Page 3 of 4

Re: Anyone have an Ultra One yet?

Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:46 pm
by jferguson
I've been reading along here and am astonished that the folks from MakerGear haven't pitched in. You're clearly intelligent, methodical, and to the extent of my knowledge not trying to do anything bizarre. Surely they must have a grip on these sorts of problems, and could share their approach with you.

It almost sounds like they sold you a kit, not a finished system, and it's up to you to do the final configuration?

did you get a deal on it?

Re: Anyone have an Ultra One yet?

Posted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:40 pm
by mkmachining
I am astonished as well. I've spent many hours of my time with support on the phone, many hours emailing logs, g-codes, profiles, factory files, on top of literally hundreds of hours of test print time. We did not get a kit, and I'm very familiar with a variety of FDM machines. Lately I've been printing about 25kg of nylons per week, with close to 10kg of various PETGs as well.

After doing initial machine setup I went to PETG which I consider a very easy material to print, but was met with some resistance saying the machine had only been tested with PLA, and all the users of the units out there only use PLA. Why someone would buy a machine of this caliber to print PLA is beyond me.

Regardless, after unsuccessful printing of PETG for the most part (I was able to get some acceptable prints, but never at the expected quality) I moved to nylon which is what we print almost exclusively on all our other Makergears. Interestingly, starting slicer settings at my PETG settings for my M2s and M3-ID resulted in prints looking like they were massively over temp. After much, much testing my settings ended back up at almost exactly those initial settings with different results.

With nylon, prints started out somewhat successful, but then transitioned into the massively over temp look, even when printed 25C lower than we do on our M2s and M3-ID every day.

Beyond issues with other materials, even with the stock profile and PLA the ringing is pretty drastic, the z-height babystepping on the console doesn't do a thing on my machine, I've had extruders in duplication mode produce different results with identical settings, etc. Not sure how else I could help with diagnostic data, or how I could be any more patient. Could have had 5 M2s cranking out parts, 15 Prusas cranking out parts, another laser, a nice scanner, any matter of other machines increasing my production but I've been stuck with I feel is doing R&D on a machine that perhaps needed more testing before release. I'd like to note I really like all my other Makergears and have been a customer for years, and have a bunch of the smaller machines. But I expected a much different experience with the U1 than I've had thusfar.

Included a few more pics with a Prusa vs U1 print, zoom in closely to get a good look, then a closer view of the ringing, and finally two pictures showing M2 PETG parts with identical settings to U1 parts out of PETG. M2 parts in black , U1 in gray. Same settings for gray PETG on the M2...I know some folks tweak things for different color filament but I've never done anything like that. Heck from PLA to PETG I pretty much just bump temps up, if I'm really refining things perhaps do a simple test with a bunch of small cubes with different retraction/coast/wipe values.
Prusa & U1 Left.png
ringing on sample gcode.png

Re: Anyone have an Ultra One yet?

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:11 pm
by TSC
mkmachining wrote:
Wed May 29, 2019 7:58 pm
My print times are way, way slower than the estimates.

The Mod7 file took an hour and a half on the U1, whereas with the M2 it was right around an hour. Typically with the newest version of Simplify I'm seeing it take 10-20% longer than the estimate on an M2, 100-150% longer than the estimate on the U1.

What is overlap internal infill angles exactly, and is that something in Simplify I missed?
Sorry for the late response. I have been away for a while. The overlap internal infill angles is a setting on the infill tab in Simpliy3D. It is a check box at the bottom of the Internal Infill Angle Offsets box labeled "Print every infill angle on each layer".

Based on the large discrepancies you are seeing in actual build times, it seems obvious that MakerGear has some electronics/firmware/profile issues to resolve. It is ashame MakerGear did not catch this before they started advertising and shipping the U1.

The robustness and rigidity of the frame assembly should help maintain accuracy and allow for more accurate faster prints over the long haul, but MakerGear needs to get the electronics/firmware/profile right first.

You have already gone way above and beyond in assisting with the troubleshooting process. Have you been able to make any progress with MakerGear recently?

Re: Anyone have an Ultra One yet?

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:36 pm
by mkmachining
No progress at all in the past week+, besides getting confirmation I'm not crazy and the U1 prints approximately 35% slower with identical settings. Unfortunately it hasn't made me any production parts since receiving the machine due to the print problems.

I fear the ringing is an issue with my machine specifically, I was told we should be able to expect 100mm/s with no ringing. I can't get "no ringing" at any speed.


Re: Anyone have an Ultra One yet?

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:21 pm
by TSC
On a different printer I owned, I ran into a strange ringing problem. I spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to figure out what the cause was. In the end it turned out to be a problem with the belts and pulleys. Although they were supposed to be a matched set, the belt and pulley profile did not match perfectly. Once these were replaced with belts and pulleys from a trusted supplier, the ringing was finally gone.

I am just throwing this out as an idea, because I know how frustrating and maddening things like this can be. I am not sure if you always have this issue or just with certain settings and setups. If you are always seeing this issue regardless of settings or setups, maybe a mismatch or faulty set could have made its way into the mix. I am not sure if MakerGear might be willing to help you out by sending some replacement parts to test. Preferably some belts and pulleys off of a know working unit.

It seems that the ringing would be a somewhat separate issue from the slow build times. In my case when I had the ringing the quality of the parts was poor, but I could still achieve expected build times when using what I was used to for "normal" settings on that model printer.

Re: Anyone have an Ultra One yet?

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:42 pm
by TSC
Was it MakerGear who confirmed the U1 prints approximately 35% slower with identical settings or from your testing? If it was MakerGear what is their reasoning behind that?

The M2 specs used to show print speeds of 80-200 mm/s. I guess the 100mm/s is in that range but on the lower side of the range. A person certainly would expect a machine in the $12500.00 range to be able to at least match the speeds of a couple generation older machine that was closer to the $1800.00 price range.

Perhaps it has more to do with the mass of what is being moved around, but it would appear that many of the parts being moved around are the same parts that are used on M2 and M3 units.

Re: Anyone have an Ultra One yet?

Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:51 pm
by mkmachining
The extruders are identical to the M2/M3 which saddens me a bit. They are fine, but only fine I'd say. A Bondtech setup would be nice, I very, very rarely have a jam on machines with that extruder. My recent hardship with the M2/M3 extruders is wearing away the teeth on the extruder motor gear. Been printing a lot of glass fiber nylon and after lots of missed layer issues found the teeth are worn almost smooth.

The X-Axis carriage is very beefy and definitely weighs a considerable amount....but my mills are far heavier axis and can run WAY faster with accuracy to .001" or less. Have been considering building my own ball-screw driven machine for a while but I thought the U1 might be the answer without the hassle.

The time difference per Makergear Support was due to using a Duet vs Marlin board.

Re: Anyone have an Ultra One yet?

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2019 1:53 am
by TSC
Interesting. I also prefer the Bondtech extruders. Have you considered making your own housing and purchasing the gear set parts from Bondtech. I started working on this and planned to try and finish it up once I receive the U1.

I have a hard time believing just the Duet vs Marlin board electronics creates that much slower of prints. The Duet boards are being used on other machines that move at very high speeds. The Duet boards are being used for CNC subtractive machines as well as the typical additive 3d printers.

I have not received my U1 yet. I ordered mine at the beginning of February and still do not have a ship date. I am beginning to think this purchase was a bad move now. If your print quality was at the same level as your M2/M3 printers would you be happy with it?

Re: Anyone have an Ultra One yet?

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2019 4:34 pm
by mkmachining
If my print quality/speeds were identical I'd be satisfied, "fine with it". I basically planned on a larger, enclosed M2/M3 that would be capable of large prints and be able to crank out many of my smaller parts on multi-day duplicate prints.

However I was hopeful this printer would exhibit greater print quality, speed, and longevity. My M2s that have been ran around the block several times exhibit quite a bit of bed wobble on the linear rail, the USB ports have failed on all my RAMBOs after plugging in a million times, and the hotend setups have all had failed thermistors multiple times due to the wires breaking. The U1 has a fixed bed and wifi which should solve several of those problems, was a bit disappointed to see the same hotend/extruder setup.

We initially had e3D hotends retrofitted to all our Makergears, but they kept causing RAMBOs to fail for some reason (no one else has ever shared this problem as far as I can tell) and after some warranty units, and plenty bought on my own Makergear told me they wouldn't warranty anything if machines weren't completely stock. I did find great print quality and less nozzle clogs with the e3D, but having machines go down repeatedly wasn't worth the hassle. Thus I will not be modding the U1 in any way, at least not for a long time.

While I find my Makergear M2/M3 print quality to be quite good most of the time, I gotta say the Prusas I've bought are the best so far. Never expected it from a flimsy, much cheaper machine...but I'm impressed. Their longevity is yet to be seen, but haven't had any big issues from any of our machines, the oldest one being over a year and running almost every day. Even if they only lasted two years they'd pay for themselves easily.

Re: Anyone have an Ultra One yet?

Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:56 am
by TSC
Thank you for taking the time to provide this feedback. It is always helpful to learn what other users are experiencing. Hopefully you are able to work through the kinks soon.