Welcome to the SeeMeCNC Community

Been through updating our hotend, https://www.matterhackers.com/articles/ ... -to-oozing that website, a new version of MatterControl, AstroPrint, MULTIPLE support-chats, and several headaches. We STILL get prints that look like fig. 1 on the above link.

The article seems to suggest the Rostock Max v2 should be better than this. So I'm trying again from scratch. Sadly MatterControl settings don't look like they used to. Or at least aren't where they used to be.
Edit:
Attached is an image of what's going wrong.
WHERE THE HELL ARE THE ATTACHMENTS GOING?!??!?
Oh goody. Yet another frustration with this stupid thing.

Let's try this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gksjqnnxt2tz0 ... 5.jpg?dl=0

Thanks for your time.

Your issue may very well be in the geometry of the model and the way your slicer tries to handle slicing the model.

If you could post the STL/OBJ file, I could take a look at it.

My guess is that there might be free-floating objects within your STL, that as your slicer slices it, it requests that the printer attempt to put plastic in MID-AIR. This would cause little plastic loops which could cause the kind of weird blobs you're seeing, and would appear as stringing/retraction issues.

Another possibility is that you have scaled the model so small, that the slicer is unable to generate paths for parts of the model, and so creates blank gaps which then cause the plastic to be printed in midair when the file is thick enough for slicer to register it.

Try slicing your model in a different slicer, or send your model to me and I can try to generate a Gcode file for you.

How much 3D printing experience do you have @Slaintemaith? This is certainly not an easy model even for an advanced user. If you are just getting started, relax and learn some fundamentals and get familiar with your printer and slicer. Start slow and work up to more complex models and print speed. Read the posts in my signature, I've received well over 1000 "thanks, that was really helpful" from folks all of the world and on many different types of printers. The Rostock Max V2 is a very capable machine but there are limits to what any desktop 3D printer can do. I'm really impressed that you were able to print the rail tops across that expanse without support. This looks like an architectural model of the Boston hatch shell for outdoor concerts. What is it?

lightninjay: Here's a link to the object:
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1363023
I haven't scaled anything on it or altered it in any way. Just loaded it into MatterControl.
mhackney:
It's supposed to be a test of the printer's capabilities. From the splooge everywhere on it, it seems ours sucks.
The places where it's making a mess don't appear to be places where it -should- be making messes. It handles the bridging and overhang better than I'd expect. It's the zitty splooge and stringing that's annoying me to no end, since no amount of playing with retraction/move speed/heat settings do anything appreciable.

A different slicer is the best idea I've heard so far, since MatterControl seems to suck. My experience with 3D printing has been limited to trying to get this stupid machine we built to work properly.

Mattercontrol imo is a pretty shitty slicer. I use Simplify 3d as mine for my romax v2 and i have wonderful results. If the fiance wasn't sleeping for work I'd print this calibration print just to see how dialed in my settings are, but if you don't wish to spend $150 for a slicer I wouldn't blame you but it is pretty good, but you an use Cura and/or slic3r both are free and both are pretty good. I'm sure you can find a profile for either slicer for the rostock so have a look there.

Attitude makes a big difference. Many of us have spent a lot of time helping folks here. There is nothing inherently wrong with the Rostock Max V2 printer. The more challenging the print, the more you really have to pay attention to ALL the details. It's my experience that most - especially new users - do not and they are not consistent in their approach.

Relax and approach it with discipline. Anything worth doing takes time and a consistent approach.

And it is general knowledge that MatterSlicer is near the bottom of the pack of slicers.

KISSlicer

You trying to print this model and expecting good results is like giving a 16 year old a new Indy car and expecting them to qualify for the Indy 500. Start simple, read and follow the advice in my signature links. Benefit from 1000s of hours of experience.

We've been printing stuff with varying (mostly diminishing) degrees of success since we built it in January.
This stringing is an inconsistent issue. Some times it doesn't happen at all.
We can print the boxes in https://www.matterhackers.com/articles/ ... -to-oozing with no issues at all, but other oddly mundane, one-wouldn't-think-challenging objects look like a spider took up residence in them.
Which is the maddening part: Inconsistency. The parts of that print-test object that are supposed to be challenging--overhang, bridging, are coming through just fine. The stringing and globs that are happening, however, seem to be indicative of a temperature/retraction/speed problem which is so well documented in the link above. Except that no setting I change alters it IN ANY WAY AT ALL; for good or ill.
My wife and I aren't morons. We've started simply, we've made perfect little calibration boxes. We've made things that look like the things they're supposed to look like.
But most things: don't. And if I want to start making things reliably with this printer, it needs to make things properly.
My attitude is piss-poor because even with many well-intentioned chats with the SeeMeCNC folks, what's changed is nothing. I'm trying here as a last ditch effort.

can you post your gcode for the test print above?

Get rid of MatterSlicer. It is not doing you any favors. I seriously recommend KISS. It has the best tool paths by far. I could go into detail about why but if you search my posts you should be able to find why. Or take my word for it. At the very least try Cura or Slic3r. They are all better than matterslicer.

well, the part you are attempting to print is a 3D printer torture test. Why don't you start with something you actually want to print a go from there....

matter control slicer does suck. also.

This has been a multi-user effort between my wife & I. I'm trying AstroPrint at the moment just to see if it does anything any differently. At least then I should know, in theory, if it's the slicer or the printer.
(I'll try KISS--it's only that AstroPrint was what we had lying around)
I see it's installable on raspberry pi, though. That suggests wireless. That seems a happy thing.

Good luck. Frankly, your approach is not going to result in good results. But it's your frustration. I'd change one thing at a time and interpret the results and maybe listen to folks who have been printing very complex models for years that are offering their wisdom. But hey, throw a raspberry pi and AstroPrint at it. No one has ever had a problem with that combination (sarcasm intended). I forgot that there was a slicer actually worse than MatterControl's Slicer.

Sarcasm. Excellent. Even after I said I'd try your idea.

Relax. You said you are going to try AstroPrint. The only sarcasm was "no one has ever had a problem with AstroPrint". Not directed at you. You seem to be looking for answers but you are not going at it in a disciplined way. Several of us have recommended Cura, Slic3r or Kiss. Pick one and learn it. Then slice your model and print. Whatever makes you think that adding all the complexity of an rasp pi and AP is going to help you sort this out? I'll move on and leave you to sort it out. Seriously, good luck.

One tip, for complex models print from the SD card.

Okay... Seriously and no sarcasm in sight:
We appreciate the input.
We've only been changing one setting at a time, or in the latest case used the same settings but
We've changed the slicer. Just to see if the same thing happens.
...and it seems like it's better. And worse. Same issue, just in different places.
At least it's not the same crap Every. Single. Time. No matter what setting.
This seems to suggest that something different will make things go. Unless it's the printer itself. Then we're hozenschlaggened.
...okay, also:
We've had this thing for a -while- now, (since January since we made our first print--the fan shrouds you're instructed to print--they turned out great!) some things turn out fine. Some don't. It's inconsistent.
We're VERY methodical about tracking down the issue.
We've not tracked down the issue since JANUARY after talking to SeeMeCNC (who you'd think might know their stuff) repeatedly.
We've resorted to looking at websites that have nothing to do with our brand of printer.
We've resorted to asking on forums.
My wife isn't annoyed yet.
I am.
I apologize for my attitude, but since she hates forums and anything to do with them, I'm the best you get. Pity. She's REALLY cool.
We appreciate the responses, and will try ALL of them as seem applicable to our problem. One at a time.

Thank you all!

Any pattern for the good vs. bad prints when it comes to rolls of filament (types, colors, suppliers, or ages)?

Sadly, no. We've thought of that as well. We recalibrate every time we change filament, though--even if it's the same kind.

So: AstroPrint still has issues, but not the major splooge blobs that MatterControl left. There's stringing--in both different and the same places as the other, but some things are certainly better.
Some are worse.
At least we know it's a dynamic issue.
So tomorrow, when my wife has more patience and time for it, and when I'm more sober, we'll try again with KISS or (and it might be the same one) whatever slicer the guy who made the labors-of-Heracles object we're trying to print suggests.

Til then...

I think a good approach for you, now that I know more of your history, is "divide and conquer". Find a set of test/calibration models that exercise one, or at most a few things, and work on that until you can consistently print it and then move to the next. If you are organized you can do several in parallel but you need to stay organized, especially with slicing parameters.

One thing to check if you haven't is your extruder calibration. And make sure that the extruder is adjusted and no plastic stick in the cog teeth.

So, I'm going to go over the features I can see in that picture one at a time, and compare them against the STL.

Your bridging and overhangs are honestly great. It would be difficult to improve them, and the faceting in the STL comes through on the final model in the case of that rounded overhang. Very impressive. It means that at least for that, the temperature and cooling settings are well matched.

Next, the edge finish. Very glossy and consistent, perhaps a little too flat, suggesting temperatures may be too hot, or print speed is left too low, or that the low end fan speed is too low.

Top surface: It's hard to tell if the artifacts are voids or bumps from this angle. I would check your extruder steps calibration. It may be off, but it's pretty close if it is. Alternatively, considering the side finish, it may be that the track width setting in the slicer is too low/high. (low if bumps, high if voids).

The straight up pillars that print exhibit minimal artifacting, which is good. There is some wavering, and the lack of anything beyond the two widest indicate that the slicer is throwing those features away, possibly due to the track width setting, or because of something else.

The wall with a hole in it seems to indicate that things are printing pretty well, given the chance, and fairly consistently (within this print), if given about the same feature.

The diagonals that appeared in the bridging test, as well as the webbing on the leaning pillars suggest that the setting for minimum distance before retracting is too low, or that travel speed is too low. The pointed cone seems to agree with this.

As was mentioned above, printing from an SD card is usually helpful, especially with complex models. Although certainly issues have risen from bad/cheap SD cards, it solves far more than it causes. It's suggested to get a class 10 SD card for the printer, and they can be had rather cheaply. I managed to get a Samsung class 10/UHS-1 (The two are not the same, but can co-exist, mind you) 32GB card for 10$, and you can get one at 16GB, which is more than enough for any reasonable printer uses for ~5$ online.

Slaintemaith wrote:So: AstroPrint still has issues, but not the major splooge blobs that MatterControl left. There's stringing--in both different and the same places as the other, but some things are certainly better.
Some are worse.
At least we know it's a dynamic issue.
So tomorrow, when my wife has more patience and time for it, and when I'm more sober, we'll try again with KISS or (and it might be the same one) whatever slicer the guy who made the labors-of-Heracles object we're trying to print suggests.

Til then...

Just to try and clear some things up. Your moving to "Astroprint" is like choosing to use Repetier-Host over Mattercontrol as a prining HOST program to direct your printer. Essentially, just feeding the Gcode generated from a slicer. Astroprint uses sliced Gcode from Cura or Slic3r as their Gcode generating engines.

Within Mattercontrol, when you were slicing objects, you were able to choose "Matterslice" or "Slic3r" and possibly even "Cura" but all of those are merely slicing backends and are not necessarily the most updated slicing engines for those particular slicers.

My particular suggestion, though many here do not have the same feelings, is for Craftware. It is much like a free version of S3D in my opinion (though I have never used S3D, so I do not know for certain. It does however allow for customizable supports).

I can post my slicer configuration for a .35, or .5mm nozzle configuration using SeeMeCNC's stock hotend if you wanted to give Craftware a shot, or you can try printing the attached Gcode generated from Craftware. It assumes you are using a .5mm nozzle stock configuration (Which I do not think you have specified as of yet, which nozzle/hotend configuration you are using.)
EDIT:

Here are some photos of my attempt at printing the torture test using a .35mm SeeMeCNC nozzle and hotend setup. Sliced using Craftware. By no means a perfect print, and I have some minor stringing in that area as well, but nothing that a little post-processing wouldn't clean up.