Different Results Using Tinythin.g verus Tinything.stl/S3D

Need some assistance getting started...post here...
Post Reply
treat1
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 7:12 pm

Different Results Using Tinythin.g verus Tinything.stl/S3D

Post by treat1 » Sun Apr 03, 2016 9:06 am

I'm trying to "calibrate" a some new material using tinything.stl as my test case.

When I print from the .g file from the quickstart Demo Folder the part comes out correctly with nice thick walls.

When I print using Simplify3D using the .stl file and the MakerGear M2 (24V V4 hotend) PLA option and High, Medium, or Fast options instead of a single thick wall, I get two very thin walls.

So it would seem that the M2 Default settings are significantly different than was is used with the .g file that is given or I am doing something very wrong or messed something up in the defaults that have been loaded for the M2 with Simplify3D or something else is wrong.

The "default" PLA M2 extrusion multiplier is 0.9, but I find I have to set it to about 1.4 or about 1.5X more to get a similar single/fused wall using S3D versus using the G file that MakerGear gave me. This seems like a huge difference. Maybe there is some setting that got messed up or something, I just don't know.

User avatar
Jules
Posts: 3150
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:36 am

Re: Different Results Using Tinythin.g verus Tinything.stl/S

Post by Jules » Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:03 pm

Put your extrusion multiplier back to 0.9, what you are seeing has nothing to do with the extrusion multiplier and everything to do with the width of the wall on that particular model.

In S3D, click on the Show Advanced options button. There you will see several tabs that enable you to change dozens of options in order to tweak your prints.....the person who set up the tallthin.g file used those advanced options to correctly slice the file for printing. (And it was probably sliced in vase mode.....or they used a different slicer program, who knows.)

The actual width of the wall on that model is not an even multiple of the standard 0.4mm layer width. (It's 1.004 mm wide.) What S3D does....it tries to fit as many whole 0.4 mm rows into the space allotted; if it's trying to fit a third row into a space that isn't quite big enough.....it drops the middle layer. (That is just the way S3D works with thin walls - it's a quirk.)

So to change that, you can do a couple of things - you can either scale it up just a hair, so that the width of the wall becomes 1.2 mm - then 3 rows of 0.4mm will fit inside the 1.2 mm wall. Or you can change your extrusion width to 0.36 mm, and set your layer height to 0.2 mm. For some reason, even though 0.36 mm does not fit evenly into 1.004 mm three times, Simplify3D will then recognize what you want it to do and squeeze that third row in. (There's a threshold of some kind in there.)

You don't mess with the extrusion multiplier, because the next thing you print isn't going to act the same, and it's really easy to mess up your settings pretty badly if you accidentally update the default.

This is only an issue for thin-walls. (I wouldn't use that particular file for any kind of calibrating. Try something with a thicker wall.)

More good tutorials and tips information on how to use Simplify3D is here:

https://forum.simplify3d.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2367

treat1
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 7:12 pm

Re: Different Results Using Tinythin.g verus Tinything.stl/S

Post by treat1 » Sun Apr 03, 2016 6:47 pm

Thanks Jules, this is very helpful.

But why does MakerGear set me up to fail doing something logical? MakerGear gives the user an STL and a G version of the same file. I'm trying to work my way up. Why give me an STL file that prints differently from the G-File without having to go into advanced settings that as a newcomer I would not know that they existed or that they never needed to be adjusted to get the same result? It would have been much better to have never had that file or at least had a big warning about using it. Based on what you have told me I have wasted many hours on an incorrect but logical assumption, it may have been at the root of many other problems I have been having with feed jams (my fingers are crossed).

My father always said that there are two ways to hide something, one is to take the thing away and the other is to bury it. The problem is there are so many knobs to turn that you don't know where to look or which knob to turn. Yeah, the answer is out there someplace, but you often get 10 or more different "answers" to choose from. In the beginning you need things to be rather cookbook adding a little more complexity at a time.

jsc
Posts: 1863
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 4:00 am

Re: Different Results Using Tinythin.g verus Tinything.stl/S

Post by jsc » Sun Apr 03, 2016 7:05 pm

From http://makergear.wikidot.com/m2-sample-prints:

TALLTHIN.G is a demo print that produces the same tall, thin, hexagonal structure that arrived with your printer. This copy employs some overrides to older firmware settings to get a fast, and smooth print. The model for this print is TALLTHIN.STL which was sliced in Simplify3d

You can see exactly what parameters were employed to slice that gcode by opening it up with a text editor. S3D (and most slicers) put in all the slicer settings used as comments in the file.

User avatar
Jules
Posts: 3150
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:36 am

Re: Different Results Using Tinythin.g verus Tinything.stl/S

Post by Jules » Sun Apr 03, 2016 7:46 pm

treat1 wrote:Thanks Jules, this is very helpful.

But why does MakerGear set me up to fail doing something logical? MakerGear gives the user an STL and a G version of the same file. I'm trying to work my way up. Why give me an STL file that prints differently from the G-File without having to go into advanced settings that as a newcomer I would not know that they existed or that they never needed to be adjusted to get the same result? It would have been much better to have never had that file or at least had a big warning about using it. Based on what you have told me I have wasted many hours on an incorrect but logical assumption, it may have been at the root of many other problems I have been having with feed jams (my fingers are crossed).

My father always said that there are two ways to hide something, one is to take the thing away and the other is to bury it. The problem is there are so many knobs to turn that you don't know where to look or which knob to turn. Yeah, the answer is out there someplace, but you often get 10 or more different "answers" to choose from. In the beginning you need things to be rather cookbook adding a little more complexity at a time.
I could say something about hours spent puzzling something out are never wasted, because you will never repeat the error again, but that doesn't really help.......yeah, they ought to size that .STL file up a little on the cards so the first thing that brand-new S3D users get hit with isn't the known thin-wall issue in Simplify3D.

But they probably never thought of it - these guys know how to tweak a file in a snap. You will eventually get to that point, but it doesn't happen overnight. I hit the thin-wall issue after about a week, but I didn't do it printing the TALLTHIN.STL file, because I didn't use that one as a test. I hit it on a file that I designed incorrectly, with a wall that was only 1.0 mm thick. So that's how I knew about it, and it took a couple days to puzzle out what was happening.

(It's all part of the learning process with S3D, it's not really a MakerGear thing. Sooner or later, everyone runs up against it. Hey, on the bright side....at least you got it out of the way. :lol: )

Filament jams are either a result of Filament Drive screw tension not being quite right, or trying to print too fast/or at too low a temp. If you're printing PLA, it's not likely the latter two, so look at this writeup on the Filament Drive Screw tension:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2694

(And be sure to check out the just completed Beginner's Guide for the Rev.E users here, if you haven't already: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3542)

treat1
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 7:12 pm

Re: Different Results Using Tinythin.g verus Tinything.stl/S

Post by treat1 » Mon Apr 04, 2016 1:19 am

Thanks again, I get that this is a learning experience. I'm trying to jump into the deep end of the pool in a hurry. The M2 is perhaps a "higher end" printer for first timer and I don't mean to be too critical. I'm doing this for a startup and I am printing out parts made by an M.E. I need to use PETG for the application (it needs to be more durable and flexible than PLA or ABS plus the final product may be made of PET plastic. I bought the M2 for double what I could have gotten a printer for because it seemed to be a better design and it had great reviews. I was trying to give feedback for making the experience better for future users.

As 3D printers are becoming more mainstream, it becomes more important to make things more cookbook/straight forward/logical. This includes considering that warning like "look at the G code" go right over my head as I don't know G-Code; this is the reality of dealing with a broader market. If it was my company, I would have put an STL file that did not need any special settings so a person could first print out the stored G code version and then get the same result with the STL version; keep taking small steps and get some results at they learn. I would have put a file in there that would be ideal for simple filament calibration.

I'm trying to print stuff out ASAP (you want your customer to have a great out of the box experience), I (and other consumers) will get to learning everything later. I don't need great quality prints right now, but I need them to complete.

I'm hoping that it was my misapplying of the tinythin model that has been at the root of my problems and caused me to over-extrude and thus cause jams.

One side benefit of the "learning experience" is that I Discovered a PETG by 3D Solutech prints very much like PLA including the temperature range (200 to 220 degrees compared to most PETGs that are more like 240 to 260). The 3D Solutech is much more forgiving and has let me zero in the problem (I will be circling back with my new found knowledge to try the other brand of PETG filaments).

Thanks for the help, this forum has been great.

wmgeorge
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 1:09 am

Re: Different Results Using Tinythin.g verus Tinything.stl/S

Post by wmgeorge » Mon Apr 04, 2016 1:37 am

Every 3D printer has a learning curve, and the M2 is my second one. The one thing with it that stands out for me with the MakerGear is the quality of construction, the 2nd is the people on here who are really pro's and ready to share their knowledge.
Retired Master Electrician, Commercial HVAC/R, Home machine shop. Ray Fine Galvo Fiber laser and LightObject 40w laser plus MakerGear M2...and more.

User avatar
Jules
Posts: 3150
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:36 am

Re: Different Results Using Tinythin.g verus Tinything.stl/S

Post by Jules » Mon Apr 04, 2016 2:26 am

treat1 wrote:I'm hoping that it was my misapplying of the tinythin model that has been at the root of my problems and caused me to over-extrude and thus cause jams.
In all likelihood, that was it. If you're printing PETG, not PLA, and changed the extrusion multiplier by that much, then that probably is what caused the jams. It needs more time to melt, and you've got to print it a lot slower than PLA.

Sounds like you're on the right track though, so good luck getting the job finished.

jsc
Posts: 1863
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 4:00 am

Re: Different Results Using Tinythin.g verus Tinything.stl/S

Post by jsc » Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:34 am

You don't need to understand g-code. If you take a look at the file, you will see that the entire first section of the file just lists what S3D parameters were used when slicing it.

User avatar
insta
Posts: 2018
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:59 am

Re: Different Results Using Tinythin.g verus Tinything.stl/S

Post by insta » Fri Apr 15, 2016 9:21 pm

Also, all of your complaints are specific to S3D, not the M2. Just a point of mention :)
Custom 3D printing for you or your business -- quote [at] pingring.org

Post Reply