transform into faces.

@Arthur if this answer worked for you you should mark it as accepted so others know you are not still looking for an answer.


text:
Botched firmware upgrade - did I destroy the stepper drivers?
I attempted upgrading my Ender 3 firmware to Marlin 1.1.9, and due to inability to find the directions about the Sanguino variant pin layout file, stupidly built with the "standard" (Arduino) file. Various stuff didn't work, and I figured out my mistake and rebuilt, but the extruder motor does not respond even after flashing back to the original firmware.
Did I destroy the stepper driver with incorrect pin mapping? (Aside: if so, why just the extruder and not the others?) Is this fixable or should I just order a new motherboard?

About 15 minutes after posting this, it started working again. Either the driver had badly overheated and recovered after cooling down, or was never messed up and the firmware was just refusing to operate it with the nozzle cold. For the latter possibility, the stock firmware never had that behavior before, but maybe it's possible that some saved configuration to ignore nozzle-cold got lost in the flashing?


text:
Proper hotend heater for Reprap x400 Pro V3
I'm trying to verify the correct hotend heater for a Reprap x400 Pro V3.  I know a 12 V 40 W doesn't work.  A working heater measures 4.4 Ω, so I'm guessing it is a 12 V 30 W heater.
When I tried replacing a non-functioning hotend heater on a German Reprap X400 V3 with a new 12V 40W heater that heater also wouldn't heat.  My guess is the circuitry shut off due to overcurrent.  The thermistor temperature didn't change from room temperature, and the heater was not hot to the touch.  Afterward, I plugged in the heater measuring 4.4 Ω and it worked.
The 100k sensors worked properly. A functioning heater resistance measured 4.4 Ω. The non-functioning heater measured 3.6 Ω. The new 12 V 40 W heater measured 2.6 Ω. Apparently, this model Reprap won't apply power to the heater if the resistance is wrong. I'm assuming this model needs a 12 V 30 W heater, but am trying to confirm this since I can't find a parts bill of material for this model. Used the following equation to estimate heater resistance (voltage^2)/power = resistance. This gives 4.8 Ω for 12 V 30 W and 3.6 Ω for 12 V 40 W.

The part causing the hot point failure was the connector for the heater and sensor. The connector showed no sign of burns on the heater pins, but the square tubes (see attached image) accommodating pins from the other connector had started to straighten out toward its original sheet metal state due to heating from current. Bending the tubes back in place allowed the connector to work temporarily and confirmed the failure cause.
Details: After getting a 12 V 30 W heater, it also didn’t work. The hot point had stopped working because a wire brush had shorted across the heater terminals. Because a spare hot point worked, the failure wasn’t in the circuitry. The spare was a 12 V 30 W heater (from resistance measurements), while the heater on the failing hot point was a 12 V 40 W heater (from resistance measurements). This made me suspect that the heater resistance had shifted, and the circuitry shut off the heater. However, apparently both 12 V 30 W and 12 V 40 W heaters work on RepRap x400 V3. The brief short caused the bent sheet metal of the connector to start straightening back out of the bend.


text:
first layer unstable
I have been using my MK3 for about a year with no problems, but a couple of weeks ago I started to have the following issue: the printing head loses its first layer height calibration, apparently for no reason. Sometimes it goes higher and the plastic line gets loose from the plate and sometimes it goes down, scratching the plate.
I already calibrated the first layer several times, it works for a while and then goes bad again. Today I calibrated the first layer twice, proceeded the PINDA calibration as well, flashed the new release, and nothing: my MK3 is no longer printing right. There must be a faulty part, possibly the PINDA sensor or something else. Once the first layer is done, the rest of the piece goes right, that is why I suspect that the PINDA sensor is failing.
Could you please, give me any clue on how to overcome the problem? Also, could you list the possible faulty parts so I can order them?

Maybe too obvious :-) , but I have to ask, have you checked the hotend carriage and probe mount if there is nothing loose or broken?

Along the lines of what @0scar has stated, have you checked to ensure your z-axis rods are tight? I'm talking about where the rod attaches to the motors. If they aren't holding correctly, it could be giving you fits in both directions (up or down).

I had a similar problem with a MIGBOT. There is a tube that feeds the filament into the  hotend heater/nozzle/thermistor block,  the tube is held in place with a setscrew in the hotend block. Turns out the setscrew had backed out enough for the hotend block to wobble around.  Took things apart, retightened the screw, re-assembled, re-leveled, no problems since.

Indeed, I checked those items and everything is firm in place. The problem seems to be the PINDA sensor: I performed the test recommended by Prusa and found some disperse readings, what must be causing the error in height of the nozzle in the first layer. It might be consequence of the new FW, where the initialization leveling now is faster, maybe causing unprecise readings.

Yeas, indeed I replaced the Pinda sensor and the problem desapeared.

Yes! the problem was the sensor, indeed.


text:
How to estimate the printing time of a 3D printer from an STL file?
My local library has a 3D printer (Lulzbot Mini) for patrons to use. The prints are limited to 4 hours and if I go after work I really only have two hours before the Library closes. The software at the Library will give an estimated time, but I would like to be able to estimate the time before I get there.
Currently I have been creating my designs in TinkerCad and then I export the STL file. From the STL file I can find online estimators that will tell me how much material but nothing that says how long it will take to print.
Is there a way of calculating the estimated printing time from a STL file for a given printer?

It probably makes sense for you to do the slicing on your own computer ahead-of-time and bring gcode instead of a STL -- that way you can adjust the settings to get within your time-and-material budget on your own time.

There is no way to estimate the print time of an STL file directly.
The print time is based on the number of instructions in the g-code file plus the time it takes to move the effector (the hot end) around the build area. The only way to compute that is to know what settings their slicer is using and then slice your stl the way they will; and this is assuming that you have the same slicer software. If you manage to do that, then the slicer software will give you an estimate.
Here is what you would need to do:

Get access to the same slicing software, and obtain a copy of
the profile that they use to slice with. The nozzle diameter, feed
rate, layer height, and infill settings will affect the print time.
Import your stl into the sofware and "slice it" There will usually be a large button that is used to generate the g-code. There are quite a few slicers that will output the print time into the text of the g-code. They may also show the print time on the UI during slicing.

alternatively: Email the stl to the staff at the library, and them to generate an estimate for you. They might just do it.
However, that estimate could be incorrect. It will depend on the printer itself. As an example: the time it takes to heat the bed and the hot end is never included in the time estimate the slicer gives.

The time it takes to heat the bed and hot end, though, is tiny compared to the time it takes to print an object; it's so small that it can be ignored. Surely the library will keep its doors open for sixty extra seconds if your print runs long.

It is already established that is is possible to calculate the estimated print duration by this anwer.
The most accurate estimation is obtained with specific settings for the printer. So if you have access to the printer, your most accurate estimation would be using the software from the manufacturer or correctly setup third party software. Going to the library twice might work out as you have one day to tweak the print to get it done in 4 hours, the other day to print the file generated the day earlier. Note that there are also community solutions (cheaper than commercial printer services) available where you select the most nearby printer and let somebody else print it for you.
As an alternative (to try at home), if you navigate to the LulzBot website you can find a specific release for the LulzBot printers e.g. download here and use their released profiles (from this location) to slice your print using the material to print the object in. Note that these slicing parameter files are for the TAZ, the slicing parameters can be applied to the mini. Note that this will cause an inaccuracy for the print time, but will serve as a good start.
From their website you can read that:

How to Download and Use Print Profiles
To get printing right away, the default LulzBot TAZ print profiles listed below can be imported into Cura LulzBot Edition for ready-to-print settings. To download and save the configuration file, right click and select Save As.
In order to use the print profiles below you will need to switch to the Full Settings view (Expert > Switch to full settings). After downloading, import the Cura print profile by selecting, in Cura, File > Open Profile. Navigate and select the pre-set Cura print profile file of choice.

Cura LE comes with profiles for all Lulzbot's printers, including the Mini; there's no need to separately install them when using Lulzbot's edition of the software.

@CharlesDuffy Thanks for the information! Will update later. I'll install when I get to a computer again.

authors: 北京制作证件_北京办毕业证_上海证件办理中心


text:
Ender 3 under extrusion
I have a new Ender 3, it was printing fine using the Ultimaker Cura 4.1 slicer. I printed about 1/2 a roll of blue 1.75 mm filament through a 0.4 mm nozzle. All my prints were Ender 3 mods (plus one cover for a device I had).
Then it stopped printing 1/2 way through printing a bracket for the Y-axis to allow for a damper.
After several days of under extruded parts that I aborted I discovered that the extruder motor was stopping intermittently and that turned out to be a bind in the motor. I replaced the motor, but it continued to under extrude. I replaced the stock extruder feed with Anpro Upgrade, MK8 Extruder Aluminum Alloy Block Bowden Extruder 1.75 mm Filament for Creality 3D. The same problem remained.
I did the extruder test with 120 mm marked on the filament and only about 60 mm went through.
By increasing the flow to 150 % I can print usable parts, but that seems like a bandaid covering up the real problem. Of course, I have cleaned the hotend, changed the nozzle and the feed tube.
I have assumed that during the feed test of 100 mm you should preheat the nozzle before the gcode G1 E100 F100 ; Extrude 100 mm at 100 mm a minute is issued.
Is there any point in removing the nozzle or the feed tube and issuing this 100 mm/100 mm command?
I have ordered a new hot end, but I'm beginning to suspect the board itself is not feeding correctly. Help?

I removed the Bowden tube from the hot end and issued the 'G1 E100 F100` and it feeds exactly 40 mm. Do I possibly have a second bad motor? I currently have no way of modifying the code on the board. Is there a factory reset for the Ender 3?

OK, I have my Ender 3 back to printing nice looking objects. It turns out at some point since the original bad E-stepper I must have pushed the "load settings" menu item. I set my E steps to 98 from 93. and then did a "save settings". I have no idea why going from 93 to 98.03 increased my extrusion from 40mm to 100mm (trial and error, because the formula said I needed to go to 232.5!).
For those that don't know, the "save settings" stores the current settings in EEPROM. These setting override the factory configuration setting when you reboot. If while you are messing with setting and you lose track of things you can do a "load settings" to get your previous settings back to start again. The "initialize EEPROM" reloads the stored configuration settings including the settings that you saved.
More intelligent explanation here: