So I have a new Rostock Max V2 build. Its been alive for a couple of days. Just started printing with ABS (Hatchbox yellow) My previous printing experience has been with PLA. When I first started printing the PEEK fan shroud I noticed an interesting thing:
The infill does not seem to be hitting the perimeter and the perimeters also seemed a bit separated. So doing my due diligence I verified the extruder steps and the z height. I looked in the interweb and that seemed to tell me that I was not extruding enough plastic. So for this filament I (ultimately) upped the extruder multiplier to 1.1 and I upped the temp to 235. With all these changes I made the issue better but not completely gone:
I have kind of hit my limit on hot end temperature, at a setpoint of 135 my temperature normally is higher by a few degrees. I don't have the PEEK fan installed so I am wary of going past 140. The internet oracle told me 1.1 is the upper limit for extruder multiplier. And just for completeness, the 'infill to perimeter overlap" (sic) is at .1 (I did not change from default).
Finally to the point, is this normal for ABS? Is there more I can do? My fan shroud actually printed pretty well and is usable, does that need to be installed to get better results?
Also, just for completeness, the dimensions on my test cube are 20.1 x 20.2 x 10.1 So just a tad over size.
I would check your extrusion width settings, as that seems like the biggest thing. Try reducing that somewhat, and it should help. Also, install the PEEK fan at once. It may not help with your results, but there can be damage done to the PTFE liner of the hotend. While this is cheap to fix, it is a pain in the butt. Mess around with the infill to perimeter overlap as well, as that is the setting most closely related to your primary complaint (I think extrusion width is the root problem though). You should also measure the filament diameter (If you have already and entered that, if 1.1 is the extrusion multiplier cap, you can shrink that number to make it think it's moving less plastic than it is)
Also, so you know, Hatchbox ABS is not exactly great stuff. I've had OK results with the black, and terrible with the red. It can be very variable (other than the red, it seems like, as no one I know has it printing well)
Machines:
Rostock Max V2, Duet .8.5, PT100 enabled E3D V6 and volcano, Raymond style enclosure
Automation Technology 60W laser cutter/engraver
1m X-carve router
This started happening for me when I upgraded MatterControl to v1.5
It seems to happen only when using the Matter Slicer engine, not with the Cura slicer engine.
To avoid this, I set the General > Infill > Infill Overlap to 0.06
The Cura engine does not produce these gaps, but on my computer the layer preview does not display properly.
Heh. I was thinking of mentioning the issues with Simplify3D (That question being among them, as they largely refuse to provide a straight answer on that, nor has a lawyer gone over the EULA). It is my opinion that Simplify is sub-par in other ways (such as not having a minimum move setting), and that in many ways, it is an amazing testament to the work of the open source community that most controllers are able to seamlessly handle some truly boneheaded code emitted by S3D. For a slicer that is selling itself at a fairly high price point in a free market, you would expect them to be able to filter duplicate lines, and have a setting that almost every other slicer has. Personally, I would prefer KISSlicer for many things, when Matterslicer falls down (I haven't had too many issues other than no Z-hop in rafts, which, well, I can fix manually)
I doubt that most slicers will have a really realistic view of the time. Were those estimated times, or measured ones Q? If they were measured, I would look at the jerk, accel, max speed, and layer time settings. Those are far more likely to produce the difference than optimal toolpaths, unless Matterslice produced a perfectly Pessimal tool path (Which for some applications, I want a very time in-efficient tool path)
Honestly, as someone who could optimize the G by hand, for the most part, the improvements of a slicer aren't worth 100$. To someone who prints more, and lacks the knowledge to work with G by hand (It really isn't that hard to clean up tool paths, the biggest catch is of course E, which is much easier to work with in incremental, although that doesn't exist on the machines I mostly write code for (Mills and lathes have no extrusion distance)
Machines:
Rostock Max V2, Duet .8.5, PT100 enabled E3D V6 and volcano, Raymond style enclosure
Automation Technology 60W laser cutter/engraver
1m X-carve router
@xenocrates, those were estimates. And after spending more time with the matter hackers slicer I was able to figure out the issue I was having with supports.
there are still some odd choices though, like, for instance if you rotate an object, then press print, it prints the object as if you did not rotate it, unless you save it first. I don't have the time or frankly the interest to dig through g-code to optimize it by hand..... I imagine it to be quite time consuming. I guess knowing how to do it would be very useful for recovering a failed print half way through
