text:
PLA printings always ~0.22% larger
I was trying to print parts for a small CD-ROM drive based plotter based on this thing https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3521286
But as tolerances are very small and need to match the existing parts, I realized that my printed parts are actually a little bigger, I made a test with a part like this:
   _                          _
 /   \                      /   \
 \  .------------------------. ___
    | [O]________________[O] |  ^
    | |                    | |  |
    | |                    | |  |
    | |                    | |  |
    | |  |<--- 62mm ---->| | |  |
    | |                    | | 70mm
    | |                    | |  |
    | |                    | |  |
    | |                    | |  |
    | |                    | |  |
   _| [O]________________[O] | _v_
 /  '------------------------'  \
 \ _ /                      \ _ /

Side View:

      [X]                [X]
 ___[XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]____

A squared and mouse-eared frame with two protruding 4mm cubes on each corner with inner distances of 62mm and outer of 70mm between each adjacent cubes.
I discovered that, after measuring many times and averaging distances, my model printed 0.227..% larger.
I've heard of shrinkage factor for ABS or Nylon, and people compensate scaling their models while slicing.
But what about PLA?
Im using:

Anet A8
Stock marlin firmware (not the Anet one)
Flashforge natural PLA 1.75mm
0.4mm Nozzle
0.2mm layer height
0.4mm line width
210ºC extrusion temp
60ºC Bed temp
40mm/s print speed
Fusion 360, Cura 2.7 or 4.3 and Octoprint.

The printed model is pretty flat, has no curvatures or artifacts either.
Would this be an error of constants on my printer a known artifact from PLA?

What's your line width?

The Z direction is usually very close.  X and Y isn't a ratio of the total size, but the increase is a factor of how much the extruder mashes down the outer shell.

If it's repeatable, then just adjust the scale factor by the opposite amount before slicing the model.

You mention "averaging". Please provide measured values for inner and outer dimensions. Also, you should measure after removing the two bottom layers, which can be squeezed to the bed and appear larger.

you can calibrate your printer, if you havn't done so already, which should fix it most of the way.

@Trish, the line width I have is 0.4 mm, same as nozzle. also, the nozzles are new.

@FarO, what do you mean by removing the two bottom layers? like sanding them?

@FarO, ohh, you mean because of elephant's foot artifacts? added a side view of the model, I'm measuring the cubes on top and their are straight flat on the sides.
Don't have the numbers right now, but the process was:
Xo = (70+62)/2; Xi=(avg(LongDist)+avg(ShortDist))/2; ratio= Xi/Xo
Took many measurements of each side bc I'm using a 0.02mm manual caliper.

@CarlWitthoft yeah, for the moment I'm doing that, thats why I calculated the %. I saw some slicers have a config option to add that to compensate for shrinkage, so anytime you drop a model it scales. but didn't find something like that for cura.

@rccursach I ask the two values separately because if the inner dimension is smaller than expected, and the outer one is larger, the two with an average of 0.whatever% you have a certain issue, but if both inner and outer dimensions are larger than expected, you have another issue.

@rccursach are you aware of this? https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/6968/slicer-line-width-vs-extrusion-multiplier-for-layer-adhesion the extrusion width is larger than the set one, maybe that explains most of the discrepancy

@0scar lol thanks, yeah, the piece was printed over the weekend, and I'm not around the printer or the computer where i built that. I have the piece with me but as is natural PLA and looks translucent, can't get a good pic of that.

@FarO, no I wasn't, thanks, I'll try what trish said in her answer, but yeah, must be that.

You need to print something with a hole and see what happens.  On the printer I use, outside dimensions are larger, but inside dimensions of holes are smaller.  What seems to explain this is the extruder tip mashes the 0.4 mm extrusion to 0.2 mm.

You are not taking into account die swell.
When printing with a 3D printer hot plastic is forced through a nozzle, which leads to the expansion of the material. The result is, that with 0.4 mm nozzle and 0.4 mm intended line width, the material will actually deposit some fraction of a millimeter wider. In your test case, that is 0.22%. If you'd print a double-sized test piece, I expect 0.11%, and in case of a half-sized 0.44% - in other words, it is a static offset.
Because of this, it is usually better to demand wider lines than the nozzle is, forcing the die swell effect to become negligible in the wider line. I managed this with about 110% of the nozzle width on my machines.
Further Reading: Why is it conventional to set line width > nozzle diameter?

Awesome! No I didn't think about die swell, I'll make the experiment to scale the model down a few times and verify. Then play with the line width and come back with results.

There are several ways to try and adjust for this effect of squashing the material, which is ultimately about having enough space for the material you lay down.
As mentioned:
You can try to pre-scale models (not very effective as a general solution because it is a function of the model and how many adjacent layers your material is forcing)
You can up the line width.
If your software allows, you can input a slightly larger filament diameter to lay a bit less material. (Wanted to stress this one as it's been pretty useful for me)
If you are intentionally undershooting the volume by some percentage via the filament diameter, it may help to play with the layer height to control the end result of the line's cross section.
I've had good results with a combination of the latter three (basically comes down to calibrating the printer to get settings for your desired material spool, and level of detail -> sizes of line and layer for the print)

Cura has a fixed offset called "horizontal expansion", which can be set negatively. This way you can hardcode a -0.1mm offset for example. It worked for me where holes got too small and pegs got too thick.

Simplify3D has this as well, but I tend to find it troublesome because it will actually adjust your model and not just change the print settings. It's best to get your extrusion width calibrated instead.


text:
Sealant to increase Water-Resistance of SLS print
We are attempting to print some single-use prototypes using an SLS printer. The parts must be somewhat water-resistant for short-term usage, but do not have to been waterproof entirely.
According to this page, Post processing for SLS printed parts - Water tightness, any silicone type or vinyl-acrylate sealant should work well, but I was hoping that the Stack users here might have some specific suggestions.
Does anybody have specific recommendations for sealing SLS prints?

I think it's going to depend on two things: what is the material made out of (for the print) and what are you trying to seal it against? Water is going to be different from alcohol which would be different from oil. If you wanted to seal it against acid, that'd be an ever bigger challenge.

All of these prototypes will be tested in water. Further prototypes will be constructed of cement and used with an oil-based fluid. Material is “Versatile Plastic” from Shapeways. I believe it is a Nylon.

clear spray acrylic sticks to most things and is completely waterproof once dry.

Most SLA resins are water resistant, while nylon SLS could be dunked in resin to get it into all the print.

@Trish Wouldn’t a resin bath require a UV laser to harden it?  We opted to use SLS over SLA due to a 300% price difference.

@dandavis Something skin to this? https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001K65K26/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_KYiQDbZ2BCYNR

@JPeroutek no, most Resins are actually not UV curing: Most resins that are mixed with hardeners, which then could be used as coating. Epoxy, polyester and Styrene-acrylonitrile Resins are such options. Another option could be Polyurethane.

yes, that would work, but seems vastly overpriced. Rustoleum clear "spray paint" is the same thing, but imho, better than krylon, who seem to be marketing it as something more special than what it is, clear coat, that you can buy for $5/can at walmart or home depot. Clear nail polish works too btw, i use it as conformal coating in outdoor projects.

@Trish some of our geometries are quite small, with around .6 mm gaps that need water-proofing. Picture a small 1” diameter fan with about 15 overlapping tilted blades. Will the resin block those fluid paths?  In my experience, epoxies are very viscous thick fluids.

@dandavis Perhaps repost your comments as an answer?

@JPeroutek it could, but the viscosity is dependant on the ammount of hardener and the exact mixture. Some resins change viscosity based on temperature. 0.6 mm is very tiny though... 1 component Resin-laquer, thinned a little, could be an option.

@Trish could you possibly submit that as an answer?

SLS prints from nylon are somewhat porous. This means, that they will let a stabilizer soak into the outer surface to some degree.
What kind of stabilizer is needed is depending somewhat on the properties you want, but generally I believe these might be useable depending on the viscosity:

2-component resins could be used, but they are usually very viscous. Their viscosity, however, is dependent on the exact type and mixture and could be altered by temperature.
1-component (air-hardening) resins or resin lacquers can be thinned to achieve a solution into which the item is then dunked and dripped off. How much thinner is adviseable depends on the exact material
Nitrocellulose lacquer, like it is used in guitar building, is extremely fluid and could be used for treatment via dunking.
PU lacquer could be used too.

source: Stack Exchange

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

authors: عبدالله امبراطور

sort: votes


text:
Issue on 2 corners but not the other 2
I am printing using an Ender3 Pro with eSUN PLA+ 215/45 and I am getting this issue on two corners, the other two corners look fine.
Any idea on what can be causing this?
The bad corners

The good corners

The general shape of the object is square (at least to my eye, looking down from above). Is it oriented square to the print bed? Or is it at an angle? This may help diagnose if there is a mechanical issue on the x or y axis.

Cooling filament is missing vs temperature and speed printing. I forget to active cooling filament and I got the same result where normal air flow in not present.

This has nothing to do with speed, temperature, adhesion, and whatever you do, DO NOT extrude more material per line (increase flow rate), as this will make the problem that much worse.
This is a fairly simple problem with an even simpler fix: you're over extruding.  Reduce your flow rate by 5%, and see if that fixes the issue.  It will definitely improve it, but you might need to lower your flow rate a little bit more.
What can often happen when your flow rate is set too high is the extra plastic will concentrate at areas of relatively high acceleration (corners and the start/stop spot for a perimeter of a given layer), but depending on the size of the thing being printed and the degree of overextrusion, it won't concentrate at every spot like this on a perimeter.
Usually, I see this happen where the perimeter moves start and stop each time, which (again, depends on the slicer and settings) tend to be the same spot for certain models, often a corner.  I couldn't say for certain the exact mechanism, except that it seems like the plastic, given the right conditions, prefers to lay down evenly while the excess over extruded plastic builds up (probably carried by the nozzle, since it is hot and the plastic will want to stick to it) until too much has built up for the nozzle adhesion to keep it from sticking to the print, or the nozzle begins to decelerate (late at a corner or the end of a print move), causing the extra plastic to 'scrunch' up, like something that shoved in a distance too short for it.  Knowing this, if you examine the corners, it should be quite obvious that this is what is happening.  The perimeter is being extruded with more plastic than it should be, and the extra has a tendency to collect all in one spot each time.
Sometimes it is one corner, sometimes it is every corner, sometimes it is corners that are maximally distant from each other (since it takes some time for enough excess plastic to build up to over power whatever effects are preventing it from adhering immediately.  So in this case, the two good corners were just where not enough excess plastic had built up yet at the nozzle to cause problems).  Another possible explanation is that those two corners are simply where the perimeters were started and stopped, but some layers it was one corner, and other layers the other corner.  But you can see over extrusion artifacts lower down on the feet (or whatever they are), and your first layer as well.
Do not increase flow rate.
Do not increase infill.
Do not lower your speed.
Do not increase your temperature.
None of those will help, and increasing flow rate further could cause the nozzle to catch on the print, potentially damaging your hotend.
Just reduce your flow rate by 5%.  You should see an immediate improvement, or even elimination of the issue.  If it is still there, then reduce your flow rate a percent or two until it does go away.  And remember this number, because you'll probably want to use that flow rate in general for your printer.

Rather than blindly decreasing flow by 5% I would recommend doing a proper calibration of the extruder. Being off by even 1-2% can produce brittle prints so guessing/trial-and-error isn't really a good method for fixing overextrusion.

Looks like it treated those corners a bit differently in the slice routine.  Normally something like this different treatment would be too slight to matter, but (probably due to the slight overhang?) it appears to have caused some layers to not adhere to the bottom ones and get pulled along to a different shape (red line in image).  (Be sure to check some general layer adhesion/overhang topics too.)
I'd try increasing the infill there (and using honeycomb style infill) or even using a cad software to hollow the interior to essentially a desired infill before slicing if the current infill is important elsewhere.
Moving slower, Increasing the temperature a bit, and/or extruding more material per line and layer if the layer adhesion is due to the slight overhang (although it looks pretty small).

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


text:
Ender 3 Power Problem: Not starting up
I have a Creality Ender 3, I've had it for just under 2 years and during a print one morning it suddenly stopped and powered itself off. After checking the fuse and other electronic components it still didn't power on. I purchased a new switch as I thought the problem was there but after replacing it is still did not turn on.
The printer has been working fine and there were no visible or audible anomalies. I urgently need this to be fixed.

This might be a broken Power supply as much as a broken board. To test: keep the mains power unplugged, connect the front USB port to a PC. If you get a screen, the board is ok. Just get a new Power supply in that case.

Ok, I will try that.

Is anything abnormal here: the power supply?

Is anything abnormal: Power supply - link to google drive as image too big  : https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4i3vetngZX0VUQyc21HZkR2bzF3amFuQkViLUN5azM0NnNN/view?usp=sharing

I am not an electrician, but the 8A/230V fuse of the Power supply seems to be intact. Do NOT work with mains voltage unless you have undergone the necessary training to do so! Take all the necessary precautions as you need to work with electricity under mains voltage! Thomas has a tutorial on what might be needed to repair them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHBpDxf6eVA

I think it may be wise to invest in a multimeter, you would then be able to check if the PSU outputs 12/24 V (depending on the output voltage).

Does the outlet that you're plugging it into have power? (Yea this happened to me once with my Anet A8)

@TimLi When you buy a multimeter, note that although many 3D printers work from 12 V (as mentioned by 0scar), an Ender 3 uses a 24 V PSU. A convenient place to measure is found by disconnecting (with the PSU switched off) the yellow connector.

Purchased new power supply after testing he board. Thanks for your help.

@trish Thankyou for your help.
I did purchased the new power supply and everything works fine now.


text:
The part printed correctly except few layers
As you can see from the picture, the part is good except some missing layers near the bottom. I have tried to search for this problem but nothing similar appeared. So, what might be the cause and what is the name for this problem?

Printer: Ender3, new.
Slicer: Cura
Nozzle: 0.4 mm
Temperature:

200 °C nozzle
50 °C bed

Material: PLA
Print speed: 50 mm/s

Welcome to 3dPrinting.SE! In order to even start considering your problem, we need to know some key things which may not seem important to you. Such as, what type of filament you are using, what are your bed/extruder temps, what slicer you are using, plus whatever else you can think of about the setup and such of the printer you're using. How long have your had your printer? Is it well used? Is this a new issue or does it appear in all of your prints? Please edit your question and insert as much information as you can so we can attempt to help you.

@PAULSTER2 Thanks, I did not know all of these information are needed, I just updated the question.

This looks like either the nozzle had been clogged for some layers and it resolved itself or the g-code contained incorrect instructions.
I suggest altering your print settings slightly and reslicing, then just printing it again. To get more accuracy on the prints, I suggest a line width of 0.45 mm.


text:
In Cura, can I make my top and bottom layer be all perimiters?
I'm using Cura to slice my prints. I've noticed that when printing the bottom layer (and also the top layer, if it's flat), it first prints three walls, then fills in the middle by moving back and forth in straight lines.
I've noticed that for my parts, the walls look much nicer than the zig-zag pattern in the middle, and it also seems that the zig-zag part detaches from the bed quite easily, whereas the walls don't.
My parts would look much better, and possibly also stick better to the bed, if I set the number of walls to 100 or so, so that the parts would be entirely filled in with walls. But then the parts would be completely solid, which isn't what I want. So what I want to achieve is that the bottom layer (and if possible also the top layer) are printed as if the part was composed entirely of walls, but the other layers are printed with three walls as normal. Is this possible in Cura?

I found the answer myself just after posting - I'm posting it because it might be helpful to other Cura novices.
There is a setting for this, it's just that it's not shown by default. In print settings, you have to click on the three lines next to the search box, and select "Show All Settings". Then you can find a setting called "Top/Bottom Pattern". Setting this to "concentric" does what I described.
Actually this setting affects not just the top and bottom layers, but all layers that are part of the top and bottom shell. This seems like a good thing, but if you really want to affect just the bottom layer, there's a setting "Bottom Pattern Initial Layer" that does this. There is also a setting under "Experimental" called "Top Surface Skin Pattern" that I think does the same for just the top layer.
In addition to "Concentric" there is also a "Zig Zag" option that's quite similar to the default "Lines" mode.
You can also change the visibility of settings in the preferences menu, to make these settings show up by default.

The Zig-Zag pattern is likely to give you better stability though.

@SimonRichter Can you explain what you mean by stability? Bed adhesion or something else?

@Robert, if the plastic doesn't fill out the space completely, you end up stacking the gaps on top of each other, so the surface would break more easily. The zig-zag pattern avoids this by rotating each layer.

@SimonRichter Makes sense. Any downside to a single concentric bottom layer?

@Robert, you mean, a single concentric layer, then zig-zag over that? Would work, I think.

Note that this does not work if the product is a little more complex or has holes in it, using "concentric" gives a very strange (mozaic) infill, not just perimeters... you do get a few more perimeters but also a strange mozaic infill.

The latest Cura that I have (4.2.1) includes "Ironing" in its options.  When I enabled this, it prints the top layer twice.  The first time with extrusion and the second time with just a little bit of extrusion (default is 10%) at 90 degrees to the first one.  This effectively "irons out" the zig-zag pattern giving you a nice smooth top to your parts.
I was very impressed at how well this works (YMMV of course :-) ).

I tried this also. It works quite well, though it leaves its own distinctive texture. There is also an option to do the ironing in a concentric pattern, but I found that didn't work so well, at least in combination with the other settings I used (which included a concentric printing pattern for the top layer) - it pushed the edge of the top surface outward, forming a lip, like an upside-down version of the elephant's foot issue.

@Nathaniel if you are getting an "elephant's foot" on the top layer, you might want to turn the ironing extrusion down from 10% to maybe 5% or even just 1%.  It sounds like your printer isn't generating very solid prints by default.

I think it was to do with having both the ironing pattern and the top/bottom pattern set to concentric. Because it's going over the same lines I think the lines from the previous layer can get sort of squished around by the ironing step, and that's why they got pushed outward. Some time I will experiment with the settings for that and see if I can get better results. With the ironing set to a different pattern it worked quite well.


text:
Technique for removing support from Ultimaker 2+?
I have made some prints with the Ultimaker 2+ and Ultimaker 2 Extended+. The prints are in PLA. For slicing, I use Cura and I check the support checkbox (haven't gone to advanced settings to adjust support yet). I can clearly see that there is a little space between the support and the print. The supports often look like long pillars and such.
My question then is: "What is the best technique for removing the support?". Is it to use a knife, pliers or perhaps PLA-water? Is it possible to use PLA-water to remove support when printed with Ulitmaker 2+ or is that just the Ultimaker 3? What type of technique would give a good looking print?
Ultimaker 3 has support filament that's water-soluble. Is there something similar for Ultimaker 2+?

just... break it off? I use tweezers and post-process with a knife.. PLA is not water-soluble.

The Ultimaker 2+ is a single extruder 3D printer. Without changing the PLA spool and PVA spool continuously during the print you practically cannot make water soluble supports on the Ultimaker 2+ which can be done on the Ultimaker 3. Note that PVA (from experience) is strange material to print, the filament is very hygroscopic and will form bubbles during printing when moist. Also, PVA is prone to clog the nozzle (it cooks easily) it therefore has its own printer core (nozzle assembly) on the Ultimaker 3 (still it clogs easily). Furthermore, it takes a while to dissolve in water.
If you have a single extruder and nozzle, your best option is to use the same material for support, but modify the support settings as such that it can be easily removed. E.g. on thin layer heights (0.1 mm) I usually increase the gap between support and product over the default value, see this answer.
On dual extruder printers, e.g. on the Ultimaker 3 and S5, my colleagues have better experience using Ultimaker Breakaway filament rather than using PVA. As with the PLA supports, you need to "break them away" from the actual product; I use a Leatherman Charge or FREE P4 as these tools have fine pointed pliers. Note that there are removal tools available that are best described as soldering irons that can aid in the removal of support structures:

Note that I have mixed feelings about this product; it is hard to neatly remove supports using these small soldering irons, but it sometimes works.

PLA and ABS are hard plastics. They are not water-soluble. If you print with these materials, just snap printed support materials off and clean the interface layer with a knife and sanding.
To remove the support, it is best to use strong tweezers or a pair of pliers to grip and then apply some force. Generally, I use needle pliers, but occasionally I also use snippets to cut up the support towers into more manageable chunks and keep the printed part safer. It can help to remove it in pieces and score the breaking lines.
As PLA is brittle, I prefer to break away from the object and not pull.

Yes, but I'm asking for a technique for "snapping it off". What tool do you use, and how to you do it?

@Vebjorn- I'm guessing that you could score the line that you wish to break at, with a craft/Stanley knife first, in order to "encourage" a clean break at the correct point


text:
How to get rid of deforming small prints?
When printing a big base on the bed, I got no warping, but once I print small part (3 or less inches wide), there is a bit of warping on my piece as I remove it.

It is 2 inches wide by 1 mm thick by the base. It seems to be well sticked to the bed while printing, but once removed, it bends a bit. I tried multiple times and it bends at a different place.
I was wondering if it may be thicker if it won't bend at all.
Can you guys help me with it?
Here my Slic3r settings:
# generated by PrusaSlicer 2.1.0+win64 on 2019-10-19 at 11:38:38 UTC
avoid_crossing_perimeters = 0
bed_temperature = 60
bottom_fill_pattern = rectilinear
bottom_solid_layers = 7
brim_width = 5
cooling = 1
end_filament_gcode = "; Filament-specific end gcode \n;END gcode for filament\n"
end_gcode = M104 S0 ; turn off temperature\nG28 X0 Y0 ; home X and Y axis\nG1 Z210 F5000 ; Send Z to top\nM84     ; disable motors\n
ensure_vertical_shell_thickness = 1
external_perimeter_extrusion_width = 0.45
external_perimeter_speed = 50%
extrusion_multiplier = 1
extrusion_width = 0.45
fan_always_on = 1
filament_diameter = 1.75
filament_settings_id = "FlyingBear Ghost 4"
filament_type = PLA
fill_angle = 45
fill_density = 20%
fill_pattern = stars
first_layer_bed_temperature = 65
first_layer_extrusion_width = 0.42
first_layer_height = 0.2
first_layer_speed = 30
first_layer_temperature = 200
infill_extrusion_width = 0.45
infill_overlap = 25%
infill_speed = 80
layer_height = 0.1
nozzle_diameter = 0.4
perimeter_extruder = 1
perimeter_extrusion_width = 0.45
perimeter_speed = 45
print_settings_id = FlyingBear Ghost 4
printer_settings_id = FlyingBear Ghost 4
printer_technology = FFF
retract_before_travel = 1
retract_before_wipe = 0%
retract_layer_change = 1
retract_length = 0.8
retract_length_toolchange = 10
retract_lift = 0
retract_lift_above = 0
retract_lift_below = 209
retract_restart_extra = 0
retract_restart_extra_toolchange = 0
retract_speed = 40
seam_position = aligned

As I said, I got no problem adhering to the bed, it's when I remove it from the bed it becomes deformed.

@EricBrochu you can't switch comments to answers. Often, very "common" errors tend to end in comments first as a first step of troubleshooting, which then get formulated out into answers later.

Pla is flexible and can be shaped at temperatures as low as 50 deg C. To prevent deforming your prints in removing them, you should wait for the bed to reach room temperature. This takes about 5 minutes after a print ended.


text:
How to make symmetric Low-Poly objects in meshmixer?
I've made low-poly objects using Reduce function in Meshmixer. My objects are symmetric and I want to keep the symmetry in the low-poly because it's more beautiful, But the software doesn't necessary keep the symmetry.
using mirror function results in losing flat faces and many problems...
Is there any specific way to make a symmetric low-poly?

The best way would be to follow a four-step workflow:

Reduce complexity.
Cut the object along the symmetry plane.
Discard one half of the object.
Mirror the cut object along the cut symmetry plane.

authors: กิตติพงษ์ พิมพ์ทอง


text:
How far off-plane of a 4th-corner probe should be cause for concern during bed leveling?
On my TAZ Pro, after modifying and reinstalling my build surface, I have the following verbose output from running self-calibration:
> [21:30:51] G29 V4
< [21:30:53] G29 Auto Bed Leveling
< [21:31:01] Bed X: -10.000 Y: -9.000 Z: -0.010
< [21:31:11] Bed X: 288.000 Y: -9.000 Z: -1.347
< [21:31:21] Bed X: 288.000 Y: 291.000 Z: -0.937
< [21:31:31] Bed X: -10.000 Y: 291.000 Z: -0.061
< [21:31:31] 4th probe point, distance from plane: 0.46
< [21:31:31] Eqn coefficients: a: -0.00371342 b: 0.00059800 d: -0.15685220
< [21:31:31] Mean of sampled points: -0.58869988
< [21:31:31]
< [21:31:31] Bed Height Topography:
< [21:31:31]   +--- BACK --+
< [21:31:31]   |           |
< [21:31:31] L |    (+)    | R
< [21:31:31] E |           | I
< [21:31:31] F | (-) N (+) | G
< [21:31:31] T |           | H
< [21:31:31]   |    (-)    | T
< [21:31:31]   |           |
< [21:31:31]   O-- FRONT --+
< [21:31:31] (0,0)
< [21:31:31] +0.52750 -0.34810
< [21:31:31] +0.57910 -0.75850
< [21:31:31]
< [21:31:31]
< [21:31:31] Corrected Bed Height vs. Bed Topology:
< [21:31:31] +0.00001 +0.23100
< [21:31:31] +0.23101 +0.00000
< [21:31:31]
< [21:31:31]
< [21:31:31]
< [21:31:31] Bed Level Correction Matrix:
< [21:31:31] +0.999993 +0.000000 -0.003713
< [21:31:31] +0.000002 +1.000000 +0.000598
< [21:31:31] +0.003713 -0.000598 +0.999993

How can I evaluate whether this is a reasonable result, or if it means something is broken and needs to be fixed?
(I'm definitely seeing very significant variances in actual distance between the head and the build surface with the same "Z height" according to the LCD controller; I'm trying to determine whether this could be a bed-leveling issue).

Maybe I don't understand what I'm seeing, but it looks to me as though your bed is now warped. In the correction matrix, if you look at the three corrections from the upper left to the lower right,  you'll see it is ~+1 for all three, while the other six points are at or near zero (one is even below zero). This would put a crown in the bed from upper left to lower right corners. I would bet if you put a straight edge on your bed in the upper right to lower left directions, you'd see this. I'm not sure how it would affect your prints, but I bet it will deform them.


text:
My DIY printer only boots when all my endstops are triggered. Why is that?
Recycling a Robin Nano board to build a 3D printer using an old computer PSU (300 W), it only boots on when I have no endstops pugged in at all or if I trigger all the ones I have plugged. At the moment I release them the screen goes off (but the fan of the PSU is still on). Does anyone have any clue about what's going on ?

Welcome to 3dPrinting.SE! What controller are you using? Have you double checked to ensure you've attached everything correctly? Have you tried it without anything plugged in (no endstops or motors)?

I doubled and tripled check the wiring. When nothing is plugged it goes on properly. Controller board is a Robin nano board.

Sounds like the endstop switches are shorting VCC to GND when not pressed. I guess the logic board has its own 5V regulator because I imagine the computer PSU would happily melt cabling or weld the switches.

I used the nano board previously on a printer with a 24 v psu without any endstops related issues. The nano is supposed to manage both 24 and 12 volts. I doubled checked on the endstops boards to make sure signal, ground and VCC are corresponding.

In line with @r_ahlskog 's comment - either that or your board is expecting NO switches but yours are somehow N/C switches.

@R_asidkog your comment is good. It may not be right,  but it is good. I can't upvote it because it is not an "answer". Could you submit it as an answer?

It ended up I had like super cheap endstops that were actually shorting VCC to GND. Just bought other ones and now it's working Thanks all !

From your fault description of printer logic board losing power when endstops are released it sounds to me like those endstops are shorting VCC to GND when not pressed. That the fault also goes away when the endstops are unplugged reinforces this.
I guess the logic board has its own protected regulator because otherwise you would be shorting out the power supply and that would also turn itself off after likely causing a lot of damage to the logic board.

It ended up I had like super cheap endstops that were actually shorting VCC to GND, as suspected by r_ahlskog. Just bought other ones and now it's working fine.

I'm starting to think that those switches were just wired wrong for your printer. Should I try and edit in that into my answer.

it is relevant in context qith this question if your endstops are NO or NC. It sounds they are NC.


text:
How do I find the best settings for a resin?
I have an Epax X1, I have just purchased the 2nd and 3rd bottle of resin, but I don't know what are the best settings.
What is the best way to find the best settings for a new resin?
Is it possible to print a calibration object that starts with some settings and changes as it goes? For example starts with 12 seconds and decreases half second every 5 mm?
EDIT
The 2 resins I am dealing with right now are Nova3D and Elegoo. Any help with those two resins would help right now, but I would love to have a more generic answer that would allow me to explore and troubleshoot any resin without asking every time.

Do the resins come with papers? Usually, suggested settings are in there.

No. I have one ELEGOO Yellow and one NOVA3D Black, and they both came with no settings.

mind sharing a picture of the label on the bottle or packaging?

I added the links to Amazon to the post, please let me know if that's enough for you.

Since every printer is slightly different (light intensity, for example), you probably want to run one of those 12-spot test patterns where each "spot" gets a different exposure time, then see what time works best.

Since every printer is slightly different (light intensity, for example), you probably want to run one of those 12-spot test patterns where each "spot" gets a different exposure time, then see what time works best.
I found a more general test pattern at Amerilabs Calibration File which may be useful. Not to mention a zillion other test patterns

Those tests seem to be just solid models that will tell you if your settings are right. This means that I need to print the same test with different settings many times and pick the best. Wouldn't be easier to print one test with different settings? One single program that starts with long exposure times and gradually speeds up?

@stenci that would be the multi-spot profile.  The one I had (and lost) exposed one spot at a time but didn't change the Z-axis position, so that each spot is the "first layer"

This test is not just a verification solid, is a program that tries different exposures and shows them all side by side: https://github.com/altLab/photon-resin-calibration
The test doesn't move slower and slower, but it does something equivalent: keeps the plate in the same position while changing the bitmap.
EDIT
I tried the test, and I'm not happy about it. I tested the same black resin with the 0.02 and 0.05 layer thicknesses, and according to the tests I should use 8 seconds with the 0.02 and 6 seconds with the 0.05. This result goes against anything I heard about relation between layer thickness and exposure time.
I also read in an issue in the repository that the test is not reliable with clear resins. My 2 tests are so thin that my black resin is transparent. I don't know if this is a factor, it just doesn't feel right.
I will keep searching for a better test and update this post if I find one.


text:
GRBL: inaccurate on X axis by ~4 mm on 400 mm
This is GRBL-related. I have a laser-engraver type machine, Chinese, ~550 mm X axis, aluminium extrusions, 2mm-pitch T belt, Nema 17H3430 motors, one mechanical homing switch for X, Arduino-based.
The X-axis accuracy is not up to par. When I make a mark on the X axis and jog to that mark (after homing), depending on the day, the position varies within ~4 mm or so. Sometimes I have to use G00 X-418, others G00 X-422.
I checked the belt tension, it seems OK, not too tight, not too loose. Is there something else I should check?
Another idea I have: put a homing switch on the other end of the X-axis, then home both ends of the X-axis, measuring the difference in machine position, then modify the steps/mm value for each session to force the command that puts me on the mark to be constant (e.g. G00 X-420). Any other ideas? Thanks.

This seems to be either a case of either belt slop or missed steps or it is a case of the accuracy of the limit switch.
If the limit switch moves even a little into either direction, you have to account twice that as the maximum error. So the 4 mm error could come from 2 mm into either direction from the 0-position.
However, there is a silver lining: Laser engraving, just like CNC, usually first dials in the 0 regarding the workpiece instead of the 0 of the machine. As long as the machine's movement is ok, you should be fine even without tightening the mounting of the X-endstop. I suggest to run the following test to find out what kind of error actually hounds you though:

Mount a waste piece
Go to a position on the workpiece
Run the laser for a split second
X10
Run the laser for a split second
Repeat 4&5 till you have 10 points
Measure the real distances between the dots engraved

If the distances are always the same but short, you have the wrong steps/mm set and need to adjust them accordingly. If the distances are inconsistent, you have either lost steps or a sloppy belt. To fight lost steps, carefully up the signal to the motor a little. If the results don't change from that, tighten the belt a little - it should sing like a guitar string.

Thanks, I'll go through the steps. By "signal to the motor", I assume you mean the current on the drivers (TMC2130), which I set according to a formula I found for them. BTW, the motors are very quiet (as expected) and move evenly.

@MrSparkly yes, upping the current can sometimes help to counter lost steps.


text:
How does slipping Bowden tube affect retraction or does it at all?
I have an Ender 3 Pro with upgraded Bowden capricorn tube. The tube will move approximately 1-2 mm during normal operation, though it will not come out of the coupler at all. I have read that the movement if unchanging (constant movement of 1-2 mm) can be compensated for with settings adjustment to avoid retraction issues such that it will extrude or retract "that much less"... I do not understand how this is possible...
Im confused by comments that a slipping Bowden tube on the extruder side only, say by up to 2 mm, is "lost retraction"... I have this problem too with the Bowden tube only at the extruder end, not the hotend, and wonder if it is really an issue at all. Here's why...
The filament is in direct contact with the gear and wheel of the extruder. If the Bowden tube is only moving in/out of the extruder end of the coupler, there are no "gaps" being created to cause leakage of the filament, etc on the hot end...As the extruder is either pushing or retracting, the filament inside the tube is still moving as much as intended regardless of the amount of play of the Bowden tube... no? therefore, retracting will not be affected at all, nor would the extruding process. Am I wrong and if so, can someone explain to me how this would be?
Note, I can see that this movement may cause under-extrusion on the feeding side process, as the machine is expecting say, 0.5 mm extrusion, but then has to compensate (unknowingly) for the slipping out tube during the "push", so not enough gets "out", but should not affect the retraction amount as the filament is still being pulled directly from the gears/roller.
Am I wrong and if so, can someone explain to me how this would affect the retraction along with the under-extrusion?

Hi and welcome to SE.3DP :-)

To prevent the tube from slipping, use a clip on the pneumatic connectors.

It does have the clip, but the tube slips anyway. I have been looking at replacement of this part since it was like this out of the box for both "stock" creality part and the one supplied with the metal extruder and info suggests aftermarket connectors with metal teeth are the best fix.

The slipping does result in lost retraction distance. It does not result in underextrusion, lost material (except possibly via having insufficient retraction after the reduction), or anything like that.
If your retraction is set to 6 mm, but the bowden pulls 2 mm into the coupler when you retract, those first 2 mm of filament motion do not pull the filament out of the hotend at all. The position of the filament relative to the tube (and thus relative to the nozzle) remains constant. After the tube can be pulled back no further into the coupler, the remaining retraction pulls the filament back through the bowden tube, for 4 mm of retraction at the hotend/nozzle.
When unretracting, the reverse happens. The first 2 mm of extruder motion push the bowden tube out of the coupler, and don't move the filament relative to the tube (or the hotend). After that the next 4 mm push the filament through the tube and back to the nozzle orifice.
The result is the filament ending up back exactly where it started, but having backed out only 4 mm from the nozzle, not the requested 6 mm.
These numbers are just examples but probably about right. If you put the plastic clip on the pneumatic coupler, the slipping should stop, but you can also just increase retraction if the amount after the loss to slipping is not sufficient.

The retraction is also delayed, since the first 2 mm (in your example) of movement do nothing, although they may result in a quick reduction of the extrusion pressure in the nozzle.

@cmm: Yes, that's a great point. It doesn't matter too much for the way slicers normally use retraction, doing it synchronously before moving on with travel moves, but it would be a major problem if they did it concurrently with travel, and it would utterly break linear-advance.

This is happening to my E3 pro. When the Bowden tube slips back filament fills up the gap causing a heat creep issue. This of course causes clogged nozzle. If retracting I have had the swollen filament lodge in the tube to the point I had to remove tube and heat high enough with heat gun to soften filament for a reverse pull as there was nothing left on the hotend side to pull.
My solution  after a week of frustration was to replace the coupling.

This effect you describe is not heat creep. New tube, new coupling and a horseshoe washer will fix this.


text:
Is it safe to use photon-resin-calibration for Epax printer?
This repository contains a calibration test for DLP printers.
As its file Instructions.txt says, it is an ANYCUBIC RESIN EXPOSURE FINDER by X3msnake.
Are all the files, both .photon and .gcode, compatible with the Epax X1 printer?

Yes, it seems to be.
I tried the test and it worked well.

Hi stenci and welcome to SE.3DP. I'm glad that you proved the case. Please don't forget to mark your answer as the accepted answer, using the (green) tick icon next to your answer. That will remove your queue from our unanswered queue list. Thanks in advance. You might have to wait 24 hours though, before you can see the tick icon...

Please explain the test in the answer, as that would make this answer much better. SLA and DLP are things many in the community have little experience with, so any information you propagate your experience and how you acquire it can help others perform the same tests to check if their resin is compatible with their printer.


text:
Temperature settings not changing in Cura
I seem to have got Cura into a state where changing the material has no effect on the settings. I am a beginner with Cura, and I would like to understand what I've done wrong, and how I can undo it.
More details:
My part is meant to be printed in PETG, but I first did some test prints in PLA to get all the non-material related settings right (e.g. infill, top/bottom pattern, etc.). When I changed the material from "PLA" to "PETG", it gave me a popup saying that I had changed these settings and asking me if I wanted to keep or discard the changes - I selected keep. I'm pretty sure that temperature, fan speed etc. weren't on that list of changes, otherwise I would have pressed discard.
However, the temperature, fan speed etc. also didn't change, they all stayed at their appropriate values for PLA. This effect seems to be permanent - they stay at their PLA values even if I select 'Settings -> Profile -> Discard current changes' from the menu, or if I select the 'Draft' or 'High' profiles, which I haven't yet used.
I noticed also that if I go to 'Manage Profiles', I find that all three profiles include settings for the material, including a 200 degree printing temperature and a 60 degree bed temperature. I guess that these are overriding the settings associated with the material. I guess that these settings are not supposed to be in the profiles, so I want to understand how they got there and whether/how I should remove them.
It's possible that I did manually change those temperature settings for some previous print - but I wouldn't have expected that to have such a permanent effect.

You're on the right track: you need to set up your PETG profile under Manage Profiles and save it as a new profile.

@CarlWitthoft if that's correct it strikes me as rather strange. If I'm supposed to manually enter the temperature etc. and save it as a separate profile, then why is there an option to change the material at all? Surely the whole point of having material and profile be different things is that you can change one without changing the other...

You probably have to clear/reset temp overrides in the profile so it honors the defaults from the material.

(I don't generally use the Cura gui, just the slicing engine, so I'm not sure.)

@R.. I guess the issue is, it's not clear how to do that in the GUI. (But on another note: cool, I didn't know you could use the engine separately. Can I ask you, since you're here, whether the command line tool allows you to run the slicing step separately from g-code generation? If so, it might make a good answer to this question, which would be super super cool.)

You're right in that the profile overrides the material. Cura's overriding precedence is as follows, where higher numbers override the lower numbers:

Cura's base defaults.
Printer specific settings.
Adjustments to the printer made in the Machine Settings dialogue.
Nozzle profiles.
Material profiles.
Quality levels (aka built-in profiles).
Custom profiles.
Settings not yet saved to a profile.

In the Cura GUI, once a setting has been saved to a profile, there is no way to really get it out again. You can only create a new profile and copy over all of your overrides.
However for the temperature you can still click on the little fx button next to the setting. This will restore the link from the setting to inherit again from different settings. In the case of printing temperature, the material profile actually adjusts the "Default Printing Temperature" setting. Clicking the fx button makes it go back to "use the Default Printing Temperature" so that your material's temperature is used again.
The same does not go for fan speed, sadly.
The Cura developers are planning to remove the fx button and replace it with a button to remove a setting override from a custom profile. That would fix your problem. It's not implemented yet though.
Source: Am Cura developer.


text:
What determines print start location on the build plate?
I'm working with an older MakerBot Replicator clone, actually a Flashforge Creator 1, with original Creator firmware.

I'm able to design objects, using Solidworks, and exporting the file as xxx.stl (ascii)
Then I use Slic3r to generate tool paths with output as xxx.gcode
finally, I use GPX UI to generate a xxx.x3g file.

I don't understand where on the build plate the print starts.  Is that controlled by the 3d printer's firmware values, or something else in the chain from .stl --> .gcode --> x3g ??     Right now my prints start in the corner nearest 0,0.0, instead of in the middle of the build plate.
How do I control where to place the 3d print on the build plate?
edit: Apologies for the delay.  As a result of the answers posted here, I did a whole bunch more testing.  The initial response from @mick, seems to indicate that what you see in the Slicer preview is what you'll see on the print bed. That makes sense, but that is definitely not what I'm seeing.  I definitely don't see anywhere anything that remotely looks like a check the box [] center.  Here's what I do see:
When I drop the object into Slic3r, it goes to middle of build plate.

Unfortunately here's what gets printed.
Attempt #1, off in space

Attempt #2, Right Hand Margin

Attempt #3, Near the front.

I tried moving the print head to center of build plate, thinking that might be a logical start point. No go.  Print start moves head to home (rear right corner of print bed) then after elements heat up to temp, it seems to select a random spot on the build plate to start.  I never touched the .x3g file between these attempts.  So I'm right back to where I started, per the title of this posting "What determines print start location on the build plate?"

So it turns out there are elements from each of the previous answers that make sense here, but its not a clear picture.  I've spent a whole lot of time trying to make sense of this. I also upgraded my firmware to Sailfish.
For the MakerBot Replicator (or FastForge Creator) family of 3d printers, the origin of the build plate is NOT at any of the corners, its right in the center of the build plate. Reference here.

4.1 Home Offsets:
  By convention, the center of the build platform is assumed to be the point (0,0,0) in XYZ space. The X, Y, and Z home offsets tell the printer the location of the X, Y, and Z endstops in relation to the build platform’s center.

Looks like this:

And it would appear that most other 3D printers are not using this convention. Sigh.   From my testing, the main control of print location is within the G-Code generated by the slicer.  The tool I was using, Slic3r does give one a chance to correct that
adjustment.  You have to go to top menu Settings --> Printer Settings --> Size and Coordinates (Bed Shape) --> Set to get a nice popup visual tool.  See below.
Unfortunately the default setting is accurate for the overall bed size, but is a fail for the origin location on the bed.  The default origin is set at 0,0, in the corner.  Ouch. Big ouch.  The origin needs to be located right in the center of the build plate (to be consistent with the firmware controlling the print for this family of printers).  It should look like this:

Note, when you tell the printer to go to 'home' it doesn't go to origin (0,0,0) it goes to the endstops.
 G68 X0 Y0 F500 ; Perform Homing Routine

So as long as you understand the quirks of these printers things will work out.  You have to ensure offsets are set accurately in firmware config files. (Replicator / Sailfish) And you have to indicate the correct center location to the slicer program.  I will say the advice given here was of some help in understanding this. Many thanks.  I'm posting here in case others using the Replicator or FastForge Creator series of printers is having troubles centering their prints on the build plate.
Additional info for anybody using a MakerBot Replicator or Flashforge Creator series printer with Slic3r. I wanted to add my custom G-code stuff. The default Slic3r stuff definitely did not work.
Printer Settings --> Custom G-Code --> Start G-Code
M103 ; Turn all extruders off, Extruder Retraction
G21 ; set units to mm
G90 ; Use absolute coordinates
(**** begin homing ****)
G162 X Y F2500 ; home XY axes to maximum stops
G161 Z F1100 ; home Z axis to minimum stop
G92 Z-5 ; Set Position Z =-5mm
G1 Z0.0 ; move Z to "0"
G161 Z F100 ; home Z axis to minimum stop slowly
M132 X Y Z A B ; Recall stored home offsets for XYZAB axis
               ; Loads the axis offset of the current home position from the EEPROM and waits for the buffer to empty.
G90 ; Use absolute coordinates
G1 X0 Y0 Z50 F3300.0 ; move to waiting position near center of build plate

Printer Settings --> Custom G-Code --> End G-Code
M109 S0 T0 ; Cool down the build platform
M104 S0 T0 ; Cool down the Right Extruder
M104 S0 T1 ; Cool down the Left Extruder
M73 P100 ; End  build progress
G0 Z150 ; Send Z axis to bottom of machine
M18 ; Disable steppers
G162 X Y F2500 ; Home XY endstops
M18 ; Disable stepper motors
M70 P30 ; We <3 Making Things! Yipee, you made it...
; display message above for 30 seconds
M72 P1 ; Play Ta-Da song

One other thing I do with Slic3r.  I print a single loop of print on the periphery of a phantom skirt.  I do this as a printer head clean extrude exercise.
Print Settings --> Skirt and Brim --> Skirt --> Loops (minimum): 1, Distance from object: 6mm, Skirt height: 1   This works well.  I do this in lieu of the G-code startup used in ReplicatorG software (which went to the lower left hand corner, and did this odd 4mm extrude exercise, with odd timing...)  The skirt thing works just fine.

Nice to know Sailfish treats the origin differently then Marlin. Maybe you could add that the clone you are running is using Sailfish firmware, for Marlin it is in the corner. If you would have used Marin firmware, all other answers make sense. Nice to come back and post an answer! Much appreciated!

Marlin uses the CNC definitions, which is the corner.

Thanks for the detailed update. Glad you got it sorted.

It sounds like you have "Origin at center" checked in your slicer's printer definition. That is generally only used with delta printers. Most Cartesian printers have the origin at the front-left corner of the build plate. Uncheck "Origin at center" and re-slice.
Providing that you have set up your slicer with the build plate dimensions and origin correctly defined, your models will be printed where the slicer shows them in the preview. You can rearrange the models before you slice, of course.

Not sure you addressed the questions I asked. Revision?

@zipzit I was going to post a comment asking you if you had the origin set at the center of the build plate. That is the usual reason for getting prints at the corner of a build plate.

see update above. Any ideas on what’s going on?  Thx.

STL files contain an origin. However, this is totally ignored when generating G-code, the slicer chooses the origin based on settings.
G-code itself is a string of commands. One of these G28 calls for the origin of the machine to be found by moving mechanically to this position. Usually, it is all formatted to take this or the power-up position as 0 and then moves relative to that. It always moves in reference to the last position, or this 0 (absolute mode).
.x3d is an XML type of file that describes a 3D model. It reformats G-code to be read by different types of machines. It too only moves with reference to the last position, taking the position on powerup as 0 to move against unless homed.
Convention
The convention for CNC is, that the front-top-left corner of the workpiece is to be $\{0;0;0\}$ as the origin for the right-hand-rule. CNC then usually operates in a purely positive XY area and only works in negative Z, which is fitting for cutting. It doesn't preclude negative areas as to achieve cuts, going into the negative room is sometimes mandatory.
Taking this convention to 3D printing puts the front-left(-bottom) corner of the build plate (volume) to be the origin, because of the right-hand rule: The coordinate room is then strictly positive in XYZ (right as X, back for Y, up for Z), all absolute, strictly positive coordinates within the positive build volume can be moved to. However, instead of allowing negative coordinates, 3D printing does not allow any coordinates outside of the build volume that is ranged from 0 to the maxima set in the firmware.
This convention fails for Delta printers, which pretty much extrapolate the heights of the individual steppers via trigonometric calculations from cylinder coordinates $\{ r ; \phi ; z\}$ - radius, an angle of 0° to 360° and the Z-coordinate. In this coordinate room, math gets much easier putting 0 into the center of the build plate, which is circular; The transformation to cartesian coordinates is $\{ r \cos(\phi) ; r\sin(\phi) ; z\}$; the inverse transformation from cartesian to cylinder coordinates is somewhat more complex and uses case differentiation..
Error
Let's say the build plate has dimensions $a$ and $b$ and the corner with the green clip is $\{0;0;0\}$. The item is sliced to the position $\{a/2 ; b/2\}$ of the bed. It appears at $\{a ; b/2\}$ and $\{a/2 ; b\}$ respectively. This hints that the center of the bed is somehow taken as one of the coordinates.
If the corner without the clip is assumed as $\{0;0;0\}$, then X should be to the right, Y to the front following the right-hand-rule. To see if the coordinates might be skewed, the following command snippet would be useful. Please execute them one by one.
G28 ; home
G1 Z5 ; lift off the bed 5 mm to prevent accidental collisions
G1 X50 F500 ; move 50 mm to positive X - in case of back-right corner home this is to the LEFT
G1 Y50 F500 ; move to what ends up 50 50 5 - in case of back-right corner home this is to the FRONT

Fixing
The problem is probably not the slicer but most likely the firmware defining either the movement axis or the home wrong (either the wrong corner is chosen or the movement axis are defined incorrectly) on the printer. It seems to be totally messed up and should be reflashed with a fresh copy.
It would be a good chance to learn by taking a Blanco variant of marlin and adjusting it to the own printer by chucking in the dimensions into configuration.h and starting from there.

see update above. Any ideas on what’s going on?

@zipzit please home and make a photo of that position. 000 should be the corner with the green clip in picture 1. you seem to have "origin at the center" on, as the cube is sliced in the center of the print and moved half a build plate out in real

Home position is the corner without a clip.  That first attempt displayed above is very close to home.  (in fact,when in home position the left hand output nozzle is right at the corner of the glass shown without clip.. that's why the clip has been removed...)  Note that position matches up with the X,Y,Z direction that includes microswitch stops in the hardware.  At this point, I'm debating replacing the firmware with Sailfish, per this video  Oh, and Trish, thx for your update here.

@zipzit some update about how to test the setup and then a suggestion to start with a 08/15 blanco copy of marlin (08/15 used as the idiom)

Not sure I'm following you on the whole Blanco and Machine gun stuff.  From what I can see my hardware is NOT compatible with Marlin, as released.  I see Makerbot and Flashforge stuff all over the Sailfish references, not a mention of those printers at all at Marlin.  Sailfish seems to be a variant created specifically for that hardware.  Blanco? I can't find a reference to that anywhere.  Idiom and wiki machine gun thing I don't understand what you are trying to say.

@zipzit blanco (spanish for blank) means "not specific" or "not filled in", the basic unsetup version before you fill in anything. like a blanco-check has no value that you don't fill in.

First of all, the firmware determines where your origin of the printer is. This implies that you need to properly set bed dimensions and offset values from the end stop switches in the firmware (usually not necessary out-of-the-box, but important when a newer or different firmware version is uploaded). These offsets determine where the origin of the bed plate is located. For Marlin firmware it is very common to have the origin specified at the front left corner (when facing the printer). From the configuration of Marlin we find that by definition the origin is in the front-left corner (note that this can be rotated 180 degrees in certain printers, so the aft-right):

 *      +-- BACK ---+
 *      |           |
 *    L |    (+) P  | R
 *    E |           | I
 *    F | (-) N (+) | G
 *    T |           | H
 *      |    (-)    | T
 *      |           |
 *      O-- FRONT --+
 *    (0,0)

How do I find the physical origin of the printer?
This can be tested by instructing the head/nozzle to go to e.g. (0, 0, 15) using a terminal/console or a simple G-code file with a move to that coordinate that you print from SD card (e.g. G1 X0 Y0 Z15 F500); note a Z of 15 is chosen for safety!. When this is performed, the nozzle should be at the (elevated, so X, Y) origin as defined by your firmware. Usually this is at the left front corner of your build plate (there may be clips there, so therefore the elevated value), but this may be different depending on the firmware settings or firmware brand.
Next step is to configure the slicer as such that this coincides with the actual origin. Incorrect slicer settings can cause the slicer to assume the origin is at a different position than your actual position. In Ultimaker Cura, the "Origin at center" is notoriously known for this when the physical origin is not in the center, but in a corner.

Any comment on the randomization factor? As far as I know there are no random number generators in Gcode. That points me to printer firmware. Does any machine print in random locations by default? (I guess that would be 'conserve your hairspray' setting :^)

@zipzit The answer was generic but heavily leaning to a corner origin. On second thoughts, the origin can be everywhere, the G-code test proves where it is. I have updated the answer to make that more explicit, this way it does not matter which firmware you have, through a test you determine where it is and adjust the slicer afterwards. Thanks for pointing out that different firmwares may treat the origin differently!


text:
Cura 4.3.0 does not pause on Renkforce RF100 V2.2
Cura (version 4.3.0) has the ability to insert a post processing script to your print. I tried this for printing a key cover around my door key (similar to this question). I designed the STL file with Fusion 360 (version 2.0.6516) and verified that the height of the beginning of the top layers is exactly at 3.1 mm. The top layer itself has a height of 0.5 mm. In Cura I inserted a pause at height 3.1 mm.
I tried different post processing scripts:

Pause at height
Pause at height (BG printers)
Pause at height for Repetier

After inserting the script I did the "slice" and saved the G-code to an SD card. When printing on my RF100 (firmware version 2.2) no script created a pause at all. All scripts printed the full key cover in one step.
The part of the G-Code that does the pause looks like this:
[...]
G1 X57.522 Y62.32 E134.15939
G1 X57.475 Y62.045 E134.1614
G0 F3000 X57.47 Y62.02
G0 X57.469 Y61.845
G1 F2400 E132.1614
G1 F600 Z4
;MESH:NONMESH
G0 F3000 X54.16 Y67.189 Z4
;TIME_ELAPSED:247.492714
;TYPE:CUSTOM
;added code by post processing
;script: PauseAtHeight.py
;current z: 4.15
;current height: 3.1500000000000004
M83 ; switch to relative E values for any needed retraction
G1 F300 Z5.15 ; move up a millimeter to get out of the way
G1 F9000 X190 Y190
G1 F300 Z15 ; too close to bed--move to at least 15mm
M104 S0 ; standby temperature
M0 ; Do the actual pause
M109 S210 ; resume temperature
G1 F300 Z5.15
G1 F9000 X63.338 Y61.621
G1 F300 Z4.15 ; move back down to resume height
G1 F9000
M82 ; switch back to absolute E values
G92 E132.1614
;LAYER:19
;MESH:0d0e86f0-0b59-4e06-9e77-78fe8e77be5b.stl
G0 X54.16 Y67.189 Z4.15
;TYPE:WALL-OUTER
G1 F600 Z3.15
G1 F2400 E134.1614
G1 F2040 X54.171 Y67.193 E134.16172
G1 X54.689 Y67.418 E134.17722
G1 X55.228 Y67.625 E134.19306
G1 X55.776 Y67.811 E134.20894
[...]

Cura out of the box has no machine setting for the RF100 v2, so I used the settings for the RF100 v1 and adjusted the dimensions of the width, depth and height to 120 mm. As G-code flavor I stayed with "Marlin".
What can I do? This question is not specific to a key cover. I could design this so I could insert the key at the end. But I really would like to know how to do a predefined pause during my print.

Your firmware does not support the M0 G-code, please read my updated answer! The solution would be to insert a pause yourself.

Just out of curiosity, have you been able to pause using the answer below? Please vote and accept or add your own solution.

G-code M0 is not supported!1)
According to the original firmware of the RF100, the firmware is based on Marlin Firmware. From the original sources you can find that in order for M0 (or M1 which is a deprecated alias for M0) to work, you need an ULTRA_LCD supported  LCD panel:

 * "M" Codes
 *
 * M0   - Unconditional stop - Wait for user to press a button on the LCD (Only if ULTRA_LCD is enabled)

However, your printer does not support such an LCD panel, from the configuration.h can be read that the constant is disabled (// means that the line is treated as a comment and as such ignored by the compiler):
//#define ULTRA_LCD  //general LCD support, also 16x2

Therefore, these scripts will not work for your printer!
(Not your printer is running a very old version of Marlin; version 1.0.3)

Solution:
It is possible to manually change the G-code for a (in this case) Marlin based firmware2) (so no adding of a pause by Cura) by inserting a few lines to:

First set relative movement (G91), then retract a certain amount of filament (G1 E-2 F500) or alternatively use G10 using predefined retraction definitions in M207;
Insert a dwell period by inserting the G-code G4 (plus a time to wait), e.g. G4 P2000 to dwell for 2000 milliseconds (alternatively, G4 S2 will also pause for 2 seconds), please adjust the value to an adequate one in which you can insert the object;
First, unretract filament (G1 E2 F500) and then put the printer back in absolute movement (G90 or alternatively use G11 using predefined retraction definitions in M207.

1) By your firmware version/implementation
2) Note that certain G-codes only work for certain firmwares! Fortunately, the original firmware of the RF100 is based on Marlin Firmware (unless it has been changed form the factory default.)


text:
Ender 3 failing on brim for wide curves
When trying to print wide curves (~4inch radius), later layers of the brim seem to print too close (or over extrude, or otherwise collide) with previous layers, causing the previous layers to detach from the bed. Examples:

(I realise that in these pictures my z-offset looks too small, but I have tried this at a range of z-offsets until the print fails to adhere to the bed at all. The issue persists throughout the whole range of z-offset)
My setup:

Ender 3
v1.1.4 mainboard with non-silent steppers
genuine bltouch v3, with official creality pin27 kit*
marlin 1.1.9 bugfix firmware*
single probe
stock build surface (religiously alcoholed thoroughly before every print)
cura slicer 4.2.0
Start gcode heats bed, homes (G28), performs ABL* (G29), then heats nozzle (don't have the actual gcode on my now as I'm away from my slicing computer)

*issues existed before installing the bltouch, while running completely stock printer and firmware.
Why are these curved brims failing?  How can I make these models print properly?
(I don't think it's related, hence posting it as a different question but just incase it is: my bl touch doesn't always behave properly.
The issues listed in that question however usually mean that the print does not even get to this stage.)

when did you last clean your print surface and relevel?

I clean the build surface with isopropyl alcohol before every print, and re-level after any failed first layer.  Each of the pictures was taken immediately after doing both of those processes.

what's your first layer thickness?

What is the target temperature of both your nozzle and HBP? Also what material filament are you working with?

Printing pla anywhere between 180-200 (have experimented with no effect on this issue) and bed 40-50. Initial layer 0.2mm.


text:
Ender 3 BLTouch fails in assorted ways
My recently installed BLTouch probe regularly fails to perform ABL properly.  There seem to be 3-4 failure modes:

Probe manages some points but fails partway through, with a "probing failed" message on the LCD screen, rendering it necessary to power-cycle the printer
Probe deploys on some point, then stows itself immediately, and treats that point as being a centimeter or two about where it actually is.
Probe completes all 9 points, then heats the nozzle in the back corner and never moves. The progress bar on the LCD counts up and eventually it claims to have finished the print, but the steppers (including the extruder) never move.
Probe flashes red throughout the cycle, which I believe means it failed a self-test probably because the mainboard started trying to speak to it before it was initialized, but occasionally when this occurs, it still works as expected.
For avoidance of doubt - sometimes it actually does work, and I get beautiful prints that adhere well during printing but are easily removed afterwards.  And I have never had any issues with the Z homing using the probe, only the auto mesh levelling.

My setup:

Creality Ender 3
v1.1.4 mainboard with non-silent steppers
genuine BLTouch v3, with official Creality pin27 kit
Marlin 1.1.9 bugfix firmware, downloaded as hex file
single iteration of probing
9 point levelling mesh
Ultimaker Cura slicer 4.2.0
Start G-code heats bed, homes G28, performs ABL G29, then heats nozzle (I don't have the actual G-code on my now as I'm away from my slicing computer)

[Related question: BL Touch Probing Fails Intermittently but answers do not apply as I am already using bugfix firmware and have checked all the cabling and connections]

Have you ever managed to solve the issues? It appears you're not the only one with these kind of problems.

Unfortunately not - in the end I gave up and returned to manual tramming so I could actually get some printing done.

Many thanks for your update, actually I'm experiencing the same, in my case it is caused by a defective touch sensor. I'll write an answer describing this. Switching sensor helped me.

You had a faulty BLTouch. Mine experienced the EXACT same behavior and replacing it with a new BLTouch fixed the issue entirely (everything else I kept exactly the same, firmware etc), I simply swapped over the probe + cable with the new one.
When connecting the new BLTouch, make sure you wire the servos connector correctly. In my case with an SKR Mini E3 v1.2 I needed to switch the red wire with the blue wire. If you start the printer with the wires the wrong way around, it may cause damage. I suspect that is what happened to my original one.

Welcome to SE.3D Printing, good answer, I experienced exactly the same, but then with non-genuine touch sensors, replacing them fixed the problem also.

Connecting the bltouch or 3dtouch clone to the normal Z-endstop connector of a creality board (ender 3 / 3 pro / cr10) is the problem!
Creality added a capacitor to the Z-endstop connector to improve the signal of the normal endswitch. This capacitor impacts the data signal processing of the probe. (filters out signals)
Other boards / manufacturers often do not have this capacitor. So there is no problem when using the probe.
Known solutions:

connect the probe to the ISP header (data to MOSI, Ground to GND).
Others desolder the capacitor next to the Z-endstop-connector.

Here is described my "ISP header solution" with details... (for Klipper, but could be adopted for Marlin)
Further information on BLTouch Klipper docs (search for "Troubleshooting")
After fixing, Z should stop instantly when probe pin pops up. My probe speed is 50 mm/s (for Z). The Readability Check gives me 0.007-0.250 mm ranges between measurements (mine is a cheap Chinese clone).


text:
CoreXY Carriage moves on the Y when moving the X
I have a custom designed and built CoreXY printer. I have noticed that when I order the X to move from one side to the other (right to left) that the Y axis moves back about 0.6 mm as well. When I move the X back (from left to right) the Y also moves forward approximately the same amount.
What property of the CoreXY system could be causing this? Note, I am using 608 bearings instead of toothed idler pulleys; which I hope to rectify soon.
Steps per mm from the Marlin configuration.h:
DEFAULT_AXIS_STEPS_PER_UNIT   { 475.79, 482.87, 468.66, 188.1 }

Note, they are not the same for X and Y. This is because I am trying to run a calibration cube test on the machine.

that sounds like either a firmware or a hardware problem...

Is the motor turning causing the movement? Or is this a measurement you've taken for the y-axis travel?

@Paulster2, This is a measurement I've taken for the y-xis travel;

@Trish, So you're saying that it could be the firmware is commanding the incorrect movement? How on earth do I test that.

Are the steps per mm for X and Y set to the same value?

@user77232 it could be a pinning error (as in the firmware pins are messed up) or steps/mm (which is in the firmware). try to check hardware first.

For a CoreXY printer to move an axis (X or Y) it requires both stepper motors to turn. If both turn the same direction (at the same speed with the same pulleys), the X-axis will move, if they rotate both in a different direction (at the same speed with the same pulleys) the Y axis will move (see image of CoreXY kinematics below). Rotation of a single stepper would cause a 45° printing pattern.

All four corner points (two top pulleys and two bottom steppers) are fixed to the CoreXY frame
It is therefore highly illogical that you need to use different values for your steps per mm (X = 475.79 steps/mm, Y = 482.87 steps/mm). If you need to use such values, this implies that your mechanical layout/mechanics is/are incorrect (skew frame, different pulley diameters, slip on pulley, incorrect tension of belts, etc.). It is advised to make them equal and check the mechanical layout and inspect all parts (pulley diameters) and make the tension equal (e.g. using a Belt Tension Gauge). If the head still moves in the perpendicular direction as commanded, you could try to calibrate from there.

ok I assert that it is possible that there are variances in the tolerance of the motors, pulleys and belts. The drift in the values was my attempt to compensate for those variances. Would that be something that I compensate for in hardware or firmware?

@user77232 I doubt that the manufacturing tolerances of steppers, pulleys and belts would make that much of an impact. My CoreXY is running with equal X and Y steps per mm and produces square products.

Ok, so I need an actual answer: Do I reset the steps/mm in the firmware and try invest in sorting out the hardware or do I mess with marlin to get it to straighten out?

@user77232 set them to be equal first, then calibrate.

@user77232 Try getting the tension in the belts to the same using a tension gauge, I've updated my answer. This gauge helped me too.

I'd go so far as to say tuning steps_per_mm does not make sense at all; it should be computed from the mechanical specs of the parts, which in turn should involve clean whole number ratios with things like nozzle size/line width. Whenever I played with trying to solve problems by tuning them, rather than mechanically, I ended up with nasty aliasing patterns in skin surfaces because the tuned values did not evenly divide.

So how does one do a calibration cube with a CoreXY printer, where you get different values on the micrometer for X and Y ?!?!?!

@user77232 Why not ask that as a separate question? Note that I would not be worried from micrometer differences (thousands of a mm). Note that R. has a point, but it is impossible to measure everything correctly.

authors: محمد الحكيمي

authors: พนมวัลย์ พูลเพิ่ม


text:
Good food-safe print filament or method?
I want to create a drinking cup that is entirely safe to consume liquids from. I’ve done some research, but I can not seem to find a cheap or easily accessibly food-safe filament. I have also had no luck researching ways to make objects food-safe.

@Trish. I think that this question more about liquids and about a cup for personal use, therefore it’s different from both two questions aforementioned

@StepanNovikov - Surely the end result is the same? Food-safe is the same, whether it is for a cup or a plate, for liquid or for solids, for personal or commercial use? The subject may differ, but the practice is still the same, IMHO. Please clarify, if you feel otherwise, or join us in [chat]. Thanks. BTW, I accepted your edit (so that you would get the rep change, for your effort), but rolled back the change as the original title is valid, and not as specific.

@StepanNovikov Liquid or solid, the question is "is there a food safe material" and "is there a food safe method", which is what the duplicate questions are about.


text:
Does anyone know what would cause this?
I’m a 3D printing newbie. I’ve tried adjusting various settings but nothing seems to help.  Most of the brim looks great and I’m pretty sure my bed is level, but as soon as it starts printing the actual model parts of it don’t stick and ends up in clumps.

Hello Skittles9654, welcome to 3DPrinting.SE! Your question is very terse and hard to answer without knowing a couple of things about your printer setup. Please [edit] and fill in the [placeholders] in the template I added and then remove the leading < and trailing > afterwards. This will turn it visible and help us help you find the actual problem.

What is the material? Is the bed heater working? What is the material covering the bed?

When was the last time you cleaned your bed?


text:
Setting Junction Deviation in firmware has no effect
I have built a 3D printer with Marlin bugfix-2.0.x forked from github.
I am attempting to set the default value for junction deviation so that I don't have to change it through the printer's screen/interface every time I power cycle the printer, but what I thought would set it properly isn't doing the trick.
My thought was that uncommenting this in Configuration_adv.h would work:
#define JUNCTION_DEVIATION_MM 0.02

I have tried setting this define inside of and outside of the default if block in which it appears, just to make sure the issue wasn't because I didn't have something else set, and I get the same behavior when this define statement is either protected or unprotected by an if
Also, the default if block is this:
#if ENABLED( JUNCTION_DEVIATION )
    #define JUNCTION_DEVIATION_MM 0.02
#endif

Uncommenting #define JUNCTION_DEVIATION leaves me with a compiler error telling me that I don't need to do that, so I'm not seeing anything that I am supposed to enable to get it to use the JUNCTION_DEVIATION_MM setting. In other words, I can't actually enable "JUNCTION_DEVIATION" any more, so I HAVE to break the JUNCTION_DEVIATION_MM setting out of the if but it still has no effect.
After setting this parameter, when I power cycle the printer, the junction deviation is set to 0 (although one touch of the adjustment knob makes it jump to 0.010, so I think that what is displayed as "0" may actually mean "unset"), which is causing a significant stop/start jerk on every angle change until I manually set the junction deviation.
My current Configuration.h and Configuration_adv.h are taken from this Marlin fork.
In case it matters, I'm running this on an SKR V1.3 with TMC2208 drivers at 24V.
Any ideas what I'm missing? I'm sure it's something simple, I just haven't found it.
UPDATE: Still no solution after 10 days. Here is additional information from another forum where I posted this request:

Did you run M502 and M500 after updating your firmware?

I dug into this a little more, and I am either running into a bug, or I'm simply not understanding what I'm supposed to be seeing.
I send this command:
M205 J0.020
Then verify that junction deviation is set correctly (it is)
Then this:
M500
And that responds with:
Settings Stored (616 bytes; crc 51371)
Then I send this:
M503
And the report for M205 is missing the setting I just confirmed to have changed and been working:
...
M205 B20000.00 S0.00 T0.00
...
And power cycling or resetting the controller leads to the same result: Junction Deviation is reset to 0.
Shouldn't I see "J0.020" in the M205 line immediately after changing the setting, and verifying that it works?

After a few months of dealing with this, I have simplified the test cases, and I have come to believe that it's a bug in the SKR 1.3. I'm waiting for a new SKR 1.4 to arrive, and if the problem exists there as well, I'm submitting a bug report on github. Will update this question when that's done.

There is a bug in the Marlin code/SKR board preventing storing any alterations after the firmware is loaded (to the SD card). There is a PR on Marlin that fixes it, but it has not been merged into Marlin yet.

@0scar It doesn't look like that pull request has been merged yet, but I merged the changes from the Marlin bugfix-2.0.x branch for the first time in about 1.5 months, and the problem has been resolved. Confirmed on an SKR V1.3 and an SKR V1.4 (the problem may not have ever existed on the latter). I'm not sure which commit did the trick. If you post an answer, I'll accept it as the solution. Thanks!

I've bought an SKR Pro V1.1 which is suffering from the same problem. It has actually to do with a shortcoming or design flaw (of the "HAL" or "Hardware Abstraction Layer" addressing of SPI devices) of Marlin and access to the SD card; I quote:

The problem: On board SD-Card on SKR-PRO 1.1 can't be used.

After the SD card has been inserted, the firmware binary is loaded into memory, and all access to the SD card is gone. The initial connection is by hardware design of the SKR boards.
Basically, there is a bug in the Marlin code/SKR boards preventing storing (to the SD card) any alterations after the firmware is loaded. There is a PR on Marlin that fixes it, but it has not been merged into Marlin yet.
There are 2 options,

Every change to the firmware has to be compiled and uploaded to the board by placing a hex (firmware.bin) on the SD card;
Compile a firmware version from the sources from the fore mentioned PR.

For the SKR, to store the new Marlin definitions it is necessary to send the comand M502 to restore to the factory settings (will use the configuration on the SD card) and send the comand M500 to save the configurations.

Thanks, but restoring settings isn't required to set or store a setting. This was a bug between Marlin and the SKR, and it has been resolved in Marlin.


text:
Ender 3 Pro extruder drive rocking back and forth
I've been running this Ender 3 Pro for quite some time with no problem up until recently. The issue was the printer refused to extrude filament (the extruder stepper seems to be rocking back and forth) so I went through a few things to try and fix the problem:

I leveled the bed properly
I printed at higher temperatures (215 °C for PLA which is the only filament I run in this printer)
I cleaned the nozzle and I actually replaced the nozzle with a new 0.4 mm nozzle
(same size as before)
I replaced my Bowden tube with a newer one (unbranded) and even replaced the tube fittings for the extruder assembly and the heat sink.

I saw somewhere that maybe the wiring to the extruder gear is frayed but I inspected the extruder side of the connector and everything looks fine. I would open up the box and everything but I want to see if anyone has a solution before opening up the circuit  box.

The question title suggests it is trying to move, but jitters, correct? Be sure that the extrusion speed doesn't exceed the maximum speed, steppers rock back and forth if a too high of a speed is commanded.

My extrusion speed is 60 mm/s which is pretty standard from everything that I've seen. This speed works fine on all my other Ender 3 Pro's so I don't think that is the issue but I will slow down the speed and test just in case.

No need to lower it, just establishing that it did not accidentally was too high of a speed!

Did you ever get this fixed? My Ender 3 Pro after 3 months running flawless just started this. I have swapped my board and i think it is a cable just curious if that was your problem.

@RobDavis Hey so it turns out, the motor was bad. I replace the motor with another one off of a good printer and it turns no problem. Just had to get another motor online.

Sounds like one end or the other in your stepper cable is not seated correctly or has shaken loose there are 4 wires if even one doesn't make proper contact you will get a shaking back and forth almost like a hard vibration. I always take a cable from one of the other steppers plug into this one move the motor with good stepper wire 10-20 mm see what motor does if it is okay then you know it is a cable issue if not, it could be a bad board or stepper.

ALright, I will try this out and let you know if the problem is with the cable or not.

The cable is indeed the problem as the motor moves filament through no problem so I will check the extruder cable.


text:
How can I upgrade the drivers in the Printrboard rev. D?
I have a Printrboard rev. D which includes Allegro A4982 drivers. I would like to replace them, but it appears that newer TMC drivers all require several pins for proper operation.

How can I upgrade the drivers in the Printrboard rev. D?

The developers from the Klipper firmware confirmed that Klipper doesn't care about the native functions of each pin, therefore it is indeed possible to use the expansion pins for controlling (including UART) TMC stepper drivers.
At this point I cannot confirm, but maybe Marlin allows the same by updating the pin assignments in the source code.

Marlin does allow so, but you will need to alter the pin declarations. see http://marlinfw.org/docs/hardware/boards.html

You can't. In fact, pretty much all boards with directly soldered drivers are not upgradable.
I'd recommend to buy a proper, contemporary, customizable board like the SKR 1.3 for TMCs.
The Fysetc F6 would also work, but uses "custom" connectors and is still AVR based.

Since there are still 19 pins available, maybe Klipper firmware can use them. If so I could add three external drivers. If it doesn't work, I can reuse the drivers with the SKR.

you can't exchange the drivers if you can't do Surface Mount Soldering, but you can circumnavigate them via pins.


text:
Print not centered
I have a Colido 2.0 printer that I cannot seem to get a print centered on the plate. I am using Slic3r and OctoPrint. If I use Repetier Host directly connected, I can get it to print correctly. I'm guessing Slic3r is the culprit but I can't find where. Any suggestions?
Can't post a picture of the actual print. It is printing partially off what would be the left side of the bed according to Slic3r.

Please clarify: when directly connected, what software is doing the slicing?  When NOT directly connected, can you get the G-code file RepetierHost is using loaded onto your USB stick and run that way?

@CarlWitthoft when directly connected, I had switched it to curaengine. I did export that gcode file, upload to octoprint and had it print correctly. octoprint still showed it as being off the plate.

Why don't you check your Slic3r settings -> Printer Setting -> general for values in Bed Size and Print Center fields for correctness?

From your screenshots of the bed shape can be seen that the bed size is defined as 228 x 150 mm with a definition of the origin at (0, 0).
From an internet search the bed size of the Colido 2.0 is found to be  225 x 145 x 150 mm. This implies that the current setup is slightly incorrect.
Note that this needs to coincide with the way the firmware has been configured. The accepted answer on question: "What determines print start location on the build plate?" shows that the origin not necessarily need to be at the corner of the build plate, it can also be at the center; this depends on the firmware brand. This answer explains that you can find out where the origin is located. Basically, you need to prepare a G-code file containing at least homing (G28), optionally bed levelling if your printer has auto bed levelling (G29) and a move to the origin (G1 X0 Y0 Z15 F500); note a Z of 15 is chosen for safety!. You can edit an existing G-code file for this or create a new text file from scratch saving the file with a .g extension. When this is "printed"/executed, the nozzle should be at the (elevated, so X, Y) origin as defined by your firmware. Usually this is at the left front corner of your build plate (there may be clips there, so therefore the elevated value), but can also be the center of the plate.
If the nozzle centers in the middle of the build plate, the bed shape configuration should be altered to put the origin in the center of the build plate, so 225/2=112.5 for X and 145/2=72.5 for Y.

I was using what was included with the printer. I'll adjust accordingly and also try the "finding origin" gcode. thank you!


text:
Starting G-code for auto Z probe offset
So, I like to take off my glass build plate from my printer bed because I don't like to put any force on the bed bearings but this presents an issue. I have an inductive bed leveling probe and each time I remove the plate the Z offset seems to be off on the next print.
Instead of re-leveling my bed and setting the Z offset by hand, I thought of adding starting G-code to do that for me but I've hit a snag. I have an Ender 3 and use Slic3r.
The sequence of events I would like is as follows:

G28 - home axis
G0 X150 Y130 Z5 - Moves to X150 Y130 Z5
G30 S1 - Performs a bed leveling probe at the current point. This raises the head 10 mm and stops when the probe is triggered. The current Z height this stops at is what I want for the next command.
M851 Z[insert Z height from prev command here]

I know Slic3r has these placeholder values for some commands like M109 S[temperature_0] in the square brackets. Is there one for the current Z height?

Z value is the difference between sensing probe and nozzle height vs bed surface, for example M851 Z-2.0, for me since my probe is low sensitive vs glass thickness the value is -0.7. This value is inside the firmware instead setting each part I run G29. I'm using 3 bed glass same thickness

The inductive sensors trigger to the metal plate under the glass bed. This implies that if you remove the slate of glass, the distance between the trigger point and the print bed is increased by the thickness of the glass slate. But, the trigger point is still exactly the same as if there were a slate of glass (as it triggers on the metal bed underneath). This extra distance need to be compensated for.
The method you are using is incorrect in determining the distance between the nozzle and bed with respect to the sensor trigger point. This answer on question: "Z Offset on autoleveling sensor setup" describes how you need to determine the distance between nozzle and bed from the trigger point. It includes a manual step to lower the nozzle a paper thickness above the build plate.
If you insist on using G-code (e.g. in your start G-code script), you can redefine the Z=0 level by adding a G-code G92. In case of a 3 mm glass plate, you should add after the homing (G28) and probing of the bed (G29) the following:
G1 Z0  ; This will move the nozzle to Z=0 as if there was a slate of glass,
         but in fact it is still 3 mm offset
G92 Z3 ; This redefines the old Z=0 (with glass) to be Z=3 mm


text:
ABS prints consistently splitting in the same place
I am printing ABS in an enclosure and most of the prints have worked out well with minor tweaking. However, the top layer always seems to split or skip a step (not sure which).

The cube is sliced in Ultimaker Cura 4.3.0 with 0.2 mm layer height, 0.4 mm nozzle, 80 °C bed on lexan and a 235 °C hotend.
The G-code to the calibration cube/chep's calibration cube is attached: PI3XL_CHEPCalibrationCube.gcode.
While I'm on the subject of slicing and calibration my calibration angle is coming out as before in Simplify3D, this time the layers look great but the onion skinning within the print itself so I could actually separate the calibration angle like an onion.

Can you test with the cubes scaled up and down by 10% to verify it's the top layer rather than layers at a certain Z-axis position?

Personally, I have dealt with this problem myself! I messed around with the slicer a little bit, and I found that if you make the print layer height 0.15 or 0.10 mm, it will be better. The image you attached looks as though the printer was splitting a step and only printing that part. I can't think of a reason why it would do that. I also can't find anything online, so I would just play with the print settings or change the layer height until it comes out how you want it.

It is generally known/accepted that thicker layers provide better adhesion than thinner layers because of the heat capacity of the filament being laid down.

@0scar that aspect of 3D printing is less investigated than it could be: are we talking at given printing speed, or at given flowrate? in the latter case, thicker layers increase the layer time, compensating pretty much the increased heat capacity (not completely, but almost).

@FarO That are good questions, a separate question (if not already out there) might be good to ask.

Since it happens in the same place each time, it's either G-code or mechanical. I've seen things like this happen with dirty gantries, or a dirty Z-axis guide.
If it's not mechanical, there may be something in the G-code that causes it, such as too many retractions in one area, or similar.