-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
Formulas Question #3
Comments
Fixed now, also new fixes - use G10 instead of M104 for temperature. Fixed and testes with new RepRapFirmware flavour in PrusaSlicer 2.3 |
Thank you mkudzia84, thank you Nibbles! |
Hello, I did another commit - I rolled back the G10 temperature control to M104. WIth M104 I would be able to set the temperature and immedietly trigger the heater into standby mode - allowing the tools to be preheated before initial use. With G10 I have to wait for first activation |
fixed |
Do I have to install the logger using pip? I have trouble to execute the new code with my previous installation. I will now try step by step when this started but suspect that I might miss some references? |
My problem starts here: |
Hmm, I dont think its the logger as a dependency (as its part of standard python runtime) - might be the logger setting. |
Pushed out logger.conf that only outputs to console, not to a log file. |
ill see if I can use this approach |
When you have time again: I saw that G10 codes were generated with a Tn as Tool selector - which should be Pn I guess. Another thing I read today: |
Hello mkudzia84 :)
Thank you for your great work again.
I am now investigating why the bottom of my prime tower looks overextruded. I especially print PETG+PLA as support. So two materials which might not stick good at another are printed into one tower. Apart from that my overextrusion seems to cause tension problems when the material cools down a bit.
So I installed pycharm, generated a debug scenario and looked into the code. I stumbled upon the part where calculate_E happens.
The circles to draw the pollar bands seem to be 0.2mm == nozzle_diameter apart.
But the material which is A_ex is described with a more complicated formula than just layer_height * nozzle_size.
A_ex = layer_height*nozzle_diameter + Pi*(layer_height/2)² - layer_height²
A_ex =
[____]
+(|
* 0.68 +|)
* 0.68=
([____])
-> which is a bit more material than[____]
= layer_height*nozzle_diameter-> so the resulting flow percentage might vary squared depending on the layer_height used.
As the circles are 0.2mm apart I guess that the "rounded edges" might cause the overextrusion.
Solutions?
a) I suppose that else we should drop the rounded edges and just use 10% more flow depending on the nozzle diameter. And 10% stretched pillar bands to compensate that.
b) Or the pillar bands should be stretched to fit the flow, according to the formula part with the layerheight².
One thing here: I did not actually test any fix yet! Just thoughts.
Apart from that: In the last line a high extrusion-multiplier seems to decrease the flow
I would suspect that a E-multi of 2 would double the flow, not make it half.
Can you look into this? Maybe I dont see something, in that case ignore this.
Something weird that only occured while debugging:
I introduced round(layer_info.layer_height, 5) here to be able to debug. This did not happen when I executed the file using PrusaSlicer. (I am a total beginner when it comes to python)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: