Looking at the extruder calibration thread I think I’m going to be stuck unless I run 200 feet of USB cable to the Snapmaker or haul my desktop down into the garage (no, not gonna happen) or there’s an update that allows us to send g-code over the wi-fi.
I think, you could extrude using wifi, after measuring and calculating it would be possible to write your new e-steps in the gcode and probably save to eprom using gcode lines in a file.
I think you can do the entire process over wifi console, you just can’t get feedback from the printer.(meaning you just have to trust that it worked) because you can send console commands over wifi, you just can’t retrieve information on the console over wifi.
The point is, you can’t read the machine settings M503 and saving M500 is also not possible.
Ahh i wasn’t aware saving was not possible…SM really needs to offer more wifi functionality or i have to go out and buy a pi 🤷
The problem with the pi is that you have to build your own filament runout sensor and power lost is not supported, - this things come all from the touchscreen. I guess we have to tinker a lot for this support…
Depends on how you want to use the pi, I was thinking of using it just to get command line access and an IP camera
Using the wi-fi console I can’t get the Snapmaker to respond to any commands. So I can’t even do the filament runout test to see how my extrusion compares.
In other news… using @CasaDelGato 's Cura profile and printer settings, I got a pretty good calibration cube.
Interesting, I will compare my profile to his and try to determine the problem.
As far as the wifi console, you are correct SM has not fully implemented this feature. So you can send commands but not see responses or apparently (thanks xchrisd) save. The default e step value is 212, so that’s the number to use in the calculations. I will look into saving the new setting via a g code and get back to you.
would you mind printing one more cube for me, on my printer my settings work fine, but i would like to develop my profile to be more versatile. if you could try this profile:
Atoms A350.zip (1.9 KB)
there were very few differences but i noticed a couple that may make a substantial difference.
Here’s a print of the calibration cube using your new profile. Looks really good, almost indistinguishable from one I originally printed.
So back to the original topic… I finally got a complete print of my miniatures using g-code from the Cura slicer.
Unfortunately, even using tree supports, I’m still having problems with the miniatures coming apart when I try and remove the supporting material. I think I’m going to have to play around with reorienting the models to try and minimize the need for support and see how that works.
Did you attempt to change any of the support settings? Or just enabled tree supports?
There are further support settings you can edit to reduce how well the supports are stuck onto the model.
Increasing support z distance will make the supports stick less to the model but increasing it too much will mean there isnt enough support and you will get bad overhangs. Its a balancing act. I generally use a support z distance = 2x layer height with support interface enabled and it has worked pretty well for me thus far in making support structures easier to remove.
Confusingly, tree supports use the settings from the regular support section in terms of support z,x,y distances instead of having their own settings for it.
I’ll have to look at that, I don’t remember making any particular changes to the support settings
Latter tonight ill look into optimizing the support settings for figures, using the stl you pointed me to earlier in the post and let you know what I did
Ok so after much effort (had issues with my x limit switch not working), I was able to get something going. Couldn’t get your stl to download, so I grabbed this t3-m4 Droid as a test. Came out pretty well
I’m going to edit this to have the support settings I used, as well as put up the profile.
atom’s minies.zip (2.0 KB)
Keep in mind its never easy to remove supports, especially from a delicate miniature, so it may take some practice before you get good at it.
Good luck and happy making
Thanks for taking all the time to work with me on this.
also it is worth noting that in that profile i changed more then just the support parameters. i lowered the layer height, optimized the settings for bridges and overhangs, and reinforced the main model a bit so that it’s less likely to break while your removing the supports.
Good stuff to know. Thanks