This topic contains 16 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by 
Shaun 7 months, 1 week ago.
-
Posts
-
Hi guys,
We’ve begun testing with quickfill once again! You can check out the finer deatils in this blog post here.
I’ve attached our normal and fine quickfill profiles to this thread, we’d love to hear your feedback or to see your quickfill profiles if you’re already using the feature!
To use the Custom profiles, you will need to drop the ‘.roboxprofile’ files in the following location ‘my documents > CEL Robox > PrintProfiles’. You should then be able to select the quickfill profiles from the custom profile dropdown.
S
This’ll be another thing to try after I get my extruder repaired.
Blue Robox - Surrey, UK
I haven’t had much luck with these settings when using 100% fill on parts. On a thin walled cylinder the fill nozzle printed about a 60% fill instead of the 100% which didn’t meet up with the perimeter walls of the parts. On another part it had awful surface finish with very poor layer adhesive which scrapped the part.
@tatey Would you mind providing a little extra info?
What material was being used, we’re you using the latest version of Automaker (v1.03), have you been using the normal or fine quickfill profiles?
Are you able to provide the printjob folders for the failed prints? you can find the folders using the instructions found here.
S
I’m not particularly happy with the top layer using the Normal Quickfill profile - there are lots of gaps.
I’m going to try setting the “Solid Infill” nozzle to 0.3mm and see if it helps things. Overall however, a very big boost in speed by almost 10 minutes.
Blue Robox - Surrey, UK
@hawkeyethehacker thats great, as you use it to print larger and larger parts, you will notice even more time saved!
Would you mind sending in some pictures of the top surface?
S
Sure thing. Here’s a Clover I modelled. Sorry for the potato pic, it looks worse in real life 🙁
Blue Robox - Surrey, UK
@siymon I was using ABS (green) and HIPS.
With HIPS the surface finish was good and so was layer adhesion but it wasn’t properly filling the thin walled cylinder.
With ABS the surface finish and layer adhesion were very bad. I experienced similar top layer gaps as shown above but with extra blobbing of the material creating lumps in the surface.
I’m afraid I can’t provide the printjob folders as these are confidential parts.
The software version is v1.03 and these were both done on Normal Quick Fill. I haven’t tried Fine Quick Fill yet.
- This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by Simon.
Hi guys,
Thanks for the info and the feedback. I have put in a few Feature requests with our software team, namely the ability to independently select a nozzle for Infill, solid infill and top solid infill.
Currently these are all linked, meaning whichever nozzle is used for the infill (in this case, 0.8mm) is also used for the top surface. I think this may be some of the cause of our poor quality top surfaces, I haven’t printed anything as shapely as your clover, so the results have not been as bad for me more due to luck and model selection.
@tatey how often were the layer adhesion issues showing up in the part? how tall was it? are you using a custom material profile or a non-smartreel ABS? Have you printed the part in ABS on a default profile without issue before?
S
@tatey @hawkeyethehacker
Just out of curiosity, did you guys run the nozzle alignment calibration before doing the quickfill tests?
@hawkeyethehacker The nozzle alignment calibration is pretty essential when using any dual nozzle print profile as it sets the proper distance between the two nozzles in both the X and Y directions.
I operate two Betas and four Production Robox.
I am the US/Canada Technical Support engineer for the Robox.
See my 3D Hub site at https://www.3dhubs.com/phoenix/hubs/ben
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
