- User Since
- Jul 18 2016, 11:35 AM (144 w, 1 d)
Thu, Apr 18
So we got it to fail due to the filament sensor.
I then used the LCD in "Change Filament" to extrude filament from T1 and I notices that it did begin to extrude filament right away but every couple cm the extrusion would vibrate like it was being extruded at too low of a temp. I had this issue with 2 of my 3 Alphas. When I took the toolhead off to check the wiring I noticed this:
After taking it apart, here is a better look.
I rewired that section and it seems to be extruding consistently now. @matth Let me know if you have issues with it in the future.
Tue, Apr 16
@jebba oh! I misunderstood. I recently ordered some Black PLA, I am unsure why he is getting errors with a PLA, I haven't heard of that from anyone else that I can think of but Ill keep and ear/eye out and let you know when my Black Polylite comes in and I have a chance to check updates on it.
@kent, yeah, the only way I can verify an actual strip out for Ninja is by removing the filament from the toolhead and looking at it. If there is a dramatic kink in the filament it indicates the feed gear had been working on that area for too long and it is indeed a strip out.
I have been doing A LOT of Ninjaflex printing to figure this out. From what I can tell the weight of the reel is VERY significant to this. When feeding ninjaflex through your fil tube, notice how tough it is to pull through, there is so much more resistance on the path to the nozzle than we ever have had before. While this is incredibly significant it did not solve the issue mentioned earlier about ninjaflex not extruding 2 layers in. For this I discovered it was isolated to the opaque ninjaflex colors and not the translucent ones. So you are going to have a harder time with Black, Purple, Red, etc. All the colors that look opaque when extruded. Other colors like Ninjaflex's Blue, looks translucent when being extruded and does not have the same extrusion resistance.
Mon, Apr 15
@oliver oh!! Good to know, I wasn't sure. Thank you
Fri, Apr 12
@logan, there have been a few Cura updates in the last few weeks that might have improved several things but that also meant that the Poly PLA profile might have need some updating. @tutley and I did some testing with a modified profile and most up to date cura over here and got these (both have .109 FW) :
Can you try this gcode and post back how it prints on your end?
There is no M425 F1 S0 so you will need to go into the LCD "MENU" -> "ADVANCED SETTINGS" -> "BACKLASH" -> and make "Smoothing = 0.00mm" and "Correction = 100%". This is something we can set in the firmware so we wont need a customer to go into the code and add the M425 for a repeatable calibration test.
@karrad, Maybe you could try it too? Since this is so critical I would really like as many eyes and machines to try it as possible.
Wed, Apr 10
Tue, Apr 9
Wed, Apr 3
I have not made my edits yet but we can go ahead and use what @tutley sent me and we can update with my pattern later.
Fri, Mar 29
I think there was an issue with the **'s and it made a section bold instead of marking them individually.
Tue, Mar 26
Mon, Mar 25
This machine is still missing the probe. I had 2 prints with contact and now its hitting the bed again every time.
Mar 19 2019
Thank you @west, it does touch the washer now instead of the bed. All my machines are probing now, that front right is still close to the edge but it makes contact.
To adjust the positioning we could move the probe location -1 or so in the Y, this will save room in the X so we aren't trying to get more room there.
Mar 18 2019
We wanted to get some data for different materials and a different wall order to determine if Horizontal Expansion and/or Differential Shrinkage could be factors here.
I am running a test now and it appears that the speeds and fan % are behaving like normal now, no alternating pattern.
Yeah that one could be moved bit, my one machine (0002) has something in addition going on but overall, I agree with the 2mm move of that probe point.
Mar 14 2019
Hey! Please let me know how the new start code works. I have a suspicion it will still be a little to the left and I am working on a fix right now just in case but I don't wanna send it through without a good amount of recent feedback confirming the need. THANK YOU!
I think there is some confusion as to what the issue is here. We aren't getting the alternating speeds on the same layer with the different tool heads, we are getting alternating speeds on alternating layers with the same tool head.
I made a visual example when @karrad and @Steven were talking about it:
We came to the idea that somehow when the tool head changes layers but doesn't switch nozzles, it counts the previous layer time as part of the time for the next layer. This causes the "minimum layer time" to think that the layer is bigger than it is and it doesn't kick in and slow down this layer.
The fan seems to also be affected by the measured layer time as well and on the 1st slower layer I get the max fan speed but when it moves up in z for the 2nd layer for that nozzle, it brings the fan all the way down to the min fan speed. These changes happen when the model does not have a time difference between layers, all layers are the same amount of time. I attached a video bellow, Sorry its a little blurry, I wanted to get the LCD in the frame so you can see the fan change in between 0% and 30%.
Mar 11 2019
the default was previously extruder 1 so changing what I updated works.
@karrad can we get that changed on all profiles?
This is a good point, I switched it to the 2nd nozzle to compensate for some ooze on the 1st layer but this is more of an issue, we should change the skirts back to toolhead 1.
Mar 8 2019
I agree with @logan on the process order change, aside from this issue we are having, alternating each layer instead of every other layer would provide better accuracy. I am unsure of how much work would have to go into changing that process for cura tho.
When Minimum Layer Time is set to 0 the layers both print at the faster speed but the fan setting still alternates "max" then "min".
There is another issue that I am only noticing now that could be important here, it seems isolated to the "Cooling" settings. When the layer goes bellow the minimum layer time (smaller parts) the layers begin to alternate in speeds still but they ALSO get dramatically different fan speeds. The 1st layer for that nozzle (the slower layer) gets the full max fan speed and the second layer (faster layer) goes to the min fan speed settings. Then the nozzles switch and it starts over for the other nozzle.
Mar 5 2019
This change is posted here with the TazPro new start gcode: T6009
I have an update here:
I have an update:
I have some Updates Here:
@logan I re-sliced to hopefully get better clarity, let me know if this one works or not for you.
Mar 4 2019
Closing this out, Changing the Gcode Flavor in Machine settings from Marlin to Marlin (Volumetric) and back to Marlin, corrects the issue. Creating a new machine also fixes it.
No Material Profile Update/Fix!
Mar 1 2019
I was getting good results with these when the Smooth is set to 0.0 and the Correction is set to 100% on the machine.
Feb 27 2019
Feb 25 2019
High Speed Profile
High Speed Profile
High Speed Profile
I have noticed that when the layer time goes bellow the "minimum layer time" setting the alternating layer speed still does a slow and then faster layer. So a lower setting does not fix this issue, only isolates it to the top or smaller print areas/layers. Thoughts?
Feb 21 2019
Feb 20 2019
It appears that @victor_larchenko's "min layer time" find is a good fix for the alternating layer speed issue, so I think this ticket can be closed.
Feb 18 2019
@marcio Gracias! Will do.
Feb 14 2019
@victor_larchenko I have been running a lot of tests for this issue and I wasnt seeing the increased speed but my profiles use a max of 15 s for the min layer time so this makes a lot of sense to me. I will test this out and try a repeat, thank you!!!!
Feb 4 2019
Feb 1 2019
Thought yall would find this interesting.
When I turned Zhop ON, the alternating layer issue stopped so I pulled both the gcodes into Meld, see bellow.
Jan 30 2019
I have had the new style of Wiper pad installed on my minis, tazs and quivers (taz pro) for a while now and they work better for me than our current polyester - abs treated wiper pads. Both the hardened steel and copper nozzles have been cleaned quite well and they are both more consistently clean, still not perfect tho.
I do think it would be a good idea to have them cut to different sizes for other mounts, measurements bellow:
Taz Pro = 25mm x 90mm (x1 per wiper mount, x2 per machine)
**These are cut with the intention of them being folded long ways and inserted.
Jan 29 2019
Jan 25 2019
Nozzle Heat test:
@kent, I am not sure if we can get this in any different size to accommodate the cutting of it.
@kent 6 in by 9 in, so 152.4mm by 228.6mm per sheet.
@DaniAO I have replaced all my minis with this wiper pad, different thicknesses, some treated, some not. I was using them to get a broader idea of how they were working. I think it could be a good total replacement but I would need a week or so to really put it to the test and see how it cleared off the copper nozzles, probably not much of a difference I would imagine. One thing is that the size I recommend is cut for the Taz Pro wiper mount, we would either need to have different sizes OR we could use the same size and use 3 of them on the widened mini mount and 2 on the normal mini and taz mounts.
The POLYDISSOLVE (pva didn't work) treated wiper pads going around now have been soaked in a solution that was too thick and thus the pads are harder to install (my bad), I am mixing a solution right now that should be thinner. Some of the pads may have not been completely dry when I sent them around and that is probably why you have found some stuck together (also, my bad). I will have a new round ready for y'all by Wednesday morning next week, along with the measurements of the ideal solution ratio. The pads are cut 25mm by 90mm, to be folded in half when installed. This measurement is for the newer wiper mount design so they will work best if updated.
Jan 23 2019
50 C for the main print temp and for the two initial print temps.
Printing temps for all profiles need to be set to 50 C, not 0 C. My bad!
Jan 17 2019
That should be fine
I haven't tested all of those but the high speed settings worked without issue :) so should all be good.
@marcio, yup, saw that. Thank you sir!
Jan 15 2019
for my 3rd machine:
T0 was adjusted +0.40 and T1 was adjusted +0.20
I also notice that my calibration wipe (aka rewipe) for 2 of my machines seems to be falling to the right a bit, anyone else seeing this?
I am on .72, these calibrations and start code were observed for the entire process.
For one of my machines T0's bead was good but I had to adjust T1 by +0.20mm.
For the other I had to adjust T0 by +0.40mm and T1 by +0.20mm.
Jan 14 2019
I have .70 on my 3 Quivers, they are all printing now.
@jebba I'll add them (PC-max and Alloy910) to the list to be supported, it may take a bit tho.
Jan 11 2019
Good to know, Ill keep an eye out for issues there so I don't spend too much time on it. Gracias!
This is the list of my expected pairing tests. Some of these may not end up being supported but for now, this is the combination list I am working from. Let me know if I am missing anything or if there is anything I can toss off the list.