text:
Can't control printer via USB
I've recently purchased a Makerbot Replicator Dual clone made by CTC. I'm in the process of upgrading/adding a few parts to it, but noticed that I can't control or print via USB.
The machine prints perfectly from an SD card and I can see information in the terminal from the printer via USB in RepG and through OctoPrint - Such as M105 -  but can't send any .x3g files to print or upgrade firmware (I wanted to flash Sailfish 7.7 eventually).
To clarify;
In Octoprint

Temperature auto-reporting is working
Can send M105, M27, etc.. & get response
Can select .x3g files from the SD card to print & the printer starts
Can upload files (.stl, .x3G, .gco etc..) to Octopi, but even the .x3g files wont actually start on the printer.
Tried sending M140 T0 S200 & M106 T0 S100 which received OK response, but there was no change reported, or indeed actually happening with the tool

Terminal Output from OctoPrint at connection:
Changing monitoring state from "Offline" to "Opening serial port"
Connected to: <octoprint_GPX.gpxprinter.GpxPrinter instance at 0x6c9a02d8>, starting monitor
Starting baud rate detection...
Changing monitoring state from "Opening serial port" to "Detecting baudrate"
Trying baudrate: 115200
Recv: start
Send: N0 M110 N0*125
Changing monitoring state from "Detecting baudrate" to "Operational"
Recv:  Makerbot v7.4
Send: N0 M110 N0*125
Recv: echo: gcode to x3g translation by GPX
Recv: SD card ok
Recv:  T:27 /0 B:21 /0 T0:27 /0 T1:26 /0 @:0 B@:0
Recv:  T:27 /0 B:20 /0 T0:27 /0 T1:26 /0 @:0 B@:0
Recv:  T:27 /0 B:21 /0 T0:27 /0 T1:26 /0 @:0 B@:0
Recv: ok
Send: N1 M115*39
Recv: ok PROTOCOL_VERSION:0.1 FIRMWARE_NAME:Makerbot FIRMWARE_VERSION:7.4 FIRMWARE_URL:https://support.makerbot.com/learn/earlier-products/replicator-original/updating-firmware-for-the-makerbot-replicator-via-replicatorg_13302 MACHINE_TYPE:r1d EXTRUDER_COUNT:2
Send: M21
Recv: ok
Recv: SD card ok
Send: M20
Recv: ok
Recv: Begin file list
Recv: 2GB
Recv: System Volume Information
Recv: mesh_bed.stl
Recv: xyzCalibration_cube.x3g
Recv: CTCB_3DBenchy.x3g
Recv: 3DBenchy.x3g
Recv: ActiveCoolingDuct.x3g
Recv: CTCB_ActiveDuctD4_UN.x3g
Recv: UK_TROLLEY_TOKEN.x3g
Recv: mesh_bed.x3g
Recv: z-axis-support.x3g
Recv: bed-screws.x3g
Recv: spool_nut.x3g
Recv: 2016_spool.x3g
Recv: 2016_spool_no_raft.x3g
Recv: ActiveDuctD4_UN.x3g
Recv: Z_Axis_Support_Ends.x3g
Recv: End file list
Send: M105
Recv: ok T:27 /0 B:20 /0 T0:27 /0 T1:26 /0 @:0 B@:0
Send: M105

In ReplicatorG

The software connects to the board via USB and recognises that it is a Mightyboard running f/w 7.4
Reports that it is an unvarified board
Cannot use the GUI control tab to send commands to the printer
Cannot send sliced .x3g files over USB, console shows a time out error instantly
Saving .x3g to SD card does work

Is my Mightyboard just a dud, or is there something I can do to try and fix it?
The reason I want to try and solve this now, is that I'm planning on adding active cooling and LED lighting control so don't really want to do all that just to find out that I need to replace the board soon.

Additional info
Some information meaning that the current firmware and board is reported, as well as current temperatures of the extruders and heat bed. I can print .x3g files from the SD card, but I can't send G-code commands or .x3g files through USB.
I have just tried a few G-code commands through OctoPrint terminal with mixed results. M105 works, M140 & M106 don't.

related: https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/a/3764/4927 and https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/q/3755/4927

related: https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/q/3470/4927

You can find gcode information at the RepRap wiki. The obvious other thing to try is G1 X10 for a move.
Octoprint prints by sending the individual file's gcode one line at a time over USB. It appears that the firmware on your printer might not respond to any 'action' commands over gcode, rather than any fault as such with your hardware/software setup.
Although your board reports a specific firmware version, it is impossible to know if that firmware was corrupted, or patched by the vendor (and no change reflected in the revision print). Thus, your best option to regain full control might be to flash your own firmware using low-level access. I'm guessing that will require an ICSP lead.
The fact that USB works, and the printer works, tends to suggest that the board is properly functional.

It appears you may have been correct in your conclusion of either patched or corrupted firmware. Flashing the ATMega1280 via ICSP lead with the latest sailfish .hex file has resolved the issue. I can now use OctoPrint / GPX to upload G-Code from any slicer and convert to the printers X3G on the fly.

Thanks for the confirmation. Its useful data for others.

Good morning, and welcome to 3D Printing SE.
You said: "I can see information from the printer via USB in RepG and through OctoPrint, but can't send any prints, commands or upgrade firmware (I wanted to flash Sailfish 7.7 eventually)."  This means that the USB communication is working fine.  It isn't a question of drivers or the FTDI interface chip.  That must be working fine or you wouldn't have any USB communication.
I would look toward a problem with slight dialect differences in the firmware that is flashed compared with the expectations of the host software.
I am not an expert regarding the differences in firmware G-code dialects, but there are at least: Marlin, Repetier, Mach3, LinuxCNC, Machinekit, Smoothie, Makerware, Sailfish.  I got this list from the "about" page for Slic3r.
I would start by trying to slice files with different dialects and seeing if one of the resulting G-code files prints.  You may also find a description of the firmware you have flashed with references one of these names, which would save a lot of time.
For flashing, you could try dropping back to the Arduino level and use those flashing tools.

More answer in response to the information you have added to the question.
X3G files are not G-code files.  If you are using a control program that expects G-code, it will not be able to handle X3G code.  Similarly, if the printer expects X3G, it may not understand G-code.
Octoprint has an adapter layer that seems to interconvert between g-code and GPX.  You are running this layer.  At about line 11 of the log file you added to the question:

Recv: echo: gcode to x3g translation by GPX

The GPX add-in may be perfect, and it may cover all version of firmware and all functions.  I don't use it and am unfamiliar with it.
To flash your board, I would be reluctant to assume that Octoprint/GPX new how to run that protocol.  I would use the host software supplied by the vendor.  Flashing is an infrequent operation, and add-on software is less likely to have it 100% correct.  If I were writing GPX, I would intentionally make flashing be out-of-scope, since the consequences of doing it wrong could easily be to brick the printer.
Since Octoprint/GPX claims to be able to print to the printer, I would being all software up the respective current versions.  Flash current Sailfish firmware using the supplied host tools.  Update to the current/best version of Octoprint/GPX.  Read the release notes of Octoprint/GPX for known issues.
It seems that X3D files are fairly limited in their use, which will constrain your options to be within the scope of the community that uses X3D files.  I tried to add the X3D tag to your question, but so far no one has created the X3D tag.
Makerbot is part of Stratasys, and should be well supported.  It may be well supported mostly within its ecosystem.  You have a clone of a Makerbot machine, so, even though most or all of the printer parts are open source, you may not be able to use the genuine Makerbot host control software.
Your question asked if your controller board was working.  It almost certainly is.  I think you have a software/firmware compatibility problem.

Thanks for the input, but I know the printer reads .x3g files (makerware) already & have indeed managed to print several sucessful models via an SD card, just not through the USB interface. I have updatedmy question with more information.

tag added. Please provide a description for it.

It is possible that your board has a cloned FT232R USB-to-serial bridge chip, and FTDI drivers supplied via the Windows update channel will not work with cloned chips. Try using the Windows setup executable from the following page:
FTDI Chip: Virtual COM Port Drivers
Note that there are no known problems with MacOS and Linux drivers.

This doesn't seem to be the case since some aspects of the interface are reported to work.

I'll give anything a shot at this point, but I don't think this is likely to be the issue as I run into the same problem when using my OctoPi set-up which is running on a linux distro.

Also, generally make sure to buy products without (cloned or legitimate) FTDI chips.
From what I could find online, it seems to be ATmega8U2-based though.

@towe - FTDI chips are OK, aren't they? What's wrong with them? Although I must admit that I prefer 16U2 ICs for the USB (better than the awful CH340[G])

@Greenonline Genuine FTDI chips are fine, but you will find clones on many Chinese products that are not as performant, and that will not work with some FTDI drivers. Google "FTDI driver fiasco" for background information. AFAIK, drivers distributed through the Windows update channel will not work with cloned chips (although they no longer brick them).


text:
Is there a way to print with ABS without enclosure?
ABS is a very strong material, but it also has some downsides. One of them, which is the necessity of having a printer with enclosure, completely discouraged me from using it, as it would be a waste of money. This is quite sad, because I cannot make prints that will be able to withstand a large load of tension without breaking.
Is there any way to print ABS without any enclosure? Maybe there are several types of this material and some are easier to print?

There are all sorts of materials you can print with properties similar to subsets of ABS's properties, without all the difficulties in printing and nasty fumes. PETG, nylon, pc, hips, asa, even delrin, ...

@R.. Yes, I know about e.g about PETG and I use it, but I was told that printing nylon, carbon fiber etc. requires much more skill than I have as a beginner. But yes, I think I should give HIPS, ASA a try

My understanding of ASA is that it's basically superior to ABS in every way but cost, and easier to print.

As R states above, no enclosure and/or filtering and draft free rooms sound like a perfect way to have a room full of toxic fumes. Sounds dangerous to me.

There is no requirement for an enclosure when printing ABS. Like many things in FDM, there are improvements to be made, but there is a scale of what is possible.
A heated bed is much more necessary (for similar reasons, the thermal expansion is significant and without a heated bed you have very high risk of warping).
An enclosure is important for high quality, large ABS prints. Otherwise, a warm location which is free of drafts will be fine, particularly for parts which are only a few cm high.
If you're not using an enclosure, the part cooling fan should probably not be used to print ABS. You should also be aware that ABS tends to generate more noticeable fumes than PLA (although this varies with product, and how sensitive you are).

I print ABS in my basement in an unenclosed Prusa3D i3m3s, just as I print other filaments.  Perhaps an enclosure would be helpful, but I don't have problems as it is.  Your experience may vary.
Before that I printed ABS on a large home-brew delta machine.  No problems related to lack of enclosure.
Before that I printed ABS on a Thing-o-Matic, also with no problems.
I'm not saying that every print was perfect, but in the first two (chronologically) cases, the enclosure was not the largest contributor to print artifacts.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What alternatives are there to sanding resin parts with fine details?
I have some transparent resin parts printed with a polyjet printer. Where the support contacted the part it has a matte finish. The recommended finishing technique for these parts is to sand them with sandpaper, but the geometry of my part makes that very difficult. What alternatives to sanding do I have, to give these parts a glossy finish?
I'm looking for techniques appropriate to a home or small office environment. A technique that needs special equipment bigger than a desk is probably not going to work for me.

"paint" with a solvent?  or, paint a thin layer of resin and re-expose?

i've used a rock tumbler to smooth prints, but that smooths the whole thing. maybe you could tape over the areas that need detail preserved...

@dandavis A tumbler is a good idea, but what i'm trying to do is turn my small, flat, matte surfaces into glossy surfaces, so taping over those surfaces in the tumbler won't help with that.

desktop tumbler/brass polisher, rotary rock tumblers are probably a better option than a small sandblasting cabinet. choose your abrasive material from there, a coarse sand is probably not what you want but there are walnut based things and finer grit materials that should be able to get a nice shine. if you would rather do it manually and geometry allows you can try a dremel-type rotary tool with a buffing wheel or similar

The rotary rock tumbler method has not worked for me, neither has the acetone bath

@KMmmm, Try different media until you get a result you can live with. Some people use Silicon Carbide in their tumbler.

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


text:
Getting 5V directly from the Anet A8 mainboard
My anet A8 stepper drivers get very hot after some time printing, so I decided to install a 5V fan to cool them down. I had the idea to get a 12V to 5V regulator to connect a 5V fan, but then i found this image:

(source: lokspace.eu)
It looks like the Anet A8 has an ICSP and Serial header that can deliver 5 or 3.3 V directly from the board. Is this correct? If it is, how many amps can i get from this pin? Can I connect a 5V fan directly here?
Thanks and sorry for my bad English.

You would be better to use a 12V fan.
The 5V is for powering logic.  It should not have motor loads, even fan motor loads, applied to it.  You will not be saving power over using a 12V fan.  According to @Tom 's answer, the 5V is derived through a linear regulator.
A linear regulator has the property that the current drawn from the regulator at 5V will equal the current drawn by the regulator at 12V.  $7/12$'ths of the power will be lost in the regulator chip as heat, which may cause the chip to overheat if there is not enough cooling margin in the thermal design.
If you use a 12V fan the current consumption of the fan for the same cooling capacity will be lower, and you won't waste more energy dropping the voltage.
May I ask how hot the steppers are?  Too hot to comfortably hold for more than a few seconds may still be completely acceptable for motors.  So hot that the plastic holding them melts is too hot for the mounting, but may still be ok for the motor.  So hot that they cause burns with 5 second contact is probably too hot.
If the motors are too hot, it might be better to check the current the motor drivers are programmed to deliver (either through software configuration or a potentiometer -- I don't know the printer).  Getting the current right is a better fix that managing the excess heat.  It may also improve the linearity of microstepping and improve print quality.

Stepper motors don't get very hot. Their drivers can get a little hot but I can touch the heatsink over them for more than 5 seconds without any problem. Should I still think about the additional fan? I just wanted to install it because I found more than one webpage saying that cooling the drivers would improve print quality. I also was afraid that the little heatsink that the drivers have (images.app.goo.gl/boU13KNmcH4eD9Eq8) was not enough to cool them down. @cmm

Cooling electronics is always good.  Period.  If you can add a fan,  no harm will come of it, especially if it is a fan powered from +12 V.  If it improves print quality then you needed more cooling.   If it doesn't,  you didn't,  but cooler is better and increases operating life.

The 5V is derived from the 12V supply by a linear regulator (L7805CD, DPAK package with 100 C/W thermal resistance). The maximum you can draw from it (without overheating the regulator) is around 200mA. Considering the electronics on the board are already using some power, the maximum would be around a 150mA fan but this would have the regulator running near its maximum limits.

5 V and 3.3 V are both logic "highs" in computing and measured against GND. If the fan simply has to know the on stance and nothing more, then you could run a fan with the logic 5 V (and probably 3.3 V for about 50% spin speed).

This misses the issues of source impedance and thermal constraints.


text:
How to solve spillage problem?
I've done calibration test with "Concentric circle test" (https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:11895) and at specific points there are little bumped points on the print. Also Thingiverse page of the test mentions about these.
How can I solve this problem?
My printer is Creality Ender 3 Pro, I use Esun PLA+ with 210 celcius extruder and 60 celcius bed temperature.
Here is the printed object, both are same print, just took photo on different base.

Interesting question. Now I want to try that test piece and possibly Marlin 1.1.9.

Sure looks like overextrusion

It looks like you have the bed adjusted too high, smashing the layers together and causing "elephant foot" not just on the bed but also on features - the rings - near the bottom of the print. You might also have over-extrusion, due to an increased material flow setting, actual filament diameter greater than the setting in the slicer, or miscalibration of the E axis steps per mm.
From the second image, it looks like you might have another problem: I think I'm seeing infill lines through the  gaps between the rings, rather than seeing top-surface skin in the bottom of the grooves. If so, this is a bug in Cura's default settings where "skin" in narrow regions is completely lost due to "preshrink". The skin preshrink values should be set no larger than the nozzle/line width, possibly zero, and skin expansion can be lowered by the same amount or more as long as it remains greater than or equal to the preshrink value. If my assessment of what I'm seeing is correct, fixing it should result in the grooves being supported properly rather than resting on infill lines.
What you're seeing is definitely not normal or expected from this printer. Here's what you should be seeing:

Bed could be a little high, I'll check that. My nozzle is 0.4mm and I print with 0.15mm , could this be the reason for increased flow? Should I change nozzle for more precise prints like that?
For the second problem, I'll try that, in fact this is the first nice, smooth first layer of my all prints (I'm newbie), I guess it's corrected after leveling X-axis but if you say it can be better, I'll surely try your recommendations.. Thank you :)

Oh, I missed that you're the same poster with the gantry problem. I suspect you may still have an issue with it and inability to level the bed; that can cause layers getting smashed together when Z moves are unreliable.

My bed is a little warped on the center, it seems that's common problem for Ender 3 beds, I'm thinking about buying a glass bed. But for this print, I don't think it's related to bed leveling (except high bed) because diameter of the circle is just 4 cm.

Well if the center is significantly higher than the corners and you leveled based on the corners, that could do it. Make sure you can drag a sheet of paper under the nozzle at Z=0 near the center of the bed with only slight drag.

Today I tried again with lowered bed and it printed absolutely much better. Thank you :)

We had some prints like that recently. Turns out it was caused by the bed not being "level" or "trammed". Basically the nozzle was too far off the bed when printing started for the first layer. Check yours - a piece of paper should slide between the nozzle and the bed surface, with a little bit of resistance. If it slides freely, the bed needs to be raised some. Check it at the corners and in the middle of the bed.

It looks like the opposite to me.

I've not sliced the part in question, but the over extrusion mentioned in the third point (at change of direction/layers) is referring to ooze.
This is a result of the hydraulic pressure in the melt zone, and results in over extrusion at any point when the print head is moving slowly (and a corresponding under-extrusion once motion resumes). It can be compensated for by retraction and coasting settings.
This effect will probably not be visible in the print you have here, there are other effects which are causing more significant defects.


text:
Rectangular pattern constraint is lost when applying a fillet to the sketch object
I'm working on a model in Fusion 360 that has part of the 2d sketch duplicated with the "Rectangular Pattern" tool.  If I try resizing the original object, the duplicates update as expected.  If, however, I try applying a fillet to the object, the pattern constraint is immediately lost and the duplicates don't update.  I'm not seeing any error/warning, but I'm assuming it's running into a similar issue as if you were to delete a line that was part of the duplicated pattern (doing that shows a warning "Deleted geometry is part of a pattern, suppressed the instance or dissolved the pattern.")
Is there a way to alter the object (specifically apply a fillet) and have the duplicates automatically update?  I've done a bit of searching around and I found some suggestions saying that patterns should generally be done on the 3d model instead of the 2d sketch, but in my case I'd like to keep this in the 2d world since there are other sketch pieces that are based on the duplicated portion.
Here is a simplified version of the problem I'm running into:

Start with a simple rectangle

Using the "Rectangular Pattern" tool in the sketch menu, select the rectangle and create a pattern

Using the "Fillet" tool in the sketch menu, click on a corner of the original rectangle.  Notice that the "Rectangular Pattern Constraint" icon is no long below the original rectangle.

Finish applying the fillet.  Notice that none of the duplicate rectangles have been updated.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because even though Fusion 360 is a program suitable for 3D modeling, this problem is not specific to 3D modeling.

I was a bit hesitant to ask the question since it wasn't directly 3D printing related (though, the part will eventually be printed...).  I read through the on-topic help page and it seemed to suggest that 3d modeling questions are considered on-topic (in the "Additional Topics" section).  Here is the link to that page: https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic

I'd expect that one would have more success with a Fusion 360 specific forum or CAD related forum, although I appreciate that F360 is a valid tool for 3D modeling.

That's likely true.  I usually like to start with stackexchange before branching out.  I'll admit this question might require a much deeper understanding of the quirks of Fusion than one might expect to find here.

In some CAD packages, this is exactly what I would expect.  Models are constructed by applying operations in a specific order.  The fillet is a separate operation, and is not part of the base rectangle.
The base rectangle is defined.
You pattern the base rectangle.
You define a fillet using the base rectangle as the reference.  The fillet affects only that one rectangle.
OTOH, when you modify the base rectangle all are changed because the base rectangle is defined before the patterning operation.
If you can apply the fillet before the patterning, it may work as you wish.


text:
How does Prusa3D firmware respond to an open or shorted thermistor during a print?
I have a Prusa3D i3m3s.  The problem occurred once before with firmware 3.6.1.  Last night I upgraded to firmware 3.7.1 and repeated the problem almost exactly.
The symptom is that at what appears to be the same point in the print in the two failure instances, the extruder stops extruding.  There are a few wisps of filament on both failures.  The print continues to completing.  At the end of the print, the firmware issues an error because the MMU2s can not properly retract the filament.
On analysis, the filament is tightly jammed into the extruder and hot end, almost as if there has been heat creep.  Slow, strong, and steady tension on the filament will withdraw it from the extruder system.
The hot end heats normally, and maintains temperature.  When hot, plastic extrudes properly from the hot nozzle.
The thermister wires are damaged from an earlier problem.
The damage points to a thermister-related problem, but a shorted or open thermister is easy to detect in firmware.  I would expect it to throw an error and stop the print.
My question is:  Does the Prusa3D firmware detect open/shorted thermisters and stop the print?
If a photo is required, I can post that tomorrow.

This sounds like a problem I had with my hotend cooling fan a couple years back. To answer your question, from what I'm reading, the Prusa3D firmware detects thermal runaway if the hotend temperature drops for more than 45 seconds, it detects an open-circuit by reading 16 °C or less (MINTEMP error), and detects a short by reading 310 °C or higher (MAXTEMP error).
Couple questions that might help better troubleshoot the root of the problem:

have you measured the thermistor's resistance while cold or hot?
have you made sure your hotend cooling fan is at an appropriate speed while heated?
have you made sure your print cooling fan duct isn't pointed at the hotend block due to being jostled?

You might find that there are some fairly simple solutions to a handful of overheat problems. I bought a cheap knockoff all-metal heatbreak and immediately ran into problems, but solved them by printing a better heatsink shroud and upgrading to a 40 mm fan. If you've upgraded to an all-metal hotend, you might run into issues with PLA specifically if you're not printing enough material fast enough, as PLA is somewhat sensitive to heat creep through the filament itself in the throat of the hotend.

@NachOz, I was about to delete my question.  The problem may have been in the slicing, although I didn't see anything obvious to me in the g-code.  The curious part is that I had previously sliced the model to stop at a particular Z-height.  It printed as it should.  I then resliced the model for the full height, and the print failed at the point where I had stopped before.  But, rather than a crisp end, it had filament wisps, and ultimately the extruder drive stripped the filament.  Since I no further filament changes, it continued to "print" in the air for a few more hours until the end, ...

... when it could not retract the filament.  I carefully inspected the thermocouple wiring, and it was fine.  I tried wiggling the cable assembly while the hot-end was hot and could see no variation.  The fans are correctly placed, and seem to be appropriately blowing.  I will look more at the g-code -- something may be hiding.  +1 for answering.  Under thermal runaway, does it stop the print or allow the print to continue?

To be honest I don't actually know the exact answer to that. I think when I was running repetier, it stopped the extruder from doing anything but allowed the printer to keep moving as if nothing had happened. I don't actually know what Prusa's firmware does, or even what it is. It still sounds to me like you've got some latent cooling issues. Do you have an enclosure for your printer, or an enclosing wall printing around it, and what is your bed temp set at?

The behavior is consistent with a thermistor error causing the heater to stop long enough for the hot end to cool below the flow temperature.  Once the Bondtech gears have chewed through the filament, it isn't going anywhere.

Well, as a last resort you might try going and getting one of the latest Marlin releases, configurating it and uploading to your Prusa. You might get better information out of its thermal runaway and thermistor fault detection than you are out of the stock firmware. You might want to double check you can get the stock firmware back on the device afterwards first, and I know this is kind of a drastic step to take, but it's unlikely you'd see a "thermistor error" that isn't either open-circuit or closed-circuit, both of which would trigger the Prusa faults. Maybe thermal paste would help?


text:
Fixing uplifted magnetic heatbed surface
When trying calibration prints, I printed something with 240 celcius on magnetic heatbed and when removing the object, because it sticked very hard on surface, it uplifted surface of magnetic bed.
So when printing first layers, nozzle touches the bed when it's passing on that points.
Is there any way to fix this? I'm thinking about ironing the magnetic bed but not sure.

What material is the bed composed of? How thick is it? Note, you will probably have to replace it, or at least rotate it so that the nozzle never crosses the bent area.

I'm not sure, it's stock bed came with Ender 3 Pro, are there many kinds of it? It seems I cannot rotate it, otherwise magnetic part will be on top?

https://www.creality3d.shop/products/creality3d-ender-3-pro-high-precision-3d-printer?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIuvXsvIWK4wIVAdvACh0eTwTeEAYYASABEgKWa_D_BwE  So you print on a surface which is combination print surface/magnet.  Sounds like you wrecked it.  Time for a new sheet of the stuff.  What material needs 240C bed?  Sounds really hot, even ABS only needs 120C.  Website shows Bed Temp <= 110C, how did you manage to reach 240C?  I think by "rotate" was meant as spin it around like a dinner plate and print on a  non-lifted area; rotate was not meant as flip it over.

Rotate means around the z axis, not x or y

@CrossRoads Yes combination of magnet and surface, bed wasn't 240 celcius, extruder was 240, bed was 60. But first layer sticked very hard on surface. I never used that temperature before, I use 210 with PLA+ and works okay but that was a "calibration/test" model.
About rotating, unfortunately lifted area is on center.

BTW, maybe I'm using wrong terminology, right word might be "magnetic sticker", not the heated bed.

The Ender 3 Pro bed looks like a sheet of steel with a stick-on plastic sheet.  If the steel plate is bent, you would probably be happier to buy another one.  If the plastic film has lifted off the bed, you might be happier to buy a new plate, although there are sheets of film with adhesive available.
If you are printing small objects, you can plate them other than in the center.
If the problem is that the central bump screws up auto-leveling, try ironing while you are waiting for the new one to arrive.
I looked on the Creality site but did not find listings for spare parts.  You may need to be a customer to see that part of the catalog.
Ironing it might work.  The adhesive is probably good for 110 C.  I say that because the specs for the Prusa3D bed are similar.  I looked up the 3M product used for the PEI surface and found that the adhesive was the limiting factor at 110 C.  The PEI was good for a higher temperature.  If ironing doesn't work, buy another one.  If ironing does, come back and answer your own question so the information is preserved.

From the Creality website, the print surface doesn't like flex steel (way too flexible), more like refrigerator magnet type stuff with plastic print (PEI?) coating.  Not that durable apparently.  Might be a good to time to add a WhamBam magnet/flex steel with PEX surface to print on. Stuff pops off the PEX really nice, been using it for a week or so now.


text:
Auto physical bed leveling?
I've never used a printer with auto bed leveling, but my understanding is that most or all of them don't actually level anything, but rather compensate for the unlevel bed in firmware by transforming the coordinates. It seems to me this would necessarily introduce aliasing artifacts in all your prints by making it so that line widths are no longer a whole number of microsteps - I immediately observed such an effect on top/bottom skin when I tried to use steps-per-mm tweaking in firmware to compensate for a dimensional error rather than fixing the mechanical source of the error, and concluded that it was a dead-end approach.
If the auto-leveling firmware only makes adjustments with the Z motor as it moves, rather than transforming all three coordinates, it seems like that would be mostly or entirely mitigated, but with slight errors in dimensional accuracy dependent on how tilted the bed actually is.
Do any of the printers with (or add-on kits for) auto bed leveling actually level the bed mechanically, with servos attached to the adjustment knobs? Why isn't an approach like that more common?

I'm not sure if there's any commercial software that does this, but a well-designed raft can be a level surface, even on a unlevel bed

Automatic bed levelling is not magic; it still requires you to level the bed properly (as level as possible). The upside of automatic bed levelling is that it compensates for small deviations like a slightly slanted surface or a (somewhat large) dent in the surface (as long it is probed and can be digitized by the firmware). It will keep the nozzle at a distance to the bed that it maintains proper distance to the bed for the filament to adhere properly (first layer adherence is key for successful prints). The slight imperfections are smeared out over about 10 mm (set in the firmware), this way you do not need transformations for the whole print (so if you deliberately make the bed very skew, the print will follow the Z axis, not the direction perpendicular to the bed).
While systems to level or align the bed exist, it is not very practical and expensive as it requires more parts, that is why it is not commonly used. Apart from the suggested printer in this answer, printers with e.g. 4 ball screw Z movement lead screws exist (mostly printers for companies, not for use at home); ball screws are way more expensive, but also way more accurate than trapezoidal lead screws. A low accuracy is preferable as such systems generally have no guiding linear rods (as that would mean that you fix the plane/alignment of the build platform!).

So does it just adjust the Z motor as the print head moves, without making any transformations to X/Y?

Regarding cost, it seems like servos for three adjustment points, using a the touch sensor mounted by the nozzle as feedback for control, wouldn't be terribly expensive. But maybe it's just unnecessary and unnecessarily complex it the bed is manually leveled close enough that the adjustment in firmware works with only local Z correction.

@R.. Yes, only transformations in Z. Also the more parts the more complex. The K.I.S S. principle is not that bad. :)

I'm also a bit confused with how it would help with a dent (or worse, warping) in the bed itself - even if it were corrected, the bottom surface of your prints would be correspondingly messed up, and/or the warpage would propagate all the way up the layers.

There’s only so much you can do for a bed that isn’t flat. You have to either compensate for a dent or bend in some way or get a flatter bed.

@R.. Only the bottom yes, the rest will print fine. For discussions please use our [chat].

A delta machine does not natively have cartesian planes in its coordinate space.  "The bed" is a mathematical abstraction that must match the physical bed plane.  Small mechanical errors or offsets distort the expected planar abstraction to introduce wave, cup, and bowl artifacts.  "Leveling the bed" for a delta consists of calibrating out those distortions.
A delta machine is constantly adding small positional quantification artifacts to the print.  This could be beneficial, as there is a small constant noise introduced into the position of the print, rather than jumps which are a simple function of position.
A delta machine could adjust the z-axis to be perpendicular to the observed bed with no additional print artifacts.

Thanks for sharing your experience with, and insight in Delta robots! These machines seem to get less attention.

I have worked with "delta" machines, off and on, for about 20 years.  They are interestingly different.  Although not new 20 years ago, the availability of faster computation resources has eliminated the difficulty of controlling the kinematics.  Better optimization algorithms improve the ease of calibration.

Yes, this is a nice addition to the answers! I've actually been wondering about how Deltas get this acceptably right; I would think you'd need much finer-grained stepping. I've been vaguely thinking of trying to make a fully-3d-printed Delta machine.

Very interesting! Please keep sharing, I think more people like to read about this. To explain, I meant as hobby machines, in industry, pick and place, measuring, etc. devices are frequently Delta style robots.

The rail core II does this by having a 3 separate stepper motor + lead screws attached to the bed. Along with a z probe this allows the bed to leveled automatically. Although this will not make the bed any flatter meaning it will only align the bed in the correct XY plane with respect to the gantry.
https://www.kraegar.com/railcoreii

The only 'consumer' approach to this would be providing adjustment feedback to the user, after the bed has been probed to determine an optimal position so that most of the bed is in the same plane.
This seems to me like a 'free' enhancement, but users don't seem to be overly worried by the distortions introduced (or perform the calibrations manually already).


text:
What part is this? Circular threading spool gear, about 10 mm diameter
How should I describe this part which looks like a small gear so that I can research replacements?

This came with my FLSUN 3D printer, which may be based on a Prusa design.

Not sure I understand your question. It's the driven gear for the belt which either drives the X-axis or Y-axis depending on to which drive motor it's attached. Is that what you're asking?

Thanks I just realized how unclear that was. I was asking the product name of this part. So that I could do my own research and find where to purchase a replacement. My 3D printer kit was missing one.

This is a timing belt pulley.
Specifically, is a GT2 timing pulley, 2 mm pitch (between teeth), 6 mm wide. The drive diameter is measured by the number of teeth (16 in this case) , the shaft diameter (bore) is measured in mm.
The 'GT2' part refers to the tooth profile, some other examples are shown half way down this page.

More specifically, it is a 16 teeth GT2 timing belt pulley.

It is an "aluminum timing  pulley"
https://www.google.com/search?psb=1&tbm=shop&q=aluminum%20timing%20pulley&ved=0CAMQr4sDKAFqFwoTCMis1KHmiuMCFRoMswAdMqUElxAB
https://www.ebay.com/i/152446519860?chn=ps&var=453435947176


text:
Is having 4 bed leveling adjustment points rather than 3 problematic?
My Ender 3, and I think lots of printers, have 4 bed leveling adjusstments, one at each corner. It seems to me that having 4 points produces an over-determined system, making it confusing to get the leveling right - adjusting one of the four may have little or no effect, but then cause a later adjustment elsewhere to have effects that violate a least-surprise principle.
Would it be better to have only three points? Or is the fourth necessary/useful with non-completely-rigid bed structures to add rigidity?

Three points define a plane. Four points define a fractal.

“over-constrained?”

@КонстантинВан: Three points determine a plane. Four points, unless you ensure the fourth one is on the plane determined by the first three, determine a warping of the plane into a saddle-shaped object.

Similar reasoning as for question "3 vs 4 bearings for y axis travel"" holds. If you introduce a fourth point, it is more difficult to make a flat plane.
Provided that your bed is stiff, e.g. a flat piece of glass, or a thick metal plate is used, you do not need more than 3 screws. Both my custom built printers use pieces of glass on aluminium heated beds that use three screws for levelling, the third screw is located in the middle of 2 corner points.
If your bed is thin (e.g. thin heated bed with tape, so no glass) and flexible or warped, an extra screw might be handy to deform the bed to a more flat plane, but it is more difficult to level.

I'm in agreement with 0scar. I have a monoprice mini IIIP with a four point "leveling" system. I've added a piece of glass atop a silicone thermal transfer pad. The four-point system warps the thin aluminum bed very badly. I've since drilled a hole in the front to create a three-point level. No more bed warping!

If the movements of those points for an axis are perfectly synchronized, there shouldn’t be a problem. However, in the physical world, inertia and elasticity come into play and hinder synchronization of such points. One of the points could move earlier than the others if they are not properly synchronized. In a 4-points-for-an-axis system, that means bending.
I guess that’s why printers that have a 4-point Z axis usually have a dedicated motor for each point to synchronize electronically, rather than trying to synchronizing them with a single motor and a timing belt.
Despite the difficulty in synchronization, having 4 points for an axis has an advantage over having three: it adds rigidity.
Related articles

3 Point Print Bed Leveling vs 4 Point Bending
Reddit: V2.4 Quad Z-Axis

authors: Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні

authors: Константин Ван


text:
Tevo tarantula Z- port burnt
I burnt the Z- port for the Z endstop. Can I use the Z+ port? I'm using Jim Brown's Marlin firmware.
Any help to change that is highly appreciated. I know nothing about code. Sorry for my ignorance. I'm new on this 3D printing universe.

burnt? Can you show a photo?

Assuming line 585 of Configuration.h looks like this
// Almost all printers will be using one per axis. Probes will use one or more of the
// extra connectors. Leave undefined any used for non-endstop and non-probe purposes.
#define USE_XMIN_PLUG
#define USE_YMIN_PLUG
#define USE_ZMIN_PLUG
//#define USE_XMAX_PLUG
//#define USE_YMAX_PLUG
//#define USE_ZMAX_PLUG

That is to say, if the Maximum endstop ports/plugs aren't currently being used, then you could just redefine the pin used by ZMIN (Z-) to be that currently being used by the ZMAX (Z+), in the appropriate pins_XXXX.h file (contained within MarlinTarantula/Marlin/src/pins/), where XXXX depends upon which board you have (I don't know what board your printer has).
For example, if you have a RAMPS board then in pins_RAMPS.h at line 79 you would change
//
// Limit Switches
//
#define X_MIN_PIN           3
#ifndef X_MAX_PIN
  #define X_MAX_PIN         2
#endif
#define Y_MIN_PIN          14
#define Y_MAX_PIN          15
#define Z_MIN_PIN          18
#define Z_MAX_PIN          19

to become (note the change in the last two lines)
//
// Limit Switches
//
#define X_MIN_PIN           3
#ifndef X_MAX_PIN
  #define X_MAX_PIN         2
#endif
#define Y_MIN_PIN          14
#define Y_MAX_PIN          15
#define Z_MIN_PIN          19
#define Z_MAX_PIN          18

Then compile and reflash the firmware.
Obviously you would then plug the Z_MIN (Z-) wire from the endstop into the Z_MAX (Z+) port.


text:
Has anyone rebuilt Prusa3D firmware for the Genuine Pruse i3m3s?
With no answer to my question two days ago about how the Prusa printer behaves with an intermittent open or shorted thermistor, I'd like to ask this question of relative last resort.
Prusa seems to have some version of their i3 software posted on Github.  Should I expect this to be current, or some older version?
Have you rebuilt, reflashed, and operated with rebuilt Prusa firmware?
If so, what tips would you offer?
I ask because once I open something like that up, I inevitably am seduced into making changes.

The Prusa Firmware on GitHub is the very latest version -- it's the code repository Prusa uses for development.  My suggestion is that you don't use it unless you're planning to do firmware development or testing, because like any such software, it tends to have bugs.

But, I should be able to revert to the version I have.  Thanks for the info that it is bleeding edge.

Did you get the "intermittent open or shorted thermistor" fixed? Amazon Prime can ship those practically overnight, you should fix that before you overheat & burn something up, they are dirt cheap.

I didn't turn out to have a problem.   I suspected that I might,  and was curious how the firmware would respond.   Since code is sometimes the best (or only) documentation ....


text:
Damaged overhang
I have issues with this overhang:

The whole part always breaks in this overhang during the print.
I tried to increase the count of wall lines and decrease printing speed, but none of those things help. Do you have any idea how to fix it? Is possible to create support inside a model to print this overhang?
(I´m using Cura 4.1.0.)
I´m using 3 wall´s lines and 15% gyroid infill. My bed has 70 °C and nozzle 205 °C. I am using PLA Prusament galaxy black.  The part is oriented the right way. By overhang I mean damaged part above holes.

I would imagine the infill handling that, but maybe some number of top layers setting is 1 and the slicer counts those as top?

When you get upwards facing things failing it can be because the slicer has too few top layers which makes angled faces have gaps. While you may think it is a wall the slicer sees it as top layer. Try increasing the number of top layers and check in the preview how it appears.
Infill will normally support those faces so no separate support is needed. Just make sure you have enough top layers that no gaps form, 3-5 layers should be alright.

As @r-ahlskog pointed out, it was due to the top layers count being too low. Adding some, now it looks perfect:


text:
Inland PLA+ stringing badly at manufacturer-recommended temperature ranges
I've seen conflicting advice on the correct printing temperature for Microcenter's house-brand Inland PLA+, particularly after a supplier change announced in April 2018.
There's an official post from Microcenter, where they state that their PLA+ from both the suppliers they use prints best from 215-225 °C. (The label on the spool specifies 205-225 °C).
However, I've run a series of Benchy prints with recently-purchased white inland PLA+ at different temperatures (with a Lulzbot SL toolhead and 0.1 mm layer depth, slicing by Cura LE 3.6.10 after repairing the STL with Microsoft's repair tool, movement 30 mm/sec), and my experience is very different:

220 °C has very severe stringing and blobbing, including blobbing on top surfaces. The text on the base is not visible at all.
215 °C has substantial stringing and blobbing, particularly on inside surfaces, but not on the roof of the boat (except the prow). The text on the base is partially visible.
210 °C looks very good; there are some tiny blobs on the nameplate and the inside door, and no stringing. This was the first one that didn't require a razor blade to remove from the PEI surface. The text on the base is very clear.
205 °C looks great.

Is something wrong with my equipment, such that it's printing with a higher temperature than it reads? Is Microcenter's advice off? Could I have a batch that behaves differently than is expected for the same filament in general?
More to the point -- what advice do others have to get good results with Inland PLA+?

Not every printer is the same, the temperature you read from the display might differ from the actual temperature, unless you measure it with a calibrated sensor you'll never know. Therefore it is advised to find your own optimum for your printer.

What are your retraction settings? Without knowing this it's hard to know whether you should simply expect stringing.

I started with Lulzbot's profile for PolyLite PLA, which specifies 1mm of retraction at 7 mm/s speed, and haven't modified that as yet. (1mm isn't much, but I understand lower values are needed for direct-drive extruders).

Even as PLA+ contains some additives, each printer is different. We usually never know what the actual temperature of the printhead is, but if your printer prints good at 205 °C, despite the manufacturer claiming you should use a little more temperature, use it. It might be the perfect combination of temperature and speed for your printer. Your printer is not the benchmark machine the manufacturer of the filament used, and we have no idea what speeds they used if they had an enclosure and what style of hotend they used.

FYI -- the main reason I'm not as yet accepting an answer as yet is that I've invited MicroCenter customer support to chime in; if they did add an answer describing their test platform settings, that would be invaluable. (The Lulzbot Mini is among the printers they sell, so I'd hope they include it in testing their house-brand filament!)

@CharlesDuffy Did the CustomerSupport come back at you?

No, they didn't. However, what did happen is that Lulzbot determined that I had a bad thermistor; they replaced it, and I haven't seen the issue since.

...which is to say that this answer (pointing to potential for printer-specific differences) was spot-on.

A portion of information missing from the manufacturer's specifications and in the question is the print speed. You could have slower speeds than the manufacturer used to perform the tests, which requires lower temperatures to reduce the "flow rate" of the plastic to an acceptable level.
In some cases, I use as low as 20 mm per second print speed, others can be as high as 60 mm per second. At the higher speeds, I will increase the temperature five degrees C to ensure that the hot end can keep up with the increased filament extrusion. Alternatively, slower speeds need lower temperatures. The variation may not be larger as described for your system. You've already experienced a substantial difference based on your posted numbers.
It would be unrealistic to collect others' experiences with a specific brand unless color choice, print speed, printer model/hot end model, etc are also collected. Let's include part cooling fan settings as well to complicate the task even more.
You can consider to check the great Thingiverse library for temperature test models. These files are used to print various segments at different temperatures. Due to the above noted factors, you may find your result can be clustered or may find they cannot, based on color, manufacturer, age, etc. It is a valuable resource to improve your printing results, however.


text:
Tevo Tarantula auto bed leveling config
As discussed previously on a post, Tevo tarantula Z- port burnt, I've burnt one of my Z endstops ports (I solved this issue and I'm using the Z+ port, normally).
I did that trying to install an auto bed leveling sensor. I don't want to mess up again...
I have a LJ18A3-8-Z/BX NPN sensor.
Brown wire is connected to the N (+) of the power supply, blue and black wire connected as shown in the picture (pay attention to the red markings on the white wire):

Any advice about the wiring is welcome. But I hope it's right, I've read in several places1 that this type of sensor doesn't require any kind of resistor.
I'm using the last version of Jim Brown firmware.
Here it is what I've changed so far:

//#define BLTOUCH       // ANTClabs BLTouch sensor (might also work with clones)
//#define BLTOUCH_V3    // ANTCLabs BLTouch sensor version 3
//#define SN04          // Green sensor
#define INDUCTIVE_NO  // Normally open inductive sensor
//#define INDUCTIVE_NC  // Normally closed inductive sensor
//#define SERVO_PROBE   // Endstop switch on rotating arm. Set servo angles!
//#define NOZZLE_PROBE  // Nozzle wired up to contact metal on bed

//#define TRIPOINT
//#define LINEAR
//#define BILINEAR
#define UBL
//#define MANUAL

Let's go to my issues:

Before flashing this configs, the sensor's LED would go on near metal and off far from metal. With this new config the LED remains off until I place the sensor near metal... But after it goes on, it remains on, even when far from metal.

When I home the axis, I try to simulate the position of the Z axis, holding the sensor close to a metal plate. But the Z axis moves up... up... up... Doesn't matter what I do with the sensor (hold close or distant from metal). Until some point and it stops.

So far nothing is fried and I'm trying to make it work right now. It seems to me (based on what I read) that a NPN sensor really doesn't need anything. Just plug on the power supply and board.
So... basically, as you can see, I have no idea of what I'm doing. I hope someone can help me...
I've tried to find answers and figure it out by myself. I'm not being lazy here...

BTW I'm wondering if Jim Brown is still better than the official Marlin Firmware... So I'm willing to change it if that is the opinion of the pros!

Footnote
1 For example, in the second post to How do I wire my lj18A3-8-Z/BX to my prusa? going insane

I now see you are using an NPN instead of a PNP sensor! That makes a difference! There is an excellent post,  Don’t trust the internet (and how to add an Inductive Proximity Sensor to your 3D printer the proper and easiest way) on how these sensors work and how to connect them.

An NPN sensor is wired differently from a PNP sensor. The signal wire is the black wire, blue is the ground wire.
According to this posting, Don’t trust the internet (and how to add an Inductive Proximity Sensor to your 3D printer the proper and easiest way, you need to insert a 6.8 kΩ resistor in between the black and the blue wire, I quote:

...Indeed, all we need to do is add a single 6.8 kΩ resistor between BLACK and BLUE and all should work fine.

Alternatively, a diode in the black wire would also work, I quote:

... So I did test using a diode and that also works perfectly fine, simply because the direction in which the 12 V current would like to flow when the sensor is open will be blocked by the diode. The internal (or hardware) pull-up still pulls the Atmega’s sensor pin to HIGH however.

...
  But as soon as the sensor is closed, the diode would allow the 5 V current to flow in the opposite direction towards ground, which pulls the Atmega’s sensor pin to LOW.

Good catch! Hopefully that is the answer :-)


text:
Will the inside of a vehicle be too hot for PLA?
I'm thinking about doing a print to go inside a vehicle. I have PLA at hand, ready to go. Is that gonna work, or will the hot temperatures we sometimes get inside cars on sunny summer days cause the PLA to go soft? If so, what other material should I try?

PETG is probably a better choice for inside of a vehicle ... but it also depends on the piece and how big it is. I built a small piece out of PLA, which, along with some superglue, was used to provide support for two other pieces and did so without issue.

That depends on where you enjoy the summer, in Greenland the summers are less warm than in the Sahara.


text:
Why did my print fall off its raft?
I just set up a refurbished MP Select Mini V2 and tried to print the test file included by the manufacturer, cat.gcode, from the included SD card. I printed in PLA (I think; the unlabeled sample included with the printer) at the default extruder temperature, 190 °C. The print bed was set to 50 °C.
It appeared to print the raft fine, and then a couple of layers of the cat. At this point I walked away, and when I came back a few minutes later here's what I found:

The raft is still stuck to the bed, but the layers of cat that were printed fell off the base and onto the floor. Here's what I picked up off the floor, (next to the detached raft):

The raft was stuck on the bed just fine, so I don't think it's an adhesion issue. The bed and the desk the printer is sitting on are both very close to level (things don't slide or roll off). There's no breeze and I'm certain nothing bumped or touched the printer while it was running.
This is my first attempt at a print so I obviously have no idea what I'm doing. I'm planning to set up a camera to record the next attempt. What other troubleshooting can I do? What is the likely cause of this problem?

The question itself s good, but could you tell us some settings? What does the display, during print, say about temperatures? What material do you print (APS, PLA, Whatever)?

It looks like the print does not adhere too well to the raft, maybe you could slice a model yourself and try a calibration cube first; without the use of a raft. But a few more settings would be welcome. Please read "Helpful Templates / Help us help you!", that might give you an idea. Welcome to 3D Printing.SE!

Did you try printing from an SD card to bypass computer issues, such as power saving, updates, etc.

@Trish I left the temperatures on the defaults, 190°C for the extruder and 50°C for the bed. The display indicated that temperatures were within a few degrees while I was watching. The material I believe is PLA (it came with the printer in an unlabeled pouch).

@PerryWebb I did print from an SD card, the one included with the printer.

@0scar I added the additional info from the template to my question. I assumed I'd have better luck printing the pre-made demo model first rather than trying to slice my own (so I could be incompetent at one thing at a time instead of two) but I'll try a calibration cube if you think that will help.

Your trouble lies within the presliced G-code: the temperatures are rather low for PLA and upping both by 10 degrees would be advisable:

200 °C for the Hotend
60 °C for the Bed

Atop that, printing a raft for PLA is usually not advisable.
Get yourself a slicer (the most common free ones I am comfortable with using are Cura, Slic3r and Slic3r Prusa Edition) and either import a fitting profile and create your own profile, then slice the .stl-model yoruself.

Thank you for this advice! I am a bit skeptical though. The file I used was literally designed by Monoprice to be the first file printed by new users on this printer, and I haven't found any complaints of problems similar to mine in forums for it, so that seems like an unlikely source of error.

@Robert there's a saying in 3D-printing: never use someone's else G-code, it will not suit your machine.

@Trish I think the presliced G-Code provided from the manufacturer of the machine should suit the machine.
Nevertheless the manufacturer assumes a well tuned, homed and calibrated machine.

I upped the temperatures as you suggested and tried again. It printed fine! I can't seem to print anything without a raft, but that's a separate problem. Thanks for your help.

It looks to me as the model did not have enough surface contact with the raft.

This can be caused by to big of a gap between raft and model set in the slicer or because of Underextrusion.
The part itself does not look underextruded, at least not a lot, so I would say that the slicer settings were not ideal.
I would suggest you slice a part by yourself and test the printer again.
From personal experience a skirt or brim works better with PLA and uncomplicated models.
For general bugfixing, explanation of slicer settings and anomalies the Simplfy3D hompage is a great resource.
Here is an article about Rafts, Skirts and Brims and here the general guide page for print quality.

Your printing temperature is a bit low but shouldn't be the cause for the problem. Maybe check the specs on the PLA you used.
Your bet temperature seems to be fine as the raft did adhere well.


text:
Print times not accurate (Ultimaker Cura)
I am using Ultimaker Cura (4.1.0) as slicer and a Monoprice Maker Select 3D printer and have noticed that the reported print times when slicing are something like 25 % less than the actual time it takes to print.
Is there some practicality factor involved here? Have I failed to enter all relevant printer properties in Ultimaker Cura? Are these reported times not actually meant to correspond to reality?
Any insight is gratefully received.

Most likely Ultimaker Cura is not aware of the firmware's default limits on acceleration or jerk. Make sure they match either by increasing the printer's limits or decreasing the ones in the print profile to match.


text:
Problem in 3D printing of an empty model
I'm new to 3D printing. I modeled an empty bird in Blender (the stl file of model is presented). I tested the model in Blender (using 3D printing tool) and also the Netfabb software. They don't show any error. However, when I load this model in Ultimaker Cura for printing, as shown in the last image, the result is only a cylinder shape bird. I have seen many 3D printed empty models on internet.  Why can't my model be printed correctly?
the download link of the model

by empty you mean hollow? Or is your object just a top surface? Did you close the bottom of the object so it has one contiguous surface all over?

I named the model empty because i didnt close the bottom of the object. I would like to use the printed object as a mold. Therefore the bottom of the model should not be closed.

The STL does  not slice at all in Ultimaker Cura 4.0. This is most probably an invalid model.

Thank you. I have seen this problem. Sometimes the ultimaker cura can slice the model incorrect as shown in figures. But most of the times it is considered as an invalid model in cura and can not be sliced. I used netfabb to repair stl file. It shows the file as a valid stl file. However it can not be printed using cura. I think this a simple model and i cant realize what is the problem.

You have modeled your bird. So far so good, but you likely only modeled a single surface and not a closed surface body. The crucial step was forgotten, as your pictures 1 and 2 show: you have designed a single surface for most of the object, not a body. To turn the bird into a printable object needs it not to be a single surface but a surface enclosing a volume that has some thickness.
At the moment, it looks like this: 640 vertices, NO enclosed space.

To achieve an even thickness object in blender:

A to choose the whole model
E for extrude Region
Z Z to constrain movement to Z axis
type in the wanted thickness

remember, that the grid in Blender is usually in cm, while slicing programs reference in mm!

close the edges by creating faces there (chose 3 and F)

A to grab everything
W then R to remove doubles, increase the merging distance to 0.05 (it takes away hundreds of superfluous, slightly shifted vertices!)
CTRL+N to recalculate normals

Make sure to check the slicer, because we have some strays, visible in red... where are those? They are faces hidden in the body!

Hide the underside (Select nothing, allow viewing through the object, 3 > B > draw a box around the lowest layer > H)
If you have the normals visible, you'll see the iffy areas now. Fix them by removing the superfluous faces and flipping those that are not superfuous but just inside out (W>F). One example area I highlight in the next picture

In the end, it should look like this in cura:

Make sure to check layer view and possibly thicken some areas manually - or make a box-part for the top, so you can ensure printability. As you'll see, at some scales, some walls are too thin due to how we extruded along Z only.

Alternate ways
As noted in the comments, instead of the Z-Extrude, a model with very vertical walls could benefit from using the solidify modifier. You will have to add it via object mode, modifiers and then choosing solidify and setting a positive thickness. To properly convert the visible modifier into an actual change of the model for the export, you will have to Apply the modifier.
Afterwards, go back to hunting stray internal surfaces and flipped faces.

For thickness, wouldn't you want the extrusion to be "Normal" rather than "Z axis" ?  I'm not familiar with Blender but that's where I'd be headed in MeshMixer.

I used solidify modifire in blender to add thickness to the model. However, my model can not be printed correctly.

@CarlWitthoft extruding along the normals in blender does not create a single body but one body per face.

To address the point raised by Carl, after the extrude-Z (by desired layer thickness, around 1mm), I would scale in X-Y (shift-Z) which isn't quite the right transformation. @sara, did you 'apply' the solidify? I think blender needs this when exporting as stl.

you need to apply solidify first, yes.

Thank you so much. Did you check the preview of the model in cura? After these changes, it can be printed correctly? I was almost disappointed in printing this model :)

@sara according to cura, it should print with the fixes - you might want to tweak the "upper" in some areas to beef up the walls in some areas as the last picture shows.

@anaximander added a path for that.

after a lot of search, i used the autodesk Meshmixer to add thickness to the model. I used the blender only for modeling and didn't use the solidify modifier to add thickness to the model. Then in autodesk Meshmixer, using select→ edit → Extrude, i added thickness to the model (the new stl file is presented). It seems that the new model can be printed. However, the blue lines can be seen in the print preview of Ultimaker Cura and i dont know how to remove them. Unfortunately, i haven't a 3d printer to test the model, but it seems that it is printable.
the link of repaired stl file

The blue lines are moves, there is a tiny gap at the tail end though (the same area I had without throwing a fix over the top part), otherwise, it's a good and working fix. Good job finding a way that works for you!

Slicers don't do well with "empty" (hollow) bodies, or bodies with secret holes in it. You need to supply a filled body1, the slicer will make it mostly empty anyways (depending on the infill percentage). Also, you need to have infill, else the top cannot be printed as it does not have any support.

Footnote
1 This means the body has to have one continuous surface without gaps or holes that encloses a volume. Among the most simple examples are spheres and cubes.

Thank you. I'm new to 3d printing. Could you please give me more guidance? In blender, i can not supply a filled model. I only can change the infill parameter in ultimaker cura.Based on the last image, it seems that the software can not detect the walls of my model and only it fills the middle of the model. Can i solve my problem by increasing the infill percantage in cura?

@sara Blender is not an optimal tool for creating models for printing. Blender support should be asked elsewhere, e.g. Blender forum? Similar issues have come along the past years, you could try to search for Blender specific questions. I'm not a Blender user; I just share slicer specific issues with hollow bodies. I have had issues with hollow bodies created in other tools.

@0scar (and Sara) - as well as the Blender forum (link?), don't forget that there is also an excellent Blender Q&A site here on Stack Exchange.

Secret holes are no problem. I'm also critical of the comment about blender being non-optimal.

Blender can be a very powerful tool to fix errors or design organic looking, smoothed parts if you know how to use it.


text:
Home E / extrude until endstop is triggered
I'm working on something that I'll share once it's done (then hope it's not a disaster and actually useful to someone).
It requires a stepper to rotate a part by a certain amount of degrees, which I plan to achieve by using E1 and simply issuing an appropriate G0 command.
The issue I'm having is that I would need Marlin, upon start to check if the part is actually rotated to the 0 deg position.
I suspect that there is no way to i.e. use an unused Z max pin and issue something like the well known G28 or like Duet3D does with G0/1 S parameter. Is there maybe a hack I can apply with a filament run out sensor as that axis endstop?

Can you edit for clarity, please?  "rotating a stepper" sounds like rotating the mount. I'm guessing what you want, per the answer, is to home a separate stepper and then drive it N steps.

Another option would be Klipper's "manual_stepper" functionality.
Will the project be standalone, or is it connected to a Raspberry / PC at all times?

I set Marlin as a baseline for myself thinking that if I can get it to work on Marlin 1.1.x it'll work on Marlin 2, Klipper and Duet3D. Nevertheless your input is highly appreciated as I'd like to at some point provide instructions on how to run it on the mentioned three.

You should be able to adapt the "Dual X Carriage" feature for your project.
That allows a second print head (on the X axis) to move independently of the "main" X axis motor - and it can also be homed against its own endstop.
You can enable this feature in the configuration_adv.h file under "Dual X Carriage".
By default, all "Dual X/Y/Z axis" features use the first free extruder stepper driver - which would be E1 in your case.
You would have to adjust the X2 parameters to allow you to zero the motor on the endstop (X2_MIN_POS 0, X2_HOME_DIR -1, X2_HOME_POS X2_MIN_POS), as well as setting the default mode to "FULL CONTROL" (DEFAULT_DUAL_X_CARRIAGE_MODE DXC_FULL_CONTROL_MODE).
As far as I understand, you can then use
T0 and T1 to change between both "X axes", with T0 selecting your real X axis, and T1 your custom stepper motor.

It is a good idea to use a second X-axis stepper and the X-max end-stop. This means that the OP needs to divert from the E1 approach.

E1 would still apply, only it's not really E1 anymore. "Dual X Carriage" uses the first unused extruder port for its operation, much like the perhaps more common "Dual Z Axis".

Yes I know, but you should make that clear in the answer as the OP might be on the route of specifying an E1 and a mechanism to home the stepper, while the dual X approach is different, certainly in the configuration file.

@0scar I think it should be clearer now, though Marlin documentation on the Dual X Carriage feature is a bit lacking.

Thanks for the edit! This makes it better to understand for the OP and other users!

Thanks, I'm a bit ashamed that I did not think about that :) I'll try it out. I'll try to remember to share the "thing" I'm working on here once it's finished.


text:
Ripple in layers
I'm printing part for a chess board from a set on Thingiverse, expanded a little to 50 mm square.
After the 3rd layer, I'm seeing what looks like raised ripples, and you can feel them with a finger too.  I didn't see this when printing just 4 pieces earlier.
PLA at ~200 °C, bed is PEX/flex steel/magnet/AL.

The initial layer also had some streakiness (?) after the 1st layer.
Odd, as the bed tests out as pretty level using the paper under the nozzle test.

Looking much better now that the infill is starting.  Will have to look into calibrating the extruder when this print finishes. Printed a 6 hour iPhone stand yesterday, turned out really nice.

Top layer is nearing done (looks like top layer is finishing, then the lip to go for the edge of the board) and all signs of the rippling are gone.
Will check the 'level' again before we start on the light color squares.

Most probably your nozzle is too close to the bed, hence the strange first layer.

Printing some more parts tonight.  Looks like solution is better bed "leveling" (tramming, or basically squareness between X, Y, and Z axis). Getting it dialed in to the correct height, 1/4 turn of a bed leveling screw at a time.
Also ordered some metal (stainless steel) shims so we can get and check the bed level more accurately than "this index card plus a little bit" as the card measures ~0.16mm and we want 0.18mm to 0.2mm or maybe 0.22mm it seems.

Turned out better bed 'leveling' was the solution. While printing the white squares for the chess board, I printed them in pairs, I adjusted the leveling screws a little each time until I achieved a very nice first layer, not too squished (creating blobs) and not too thin (didn't stick well enough to PEX on heated bed), but something in between that looks very nice.  Will try to measure with the shims and see just what it is.

It looks like over-extrusion. When layers are printed with 100% infill, excess material has nowhere to go and these characteristic ripples form.
Always calibrate your extruder. 3D Hubs have a good article on the topic:
How To Calibrate, Tune and Fine Tune your printer and filament

So the ripples will be 'absorbed' so to speak when yet to come 20% infill layers start?

If you are over-extruding, you need to fix it, since it will cause other problems.

I think it's just "bed too high".

I was thinking it could be that too. Wish I had a way to machine the bed flatter or something to deal with the odd layer 1 streaking, as it looks just right in some places, intermixed with too high or too low in others.

Could be over-extrusion, but also the nozzle is a little too close to the bed.


text:
PETG on Ender 3
I've been trying to print some eSun PETG on my Ender 3 with some questionable results. I am experiencing severe stringing. Attached is a photo of my first layer. My settings are:

250 °C hotend
80 °C bed
0.15 mm first layer
0.2 mm layer height
No Z-hop/retraction
40 mm/s print speed
50 % fan speed

Any suggestions?

Increase the first layer, PETG usually requires a larger height for the first layer.

Ok I will try that later

Furthermore, rpm has to be low to get PETG layers to bond properly. This depends on the used fan, 50 % can be a lot or not much depending on the fan duct and fan. An additional Z-offset (like leveling the bed with a thicker piece or multiple pieces of paper) is reported to work for many people (note that some slicers can add a Z-offset, e.g. through a plugin).

From my experience, stringing like that is due to a restricted filament path. Have you taken a look at the feeder setup: extruder gear, boden tube, and nozzle? Look for clogs.

The bed may also be too high. The texture for the skin fill makes it looks like that's a possibility, and it would restrict flow, making the stringing more likely.

It looks to me like you're using Cura with the default Ender 3 custom start gcode. The priming line there tries to cram about twice the amount of filament through the nozzle as what it should, so unless your material and temperature can handle really fast flow, you'll build up pressure in the bowden, the retraction before the move to start printing will fail to actually back the filament out enough to stop flow, and you'll get a string. This will continue until sufficient oozing has happened to dump all the excess filament.
Going back and forth over the same line is also problematic, as it will pick up any blobs that got dropped off the first time over, melt them on the nozzle, and drag them into the print area. PETG really hates that. Whereas with PLA it just tends to leave the junk stuck to the model somewhere, with PETG it'll get dragged around and break things off the build plate or the model.
I replaced the priming part of the start gcode with:
G1 X0.1 Y20 Z0.3 F5000.0 ; Move to start position
G1 X0.1 Y200.0 Z0.3 F750.0 E18 ; Draw the first line

Note that there is no second line.
I also reduced the final retraction in the end gcode from 3mm to 1mm so that the filament is left in a position where it doesn't require a lot of advancement to start priming, comparable to what you get after loading filament manually. Otherwise, you need extra priming at the start to make up for the difference, and then after loading new filament you'll over-extrude during priming.
Oh, you also need retraction, regardless of material. I missed that you had it off. Anyone telling you to turn off retraction for your general settings is wrong as that will always cause stringing; it's just a matter of how much1.
1 - see discussion in comments.

a little confrontional on the retraction side: under some circumstances (flex filaments) it can be better to turn it off.

@Trish: I disagree strongly. I've seen that claim plenty of times, and turning it off can be a mitigation vs extruder mechanisms where the flex filament gets stuck, but turning it off with flex filaments will result in extremely bad print quality (and hard to fix in postproc due to properties of the material) unless your print has single components in all layers. The right solution is adapting the extruder to accommodate the material.

Getting started with flex materials and with 3d printing in general, bad advice about turning retraction off was one of the most frustrating things I hit and wasted lots of time on. So if I'm a little bit confrontational over it, there's at least a reason.

It's highly circumstancial, and in most cases, retraction is good or better, but for some small cases. As a general advice: yes, turn it on. However, one should be aware that there are some small cases where turning it off can help. I suggest turnign the Anything into an Anything* with a notion about some fringe cases - in those cases Stringing will happen, but you take the stringing to fight other, bigger issues.

@Trish: Yes, I think that's right that it can be an intentional tradeoff to mitigate other issues. But general advice to turn off retraction that's not tailored to a specific situation and that's not framing it as a tradeoff, but rather "what you need to do to print this material" or similar, is what I'd call wrong advice. The only way "retraction off" could be generally right for a material is if the material had essentially zero compressability and zero flow without an applied force, and that's exactly the opposite of the properties it typically gets recommended for.


text:
Why do different drivers change the noise of steppers?
I've upgraded my stepper drivers.
I'm looking to understand why my stepper motors made noise in the first place.

Stepper motors contain two distinct sets of coils. The current in these coils is governed by your stepper motor driver.

To move the motor in either direction, the coils are being driven one after another, and in different directions.
Imagine this being a normal 3-phase AC motor, but instead of three phases, only two are used.
A "full steps" (1/1 "microstepping") would mean switching one coil off and the other on - resulting in a jerky motion to the next position. Real stepper motors have multiple sets of those coils (rather than two like in the diagram) - usually 200 or 400, giving 1.8° or 0.9° of rotation per "full step".
Such motion is usually not desired, since the immediate movement of the motor creates noise and vibration.
If both coils are driven with less current (71% of the full current, the reciprocal of the square root of 2, so that the total force on the motor remains the same) during the switch from one current to the other, another position can be achieved - a "half step" between two full steps.
This can be repeated for higher number of "microsteps", with 16 being the usual compromise.
Optimal smoothness - and next to no noise - would be achieved by driving the stepper motor with pure sine waves. The closer a stepper driver can get to that pure sine wave, the lower the noise made by the stepper motor will be:

Some stepper motor drivers, most notably the TMC family of chips, can generate 256 microsteps internally, approximating a sine wave quite well.
Other stepper motor drivers (like the LV8729) can also handle 128 microsteps, but they require the printer control board to send an individual step signal for each of those steps - which may limit speed because of the additional load on the board's MCU.

To make a stepper perform a step, block signals are send to energize the coils to position the rotor. Such a block signal causes abrupt motion and triggers harmonic frequencies. This is audible as stepper noise. If the block signal is smoothed, the motion is more fluent and less noise will be observed. A similar effect is achieved using micro-stepping.
It could be that the new stepper drivers use more/less microsteps1) or a smoothed/block1) signal opposed to the previous drivers, hence less/more1) noise.

1) The question does not state if the noise is reduced or increased, but noise reduction is most probable

The coils in the stepper act like speakers. Its not that the stepper is making less noise, it's just making it in frequencies that are above the average person's hearing.


text:
Help diagnose Z-banding
The printer is "Monoprice MP Select Mini 3D Printer V2".
This is how my printed fan part looks like:

These printers are notorious for their Z lead screw assembly (M4 bolt & nut) so I installed flex coupler and aligned the M4 bolt and motor shaft so that the wobble is minimal. It is still there, but I don't think this amount of wobble would produce something like what I experience. Please check out the timelapse video at the end.
I also tightened up Z guide rails (no rattle, very little slop)
Moreover the banding appears to be less pronounced and have alot greater period for vase prints
(this is extruded ellipse printed along Y axis).
I tried:

slowing down print by 50 % - no effect on banding.
monitored hotend temperature with external probe on the heater block (-+5 °C)

The banding appears to be almost exclusively in Y axis direction; for example, the same ellipse printed along X axis:

Now, same ellipse in layered mode (seam side) printed along Y axis

Please put photos in your question, not as links to external sites.

Do you know the lead screw's lead/pitch? What is your layer height? Made any calibration adjustments to steps-per-mm?

the lead screw is just M4 so i guess the pitch is 0.7 (according to http://www.metrication.com/engineering/threads.html ) and layer height is 0.3063. Didn't do any calibration adjustments.

it would help if we would know the model - is it a perfect cylinder or can you show it? Also, this is a cantilever printer, make sure that the arm does not raise or lower during printing.

@0scar: How does 0.7×200 come up? If the pitch is 0.7 and there are 200 steps, it should be 0.7/200×200=0.7, not 0.7×200. But I'm skeptical that the pitch is actually 0.7. Does M4 mean actual M4 thread in this context, or just 4mm diameter with a metric thread profile shape but some larger pitch and possibly multiple starts?

It looks like the period is 14-15 layers, which would be 4.2882-4.5945 mm based on the above-reported layer height.

This differs from the traditional banding as observed from Z wobble induced banding as e.g. explained in this answer.
Your banding patterns clearly seem to form diagonal bands, this is most probably a combination of the lead and the full rotation of the stepper. The most logical explanation is that the layer shifts as a whole in X-Y direction (when seen against the print height, this movement is concentric seen from the top). This means that the next layer is positioned over the previous layer in a concentric pattern. This hints to some sort of defect in your X/Y-plane assembly and should be investigated further.
This is difficult to visualize, but this sketch shows the issue for some layers:

This could be related to the belts of the X and Y-axis, play on the drive pulleys, non-straight lead screw, guide rods with play, play in general, Z-stepper alignment to the threaded rod, etc. Considering the amount of Z-wobble fixes shared by the unofficial MP Select Wiki, the best place to look for is the Z-stepper to lead screw coupling.

It sounds like the lead screw might be bent (thus applying forces in the X and Y directions dependent on its rotational orientation) and like the Y axis belt may have more play/elasticity in it (or X if I read the description backwards).

Thank you @0scar! I think your diagnosis is spot on. I checked slop and belts on Y axis before but didn't consider that bed heating cable might snag underneath the rails thus impeding proper Y positioning. I wouldn't expect this effect to have periodic rather than random effect though. but the issue is almost gone after repositioning of the cable.


text:
What are the tradeoffs of a cantilever printer design?
There are several cantilever-style printers around like some DIYs (2018), the TronXY-X1, the Monoprice Select Mini, Tiertime's Cetus line and the 2019 Prusa Minilinks for information, no affiliation.
While the specs of the printers are very different, what are the main benefits, tradeoffs and drawbacks that are inherent in the design compared to a more traditional Core-XY or Prusa/Portal design?

The point of the cantilever design is for reduced cost. There are no other benefits beyond that.

Cantilever printers constrain the X-axis carriage only on one side and have a free hanging side. This means, that the X-beam has to be rather sturdy and is limited in length, making them usually quite small machines.
Another tradeoff stemming from this source is, that they have to stiffen this one connection as much as possible. Any play on the connection leads to increasingly large errors the further the printhead is out from the Z-Axis and can lead to bad prints, banding and total failures of prints. This behavior, at least on the TronXY-X1, is sometimes called Z-Wobble and has brought up some aftermarket modifications. For example, this bracket constrains the movement of the X-cantilever.
While all axis would be affected by bad constraints, a cantilever suffers the most: The cantilever (if not well constrained) can deflect in both XY and XZ plane, pretty much opening a cone with the tip at the leadscrew nut. A one side-leadscrew portal design can only deflect in the XZ plane, opening an angle along with the center in the leadscrew nut. A double leadscrew design has, constrains both ends of the X-axis and prevents deflection but could suffer from bending the portal bar.
The main benefit of a cantilever design is that being of a rather simple design with few moving parts, understanding as well as repairing and modifying the motion control system is fairly easy. The ease of access and low component number also allows reducing manufacturing costs to some degree.
Another thing of note is, that these printers usually have a fairly small form factor, allowing them to be used in small workshops without taking up too much space. However, their build-volume to occupied-volume ratio usually is not as good as other designs - printers with a much larger build volume just get a much better ratio there.


text:
Do Cura's self-crossing infill patterns account for excess material from self-crossing?
As far as I can tell, Cura's infill patterns which are self-crossing, such as triangles, don't do anything special to account for extruding material over the crossing points multiple times. In theory this should produce either a blob around the crossing point, or excess pressure in the extruder due to blockage from the alread-deposited material that will result in over-extrusion after the point is crossed until the excess pressure is dissipated.
Is Cura doing anything to account for this? It doesn't seem to do travel moves across the intersection, but maybe it's adjusting the overall flow to compensate for the crossings "on average".
If not, it seems like crossing points near the walls would be a source of dimensional accuracy problems, which I've seen in tightly confined areas and which I'm looking for a root cause for.

With most filaments you don't need to do anything special to account for overfill caused by these crossing points. When the nozzle extrudes the second direction, it pushes the lines laid by the first direction out of the way. The same happens when the third direction crosses the first two. There's a blob, but it's a blob within the plane of the layer, so it shouldn't stick up out of the layer and upset subsequent layers. There are two complications which can occur though:

When filling each direction, it's usual to keep extruding when moving from one line to the next (not a travel move), which results in getting an extra half perimeter around your infill. This is fine for a single raster pattern, and for box infill, but with triangle, hexagram, or similar, you'd get three half-perimeters (one for each direction). The slicer needs to offset the third direction so that those extra perimeters don't overlap. I don't know how Cura handles this; it's possible that's the source of the dimensional problems you're seeing.
With abrasive filaments, or those that don't stretch (such as carbon fibre or metal fill filament), the "pushing the existing lines out of the way" doesn't really work. You just end up wearing down the outside of the nozzle and getting the kind of blobs you're afraid of, sticking up into the next layer. It's just best to avoid infill with crossings (box, triangle, hexagram, etc.) on such filaments.

Regarding point 1, Cura calls this "zig-zaggify infill", and it's an option you can leave off. I think the way it orders infill line drawing, you get at most one along any perimeter. Slic3r seems to always do it. Aside from that, my concern is that the crossing (especially a 3-way one) that happens to fall very near the wall may displace the wall outward. There's nowhere else for the material to go since the crossing happens at the same place in each layer (and this is intentional for strength).

Regarding When the nozzle extrudes the second direction, it pushes the lines laid by the first direction out of the way could you explain why it pushes it away (I never see this happen, nor ever heard it does), the OP hints to not pushing it away as the second pass it cannot extrude (as the top of the first pass line is on the same level as the bottom of the nozzle), causing a hick-up in flow and build-up in pressure.


text:
3D Print Enclosure
Developing an electronic product for which I'll need an enclosure. It's about 50x30x20mm and should survive higher temperatures (50-60 degrees). Because of the low volume (under 500 required per year), I'd like to go for an enclosure option that doesn't require a huge upfront cost. So ended up at 3d printing.  As the product will retail for around 500$, the surface finish needs to be up to a higher quality than the standard pla prints that I've seen. From my own research (3d printing noob), the best material for this would be ABS. Maybe with some manual polishing at the end. Then I'd either buy a 3d printer and do it myself or find a company to do it.
What am I missing? :)
Anything I'm missing? Thanks a lot.

Welcome to 3dPrinting.SE! When you say "enclosure", I take it you mean you're asking about the case for which you'll be installing the electronic parts into?

Yes, I know it's used a lot to mean the enclosure around the 3d printer itself as well

the [tag:enclosure] means "Printer enclosure" or "printer chamber". It does not apply to an item that you might want to print to enclose electronics (aka: housing).

ABS should be able to handle the the temperatures you describe. ABS will have a similar finish to PLA when it first comes off the printer, but you can refine and smooth your results via an acetone vapor treatment. This only takes a few minutes per piece, and can cost as little as a $1 bottle of fingernail polish remover, a used coffee can, a bit of wire, and some paper towels.
What you're missing is the hobby-level 3D printers ($1000 and below) can be extremely finicky. You're not gonna get the kind of quality you need the first print out of the gate. Or the second. Probably not the third or fourth, either. And then you'll find every now and then something isn't quite right any more, and you'll need to troubleshoot why.
You certainly can make this work... just be prepared for what you're getting into.

So I could potentially avoid the hobby level printer downsides by having manufacturing done by a company that specialises in 3d printing? Did I understand it correctly?

Or injection molding or similar.

note that acetone smoothing also increases inter layer bonding, making the parts more sturdy.

@JoelCoehoorn well Prusa produces parts for their prints routinely. A good printer can work very well for long time, but indeed every 1000-2000 hours of operation (three times a year?) some minor maintenance is required.

Hire someone on fiver or upwork to design it for you, and then hire a company to make them for you out of ABS. Then you can do the smoothing yourself. If you're getting into 3d printing so that you can be cost effective on just one design, the outsource it. If you are planning to do different designs over that year, then pick it up yourself. If you want quality now, however, then outsource.

Thanks. I'll probably need to do different designs and iterate until I get the desired combination between shape and function.

@Alex, well good luck then.

I recently started using ABS - while easily printable, you'll really want to use a filter or make sure to use the printer in a well ventilated area because of the fumes.
With your required temperature range of only 60°C, PETG would also be a viable as an easier and safer to print alternative. However, it is not smoothable with acetone like ABS is, though you can get very high-quality surface finish from the raw print if you build a decent printer.

ABS would be ok for these temperatures. But 3d-printing, cleaning up the print and smoothing the surface to get a marketable device takes time and effort.
So I guess that for a few hundred enclosures you'd be far better/cheaper off having them manufactured (in China?) than trying to print them yourself.
Unless the design changes often of course.

I'm a bit concerned with the quality if I go straight to China. I know that finding a reliable supplier there is very tricky. I'll probably try and do it in Europe first .

What you could also try is ASA. It is similar to ABS and is really strong.

Hi, could you expand upon your answer somewhat, as it is a little terse. It has been flagged as NAA and should be converted to a comment. I thought I'd give you a chance to  expand it first, otherwise it probably will be converted to a comment to the question.


text:
Extruder problem
When I am trying to print something on my home made 3D printer, I can print the first and second layer, then the Bowden extruder's gear starts slipping; it cannot push the filament anymore,the gear is turning but slipping; the filament cannot go forward.
I tried all configurations of the tightening screw of the spring, corrected PID settings, cleaned the nozzle, tried with 200 °C up to 215 °C (I am using PLA) but no result.
I am wondering whether this is related to speed, feedrate and acceleration settings. The Slic3r puts automatically a feedrate as F1800, is this too high ? Do I have to change it every time I slice something? I might proceed with trial and error method but I need a more rational method.
Any suggestions?

The slicer I use (Slic3r) puts F1800 as speed. Is this too high ? Could this be a reason for the filament to slip ?
My filament's diameter is 1.75 mm. In the G-code file created by my slicer (Slic3r), the flows are shown as follows:
; external perimeters extrusion width = 0.44mm (4.25mm^3/s)
; perimeters extrusion width = 0.42mm (8.02mm^3/s)
; infill extrusion width = 0.42mm (10.69mm^3/s)
; solid infill extrusion width = 0.42mm (2.67mm^3/s)
; top infill extrusion width = 0.42mm (2.00mm^3/s)
; support material extrusion width = 0.44mm (8.50mm^3/s)

Welcome to 3D Printing.SE! This could possibly be a retraction problem, please share some of your settings of the slicer with us by [edit] of your question (print speed, retraction speed, layer thickness, etc.). See this template topic for information.

Probably you haven't installed a cooling system for the extruder

:)  The rational method is what you learn in the initial settings. Once you have calibrated your printer vs filament so you don't need to change parameters again.

Please use the edit link to add more information... do not add information as an answer. This is a Q&A site, not a forum of threaded messages... such answers will be deleted

The PLA isn't advancing as fast as the gcode requires. Since you've already tried higher temperatures, try printing at half the speed (F value). If that works, try 3/4 of the original F value, etc., until you find the best feed rate at this temperature for your material, printer, and model.

Feeding Too Fast?
The feed rate required of the extruder is related to the volume per second divided by the cross-sectional area of the filament.  The Fxxxx number is not the filament feed rate directly, but is the linear motion rate for the nozzle.
The F1800 corresponds to a motion of 1800mm/min, of 30mm/sec.  This is reasonable but could be made slower by changing the slic3r settings.
Units Set to mm?
Check that the g-code is specifying millimeters (mm) as the basic unit.  There should be a G21 in the g-code to do set units to mm.  If not present, add it to the "Custom G-code" section in the "printer parameters" for the start of a job.
Retraction Heating the Heat Break?
To eliminate the possibility of retraction bringing the heat up into the heat-break, try turning off all retraction.  The print will be stringy, but this is trying to solve the problem, not yet to optimize the print.
Jam in the Heat Break or Cold End?
When the filament stops extruding, is it jammed tightly into extruder assembly?
With the extruder hot, is it difficult to pull out the filament?
If so, you may have heat creeping into the heat break, which should be cooled by the cold end and possibly a heat sink.  Do you have air flowing over the cold-end and the heat-break?  If you are getting heat-break or cold-end jams, the cooling is not adequate.
Heater Problem?
Is the heater heating well enough?
Is heat being transferred into the filament?
How big is your test object for which the first two layers print well?  If the object is small, plastic that is already molten in the nozzle may be sufficient for the first two layers.
If you are using something like Repetier Host to control the printer over USB, you can see a graph of thermister temperature, which should not drop more than a few degrees when printing starts.  If the temperature is dropping more than 5°C, there may be a heating problem.
If there is a heating problem, it could be anywhere in the energy chain, from the power supply, wiring, FET switch, PID settings, bad heater cartridge, and high thermal resistance between heater cartridge and the hot end.

I had such effects and fixed it by reducing the flow. It might be that your filament is thicker than it should be. Therefore too much filament ends up in the nozzle. Once the molten filament accumulates enough to rise to the cold end of the hot end it solidifies and nothing moves anymore -> clicking.
So either try to go with the Flow from 100% down to 96% or change the Filament width setting of the slicer. Both will have the same result of g-Codes that push less plastic. If you see under extrusion then you overdid it.

One should (when possible) use calipers at random locations to establish how uniform the filament thickness is, and how close to the advertised value it is. For example, some filaments advertised as 3mm are nominally 2.85mm.