Ugly printed surface

Hi everyone,

I have problem with surfaces of printed things. I attach photo of top side of last printed part. As you can see part surface has lines and tracks of printhead. I was observing printing and I saw that the printhead don't strike to next track of printing surface on the other site. Sometimes I'm hearing sound of scraping the surfaces when printhead is moving to next printing area.

It's normal? Please help :)

2015-04-22%2020.20.55.jpg

If you want the top smooth, flip the model on its side to print. Most if not all my prints are similar. Its FDM. 

You can smooth it with XTC-3D from smooth on or use an acetone bath to get the lines out. 

It looks like a good print to me. Of course I am probably half blind. hahaha

Heres with an acid bath and without. 

IMGP4942.JPG?format=1500wIMGP4914.jpg?format=1500w

Those diagonal lines are unfortunately normal. Hopefully surface finish will be improved in the next version or two. 

I thought this was cleared up in the last firmware patch, I had not seen it in a while.

I always make sure the main surface is on the side when I print. Sometimes that isn’t possible, that’s when I resort to acetone baths or XTC-3D.

I love that XTC stuff. I needed to fix my sunroof in my truck and short of ordering new parts I tried that stuff. It’s been 6 months and still holding strong.

I'm Sorry!

This will never be fixed by a software patch!

This is due to a mechanical design error on the part of Zortrax, they have used a low cost "Anti-backlash" nut for the "Z" movement and this causes slippage in the return movement of the build plate, anyone with milling experience will understand how important it is to understand and attempt to reduce "Backlash".

The first time I saw this was when the very first layers were being deposited, my son who was showing the new printer to me bumped the table the printer was resting on and I saw the nice smooth line suddenly changed to a much narrower line, I immediately noticed the low quality "Anti-backlash" nut and I sent a note with sources for better materials.

I later learned that the Zortrax "engineers" will not listen to anyone, even those of us deep in high volume manufacturing.

The company I work for built 1.5 billion hard drives in about the last 5 years and I design the tooling that puts them together and takes them apart every 3 seconds so I'm familiar with tooling that needs to be reliable and repeatable at a tolerance that these 3D printers will be a long time getting to.

As long as the software insists on breaking up a large surface into smaller print areas and "Z" shifts to skip over areas there will be this line artifact because the Zortrax "engineers" continue to ignore the "Z" backlash issue.

I understand what you're saying, and don't disagree that the backlash is a contributing factor to the smaller lines. However, as stated in one of my previous posts, these big lines are not the fault of backlash but instead artifacts from how the surface is printed. If you watch the finish surfaces print, you'll see that the printer makes these connecting lines between the different outline components (hence why they connect corners). It is because of the difference in travel and extrusion rates when these traversing lines are printed vs when the infill is printed that cause these highly pronounced diagonal lines. All that is required for these lines to go away is for Z to alter the software so that these lines are printed as part of the fill and not when the head is traversing to the next outline area. 

just be glad your top surface is totally filled.

I've been noticing that larger flat surfaces will often print w/ incomplete fill, similar to the base of all Zortrax parts, only not as bad.

... and that was with both of my printers, so I don't think it's a cable-issue. Hopefully it will be fixed in the next software update.

I'm Sorry!

This will never be fixed by a software patch!

This is due to a mechanical design error on the part of Zortrax, they have used a low cost “Anti-backlash” nut for the “Z” movement and this causes slippage in the return movement of the build plate, anyone with milling experience will understand how important it is to understand and attempt to reduce “Backlash”.

The first time I saw this was when the very first layers were being deposited, my son who was showing the new printer to me bumped the table the printer was resting on and I saw the nice smooth line suddenly changed to a much narrower line, I immediately noticed the low quality “Anti-backlash” nut and I sent a note with sources for better materials.

I later learned that the Zortrax “engineers” will not listen to anyone, even those of us deep in high volume manufacturing.

The company I work for built 1.5 billion hard drives in about the last 5 years and I design the tooling that puts them together and takes them apart every 3 seconds so I’m familiar with tooling that needs to be reliable and repeatable at a tolerance that these 3D printers will be a long time getting to.

As long as the software insists on breaking up a large surface into smaller print areas and “Z” shifts to skip over areas there will be this line artifact because the Zortrax “engineers” continue to ignore the “Z” backlash issue.

Typing something at keyboard is very simple but please back here with some measurements, everywhere is freedom of speech but some limit exist.

First at all here is not such of thing as backlash at Z axis which have vertical load, second this parts which you mention as perfect replacement with backlash nuts this is cheap POM with spring, comparing to ball screw which is used now, anyone with milling experience just milling and reading stories about dungeons and dragons instead of taking real qulity gauge into hand and check reality.

So in Zortrax is not such of thing as low quality anti-backlash nut, because there is no anti-backlash nut only ball screw nut wikipedia for it first!

The backlash at Z stage in Zortrax is virtually 0/zero/null if you write something about radial play instead of backlash then I can take you and your done job seriously.

The whole problem in this topic is about differences of pressure when material is depositing it is somehow normal and nature of FDM printing, many tricks in software are done for hide it so much as possible for ‘vertical’ lines but ‘horizontal’ lines are even more complicated, the perfect story is if exist tool path which let to deposit infill without any stops and jumps but at most cases it is impossible.

@joshpit2003

It is suggested to change nozzle every 3-5 spools of material used it is only bet for your case because I didn’t seen pictures of your problem.

Best Regards

Martin

Thanks for the tip.

I'll upload pics in another topic.

@joshpit2003

It is suggested to change nozzle every 3-5 spools of material used it is only bet for your case because I didn’t seen pictures of your problem.

Best Regards

Martin

I'm Sorry!

This will never be fixed by a software patch!

This is due to a mechanical design error on the part of Zortrax, they have used a low cost “Anti-backlash” nut for the “Z” movement and this causes slippage in the return movement of the build plate, anyone with milling experience will understand how important it is to understand and attempt to reduce “Backlash”.

The first time I saw this was when the very first layers were being deposited, my son who was showing the new printer to me bumped the table the printer was resting on and I saw the nice smooth line suddenly changed to a much narrower line, I immediately noticed the low quality “Anti-backlash” nut and I sent a note with sources for better materials.

I later learned that the Zortrax “engineers” will not listen to anyone, even those of us deep in high volume manufacturing.

The company I work for built 1.5 billion hard drives in about the last 5 years and I design the tooling that puts them together and takes them apart every 3 seconds so I’m familiar with tooling that needs to be reliable and repeatable at a tolerance that these 3D printers will be a long time getting to.

As long as the software insists on breaking up a large surface into smaller print areas and “Z” shifts to skip over areas there will be this line artifact because the Zortrax “engineers” continue to ignore the “Z” backlash issue.

This is not a mill. There are no forces involved, no end mill spirals pushing or pulling. The z axis screw is heavily loaded to one side…there is no significant backlash. Not even on the V2 with the brass nut (which has no specific anti backlash features). There is also no difference in print quality to the other printer versions with ball screw (we have both versions here). The ball screw versions have the nut base slightly loose on purpose to avoid any binding or wobble. This may make the system a bit more sensitive if you intentionally bump the printer, but it will never experience forces like that due to the actual print process. So the fact that you saw a minimal z axis shift when you bump the printer does not mean that the whole system is a bad design. There could be other reasons, too…the build plate could not have been seated fully and the bump seated it, etc.

The final proof is the fact that the surfaces are not looking any different since introduction of the z lift feature. Earlier software versions did not move the z down and back up during rapids and the surfaces did not look any smoother (more like the opposite…the nozzle would slightly scrape over them). IMHO the z axis repeatability could not be any better and this is also an essential contributor to the outstanding wall quality of the prints.

What kind of better materials did you recommend them? What is better for a virtually force free axis than an already complete overkill Japanese ball screw?

This is not a mill. There are no forces involved, no end mill spirals pushing or pulling. The z axis screw is heavily loaded to one side...there is no significant backlash. Not even on the V2 with the brass nut (which has no specific anti backlash features). There is also no difference in print quality to the other printer versions with ball screw (we have both versions here). The ball screw versions have the nut base slightly loose on purpose to avoid any binding or wobble. This may make the system a bit more sensitive if you intentionally bump the printer, but it will never experience forces like that due to the actual print process. So the fact that you saw a minimal z axis shift when you bump the printer does not mean that the whole system is a bad design. There could be other reasons, too...the build plate could not have been seated fully and the bump seated it, etc.

The final proof is the fact that the surfaces are not looking any different since introduction of the z lift feature. Earlier software versions did not move the z down and back up during rapids and the surfaces did not look any smoother (more like the opposite…the nozzle would slightly scrape over them). IMHO the z axis repeatability could not be any better and this is also an essential contributor to the outstanding wall quality of the prints.

What kind of better materials did you recommend them? What is better for a virtually force free axis than an already complete overkill Japanese ball screw?

Wow Andre! you are right!

1. This has all the movements of a mill.

2. The forces are lighter in some aspects but still there and influencing the system.

3. The Z-axis screw is loaded to some extent but the observation I have seen directly and on this forum from others shows signs on every flat surfaced part with obstructing features a "Z" miss alignment (striping).

4. All versions of this type of ball screw Z axis will have this issue in some manner as there is no direct measured feedback to the controller such as a linear encoder to express the position.

5. As to bumping the system, OK lets remove an external force that could cause this, are there any internal components that might contribute to shifting the system, I wonder? (do I need to mention the extruder components mass?)

6. As to you assuming my opinion of the Zortrax as a "bad design" from my comment "due to a mechanical design error" shows a trollish nature and I do not feed trolls.

7. A good observation about the "build plate could not have been seated fully" but not consistent with the fact of all the other pictures and posts from others including my observations directly.

8. A final proof? the surfaces look the same (inconsistent) as they did before....... you understand that means the issue (if we consider it one) was not solved, only reduced in value.

9. The outstanding wall quality, yes they look great on the Zortrax and my experience with printers that move the build plate in one axis (Z) and those that move in two (Z and X) that could be (in my humble opinion) due to the repeatability of that extra movement of the large mass of the build plate.

10. I feel no more need to again pass along my knowledge and hard work on this subject as I expressed it to the correct parties already and there would be no return on another investment.

11. The assumption without measurement of a "virtually force free" mechanical system sounds like someone wants to sell me a "perpetual motion design".

Lastly, what do you have against "Japanese ball screw"

OK OK that may have been a little too much, so lets just say that we do not agree on much.

Regards

Drew

Drew, I think that there is the right time for you to start building your own printer :) Because follow to your opinion 99,9% printers on the market were poorly designed… 

It's already late hour, and I have lost a little faith in a 3D printers - because of you! ;)

Drew, I think that there is the right time for you to start building your own printer :) Because follow to your opinion 99,9% printers on the market were poorly designed… 

It's already late hour, and I have lost a little faith in a 3D printers - because of you! ;)

Hi Igor,

I have a day job already, thank you, as to your opinion that my opinion is "99,9% printers on the market were poorly designed" is to my way of thinking not correct as to what my opinion actually is.

To my limited experience there is no "perfect" design of any man made machine (even those I have had a hand in) but that does not mean they cannot do the job.

By NO MEANS do I say "I do not love this M200" on the contrary I am most pleased with the output and would make the purchase again, my company also just bought one, on my recommendation.

I have to in my daily job duties, consult with a wide verity of engineers and designers from world wide backgrounds and opinions, we consider each others data and opinions and try to work together to "make things work" and have found in the Zortrax staff through others and my own observations a strong reluctance to even allow the advice of others to be considered and most recently heard a "staffer" mention "fairy tales" in regards to some posts (I hope it is mine, I like fairies).

Do not lose faith! just keep a healthy amount of "Common Sense" in regards to all the "opinions" and "data" being thrown about and if you are considering a printer, for the cost an M200 or an UP Plus are great value.

Regards and get some sleep!

Drew

Wow Andre! you are right!

1. This has all the movements of a mill.

2. The forces are lighter in some aspects but still there and influencing the system.

3. The Z-axis screw is loaded to some extent but the observation I have seen directly and on this forum from others shows signs on every flat surfaced part with obstructing features a "Z" miss alignment (striping).

4. All versions of this type of ball screw Z axis will have this issue in some manner as there is no direct measured feedback to the controller such as a linear encoder to express the position.

5. As to bumping the system, OK lets remove an external force that could cause this, are there any internal components that might contribute to shifting the system, I wonder? (do I need to mention the extruder components mass?)

6. As to you assuming my opinion of the Zortrax as a "bad design" from my comment "due to a mechanical design error" shows a trollish nature and I do not feed trolls.

7. A good observation about the "build plate could not have been seated fully" but not consistent with the fact of all the other pictures and posts from others including my observations directly.

8. A final proof? the surfaces look the same (inconsistent) as they did before....... you understand that means the issue (if we consider it one) was not solved, only reduced in value.

9. The outstanding wall quality, yes they look great on the Zortrax and my experience with printers that move the build plate in one axis (Z) and those that move in two (Z and X) that could be (in my humble opinion) due to the repeatability of that extra movement of the large mass of the build plate.

10. I feel no more need to again pass along my knowledge and hard work on this subject as I expressed it to the correct parties already and there would be no return on another investment.

11. The assumption without measurement of a "virtually force free" mechanical system sounds like someone wants to sell me a "perpetual motion design".

Lastly, what do you have against "Japanese ball screw"

OK OK that may have been a little too much, so lets just say that we do not agree on much.

Regards

Drew

Andre didn't say the m200 didn't have all the movements of a mill.

He is correct that there is no pressure applying to the nozzle as you would have with a spindle as there is no spindle and no horizontal load or deflection that you would have with a mill and various tooling. If you say it's the same you would be terribly wrong and don't know much about printing. Bed leveling can also play a level in over and under extruding and some may believe that it's due to the fact that there is z axis backlash but could simply be caused from improper leveling. Designing tooling for high volume manufacturing is a completely different area and really shouldn't be brought up. You develop tooling for a repeated task that does the same function (and/or functions) over and over again. I'm not sure if you're aware but printing is not consistent and doesn't do the same task over and over again, the amount of variables far exceed that of a repeated task. 

At the end of the day we all have a great product that prints better then any printer in it's price range and should be thankful that we don't have to deal with some of the pain points that others do.

Let's close this topic as no benefit can come from this conversation 

I would buy a 3D printer designed by Drew!

Me too!

Lend me some money and i might get one too. hahaha lol :lol:  :P

I measured a micron (0.001mm or 0.00003937in) variability after repeatedly traveling 5mm and even 10mm down and back up. I hope Zortrax fixes this mechanical design error soon…lol… :wink:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zjpebksvoxs9bv4/video%20apr%2023%2C%2022%2031%2046.mov?dl=0

Since I could not really see anything with the 0.01mm dial indicator I pulled out my trusty millimess…

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nvhcy6t18dcrfqo/video%20apr%2023%2C%2022%2055%2007.mov?dl=0

Interesting that you miss quote me and do not believe that the printer doesn’t have to make repeated movements similar to the tooling I have been designing for over 30 years and have pattens on designs and processes the after making a vague reference to my ignorance of mechanical design and asking to drop this thread leads me to wonder why you want this to end.

I have been honest with my appreciation of the overall performance of the M 200.but will also be frank with my opinions on what I believe can be improved upon, your attempts to belittle me only serves to r enforce my view of Zortrax policy in regards to the community relationship.

I have zero interest in competition with Zortrax in making a printer but I will always share my insight and designs with community and manufacturers as I believe in karma and always want the best for others, a small investigation of my contributions may improve your opinion of me.

Sorry for the late and short reply, I’m typing this on my phone, I honestly hope I will be able to continue to help.

Regards

Drew