Hello,
I am trying to print some textures in low relief 1 mm height or less.
See image below, black part is in PETG on the M2 and the gray part is in PETG on the CEL Robox.
the M2 supposedly has better resolution than the Robox, but it doesn't like to do this low relief on fine mode.
I also tried to print low domes but same thing, seemed to fail on top areas, will include a photo and screen shot of part.
Any ideas how to improve?
print resolution
print resolution
- Attachments
-
-
Re: print resolution
Looks like you need more perimeters to cover the gap on very shallow top surfaces.
Re: print resolution
I'm thinking that there is not a default for PETG in S3D, which means create your own. That means that you have to set the layer height to 0.1 mm (High Quality) in order to experience the benefits of finer resolution. (If you didn't save the settings, the S3D software just defaults to whatever was in there before.)
What nozzle size are you using on the M2? (Because the smaller nozzle on the Robox at 0.3 mm is smaller than the 0.35 mm standard nozzle on the M2.) With a 0.2mm layer height on a 0.35 mm nozzle, you've only got five layers to work with in a total 1 mm protrusion. So you get a much chunkier looking pyramid.
(If you want to get a finer detail for under 1 mm stuff, buy the optional 0.25 mm nozzle for the M2.) Roughly ten bucks or so, I think. It lets you do lower layer size without being a complete expert yet, and that lower layer size is what gives you the fine detail resolution.
In addition, when you sliced that M2 print, it looks like you specified a different surface treatment for it, Linear versus Concentric. (Switch to printing the pyramid in Concentric, with a smaller nozzle and layer height, and your prints will look a lot better than the Robox version, I'll bet.
)
Good thread on it here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2632&hilit=fine+detail+printing
And this is one of my fav's from RSilvers....he got this result using a .4 mm nozzle using only 50 microns layer height in polycarb. (Don't know how - it's beyond my capabilities, because trying to print a low layer height with a nozzle that is too large for it has the potential to smear the filament all over the place and cause blobs out the side.)
(Okay, got to scoot...blew out a monitor last night and I'm literally typing this while leaning over a desk to peer at a ten year old 12 inch monitor. Time to change it out.) 
What nozzle size are you using on the M2? (Because the smaller nozzle on the Robox at 0.3 mm is smaller than the 0.35 mm standard nozzle on the M2.) With a 0.2mm layer height on a 0.35 mm nozzle, you've only got five layers to work with in a total 1 mm protrusion. So you get a much chunkier looking pyramid.
(If you want to get a finer detail for under 1 mm stuff, buy the optional 0.25 mm nozzle for the M2.) Roughly ten bucks or so, I think. It lets you do lower layer size without being a complete expert yet, and that lower layer size is what gives you the fine detail resolution.
In addition, when you sliced that M2 print, it looks like you specified a different surface treatment for it, Linear versus Concentric. (Switch to printing the pyramid in Concentric, with a smaller nozzle and layer height, and your prints will look a lot better than the Robox version, I'll bet.
)Good thread on it here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2632&hilit=fine+detail+printing
And this is one of my fav's from RSilvers....he got this result using a .4 mm nozzle using only 50 microns layer height in polycarb. (Don't know how - it's beyond my capabilities, because trying to print a low layer height with a nozzle that is too large for it has the potential to smear the filament all over the place and cause blobs out the side.)
Re: print resolution
The default fine / medium / coarse (or whatever) settings work well for "ordinary" objects with reasonable (multi-millimeter) feature sizes, but generally produce poor results for peculiar objects with small features. In those cases, you must take control of the settings and adjust them to achieve the result you want.psd wrote:it doesn't like to do this low relief on fine mode
When you divide the total relief height by the layer thickness, you get the number of flat layers that approximate the curved surface. The thinner your layers, the more of them will fit in a feature (dome / pyramid / whatever) of a given height.print some textures in low relief 1 mm height or less
Because you control the layer thickness in the slicer, it's entirely up to you how good the approximation will be.
Typical layer thicknesses range from 0.15 to 0.30 mm: about three to six layers per millimeter. You can reduce the layer thickness below 0.1 mm to get more layers per millimeter, at the cost of increased print time and risk of nozzle clogging.
If those pyramids are 1.2 mm tall, the Robox slicer was set for 0.1 mm layers (12-ish layers) and the M2 slicer for 0.2 mm layers (6-ish layers).
Set the slicer you're using for the M2 to match the Robox slicer and see what happens: the M2 is certainly capable of very fine Z-axis resolution!
Re: print resolution
Ed has good points there. setting the layer height to 0.1mm or lower (i've had success down to as low as 0.04mm reliably on my M2), will give you a much nicer appearance than what you're currently getting. I would also go for 2 perimeters instead of 1.
BOTH printers need to have their extrusion multipliers calibrated because you're underextruding big time on the M2 and to a lesser extent on the CEL robox.
As far as nozzle size, it really isn't going to make a difference for you on prints like this because you don't have any fine details in the horizontal plane that would benefit from a smaller extrusion. That said, a smaller nozzle will make a big difference if your prints have features small enough to take advantage of the smaller extrusion widths.
BOTH printers need to have their extrusion multipliers calibrated because you're underextruding big time on the M2 and to a lesser extent on the CEL robox.
As far as nozzle size, it really isn't going to make a difference for you on prints like this because you don't have any fine details in the horizontal plane that would benefit from a smaller extrusion. That said, a smaller nozzle will make a big difference if your prints have features small enough to take advantage of the smaller extrusion widths.
Re: print resolution
How do you do this?Farr0wn3d wrote: BOTH printers need to have their extrusion multipliers calibrated because you're underextruding big time on the M2 and to a lesser extent on the CEL robox.
.
Re: print resolution
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1964&hilit=calibration+cube
One thing that I noticed recently was that if you intentionally over-extrude a bit (if you end up with say 0.9 for an extrusion multiplier to get the proper extrusion width, then go for something like 0.92 or 0.93), your bonding with your adjacent extrusions is much better, and the strength of the part seems to be quite a bit better as well. I'm assuming this is because simplify doesnt overlap the extrusions enough and this improves that. your top layers will come out totally decked in too.
The numbers will have to be played with to get into the sweet spot but its worth it IMO
One thing that I noticed recently was that if you intentionally over-extrude a bit (if you end up with say 0.9 for an extrusion multiplier to get the proper extrusion width, then go for something like 0.92 or 0.93), your bonding with your adjacent extrusions is much better, and the strength of the part seems to be quite a bit better as well. I'm assuming this is because simplify doesnt overlap the extrusions enough and this improves that. your top layers will come out totally decked in too.
The numbers will have to be played with to get into the sweet spot but its worth it IMO
Re: print resolution
thanks to everyone's advice I was able to really calibrate the machine and get some much better prints!Farr0wn3d wrote:Ed has good points there. setting the layer height to 0.1mm or lower (i've had success down to as low as 0.04mm reliably on my M2), will give you a much nicer appearance than what you're currently getting. I would also go for 2 perimeters instead of 1.
BOTH printers need to have their extrusion multipliers calibrated because you're underextruding big time on the M2 and to a lesser extent on the CEL robox.
As far as nozzle size, it really isn't going to make a difference for you on prints like this because you don't have any fine details in the horizontal plane that would benefit from a smaller extrusion. That said, a smaller nozzle will make a big difference if your prints have features small enough to take advantage of the smaller extrusion widths.
Farr0wn3D, how did you recognize I was under-extruding? How can I recognize when I need to adjust for under/over extruding?
Re: print resolution
Because you can clearly see each individual extrusion line and they are likely only contacting getting point-contact from the layers above and below and little to no contact with the extrusions on either side. if you look along the extrusion lines with a flashlight, I'll bet that you can see the perpendicular lines of the layer below.
Good, solid extrusion should leave the top layer looking almost flat to the point where you cant drag your fingernail across the lines and get and vibration, if that makes sense. Everywhere on the black piece is underextruded and by a lot. The grey piece is significantly better but is still underextruding, except the lower center portion and some of the left side, which isnt perfect but its getting there. If you look at the lower center part of the flat surface on the grey print, you'll note that the surface finish looks much smoother and consolidated when compared to the rest of the top surface.
if you're underextruding you'll get the appearance of having laid uncooked spaghetti noodles side by side somewhat tightly or with slight gaps between. This is not good.
if you're over extruding you will get ridging where the plastic is being forced up the side of the nozzle tip for each pass because the extrusion path that youre laying down doesnt have enough room and it tends to be a bit of a compounding problem because you can start to run a deficit of room for each successive pass.
you want to be somwhere in between where the surface look flat and smooth. Where no extrusion lines are easily discernible when possible. Look at the ends of each line where it meets the perimeter and turns around, see how those areas are much more dense than the rest? Of course this isnt critical unless you're producing highly cosmetic parts or strength/structure is of the utmost importance but hey, why not challenge yourself to always be improving, right?
Good, solid extrusion should leave the top layer looking almost flat to the point where you cant drag your fingernail across the lines and get and vibration, if that makes sense. Everywhere on the black piece is underextruded and by a lot. The grey piece is significantly better but is still underextruding, except the lower center portion and some of the left side, which isnt perfect but its getting there. If you look at the lower center part of the flat surface on the grey print, you'll note that the surface finish looks much smoother and consolidated when compared to the rest of the top surface.
if you're underextruding you'll get the appearance of having laid uncooked spaghetti noodles side by side somewhat tightly or with slight gaps between. This is not good.
if you're over extruding you will get ridging where the plastic is being forced up the side of the nozzle tip for each pass because the extrusion path that youre laying down doesnt have enough room and it tends to be a bit of a compounding problem because you can start to run a deficit of room for each successive pass.
you want to be somwhere in between where the surface look flat and smooth. Where no extrusion lines are easily discernible when possible. Look at the ends of each line where it meets the perimeter and turns around, see how those areas are much more dense than the rest? Of course this isnt critical unless you're producing highly cosmetic parts or strength/structure is of the utmost importance but hey, why not challenge yourself to always be improving, right?