Problems understanding all the different z-hop options.

Discussions about ideaMaker and other printing software.
Dreetie84
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2019 11:38 am

Problems understanding all the different z-hop options.

Postby Dreetie84 » Mon Aug 10, 2020 11:06 am

Hi, I have trouble understanding all the z-hop options. I don't know if I'm correct but I think z-hop can only occur when a retraction is preceding.
My goal: have z-hop enabled on the solid surfaces to make sure there are no scars from my nozzle passing.
How I tested: I added a standard primitive -> cylinder. I enabled 4 top and bottom solid fill layers to test z-hop. Changed z-hop at retraction to 5mm to visualize effect

case 1: zhop only performed at solid parts

top: I can only get it to work when I disable both "Force retraction on layer change" and "Enable retraction at bottom and top of models."
This sounds strange because forcing it to retract would mean: forcing it to Z-hop. Or am I wrong?

case1_1.png

case1_2.png


bottom: I can not get z-hop to work. This is a problem for models that have only bottom layers and no infill (for example a hollow cube)

case1_3.png



case 2: z hop only at top and bottommost surfaces, Top and bottom surfaces solid fill layers set to 0 in sollid fill tab

top: With enable retraction at bottom and top of models this works.
cas2_1.png

again with "force retraction on layer change a retract -> travel -> but no zhop.
case2_2.png


bottom: I can not get z-hop to work with all different possibilities.



Am I missing the point of all those settings? The biggest problem for me are objects that are hollow where you can see the bottom layers.

User avatar
ccclarke
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2020 6:09 pm

Re: Problems understanding all the different z-hop options.

Postby ccclarke » Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:28 pm

Your points are valid and unfortunately, all-too-common.

Raise3D has serious documentation issues with both the ideaMaker software and their posted maintenance procedures which are filled with grammatical errors and poorly-explained procedures and ill-defined features. They would be better served in many ways by using US-based tech writers to write their documentation instead of using the buyers of their products as their primary source of feedback. Some of the sentences are pure gibberish leaving the reader trying to decipher what is really meant. A "fixing screw?" C'mon . . .

Every time I download one of their procedures, I have to re-write them so it makes sense. I keep a growing binder of them adjacent to the printers. One posted procedure on their site still has the wrong part depicted in the photo.

Hasty Releases: The E2 is a perfect example. A nice-looking product with a lot of promise released before the required support documentation was written, leaving early adopters left holding the bag. I wonder how many sales they've lost because potential buyers have decided to look elsewhere since it's obvious this product is weak where required support documentation is expected. These aren't $400 printers.

On the other hand, Raise3D is very responsive regarding incorporating changes suggested by users, but I dislike being in a position to be a beta tester for a product in this price range. If a foreign company wants to be successful selling products in the US, using native-speaking English speakers to write documentation that is not ambiguous is not an option - it is mandatory. Well-written documentation is essential to enable owners with problems to get their printers back into production and reduces the amount of product support time from the factory, saving time and money. Not all problems can be solved with good docs, but enough can that's it's worth it to write them properly.

Both my company and myself for personal use are actively searching for additional printers, but with the same problems that continue to be reported here, we're not considering a Raise3D product at this time. We will likely have to spend a lot more to get our money's worth, and that's unfortunate; Raise3D has some good things going for it, but needs to seriously step up their game if they want to compete in the industrial printer league.

Loading up ideaMaker with so much bloat, (that isn't even explained adequately) using the owner base as testers to improve their (next) products, and having to be prodded to do simple things like create an Approved Filament List for a released product (E2) are very discouraging and bad for future business. These are not inexpensive printers; the customers who purchase them deserve better documentation support then they are currently getting.
Male Modeler / Sub-Human

User avatar
Vicky@Raise3D
Posts: 7132
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:54 am

Re: Problems understanding all the different z-hop options.

Postby Vicky@Raise3D » Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:58 pm

Dreetie84 wrote:Hi, I have trouble understanding all the z-hop options. I don't know if I'm correct but I think z-hop can only occur when a retraction is preceding.
My goal: have z-hop enabled on the solid surfaces to make sure there are no scars from my nozzle passing.
How I tested: I added a standard primitive -> cylinder. I enabled 4 top and bottom solid fill layers to test z-hop. Changed z-hop at retraction to 5mm to visualize effect

case 1: zhop only performed at solid parts

top: I can only get it to work when I disable both "Force retraction on layer change" and "Enable retraction at bottom and top of models."
This sounds strange because forcing it to retract would mean: forcing it to Z-hop. Or am I wrong?


bottom: I can not get z-hop to work. This is a problem for models that have only bottom layers and no infill (for example a hollow cube)



case 2: z hop only at top and bottommost surfaces, Top and bottom surfaces solid fill layers set to 0 in sollid fill tab

top: With enable retraction at bottom and top of models this works.
again with "force retraction on layer change a retract -> travel -> but no zhop.


bottom: I can not get z-hop to work with all different possibilities.



Am I missing the point of all those settings? The biggest problem for me are objects that are hollow where you can see the bottom layers.


Would you like to share your .idea and .gcode files with us so that we can run test with your settings?
We tried slice with default Pro2 template, can't recreate the same issue.
1.jpg

The first few reatcion on Top Layer don't have Z hop because they are not Solid Fills.
2.jpg
3.jpg
4.jpg

Dreetie84
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2019 11:38 am

Re: Problems understanding all the different z-hop options.

Postby Dreetie84 » Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:10 am

Ok, so it's normal behavior that the first few retractions don't have zhop. The problem is that this will scratch my solid fill layers. I did a test with tpu and the scratch marks match the travel lines where no zhop is being used.
zhopPost2.png


My apologies for the bad image quality, and I know I still have to tweak other settings for my tpu profile too.
IMG_20200812_105226897.jpg



I also noticed that when you disable "other-> Fill gaps in shells" most of the zhops disappear. Is this normal?

The only way I can make all my travel paths zhop is by using z hop performed "All"
In attachment I put my .idea and .gcode file
Attachments
zhopTest.gcode
(105.42 KiB) Downloaded 12 times
zhop.idea
(31.77 KiB) Downloaded 12 times

User avatar
Vicky@Raise3D
Posts: 7132
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:54 am

Re: Problems understanding all the different z-hop options.

Postby Vicky@Raise3D » Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:32 am

ccclarke wrote:Your points are valid and unfortunately, all-too-common.

Raise3D has serious documentation issues with both the ideaMaker software and their posted maintenance procedures which are filled with grammatical errors and poorly-explained procedures and ill-defined features. They would be better served in many ways by using US-based tech writers to write their documentation instead of using the buyers of their products as their primary source of feedback. Some of the sentences are pure gibberish leaving the reader trying to decipher what is really meant. A "fixing screw?" C'mon . . .

Every time I download one of their procedures, I have to re-write them so it makes sense. I keep a growing binder of them adjacent to the printers. One posted procedure on their site still has the wrong part depicted in the photo.

Hasty Releases: The E2 is a perfect example. A nice-looking product with a lot of promise released before the required support documentation was written, leaving early adopters left holding the bag. I wonder how many sales they've lost because potential buyers have decided to look elsewhere since it's obvious this product is weak where required support documentation is expected. These aren't $400 printers.

On the other hand, Raise3D is very responsive regarding incorporating changes suggested by users, but I dislike being in a position to be a beta tester for a product in this price range. If a foreign company wants to be successful selling products in the US, using native-speaking English speakers to write documentation that is not ambiguous is not an option - it is mandatory. Well-written documentation is essential to enable owners with problems to get their printers back into production and reduces the amount of product support time from the factory, saving time and money. Not all problems can be solved with good docs, but enough can that's it's worth it to write them properly.

Both my company and myself for personal use are actively searching for additional printers, but with the same problems that continue to be reported here, we're not considering a Raise3D product at this time. We will likely have to spend a lot more to get our money's worth, and that's unfortunate; Raise3D has some good things going for it, but needs to seriously step up their game if they want to compete in the industrial printer league.

Loading up ideaMaker with so much bloat, (that isn't even explained adequately) using the owner base as testers to improve their (next) products, and having to be prodded to do simple things like create an Approved Filament List for a released product (E2) are very discouraging and bad for future business. These are not inexpensive printers; the customers who purchase them deserve better documentation support then they are currently getting.


Thanks for your suggestions of our documentations.
We are actually in the process of improving our documents. You may see some improvements in the following two months.
If you have suggestions to any specific document, please feel free to let us know.

User avatar
Vicky@Raise3D
Posts: 7132
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:54 am

Re: Problems understanding all the different z-hop options.

Postby Vicky@Raise3D » Thu Aug 13, 2020 6:58 pm

Dreetie84 wrote:Ok, so it's normal behavior that the first few retractions don't have zhop. The problem is that this will scratch my solid fill layers. I did a test with tpu and the scratch marks match the travel lines where no zhop is being used.

My apologies for the bad image quality, and I know I still have to tweak other settings for my tpu profile too.


I also noticed that when you disable "other-> Fill gaps in shells" most of the zhops disappear. Is this normal?

The only way I can make all my travel paths zhop is by using z hop performed "All"
In attachment I put my .idea and .gcode file


At Layer 4, the travel paths seem won't affect Solid Fills.
Image_20200813115437.png


The reason why Z Hops disappear after disabling Fill gaps in shells under Other is because the Fill Pattern in our file is Rectilinear. Most travels with retraction are caused by the gap filling after Rectilinear Soli Fill. Once having this option disabled, there is no Gap Filing any more, then there is no travel with retraction any more.

Dreetie84
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2019 11:38 am

Re: Problems understanding all the different z-hop options.

Postby Dreetie84 » Fri Aug 14, 2020 8:22 am

Vicky@Raise3D wrote:
At Layer 4, the travel paths seem won't affect Solid Fills.



My layer 4 is totally different from yours. How does it come you still see your buildsurface when already 3 layers must be there?

finalzhop.png

Jetguy
Posts: 3105
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 1:40 am
Location: In a van, down by the river

Re: Problems understanding all the different z-hop options.

Postby Jetguy » Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:34 pm

Dreetie84 wrote: How does it come you still see your buildsurface when already 3 layers must be there?

Vicky's original showing the checkbox
Image_20200813115437checked.jpg

Because there is this little checkbox that displays ONLY the current layer being looked at.

Dreetie84
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2019 11:38 am

Re: Problems understanding all the different z-hop options.

Postby Dreetie84 » Sat Aug 15, 2020 9:33 am

Jetguy wrote:
Dreetie84 wrote: How does it come you still see your buildsurface when already 3 layers must be there?

Vicky's original showing the checkbox
Image_20200813115437checked.jpg

Because there is this little checkbox that displays ONLY the current layer being looked at.


Sorry, I overlooked that one. Yet I still got scratches even if Vicky says it won't interfere. Maybe I will just play with per layer settings and set zhop to "all" on those problem areas.

User avatar
Vicky@Raise3D
Posts: 7132
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:54 am

Re: Problems understanding all the different z-hop options.

Postby Vicky@Raise3D » Sun Aug 16, 2020 4:09 am

Yes, you need to check the result with individual layer. When viewing all layers together, it’s hard to tell which layer will be printed out like what.


Return to “Software”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests