I am feeling like it’s time to try the original print that was ground to a pulp in the video. I could be pushing my luck but then again it may actually work.
2 Likes
I asked the tech-support team: the file they sent you was generated with the default process settings; speed diagram below.
If it feels much slower, check whether any parameter was changed—e.g., is the on-machine speed still 100 %, or did you tweak speeds in the slicer? High-speed profiles aren’t always suitable for slower printing because cooling, flow, etc. differ.
We’re at the same stage with support, I was also sent that to print but I still get grinding below top surface 
a few more top layers and it would be smooth at least…
It is mostly related to the infill in my case, my infill is only very slightly doming though and where it’s grinding isn’t really that more raised than the other areas which cover perfectly. I need to check if the center is raised again, that’s where most of the grinding was contained.
If you want to try your print again this result is comparable to when I slice at 0.2 Standard. If you’re getting smoother results here, maybe your initial print might be okay at those settings?
1 Like
Ive been reading through this long nightmare of a problem. I never saw this mentioned anywhere, so I’ll throw it in to the mix. Just incase the obvious was over-looked. I was running a batch of test samples to compare the surface finish with various nozzle setting and realised I got similar results to the pictures being shown here. This is with a brand of PLA I was trying out. The end result for me was - dont go below the 0.16 OPTIMAL option, otherwise the nozzle starts crashing into the surface at the point of the infill lines. My photos included to show you the results. Note: No extra adjustments to setting were made for each nozzle selection.
I stopped this print early as the high points were already obvious and I knew what was going to happen
The end result with a 0.08 nozzle setting - nozzle crashing into build-up at point of infill - not nice!!
Nozzle set at 0.16 OPTIMAL. This is a good enough finish for me.
2 Likes
The effect only mostly disappears for me if I use 0.2 Standard or thicker, I can’t get away with 0.16 Optimal unless I want to add a ton of top layers or make infill very dense 
even then it’s just grinding until maybe flat. Maybe it’s environmental, I don’t know. I printed the small tool to use for tramming the bed and even it has waves on it! I’m not printing any crazy geometry.
I finished up with Snapmaker support after weeks of back and forth, they have settled on it is normal and there is nothing to do. Which kills me a bit because they’ve printed my original problem print fine which I (still) can’t do with the bundled filament. They asked me to up the current on one motor which did make it shallower for me but I’m back to trying to tweak part cooling and the layer after infill to try to reduce it. I don’t get pillowing on any other printer except my U1 (same filament and room) and even then my top surface just isn’t that smooth, support telling me I should tweak top layer flow rate too.
Bit burnt out but a solution is out there I’m printing the top lid adapter later, maybe I’ll have better luck with PETG.
1 Like
Sorry, I have been away for so long, BUT I needed to get some work done on my dissertation. I did finally get the top cover of the adapter (the Ikea one) for the printer done. There were a few failed prints, BUT as long as I printed slower than normal, it seemed to work with mostly smooth results. The issue is that, as Snapmaker says, this is normal, yet the base settings and the ones we ultimately ended up with are not the same. If you do some online searching, you won’t have to look long to find more cases like this. SO it’s a QC problem. I can’t use my printer as advertised, and others have the same or similar issues. If I want “decent” prints, I have to set the settings to SUBOPTIMAL for this printer (based on advertised performance). Oddly enough, IF I use the .16 optimal setting, I get bed adhesion issues. If I use my tweaked settings, I occasionally get oddball anomalies in my prints, BUT if they are flat, they are good to go. This printer is very unpredictable, which is unfortunate because its a great idea and it is not marketed for the 3d printer guru; it’s marketed for the average person who just wants to create some cool stuff with no issues.
1 Like
Nah @badprintsonly PETG is not the fix, I still get more failed prints than good ones. The printer is probably good for at least 80 to 90 percent of the folks that get them and thats awesome for them. But for the folks like us we are stuck with half-assed solutions and dealing with a company that refuses to believe that their product MIGHT have a few duds. I am seriously ready to just toss this in the trash. I am probalby going to waste more than the printer is worth in just lost filament and electricity before I get consistent results. I DONT CARE WHAT the Snapmaker defense force says Our printers are turds.
1 Like
I am sure it’s all slicer based. Recently saw a video about comparison of snorca and orca slicer, might be worth a try.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha I have both slicers on my computer and tried both both make spaghetti equally well. The printer is a POS period
I get these types of issues with two varieties of PETG sometimes. My theory is, the material is “foaming” a little when heated and gets slightly thicker than the layer thickness mandates. Same prints with all the identical settings are working flawlessly with different brands.
I feel your pain, still no changes here. And no, Orca doesn’t fix anything, Snapmaker Orca isn’t that different. All I can see changes wise is that Snorca has a longer purge line at startup.
I’m at the point where I’m decently certain it is hardware related. I’ve messed with cooling, printing in a cold room, warm room, max fans, min fans and the rippling was unchanged, somewhat worsened at max speed (and in cold room, of course). Budging temps ±10 degrees also does nothing, I can print almost cold using my Biqu plate and that just adds more warp-related grinding. I also tried reducing the solid infill layer speed in particular down to force the printer to print post bridging interface slower and spend more time on grind layers. It helps a little, but nothing life-changing.
I started printing the top case anyway. I figured PETG would at least print better because it’s limited to 12mm3/s. Worse than PLA. Poor quality with grinding despite the fact I’ve reduced the flow rate to almost underextruding and am printing with thick layers. It was also sometimes grinding prior to infill while travelling at 150mm/s, worst speed/grinding ratio yet. Saving grace is less pillowing.
I had one success after changing one tool back to stainless hot end. I could print a bed tramming tool at 0.12 layers, 120 percent speed with zero wave. It’s a small print though, very easy by comparison. That same tool proceeds to ruin anything larger. I also can’t do that with hardened ends, I get rippling at default speed.
I think I’m going to go back to basics, check e-steps (my top layer extrusion is inconsistent, both under and over), fine tune my Z-offset and manual pressure advance (the printers auto calibration values weren’t consistent for my PETG). In general I feel like XY is fine, the layers are stacked well despite the grinding. I’m wondering if Z is imprecise for some reason. It would explain the consistent grinding and how upping Z motor current changed it. Catch is that I still get problems on latest firmware where Snapmaker already messed with Z motor.
It’s hard to not be disappointed in Snapmaker with this. I don’t doubt the printer is fine for many people (I’ve seen many great prints) but they can’t honestly be calling this experience normal… I’m not asking for perfect prints every time or a Bambu-like experience but almost all of my prints have been poor quality. I don’t get what else I’m meant to be tuning. It also is a little frustrating that support has both offered no solution (well, nothing at all actually, it’s “normal machine behaviour“) while also wants me to tell them the settings that fix it??
Sorry for the rant it’s not constructive, I want to like this printer!!
1 Like
You can submit a ticket at the same time in case the technical staff or fellow users in the forum don’t respond promptly.
Apparently, I accidentally fixed the issue on my printer. So here is what happened: I tried to do brims on a Gridfinity frame as suggested by techsupport and got a beautiful blob (it was a work of art). Unfortunately, I was at work, so when I got home, it obviously cooled around the printhead and tool changer, making it a potential nightmare to remove. I logged into the web interface so that I can heat up that particular tool (doesn’t seem to work in Snapmaker orca, even though the controls exist) once it got to the proper temp I was able to partially remove the blob and then tug out the remaining portion that built up around the extruder tip. After that I removed the lower front of the tool maker since it seemed slightly misaligned (it ALWAYS seemed that way) I checked it for any debris or other blockages and then reseated it. I restarted the print, and it worked! No brims needed. I have done another 11 Gridfinity prints, all successful so far. SO maybe I fixed it? But why did that work I didn’t understand so I reached out to tech support and they confirmed that the cooling fan in the tool changer’s air flow is affected by the lower front part. We are pretty sure the misalignment caused the airflow to not work as intended causing the problems in my case. Then this may be a fix for other people so I am sharing here. I even did a full first layer again to see if that also prints well and it did.
3 Likes
That magical? Was that thing stuck in the duct all along?
Anyway, keep an eye on it for a while—contact tech support anytime if anything comes up!!!
1 Like
From the pic you posted, part one was the part that was not quite where it should have been. It was in alignment but was not completely seated so it seemed like it was right and not right at the same time. Once I got it off and put back on I realized that it wasn’t completely in place. Since then I has been doing great. The current Scooby Doo mystery is why is PETG printing better than PLA?
2 Likes
Nothing was in the duct the bottom portion was not completely seated so I guess I was not getting proper air flow to the work area
1 Like
That’s awesome 
I can see the logic of it not cooling properly and being responsible for the issues you’ve experienced. Congrats, hope it turns out to be the beast you expected!
1 Like
So far its doing good I mean I had a small non extrusion issue but that was litterally the PETG geting crushed and not extruding between prints. Cleared that with a unload reload cycle and its back to printing SMOOOOOTH. I’d go back to the factory, but since it’s currently doing fine, we are rolling with it.
2 Likes