I think what they meant by “catching up” would happen at later layers, not later in the same layer. Basically, those layers are bad themselves but putting down enough material in the right places that a future layer will go down correct and smooth. So layer 4 being fine basically agrees with above commenter.
Are we looking at layer 2 partially complete or layer 3 partially complete? Because while I see the obvious problem on the partially complete layer, I also see problems on the layer that is complete. The back right area has tell-tell signs of too low z-offset (the very thin pinch lines coming up) but as it moves to the front of the image it looks like the z-offset is too high (not closing the gaps at the ends of lines and defined gaps between lines). Even the layer that is in progress looks like the lines are coming apart as the print head moves from back to front, like the gap is bigger in the front than back.
This all shouts levelling problem or motion system problem.
Has it always done this?
Did you get the printer new?
How long have you had it?
Can you post a picture of the bed mesh?
What temperature was the bed when you took the bed mesh?
I think what they meant by “catching up” would happen at later layers, not later in the same layer. Basically, those layers are bad themselves but putting down enough material in the right places that a future layer will go down correct and smooth. So layer 4 being fine basically agrees with above commenter.
No I’m saying the gap between lines on layer 2 and 3 is the same throughout the entirety of both layers without change (also on walls), but not present at all on layer 4 and onwards.
Are we looking at layer 2 partially complete or layer 3 partially complete?
Partially complete layer 2
The back right area has tell-tell signs of too low z-offset (the very thin pinch lines coming up) but as it moves to the front of the image it looks like the z-offset is too high (not closing the gaps at the ends of lines and defined gaps between lines)
This seems to be unrelated to Z-offset, as it’s happens regardless of print placement and orientation but follows infill direction with the more squished part being towards the end of the layer and the slightly less squished part being the beginning.
The entire bed is within 0.18mm from lowest to highest point, with 0.07mm between highest and lowest corners. According to the probed mesh at least.
Even the layer that is in progress looks like the lines are coming apart as the print head moves from back to front, like the gap is bigger in the front than back.
This is also following infill direction actually, now that I think of it. It starts out almost ok, but gaps occur to a greater extent as solid infill progresses (regardless of print orientation and infill direction)
Has it always done this?
I honestly can’t remember…maybe?
Did you get the printer new?
Yes
How long have you had it?
8 months or so
What temperature was the bed when you took the bed mesh?
55°C, heat soaked. It uses KAMP so it’s a new mesh every print.
This seems to be unrelated to Z-offset, as it’s happens regardless of print placement and orientation but follows infill direction with the more squished part being towards the end of the layer and the slightly less squished part being the beginning.
This should not be the case. You shouldn’t have too much material at the end of a layer and too little at the start (or vise versa). Does the result look the exact same no matter where on the bed you put it? Like it looks the same centered vs put in corners but keeping the same orientation and print order.
If it happens anywhere on the bed in the exact same way then I don’t think it is a bed mesh problem and wondering if there is some sort of e-step problem that is compounding over the course of the layer, but resets on a layer change. Maybe try relative positions vs absolute positions in the gcode settings to see if it changes anything?
However, if moving the print to a different part of the bed moved the “problem areas” then there is either a motion system issue or bed mesh issue. Something could be out of square, or a z-axis lead screw is out of shape, or even I’ve seen printer firmware just tossing out the bed meshes - they will still scan them, but then just tosses it out at the beginning of a print (could be problematic “beginning gcode” in the slicer doing that too).
natecox@programming.dev 1 month ago
ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
Its not, that’s my shaky-cam photo skills and the angle
Crozekiel@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
I think what they meant by “catching up” would happen at later layers, not later in the same layer. Basically, those layers are bad themselves but putting down enough material in the right places that a future layer will go down correct and smooth. So layer 4 being fine basically agrees with above commenter.
Are we looking at layer 2 partially complete or layer 3 partially complete? Because while I see the obvious problem on the partially complete layer, I also see problems on the layer that is complete. The back right area has tell-tell signs of too low z-offset (the very thin pinch lines coming up) but as it moves to the front of the image it looks like the z-offset is too high (not closing the gaps at the ends of lines and defined gaps between lines). Even the layer that is in progress looks like the lines are coming apart as the print head moves from back to front, like the gap is bigger in the front than back.
This all shouts levelling problem or motion system problem.
Has it always done this?
Did you get the printer new? How long have you had it? Can you post a picture of the bed mesh? What temperature was the bed when you took the bed mesh?
ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
No I’m saying the gap between lines on layer 2 and 3 is the same throughout the entirety of both layers without change (also on walls), but not present at all on layer 4 and onwards.
Partially complete layer 2
This seems to be unrelated to Z-offset, as it’s happens regardless of print placement and orientation but follows infill direction with the more squished part being towards the end of the layer and the slightly less squished part being the beginning.
The entire bed is within 0.18mm from lowest to highest point, with 0.07mm between highest and lowest corners. According to the probed mesh at least.
This is also following infill direction actually, now that I think of it. It starts out almost ok, but gaps occur to a greater extent as solid infill progresses (regardless of print orientation and infill direction)
I honestly can’t remember…maybe?
Yes
8 months or so
55°C, heat soaked. It uses KAMP so it’s a new mesh every print.
Crozekiel@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
This should not be the case. You shouldn’t have too much material at the end of a layer and too little at the start (or vise versa). Does the result look the exact same no matter where on the bed you put it? Like it looks the same centered vs put in corners but keeping the same orientation and print order.
If it happens anywhere on the bed in the exact same way then I don’t think it is a bed mesh problem and wondering if there is some sort of e-step problem that is compounding over the course of the layer, but resets on a layer change. Maybe try relative positions vs absolute positions in the gcode settings to see if it changes anything?
However, if moving the print to a different part of the bed moved the “problem areas” then there is either a motion system issue or bed mesh issue. Something could be out of square, or a z-axis lead screw is out of shape, or even I’ve seen printer firmware just tossing out the bed meshes - they will still scan them, but then just tosses it out at the beginning of a print (could be problematic “beginning gcode” in the slicer doing that too).