v4.1.1 Error. Cooling and Processes.

[minvo]

We have two processes.
The first process: cooling 40%.
The second process: from 1 to 20 layers - 0%, after 20 layers 60%.

But in .gcode, in the second process, cooling is set to 60% from the first layer. The initial setting of 0% cooling is ignored.

 This error is missing in S3D v4.0.1.
Attaching an example .factory and .gcode

[horst.w]

Your factory and your GCode are not corresponding to what you have written.

The factory has only one process with cooling settings for
Layer 1 = 0,
Layer 2 = 100%

Your GCode shows me
Layer 1 = 0 (M106 S0)
Layer2 = ~ 40% (M106 S102) M106 S102 says the cooling fan runs with 102 points of 255 what is corresponding to ca 40%

S3D-Cooling tab works with %-values, the GCode only knows numbers of step from 0 to 255 for full working..

I have tested it with my own settings and it is running fine.

horst.w
GER

[minvo]

Your factory and your GCode are not corresponding to what you have written. ...

You are not right. I downloaded my files and checked. Everything fits my description. An error is present.

(If the attached .factory is run in S3D v4.0.1, the result is correct - there is no cooling at the beginning of the second process.)

[horst.w]

How ever,
I have opened your factory-file and there was only one process.

Whats now the matter? Your 2nd picture shows the G-Code for a 2nd process and the M-code-command "M106 S 153".
If that is NOT RIGHT, where this command line is comming from?
If that IS RIGHT, what you have to reclaim?

The first process has cooling settings to

layer 1 = 0
layer 2 = 40 %
this process stops at 10,0 mm (~ layer nr. 50 by 0,2 mm lh)

the 2nd prozess starts at level 10,0 mm >>> layer nr 50 and above but will change the cooling at layer 20 ; at this level the 2nd process is not working and changing retrospectively is not possible I think.
The layer numbers are linear for the whole print and not exclusiv for the printing areas of processes.

If there are not more differences like the cooling setting you don't need a second process! It is sufficient to set
Layer 1 = 0
Layer 2 = 40
Layer 20 = 60 or what ever.

H.

[minvo]

...The layer numbers are linear for the whole print and not exclusiv for the printing areas of processes.

In the cooling settings, the layer numbers are counted relative to the start of the process. (This is logical and correct. This is exactly what happens in S3D v4.0.1) Therefore, at the beginning of the second process (from 1 to 20 layers from the beginning of Process2) there should be no cooling. In S3D v4.1.1, the behavior has changed. Prepared for v4.0.1 .factory are not suitable for v4.1.1.
 It is on this issue I want to see a comment from the developer.

...If there are not more differences like the cooling setting you don't need a second process.

The example is intentionally simplified to demonstrate the error.

[horst.w]

...
In the cooling settings, the layer numbers are counted relative to the start of the process. (This is logical and correct. This is exactly what happens in S3D v4.0.1)
...

Definitivly wrong!
S3D has build in a emergency-stop - when I try to imitate your settings ( 2 processes which change at 1 mm, starting the cooling at layer 3 ) S3D crashs.

Without this settings or set the start of cooling with process 2 in the area of process 2 (above 1 mm= layer 6 or higher) it runs normal.
What the reaction is, when the processes are relatet to 2 different models to be print at the same time, I have not tested out but I'm working often with it and I had never problems.

If you have enough time you can test out the following situation:
- 3 objects
- each one selected to a own process
-1 object has another 2 processes (3 together) for different infill and support
--- makes 5 processes for all ---

Nice to see your solution, for me it runs fine

H.

[S3D-Alex]

...The layer numbers are linear for the whole print and not exclusiv for the printing areas of processes.

In the cooling settings, the layer numbers are counted relative to the start of the process. (This is logical and correct. This is exactly what happens in S3D v4.0.1) Therefore, at the beginning of the second process (from 1 to 20 layers from the beginning of Process2) there should be no cooling. In S3D v4.1.1, the behavior has changed. Prepared for v4.0.1 .factory are not suitable for v4.1.1.
 It is on this issue I want to see a comment from the developer.

...If there are not more differences like the cooling setting you don't need a second process.

The example is intentionally simplified to demonstrate the error.

This was a conscious change in Version 4.1.1. The issue was that many customers complained when using Variable Settings Wizard and multiple processes. Since they had a Layer 1 Cooling setpoint at 0 to avoid the nozzle not being able to preheat this would then be used and accepted in every subsequent process. This meant that every process would have to be manually changed to take this 0 setpoint out.

The solution we landed on was to ignore layer 1 setpoints if they are set to 0 in Processes after your first Process. There are very few situations where a fan should be turned off part way through a print so this seemed like an obvious solution to this problem. I would love to hear your opinion on this though.

If you do wish to have the fan turn off as you have described in your scenario then use a layer 2 setpoint at 0 as this will default this M106 to the first layer of your process. Please let me know if you have any other questions or suggestions.

[minvo]

S3D-Alex, thank you for your attention to my question.

There are very few situations where a fan should be turned off part way through a print so this seemed like an obvious solution to this problem. I would love to hear your opinion on this though.

My case is as follows:
Small cylinders attached to a massive base. Cylinders require cooling. The base of the cylinder must be firmly attached to the base. The first 1-2 layers cool off from the interaction with the base. Their cooling is turned off for reliable gluing.
 In this and similar cases, I used a similar method in order not to create an extra process.

...The solution we landed on was to ignore layer 1 setpoints if they are set to 0 in Processes after your first Process.

In the existing solution, I see the following problem: the actual cooling values ​​do not correspond to those specified in the Process settings. This can lead to misunderstanding.

...This was a conscious change in Version 4.1.1. The issue was that many customers complained when using Variable Settings Wizard and multiple processes.

If the problem is related only to the Variable Settings Wizard, you should probably remove layer 1 cooling 0 at the stage of applying this utility (with adjustments made to the settings of derived processes), and not at the stage of generating gcode.