Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add Creality Ender 3 V3 KE definition and nozzles #17519

Open
wants to merge 32 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

vadim-danilchik
Copy link

@vadim-danilchik vadim-danilchik commented Dec 4, 2023

Description

Added printer Creality Ender 3 V3 KE

Type of change

  • Printer definition file(s)

@github-actions github-actions bot added the PR: Community Contribution 👑 Community Contribution PR's label Dec 4, 2023
wawanbreton and others added 5 commits December 8, 2023 08:55
Co-authored-by: Casper Lamboo <c.lamboo@ultimaker.com>
Using relative positioning proved to create issues; when spamming of arrange instructions it was possible to end up in the following time line
1: arrange action a is started
2: arrange action b is started
3: arrange action a finished computation, and applies transformations on the models
4: arrange action b finishes computation and applies relative transformations on top of the previous transformations

By using absolute positioning this issue is resolved

CURA-11279
"machine_max_feedrate_y": { "value": 500 },
"machine_max_feedrate_z": { "value": 30 },
"machine_name": { "default_value": "Creality Ender-3 V3 KE" },
"machine_start_gcode": { "default_value": "M220 S100 ;Reset Feedrate\nM221 S100 ;Reset Flowrate\n\nG28 ;Home\n\nG92 E0 ;Reset Extruder\nG1 Z2.0 F3000 ;Move Z Axis up\nG1 X-2.0 Y20 Z0.28 F5000.0 ;Move to start position\nM109 S[material_print_temperature_layer_0]\nG1 X-2.0 Y145.0 Z0.28 F1500.0 E15 ;Draw the first line\nG1 X-1.7 Y145.0 Z0.28 F5000.0 ;Move to side a little\nG1 X-1.7 Y20 Z0.28 F1500.0 E30 ;Draw the second line\nG92 E0 ;Reset Extruder\nG1 E-1.0000 F1800 ;Retract a bit\nG1 Z2.0 F3000 ;Move Z Axis up\nG1 E0.0000 F1800" },
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It should be {material_print_temperature_layer_0} not [material_print_temperature_layer_0]

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@daitj I believe you are wrong and now @vadim-danilchik added a wrong suggestion.

The GCode syntax wants square brackets. If you put curly brackets, the initial temp is not set correctly.

edit: Spoke too soon, it seems that curly braces break the functionality to show the starting temp in the model preview menu on the printer itself, but the printer works fine and sets the temp correctly.

However, changing it to square brackets, in the model preview the temp shows, however, the printer fails to start after calibration.

Copy link

@daitj daitj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

everything looks good now

@mvermand22
Copy link

Thanks a lot! I do have one issue with these files: somehow Cura will not put M104 code (nozzle temp) in the gcode file. When I use the ender3 v3 SE printer to slice then the M104 code is in the gcode file. Quite anoying since now Creality always sets nozzle temp to 0. What could fix this issue?

@vadim-danilchik
Copy link
Author

Thanks a lot! I do have one issue with these files: somehow Cura will not put M104 code (nozzle temp) in the gcode file. When I use the ender3 v3 SE printer to slice then the M104 code is in the gcode file. Quite anoying since now Creality always sets nozzle temp to 0. What could fix this issue?

This profile tested on my 3 v3 KE with Cura 5.6.0 and stock printer firmware. All works good. M109 code on start set up nozzle temp.
SE profile has M104 and M109 on start. I assume that SE uses code 104 for Marlin to work correctly.

@Kazizoli1342
Copy link

Just tested on my KE. Second print and everything looks fine...

Huge Thanks for @vadim-danilchik!

Well done

@DarkFisk
Copy link

don't know why 'Initial Layer Line Width' is 95.24% ?

thank you, used for a few models, so far is good

@cryptedx
Copy link

don't know why 'Initial Layer Line Width' is 95.24% ?

thank you, used for a few models, so far is good

This also confused me. I just set it to 100% and then my results went better.

@vadim-danilchik
Copy link
Author

don't know why 'Initial Layer Line Width' is 95.24% ?
thank you, used for a few models, so far is good

This also confused me. I just set it to 100% and then my results went better.

I took all the values from the profile in Creality Print.
I will test it with 100% and will update config.

@Fettkeewl
Copy link

Fettkeewl commented Feb 16, 2024

After having some irregular 1st layer adhesion issues, I'm wondering whether there needs to be a call to M420 S1 (or something similar)? Or is that called internally by the printer at the start of a job?

AFAIK. M420 is not natively supported in Klipper.
Read
https://www.klipper3d.org/Bed_Mesh.html#loading-the-default-profile

I personally on my "first print of the day" heat my bed to 70 and perfom a G29 (homing + auto level)
then just roll with it

I found a Klipper version of M420 after some searching
https://github.com/Poikilos/marlininfo/blob/3f90354017d4a20f83a9bb4d2123c11c28328ffc/documentation/Klipper/macros/M420.cfg

@Fettkeewl
Copy link

@vadim-danilchik what is the status on this? Are you looking at the failed check?

@deltafactory
Copy link

After making my comment I learned about Klipper loading the default profile automatically so no extra step is required. Unfortunately that means there are other problems with the leveling process...

The M420 code is a macro to replicate the behavior when using Marlin gcode.

@vadim-danilchik
Copy link
Author

@vadim-danilchik what is the status on this? Are you looking at the failed check?

It is not a problem with printer definition. Unit-test build step should be fixed by the dev command.

@vaz-ar
Copy link

vaz-ar commented Feb 22, 2024

Hello, is there any chance for this to be in the next Cura release ?

@deltafactory
Copy link

@vaz-ar It's not difficult to add the files to your current version.

Not knowing the details of their release cycle, it's likely going to make it into the next one... but why wait?

@allex-sise
Copy link

According to this conversation: https://www.reddit.com/r/Creality/s/2WKc38bm68

the M420 needs to be done after G28 (M420 S1 is mostly used after G28 (homing), because G28 deactivates the print bed leveling.)

If G28 is done, then there is no need (The G29 G-Code starts the automatic print bed leveling before each print if it is in the start G-Code of the printer in the slicer. After that, the M420 S1 G-Code is not necessary, because the data of the leveling are already available and used.)

@Dufftwt
Copy link

Dufftwt commented Mar 20, 2024

Status for this ? Last time I tried printing using this profile I got an error on the printer

@spitfire
Copy link

Status for this ? Last time I tried printing using this profile I got an error on the printer

Also had some issues with this earlier, tried it again after some time and it worked just fine for me. I've enabled root and enabled mainsail on it though

@FredsMedia
Copy link

How is this coming along in terms of being added into Cura?

@m-anish
Copy link

m-anish commented Apr 6, 2024

I'd also very much like for this to be part of cura

@ravhasin
Copy link

I would appreciate this as well

@heitorPB
Copy link

I'm using this profile for around ~20 prints and looking good.

What's missing to get this merged? What can I do to help get this going?

@zmingee
Copy link

zmingee commented Apr 26, 2024

My experience is anecdotal, but this seems 99% of the way there. I don't have any issues with actual printing, and I've been using it for the last three months or so with dozens of prints. I'm only aware of two issues generally with these definitions:

  • Print time estimates are way off, generally by about 50%
  • gcode files sent to the printer do not show the "preview" image of the model

@jellespijker
Copy link
Member

@saumyaj3 and/or @wawanbreton could you guys take a look at this PR?

@jellespijker
Copy link
Member

  • Print time estimates are way off, generally by about 50%

This is an indication that the acceleration values are of in this profile

@FrozenGalaxy
Copy link

FrozenGalaxy commented Apr 27, 2024

  • Print time estimates are way off, generally by about 50%

This is an indication that the acceleration values are of in this profile

In creality's splicer I get almost half the estimated print time too,
the speeds are also off by a lot.. so this profile seems to be way different in that case? or am i seeing this wrong?
Isn't it supposed to mimic exactly what creality's default profile does?

image

@deltafactory
Copy link

* Print time estimates are way off, generally by about 50%

Similar experience here regarding print times. So far actual print time has always been faster.

* gcode files sent to the printer do not show the "preview" image of the model

I use the Create Thumbnail extension to add the preview image. I wouldn't have expected Cura to add the image data to the g-code any other way.

@Dufftwt
Copy link

Dufftwt commented Apr 29, 2024

@FrozenGalaxy these are actually pretty good speeds

@FrozenGalaxy
Copy link

@FrozenGalaxy these are actually pretty good speeds

Slower than the original creality though? Why not keep them the same?

@saumyaj3
Copy link
Contributor

saumyaj3 commented May 3, 2024

Hey! @vadim-danilchik! I was looking into the PR. Is the PR ready to be merged? I do not have the printer so I cannot test the profiles, but I believe people are happy with it. Please check if something needs to be changed regarding print speed, so the timing prediction can be correct. Let me know.

@saumyaj3 saumyaj3 added the Status: Needs Info Needs more information before action can be taken. label May 3, 2024
@vadim-danilchik
Copy link
Author

Hey! @vadim-danilchik! I was looking into the PR. Is the PR ready to be merged? I do not have the printer so I cannot test the profiles, but I believe people are happy with it. Please check if something needs to be changed regarding print speed, so the timing prediction can be correct. Let me know.

Hi @saumyaj3 . This profile was ported from the Creality slicer many months ago. I think this PR is ready to be merged without changes.

@FrozenGalaxy
Copy link

so what about this then?

Why merge different settings?

image

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
PR: Community Contribution 👑 Community Contribution PR's PR: Printer Definitions 🏭 A PR that introduces or changes settings and printer definitions Status: Needs Info Needs more information before action can be taken.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet