Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Show off' started by Spoon Unit, Mar 27, 2016.
Do we even know if he used S3D as his slicer ... I don't think we do.
Recently he was cursing out S3d for crashing when he gets to 20 Profiles (not a problem others could verify).
My guess is that if he uses S3d at all then he uses it "all" the time. At least for the BB.
But you're right, we can't be sure.
You're right. I had forgotten about that comment.
You remember who said "Slic3r is nicer"?
Slic3r offers a feature I want, which is final top layer control. I spent about an hour putting together a profile for a print, sliced, and then printed. It was horrible. So I tweaked it, had another go. Horrible. Abandoned it.
As mentioned earlier, I set up 3 * 1cm test cubes in different parts of the print bed to monitor ooze.
Set them to print Outside-In so ooze would be deposited on the outside and each time stopped the print before completion so I could load more Gcode whilst the BB maintained temperatures.
It was salutary.
Started an ooze thread: http://forum.e3d-online.com/index.php?threads/volcano-and-ooze.951/
They do the job they were intended to!
The volcano is quiet crazy and I suppose you're running into the limitations of your extruder motor. You might be able to get some more out of it by cranking up the amperage. What are your voltages now on your extruders?
Regarding that top layer, I kind of miss the ability to tune this in S3D. However, I know that Slic3r has that ability, so you might consider giving that a try.
Sorry, read now that you altready tried Slic3r. It is a little more tricky to get Slic3r to print nicely. I suppose it's the strength of S3D to print nice out of the box.
So, in the end, did you manage to have something that pleases you with the 1.2 nozzle ?
And can you share your results ?
With the 1.2, the best results I got were from printing vases - which came out really beatifully. I couldn't get reliable tool changes with the 1.2; I think the total melt area and required ram-purge speed together form an insurmountable challenge for BB 1.0. This might have changed with the Hybrid + Titan, I haven't retried.
I suspect if I reset to volcanoes I would do better now, knowing how to really tweak the first layer more effectively with RC6 and Tune > Z Bed.
Sorry, it's a bit too long ago now to be more specific.
Don't worry, it helps a lot.
It confirm that with my poor 3D printing skills I won't be able to make it work (at least not in a short time).
I'll will switch back to smaller nozzle and retry later after installing the titan.
Still, thanks for your answer.
What were the final settings you settled on to get the decent top layer in your photos?
Alas, I never recorded the intimate details at the time. Based on what know now though, The initial problem all lay in the attempt to use a single 0.6mm top layer. That's really unworkable, as the "tube" of new material just falls into the holes in the infill. You need at least one layer to set up a base, and probably two to make a good base, before packing that third layer on top, so I'm inclined to think that 3 top layers would be the way to get a solid good-looking top layer. Combine that with experience tuning the z-bed to get a first layer free from elephant's foot and you should be able to produce a good (if slightly corner-rounded) cube. I don't quite have the heart the reset up to volcano as the rigmarole with changing the hot ends is compounded with having melted plastic caked into every nook and cranny on the hot end and I can just feel that would take some effort. Plus i'd need to print a new fan shroud and IR sensor mount for the extended volcano length. Actually i really should print those so that I am ready.
@Spoon Unit I'm not eager to jump back into the Volcano just yet either until I've compiled a list of new things to try. Including ideas on retraction, hopefully from Creator!
When next printing appropriate parts intend to start experimenting with the 0.6mm and 0.8mm v6 nozzles that I didn't touch before, preferring the Volcano instead.
Want to see if I prefer to print at 1mm or 1.25mm extrusion width with v6 - instead of Volcano with more ooze.
A tonne of volcano tips just out from Richrap on Twitter around about https://twitter.com/RichRap3D/status/739916558277971969 here in his tweet stream.
Don't use extra restart, that's just masking extrusion or retraction issues. Use >38mm/sec. 70mm is prob too fast, may be skipping
I don't like wipe, that's just controlled oozing @JLawes6 Fast Z axis and Lift with a fast extruder retraction should sort it.
And with a Volcano nozzle, it's good to tell Simplify3D the nozzle size is smaller than actual nozzle 1mm = 0.94mm in S3D
Top final layer, should just need to be tuned for width, as long as the extrusion rate is good
If it's a fudge to get the top to come out better, then I wonder what effect it has elsewhere?
I guess if you don't have a lot of infill there's not much problem... though it would maybe screw up dimensions of holes etc..
I'll be interested to see if Richrap prints his X-carriage on the BB with Volcano, true reprap style. If he does, well he's really nailed it!
I don't think it's a fudge precisely, but a way to cater to the fact that you essentially have a tube of material being squirted out which, at least initially, has a round profile. The proximity of the nozzle to this tube, together with the base below form a sort of vice which spreads the material slightly wider, but I would imagine the combination of head speed, nozzle size, and layer height all come together to impact the final actual material width left behind. By reducing the nozzle width in S3D, you're essentially telling the slicer to lay the lines slightly closer together, presumably going some way to accounting for the speed/nozzle/layer combo.
I keep asking myself the question "What, in terms of the amount of plastic per unit volume in the layer, is the difference between reducing the nozzle size a bit and increasing the extrusion multiplier a bit?"
So far I haven't come up with an answer.
Using the multiplier you increase the flowrate. Decreasing the nosslesize will change more in the calculations of Simplify3D.
ie, the amount of infill used between small gaps will be smaller then when you use the multiplier. You can see this clearly when slicing an object with with 150% flowrate and a nosslesize of .25 and slicing the same object with 75% flowrate and a noslesize of .6