Extrusion works by the motor pushing the filament forward, causing pressure behind the nozzle, and the filament melting and extruding out the end. When your printer wants to stop extruding ( ie moving to a new part or section to print without printing anything in the middle), it makes a retraction to pull the filament back, releasing the pressure behind the nozzle, and stopping the filament from extruding out.
In a perfect world, a full retraction would not be necessary; not pushing the filament forward should stop the pressure buildup, and stop the filament from flowing. However, we don't live in a perfect world, and so backing the filament up a small amount is necessary to stop it from flowing.
Finding out exactly how much you need to back the filament up is the purpose of this test. Back the filament up too much, and you can create clogging issues, extrusion issues caused by the filament not being at the end of the nozzle at the beginning of the extrusion, and (slightly) increased print time; don't back the filament up far enough, and filament will continue extruding out the nozzle, causing stringing.
The test works by having you lower your retraction distance to a very small number ( a lot of tests will have you disable retraction altogether, ie 0 mm), and slowly increase it from there. The idea is that the bottom of the tower will look like hot garbage, and slowly improve as the retraction increases; what's the quality stops improving, you know that that is your ideal retraction distance.
If you have a Bowden tube setup, a good retraction Tower would have values ranging from 0 mm to around 10 mm. Direct drive extruders need far less retraction; 0 to 2 mm in 0.2 mm increments should be good. Again, you're looking for the first setting that gets rid of stringing.
Let me know if you need any help or have further questions! Retraction can be really tricky to understand mechanically, but can be important for improving print quality and reducing the need for post-processing.
I must have done something wrong because the whole tower looks pretty much the same except for a clear overextrusion around the middle on one side. The rest have really thin barely visible strings that don't go very far.
I don't use orca slicer so I'm not familiar with how it works specifically, but are you sure that the retraction settings are actually changing between different sections? I made the mistake when I first started it just loading the model and letting it print with default settings from my slicer. If the GitHub doesn't specify exactly how to enable the retraction tower settings, I would look up a guide on YouTube. If you've done temp towers, it'll likely be set up in a similar fashion.
If your test starts at 0 and you don't see any difference, it definitely it not working as intended; 0 retraction with result in a huge stringy mess, and going to the next step will be a significant change.
Edit: also maybe make sure that you are using the correct values for testing according to your extruder setup; if you are using a direct drive retraction tower on a bowden setup, the changes will be too small to make any discernible difference, and the lowest setting on a bowden test will likely be too high for a direct drive.
The way the test is implemented through orca slicer is actually a bit confusing. The forks of bambulab and orca slicer are likely intermingled. I used the default settings given in the drop menu then it imported a model. I then started the test as is without modifying anything.
I honestly have no idea which the correct values were for the p1p. Now that you mentioned it, I suppose I should have checked with bambulabs online manual. I hadn't thought about that.
Do some poking around for your printer and slicer - for your printer, you need to know if you have a direct drive or Bowden tube setup, and for your slicer, you need to figure out how to modify the standard gcode.
Looking at some pictures online I'm pretty sure your printer is a direct drive. Again I'm not familiar with your slicer so I don't know what your model looks like, but typically retraction tests will be a tower with different values printed on the side indicating how far the retraction distance is. For a direct drive, these values should be pretty small, likely topping out at just a couple mm at most.
A search for " <slicer name> retraction tower setup" should get you numerous tutorials for your slicer, just follow those guides and input a range appropriate to your setup and should be good to go
From what I understand it tests the minimum retraction distance you need to avoid stringing. The lower you get the less retraction you need. For example, for me usually it stops stringing around 0.4mm retraction (that's 4mm measured from the hot plate), but found that in real conditions the default 0.6mm works better. I don't find this test too useful, for me it fails to demonstrate the spectrum between too little and too much retraction, a feature I appreciate in the pressure advance tower. Apparently the moment it stops stringing, anything after that won't show you anything new and it's best to stop the print. Either that or I fail to notice any defects when the retraction is relatively high.
Wasn't aware of the test (SuperSlicer user here), and found this.
The tower has multiple notches, each one corresponding to a different retraction length. By looking at the tower after printing, you can see how each retraction length affects the print quality.
So check your surface finish and select the retraction value with the best looks.
I was mainly curious as to whether this was mostly a fun exercise, or if there were a practical advantage to having the calendar printed in 3D. Cool either way.
Nice! This is really impressive for a first prototype print. I've been printing for over a year, designing small brackets and such for maybe 6 months, and most of my designs are just one solid piece. Something with moving parts is awesome!
Can we ask what the project this is for is, or for a link to this model?
I've been at this for years, most of my designs are like your solid parts (Display Stands and DS Stylus). I've only recently tried experimenting with moving parts, and I've found using mixed mediums the best when 3D printing. i.e. using cloth or leather as the moving medium, with TPU or PETG for strength/flexibility.
As for what this is for. I've designed and made 3D Printable e-reader cases, which this link will show you the printable parts for, but I'd like to make a case for my iPad and other tablets, however I want to be able to prop it up and for it to be stable. This is designed with my cases in mind, and it has the clearance to lay flush with the back panel.
End goal is to have this embeded in the back so I can prop it up landscape, while I have another in the sleep cover so it can be propped up portrait, like an easel.
You might be able to make it much stiffer by adding more of the arms parallel. The force should be consistent when you tighten multiple of them with one screw.
I could achieve the same effect by making the arms thicker. Though I am thinking of printing the screw caps in TPU to see if I can make it stiffer that way.
Trying to keep the parts the same as the main thing this belongs too. M2 threaded inserts and 5mm screws. So not a lot of flexibility when it comes to thickness. That said, as a MK2 I'd probably make it 2mm thick rather than 1.2mm since that's my goto size for stiffness.
I've built a Voron 2.4 350, and own an SV08. I'm currently working on a detailed teardown/analysis/reverse-engineering of the SV08.
From a user perspective, there haven't been any deal-breakers so far, but certainly some annoyances. In short:
The filament path between the extruder and hotend is poorly-constrained, making it a pain to load
The auto-z calibration is often just a smidge off
The fans are absurdly loud. All of them.
The camera is meh
It uses a custom nozzle/heater
The bed is a bit thin
The mainboard is effectively a BTT CB1 and Fystec Cheetah on a single board
Their software customizations are of dubious quality
Their OrcaSlicer profiles are... fine. Just fine.
That being said, there are also many nice touches and good attention to detail in other areas. Overall, I'm satisfied with my purchase, but don't buy it to upgrade (aside from the mainboard fan). There be dragons.
If a Voron 2.4 fits in your budget, get a Voron 2.4. if not, the SV08 is a good choice if you can live with those annoyances, and especially if you are comfortable with third-party firmware mods (whenever they come out).
As an aside: based on my analysis of the mainboard, I strongly suspect Sovol is working on an MMU for the SV08.
For reference, I've had a (heavily modded) Creality Ender 3 V2 for a few years, and I've hit a limit in terms of speed and quality.
The filament path between the extruder and hotend is poorly-constrained, making it a pain to load
The auto-z calibration is often just a smidge off
It uses a custom nozzle/heater
If it's possible to install a Stealthburner instead of the standard extruder/hotend combo, it might solve most of these issues. Maybe some people are working on a V6 or Mk8 style hotend (I have a metric fuckton of Mk8 nozzles laying around)...
The fans are absurdly loud. All of them.
OK Noctua upgrades then. Compared to an already absurdly loud Ender 3, is it worse?
The mainboard is effectively a BTT CB1 and Fystec Cheetah on a single board
Their software customizations are of dubious quality
Would a Voron-style mainboard + RPi + standard Klipper solve these issues or are there fundamental incompatibilities?
All of those upgrades are absolutely doable. Given the price of those upgrades, all-in, a Voron will be a better value. Unless you have most of the parts already, anyway.
Although, I wouldn't bother changing out the board unless you have specific needs. Firmware and config tweaks will take care of most issues I've seen with it.
The fan is probably on par with stock ender 3. But always-on.
How would you rate your Voron for regular maintenance and calibration requirements? I got started on an Ender 3 V2 which I have tinkered a lot with. At some point I lost the fun in with the constant tinkering and calibration and simply want a printer that once built is rock solid and relible.
Typically I would say prusa printers fit this requirement but at the same time I really like the amount of options that my klipper installation gives me. Also I kind of want a cube style printer to allow for an enclosure with air filtering which would lock me into the prusa xl as the only choice.
If a Voron is mostly maintenance free it would be a great alternative for my requirements
I have the LDO Rev. C kit, and it is rock-solid. They're releasing the Rev. D kit soon, and I can only imagine that'll be even more refined. I printed my own parts using a combination of Phaetus aeWorthy ABS-GF and 3DXTech ABS-CF.
If your printed parts are good-quality, you follow the directions precisely, and stick to the kit (no mods beyond the LDO-provided ones), I see no reason it shouldn't provide years of trouble-free service.
Yeah, I did the LDO kit, revision C. I'm very happy with the quality of the kit and included options/mods.
However, the documentation is... fragmented. It all exists, but it's spread across the official Voron build guide, the Stealthburner build guide, and the LDO print guide, addendum, wiring guide, etc. Super annoying. And there's no canonical part checklist, so it's easy to accidentally print unnecessary parts.
That seems to be a problem with most kits, though, so more of a heads-up.
LDO is releasing their revision D of the kit soon, so you can either wait for that or get a discount on a clearance revision C kit. I know KB3D is supposed to have them 20% off soon if not already (no affiliation, I just chatted with them at MRRF).
That's the kit I was considering! I figure if their motors are alright they probably are reliable for the other parts. Thank you for all that and the suggestion for discounts!
3DPrinting
Hot
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago).