Software Report Format

[Vicky@Raise3D]

(...)
[FEATURE][IM-3.4.2.3140]
Title: [Warning on Pause feature]
Description: [Brief description of the feature]
Version: [3.4.2.3140]
Operation System: [Windows 10 64 Bit]
(...)

Thanks for your feedback.
Actually we have already added ironing into our developing list. We will release it in the next version.

About Pause, you can use the .gcode and .data file to import print template from that print. Or you can use the Compare feature in ideaMaker to compare the difference in printing settings. https://support.raise3d.com/ideaMaker/5 ... 5-446.html

I do not have the plan to import an old template to check wheather it contains a pause command or not - a simple text search within the gcode gives me the answer... I would be very interested in a short warning or hint or something that the ACTUAL template which is used to slice my model contains pause points...

Would you like to provide more information about under what situation you are looking for a warning for Pause Code?
You are looking for a warning before slicing to tell you that in the template you select, it has a pause code inside?

[Stevie]

Would you like to provide more information about under what situation you are looking for a warning for Pause Code?
You are looking for a warning before slicing to tell you that in the template you select, it has a pause code inside?

Before slicing would be cool... Or after slicing... that does not really matter, as long as I have the information before the export...

You present this nice box with estimated print duration and filament usage, perfect for me would be if I can see at what time I reach any of my pause points...

I gimped the results in my perfect world: (Ok, I used my delorean and did screenshots in the future )

Show Pause in slice finished dialog:

In the main screen section:

I know that it changes a lot if you have a variable window height (according to the number of pause points and the occurance of pause points at all) but I am very confident that your programmers can calculate the window size according to 0,1,2..n pause points
Otherwise give me a call

[Stevie]

[FEATURE][IM-3.4.2.3140]
Title: [Change priority of Gap Fill vs Check Thin Wall]
Description: [gap fill is used before the check thin wall feature comes in]
Version: [3.4.2.3140]
Operation System: [Windows 10 64 Bit]
(...)

Would you like to share your idea, gcode and data files with us so that we can run some tests?

Yeah... not that easy but I did some more tests, please find attached the stl file and gcode + data for all six scenarios.

Tests done with .2 layer hight, 4 shells, ew 0.5mm and 25% infill (does not really matter)

#1: No Gap fill, no thin wall
#2: No Gap fill, thin wall
#3: Gap fill (no single extrusion), no thin wall
#4: Gap fill (single extrusion), no thin wall
#5: Gap fill (no single extrusion), thin wall
#6: Gap fill (single extrusion), thin wall

Scenario 1: No Gap fill, no thin wall
2mm: no gap fill is used so the feature could be needes here...
20mm: Slicer is not able to print the thin walls as they are smaller than the extrusion width - print is impossible
26mm: Half of the object has 3 walls the other part only 2...

Scenario 2: No Gap fill, thin wall
2mm: no gap fill is used so the feature could be needes here...
20mm: Slicer is able to print the thin walls, feature works as expected!
26mm: object has 4 nice shells

Scenario 3: Gap fill (no single extrusion), no thin wall
2mm: gap fill is used to fill the gap between the two walls
20mm: Slicer is not able to print the thin walls as they are smaller than the extrusion width - print is impossible
26mm: We have 2 walls with ugly structure used for filling the gap (not following the path of the shells)

Scenario 4: Gap fill ( single extrusion), no thin wall
2mm: gap fill is used to fill the gap between the two walls
20mm: Slicer is not able to print the thin walls as they are smaller than the extrusion width - print is impossible
26mm: We have 3 walls with nice structure on the one half and 4 walls for the other half

Scenario 5: Gap fill (no single extrusion), thin wall
2mm: gap fill is used to fill the gap between the two walls
20mm: Slicer is able to print the thin walls, thin wall feature works as expected!
26mm: We have 2 walls with ugly structure used for filling the gap (not following the path of the shells)

Scenario 6: Gap fill (single extrusion), thin wall
2mm: gap fill is used to fill the gap between the two walls
20mm: Slicer is able to print the thin walls, thin wall feature works as expected!
26mm: We have 3 walls with nice structure on the one half and 4 walls for the other half

So I am NOT able to get the best from all worlds:

1) I need thin wall to be able to print @20mm
2) I want gap fill to have that feature @2mm
But if I use thin wall WITH gap fill I get an "ugly" structure @26mm

Best result would be:
2mm: gap fill is used to fill the gap between the two walls
20mm: Slicer is able to print the thin walls, thin wall feature works as expected!
26mm: object has 4 nice shells

Imho the priority is just switched: first check for thin wall (to have best results @20mm & 26mm) and last check for gap fill (@2mm)

[Tormak]

I know that feature, but it can't help me in this case.

I wan't a z hop only when the printer move to a solid parts to another solid parts, and the function "Z hop Only at Solid Parts" its the solution, but in some cases, he don't z-hop.

Another exemple a bit more complex, a model of a hand with supports disgned in Autodesk Meshmixer, some z hop are missing : result, is the break of the supports, but supports with z-hop successfuly : no break

We have double checked your file, we believe it is caused by some unknown bug in ideaMaker. We will try to fix it before the next release.
Thanks for sharing your file with us.

Thank you, Good luck for debugging then !

[Vicky@Raise3D]

Would you like to provide more information about under what situation you are looking for a warning for Pause Code?
You are looking for a warning before slicing to tell you that in the template you select, it has a pause code inside?

Before slicing would be cool... Or after slicing... that does not really matter, as long as I have the information before the export...

You present this nice box with estimated print duration and filament usage, perfect for me would be if I can see at what time I reach any of my pause points...

I gimped the results in my perfect world: (Ok, I used my delorean and did screenshots in the future )

Show Pause in slice finished dialog:

PauseFeature_SliceDialog.jpg

In the main screen section:

PauseFeature_MainScreen.jpg

I know that it changes a lot if you have a variable window height (according to the number of pause points and the occurance of pause points at all) but I am very confident that your programmers can calculate the window size according to 0,1,2..n pause points
Otherwise give me a call

Got it. Will forward your needs to developing team.
They will plan some discussions based on your request and see how we can adjust our interfaces to add it in.

[Vicky@Raise3D]

[FEATURE][IM-3.4.2.3140]
Title: [Change priority of Gap Fill vs Check Thin Wall]
Description: [gap fill is used before the check thin wall feature comes in]
Version: [3.4.2.3140]
Operation System: [Windows 10 64 Bit]
(...)

Would you like to share your idea, gcode and data files with us so that we can run some tests?

Yeah... not that easy but I did some more tests, please find attached the stl file and gcode + data for all six scenarios.

Tests done with .2 layer hight, 4 shells, ew 0.5mm and 25% infill (does not really matter)

#1: No Gap fill, no thin wall
#2: No Gap fill, thin wall
#3: Gap fill (no single extrusion), no thin wall
#4: Gap fill (single extrusion), no thin wall
#5: Gap fill (no single extrusion), thin wall
#6: Gap fill (single extrusion), thin wall

Scenario 1: No Gap fill, no thin wall
2mm: no gap fill is used so the feature could be needes here...
20mm: Slicer is not able to print the thin walls as they are smaller than the extrusion width - print is impossible
26mm: Half of the object has 3 walls the other part only 2...

Scenario 2: No Gap fill, thin wall
2mm: no gap fill is used so the feature could be needes here...
20mm: Slicer is able to print the thin walls, feature works as expected!
26mm: object has 4 nice shells

Scenario 3: Gap fill (no single extrusion), no thin wall
2mm: gap fill is used to fill the gap between the two walls
20mm: Slicer is not able to print the thin walls as they are smaller than the extrusion width - print is impossible
26mm: We have 2 walls with ugly structure used for filling the gap (not following the path of the shells)

Scenario 4: Gap fill ( single extrusion), no thin wall
2mm: gap fill is used to fill the gap between the two walls
20mm: Slicer is not able to print the thin walls as they are smaller than the extrusion width - print is impossible
26mm: We have 3 walls with nice structure on the one half and 4 walls for the other half

Scenario 5: Gap fill (no single extrusion), thin wall
2mm: gap fill is used to fill the gap between the two walls
20mm: Slicer is able to print the thin walls, thin wall feature works as expected!
26mm: We have 2 walls with ugly structure used for filling the gap (not following the path of the shells)

Scenario 6: Gap fill (single extrusion), thin wall
2mm: gap fill is used to fill the gap between the two walls
20mm: Slicer is able to print the thin walls, thin wall feature works as expected!
26mm: We have 3 walls with nice structure on the one half and 4 walls for the other half

So I am NOT able to get the best from all worlds:

1) I need thin wall to be able to print @20mm
2) I want gap fill to have that feature @2mm
But if I use thin wall WITH gap fill I get an "ugly" structure @26mm

Best result would be:
2mm: gap fill is used to fill the gap between the two walls
20mm: Slicer is able to print the thin walls, thin wall feature works as expected!
26mm: object has 4 nice shells

Imho the priority is just switched: first check for thin wall (to have best results @20mm & 26mm) and last check for gap fill (@2mm)

Once Gap Filling being enabled, ideaMaker will check whether the Shells meet Maxium Sheel Overlap. If it doesn't reach, it will apply Gap Filling instead of Shells.
In you file, we can find the sections without shell has over 50% overlapping shell loop. If you still want to print those sections with Shells, you will need to increase Maxium Shells Overlap Percentage.

[Stevie]

Bug or Feature... not quite sure:

Is there a way to use normal mode mixed with spiral vase mode?

I thought of using "Per-Layer-Settings" for this: to have the first 5mm printed solid and start with vase mode above... and use for the last 5 Layers the solid mode again.... But Spiral-Vase-Mode is not selectable in the settings dialog for the extended per-layer options...

I am not sure if this is intended (==> so it's a feature) or not (==> so it's a bug?)

Thanks in advance and best regards
Stefan

[Vicky@Raise3D]

Pre Layer Setting doesn't support Spiral Vase printing.

[Stevie]

Pre Layer Setting doesn't support Spiral Vase printing.

Yes... I know... I just wanted to know if it is a BUG that it's not supported or if I can write another FEATURE REQUEST that it get's supported... I see no clear reason why spiral mode does not show up on the Per Layer Setting...

In my perfect world (I know....) I would print the socket of a part (christmas tree with tealight in it) solid, print the middle part in spiral vase mode and the last 10 layers again solid...

As this does not work with ideaMaker I am trying to find another working solution to get rid of the ugly seam in my middle part... Which is harder than I thought - altough linear advance (http://marlinfw.org/docs/features/lin_advance.html) gives me the technology to handle it... It's just a bit hard to find the perfect "k" value for that feature and for my settings but I am close now...

[Vicky@Raise3D]

We have also got some other users asking about Adding Spiral Vase Mode into Per-layer. It has been added into our developing list.

[Stevie]

Very cool, thanks! So it's a feature request NOW... brilliant...

[svandru]

Bug Report:
Title: Solid Fill Minimal Width Problem When It Is 0
Description: When Solid Fill Minimal Width Is 0, it the slicer adds extrusion where it should not be.
Version: IM-3.5.1 Beta
Language: English
Operation System: MacOS Mohave 10.14.6
GPU: Radeon Pro 560
32bit or 64bit: 64
Screen Resolution: 2880 x 1800 Retina
How to trigger the bug: 1. Open 3D Benchy STL. 2.Slice.
Expected Result: Nice clean gcode.
Real Result: Gcode that has an unwanted squiggly extra inside shell

Why is this happening to my Benchy?

IdeaMaker 3.5.1 Beta puts an extra shell inside the lower hull, and in the bow it is a squiggly mess. (A z-hop bug kept me from using 3.4.2. I heard that bug had been fixed in this beta, so I am giving it a try.)

Infill is set to 0 to make the problem easier to see.

If I set bottom solid fill to 1, the problem goes away; bottom solid fill of 2 it shows a little of the problem, 3 shows more, and so on. The screenshot is with bottom solid fill of 3, which is what I want to use.

Infill overlap also affects it; higher numbers make it worse, lower numbers better, but it won’t go away even at 0.

AH-HA! I discovered that setting solid fill minimal width to 0.5 with a 0.5 extrusion width, or 0.4 with a 0.4 extrusion width gets rid of the problem. (The tool tip even mentions jagged lines.) This ratio doesn’t quite work with a 0.3 extrusion width, but you couldn’t print that with a 0.4 nozzle, anyway.

I have found a work-around for me, but I think this is surely a bug.

[Vicky@Raise3D]

The issue is caused by the difference between the layer with its next layer. The smaller the difference is, the finer the infill will be defined to. That's the reason why Solid Fill Minimal Width is added.
https://support.raise3d.com/ideaMaker/5 ... -1007.html

[svandru]

Okay, I read the link and see that it is a "feature." Is there a use case where one would desire a squiggle of solid infill between the shell and sparse infill?

[Vicky@Raise3D]

The larger the Solid Fill printing section is, the better print result of slope or overhang structures will normally be. That's why ideaMaker will add Solid Fill for some sections on model.
But if the Solid Fill printing section is too small, it will turn out to be the lines you see. Then you will need to adjust Solid Fill Minimal Width to avoid.

[FOGD.NO]

Speed when printing with space above part when printing print in place joints. I could have high speed in the print, but now I have to reduce speed a lot overall because I need to print slower while traveling over a joint. If I print to fast it would drag the filament so it is not round or square like it should.

[Vicky@Raise3D]

Are you referring to the bridiging of the model? Or if you'd like to some images to show the issue or your needs, that will be better.

[modiug]

[BUG][IM-3.6.1]ooze tower

Title: Ooze tower incorrect when objects in different setting groups
Description: The ooze tower in calculated correctly when two objects with different extruder are in the same setting group, when one object is moved to another setting group, the ooze tower is made with one one extruder.

Tested with calibration dual color cube.
Latest IM on macOS Catalina.

Thank you.

[Vicky@Raise3D]

The following post was having similar issue you brought up here.
https://forum.raise3d.com/viewtopic.php ... 693#p55696

If there are multiple setting groups, you will need input the position for the other Wipe Tower.

[sipowell]

Title: Complete online record
Description: Allow users to access, download, and reslice any job on the printer from raisecloud regardless of how it was originally sent.
Version: latest as of 12/09
Operation System: win 10
Reason: As the printer manager who currently works from home much of the time. In addition to being able to design, and send prints from home, Raisecloud is absolutely invaluable to me for keeping an eye on what my coworkers are printing, checking for failures via the camera, and canceling when necessary.

When physically in the lab, most of my coworkers, myself included, generally just send our jobs to the printer directly via LAN. I did so last night over LAN before I left for the night, and after checking when I got home, it looked pretty good, but I wanted to make some changes. From the cloud. I can see the file settings in 'local files', but I cannot import it into ideamaker, modify it, and print another one since it only has the Gcode. This wouldn't be a problem if the file was originally uploaded and sliced within the cloud instead, but realistically, that doesn't often happen when it's much easier in the moment to just send it directly.

Could you please figure out a way to unify the two such that either, the ideamaker file, AND Gcode are automatically sent to the printer when done directly. Or give the cloud ideamaker the ability to reconstruct the G-code into ideamaker remotely. Our pro 2 is pretty much worked to the bone at my workplace, and even after a year of several hundred files, hard disk space is not an issue so this may be the most practical solution such that raisecloud could simply pull the original ideamaker file that was included when transferred via USB or LAN.

This is not life or death, but I was certainly surprised when I discovered that this is something I cannot do in the cloud system.

Thanks,