Look forward to hearing how your experiences go
So woke up this morning to another error message on the new firmware release so I am about to roll back to the last version on the Fuse 1 that was running successfully.
The parts from this job were “better” than the last since I zeroed out the Chamber calibration, but still failed do to warping on this new Firmware they released. (You can see pic below, I’ve run hundreds of these units now and all of a sudden the tool won’t fit in the sheath. So I imagine this is due to warping or the parts are no longer holding the same tolerance in scale as prior to this firmware release)
I also noticed that I “baked” the first chamber test with the new firmware. (See the pic below…the chamber plate is supposed to be black/gray and now it is red. So hopefully I didn’t ruin the chamber)
I imagine that half the support team in my emails was correct in that the chamber calibration never worked before…and now that the firmware came out it did work and the +3c setting I had was enough to brick the parts and bake the chamber “red”.
While support is responsive and I believe each of them means well…I feel there is a huge breakdown between them and the folks actually making the machines and building the software.
I am now left really figuring out this all on my own through trial and error while “chasing zero” between their random firmware updates, fixes and this “custom Beta” they built for me to actually run the machine below a 70% refresh rate with Nylon 12 GF.
In the past 72 hours I’ve burned through two half chambers of wasted parts $600+ dollars and hopefully I did not fry a $3500 chamber… and I’m left with a support team that contridicts themselves on the same email thread together…
This used to NOT be red…
Waking up to more errors that I have never seen before the last firmware update
Did another test print as I try to figure all this out on my own…
So where we stand right now and recap ------------------
The Fuse 1 could not print Nylon 12 GF below a 70% refresh rate without the surface armor curling and ruining the print job.
Formlabs produced me a custom PreForm firmware in “3.27.1-BetaLeadNav_GF”.
I walked down my refresh from 70% down to the high end 50% refresh range of the 30%-50% range that is advertised as being capable with the machine.
From this custom firmware I was able to print our smaller parts (100 units per chamber) with absolutely no issues in curling…back to back for the past few weeks.
Here is what happened this week ----------------
Formlabs released a new update for both the Fuse and the PreForm software.
They said my custom GF Beta was not implemented into this.
So it was suggested I keep the PreForm beta going but it would be fine to update the Fuse.
What happened -------------------
Well my parts were bricked together as I assume the chamber temp was adjusted on my first test.
For my next few test prints, I lowered the chamber calibration first to zero…then to -.5c. while giving it the benefit of doubt and running the latest PreForm firmware also released… to see if the two would work together.
I was able to run these parts without surface armor curling down to 50% refresh on this new release…surprised…I was able to post process these parts as I believe yes, the chamber temp was adjusted from that firmware and now all the loose powder was free of the part and not “over baked”
However now that my parts are back to being beautiful…they obviously did something to effect the parts dimensional accuracy…as they no longer fit our tool/product. They are too tight.
I even separated the parts more in the chamber to eliminate any possible warping and I went ahead during all this an ran tests on this weeks released PreForm Beta in conjunction with this weeks second update to the Fuse (which looks like they fixed the end of 369 print error)
So I am assuming whatever they did in the Fuse Firmware update…they screwed with the dimensional accuracy of the prints.
Not sure what they did to effect the dimensional accuracy of Nylon 12 GF… but possibly the “Added X/Y Scaling functionality to improve dimensional accuracy” in this weeks 1.16.4? (see below) My guess in their tweaks to adjust for the new Fuse 1+ they threw off the Fuse 1 and Nylon 12 GF
For my next test… ------------------
I’m currently rolling PreForm back to my custom Nylon 12 GF firmware and the Fuse back to firmware 1.15.6 from July.
If my parts go back to normal…then I can verify that they did in fact mess with something in dimensional accuracy with this weeks Firmware.
Stay Tuned ---------------
1 Like
So… as I print this last chamber after I rolled back to the original Firmware… I am digging more into this new firmware update and fingers crossed… that Formlabs did in fact screw with the default settings of the dimensional accuracy from the last release.
Looking at this latest firmware they added the XY calibration test print and settings adjust/feature (see pics below).
Now you would think…that they would not have changed the “defaults” that we all been running… but assuming that is what they in fact did…
We will see later tonight after this print re confirms the last version and our parts original accuracy.
I would have preferred, if Formlabs support would have mentioned this in our email chats as maybe being a possibility…prior to me spending all week troubleshooting possibilities with multiple failed print jobs and wasted powder…but at least they are good at sending free powder to help you troubleshoot it yourself…again support reps have attempted to be very helpful but it has been a lot of figuring things out on our own. Running my own software development teams within my own company, I feel like I’m bug hunting the Formlabs system for theirs…
Again not sure if this is the case but we will know tomorrow when I post process this chamber with the old firmware we’ve been running successfully
The new “X/Y calibration”
Confirmed -----------
Formlabs did in fact throw off the original dimensional accuracy of your parts with their latest Fuse Firmware update.
So for anyone out there relying on their current dimensional accuracy they have been running prior to this Firmware update…just know if you update you will have to run this new XY dimensional calibration tool they just implemented to get it back to what you had.
Not sure why they could not have left it as it was…with the option to test your current dimensional accuracy with this new calibration tool…but they obviously threw our existing tolerances out of whack with this update.
With their new Fuse Firmware update our tool would no longer fit in our sheath (way too tight)
After we rolled the Fuse Firmware back to the last release it was back to normal
So at this point we will probably keep the old Firmware installed…as we have a lot of PO’s to catch up on with these and we don’t have time to run the new calibration tool to get it back to what it was. Maybe once we get a break…we will try it out but I would suggest Formlabs let their support team know this happened to save folks some headache with this update.
1 Like
Hi LEADNAV,
Thank you for sharing your experience and feedback - I understand it is not the ideal experience for you to have to do the testing on your own. I will go ahead and pass this information to the relevant teams (including support) to help get everyone on the same page.
If you still have the support thread about this open as well, I would also go ahead and share this if you have not - it will help get more eyes on this for our teams to review since the team will document this information.
we will be installing our Fuse1+ tomorrow with the help of a technician via video chat.
I don’t think I will have a choice and will have to install the latest firmware as part of the set-up process.
from the feedback i’ve read, i guess the first thing i should do is run said calibration process before printing the first parts of my own.
I already know about the possibility of printing a special test print for the deminsional accuracy in order to fine-tune the printer with it, thanks to the form3.
however, without the accuracy deviating greatly from the intended dimensions, this is not the case here.
is there a place in the parts where you could tell what the nominal and actual dimensions are? i would be interested in the deviation without calibration.
1 Like
With it being the Holiday week and me having an excuse not to work too hard, I did decide late last night to update everything again and to run the Test Print and calibration to see what it does.
Running it and taking measurements this morning and entering those into the Fuse, It has me going + .33% on the X and +.31% in the Y.
This is suggesting an increase in dimensions which is at least heading in the right direction… Printing another test row of my parts currently to see the difference.
Will let you know.
Formlabs support is aware of this as they said they will be discussing it this morning.
Also, SLS is defentily the way to go. This capable is freaking amazing over FDM and dealing with resin for production parts in house. These issues I’m having are at least variables that can be adjusted and “sustained” versus all other additive being daily “tinkering”. So you will be happy with it.
I was just seeing some issues that I am calling out that Support has been great at responding to. I just think Support is “so good”…that we’re not all seeing these issues publicly recorded on this forum. With some accountability I hope this system continues to improve.
Overall I am happy with the system, you will be too.
1 Like
Hi LEADNAV,
Thank you for the update - I made sure to pass this thread to the support team to help with the discussion around the same timeframe you mentioned.
I personally think having these issues publicly recorded will benefit many of our users in the long run - we have been paying attention to the feedback our users provide (and understand that we have a group that’s more exclusive to the forums), and assure you this is being taken into consideration even if the effects do not seem immediately evident.
We want to continue to keep improving the user experience, and everyone’s feedback has been and will continue to be appreciated.
I posted this inititally under the current issues we are having with the Fuse system but it is a good follow up to this original discussion of the Nylon 12 GF material not being able to print under a 70% refresh rate.
Just an update… after having a Formlabs rep finally fly in to take a look a few weeks ago… we are still troubleshooting.
To fix the new issues starting in December, we had to drop the chamber temp all the way down to -2.0c to -1.5c now that Formlabs “fixed” the chamber temp adjustments with the December firmware. Running default or anything higher was frying out the machine and powder.
The new Fuse is finally printing again but now we’re back to being able to only print 100%-70% fresh Nylon 12 GF.
If you followed my initial complaints last year “Nylon 12 GF cannot be printed under 70% refresh”…we are now back to that stage. Its like Deja Vu…
After dealing with that for a few months last summer, Formlabs provided us with a custom PreForm Beta that magically fixed the issue and allowed us to print down to at least the top end of what they advertise, 50% refresh. This however, I assume is what fried the machine after the December Fuse update conflict and started all these new issues.
Now that I bring this up, they are saying that the PreForm beta they supplied will no longer work and still no answers on what in fact that PreForm custom beta did to fix it?
Seems to be a “push/pull” on chamber temp and until Formlabs proves otherwise, I’d say they cannot truly advertise Nylon 12 GF as being a material that can print successfully under a 70% refresh rate. They advertise 30-50% and that is false advertising. 30%-40% even being mentioned is laughable as 50% is unrealistic from what I’m seeing on two different machines.
The Fuse 1+ fights it a little harder, with its increased speed but it still fails. The surface armor starts to curl and takes out the bed
Here is a better shot of the surface armor cracking before taking out the bed
So now we are stuck with an extremely high refresh rate on a material that already costs $710 for two jugs and that we are literally dumping an overflow of sifted powder out of the Sift and throwing it into the trash.
Again, I’d love to be proven otherwise but right now its safe to say that you will need to factor in 70%+ refresh on the costs of running Nylon 12 GF and from what I’m hearing the Nylon 11 CF and Nitrogen is even a bit more “finicky” combined with the rougher texture we don’t see many realistic options in materials for production running parts by Formlabs.
Formlabs support has been great at trying to help with support and replacement parts…material… but in the end I think this is a big limitation in the machine and material itself that needs to be addressed. They need to at least advertise a realistic expectation in the material refresh as I am hearing these same complaints from several people.
If you are looking to do production runs this puts it over the edge of being profitable…if doing prototyping it may not matter to you.
UPDATE for everyone who has been tracking and communicating with me on the side about this.
After complaining about this problem and starting this thread all the way back in August 2022, nearly a hundred emails back and fourth with support and an in person visit with even a machine replacement and upgrade to the newer Fuse 1+, we finally got confirmation that there is in fact an issue with Nylon 12 GF.
From August 2022, I have reported consistently that you cannot print Nylon 12 GF below 70% without surface armor curling taking out the bed. Finding it strange that Formlabs advertises Nylon 12 GF at a range of “30-50% refresh”. You ain’t getting anywhere near 60% nevertheless the high end of that advertised rate of 50%.
For everyone who has reached out with their own refresh rate issues in other materials…I have come to realize that I must be the only person in existence trying to use Nylon 12 GF. This looks to be true at Formlabs as well as they just finally confirmed this last week.
Here is what they sent.
As of Monday this week, our Materials and Settings Engineers were able to confirm that there is a problem with the print settings for Nylon 12 GF. This issue will affect both the Fuse 1 and Fuse 1+ and produces symptoms identical to yours so it is safe to say that this is definitely a print settings issue that you are seeing and not a machine or heater problem as we originally suspected.
Our Engineers expect that we will have revised settings ideally within 1-2 months so there will be some waiting involved before we can confidently have you printing at 50% refresh. That said we have a couple of options for you.
1. You can continue printing at 70-100% as you had successfully done previously
2. You can temporarily switch to Nylon 12, which we will send you 12 kilos of for free
3. You can try rolling back to firmware version 3.27.1 which may have more successful settings but this is not a guarantee
*I can confirm that number 3 is not an option as this problem existed back before that PreForm firmware release and I can’t go the number 2 Nylon 12 route, as I invested in this system for production running parts that need the higher specs of at least Nylon 12 GF.
We have thought it to be strange, that Nylon 12 GF is the only material listed in a range of “30-50%” while every other material is listed at a specific percentage. I think there are obvious questions and uncertainties in the Nylon 12 GF material itself.
Again, I have met no-one but myself, trying to activly use it and I’m pretty shocked, that there obviously isn’t a machine at Formlabs dedicated to it at least testing their own materials with firmware updates on a regular basis.
Been shouting this issue out for a long time on here and I have spent countless hours troubleshooting and wasting powder here in the shop…but I guess it is at least good that Formlabs finally identified an issue.
For those crunching numbers on this system and the Nylon 12 GF, just know that its refresh rate is currently “70-100%” and even if this is fixed, I don’t see it getting anywhere near “30-40%”.
Hoping Formlabs can get it in range to at least the high end at 50% refresh but until then I find it false marketing to list it as is.
1 Like
I’m glad they were finally able to reproduce your issues. You would think that would be one of the first steps towards troubleshooting with you rather than throwing money and replacement hardware your way.
I’ve encountered similar situations where the Formlabs team is unwilling to try and reproduce issues reported by very technical and experienced individuals.
I hope that will change in the future.
1 Like
Would you please share your experience with printing Nylon 11 CF if any? Also, any experience with swapping different materials with same base?
Thank you.
Never did Nylon 11 CF but… Bottom line… you ain’t “easily swapping materials” especially between Nylon 12 to 11.
This would involve a total clean out, blow out and wipe down of the Fuse and the Sift. Would be a full day evolution and then I’d want to do the same in my shop as it would be covered in Nylon 12 GF powder to ensure no contamination in the new powder type.
However, with all the issues I’ve had and false claims in Nylon 12 GF I’ve witnessed over the past 6 months, I did think heavily on trying Nylon 11 CF.
Number one, with Nylon 12 GF actually only able to print in a 70-100% fresh rate…at even the higher cost of Nylon 11 CF at their advertised “zero waste” when investing in Nitrogen would be cheaper and stronger right…? Win win…?
Haha… if there’s one thing I learned… this advertising may be a bit exaggerated.
Also from what I hear and from others using nylon 11 CF, it is NOT a production run material. Only really suited for the occasional prototype.
For starters, “Nylon 11 CF can NOT be printed at 100% fresh and must be diluted”. So this leads me to believe the material is even more finicky to get right. Hearing that was a red flag for me. Another variable…
Also from what I hear getting the nitrogen dialed in is also “finicky”.
So all that adding even more variables into the troubleshooting equation… I’m not trying Nylon 11 CF as an option for production running parts.
In fact with all my issues with Nylon 12 GF and countless hours troubleshooting these issues with Formlabs… I asked “is nylon 11 CF a better option…more dependable and reliable to print with nitrogen?”…. I received a hard “No” from the reps I asked.
I believe Formlabs has some work to do in their material lineup before they can offer or advertise an actual production run material type.
That being said… I’m back to successfully printing Nylon 12 GF but at a 80%+ fresh powder rate… so be sure to do the math on per part cost on that…
SLS is the answer… I’m excited to see what the next year or so brings whether Formlabs finally gets this right or another company emerges. I’d be very interested in the Sinterit Lisa X lineup but there is no way I’d invest in a country (Poland) in the area that is currently at war…. long term not sure where that will go but their material lineup seems more refined and of course it’s not locked in to their own either…
Somebodies going to get it right… Formlabs is close but they need to scale and get their materials dialed and support infrastructure up at scale with local dealers and reps.
Thank you for replying!
Fuse 1+ is still all over the place in my attempts to consistently print with Nylon 12 GF. Even now running at 80%+ fresh powder with between a -1.5c–2.0c chamber calibration temp set, its cracking heavily on the warm-up phase, creating chunks that wipe out the print by being spread back and forth via the roller and warping parts. If it survives that warmup phase without failing out…it sometimes levels out and prints successfully.
At this point with Formlabs acknowledging to me that there is a current issue with trying to run Nylon 12 GF and no real timeframe on a fix… I am left deciding if I want to start dumping 100% fresh powder in the hopper and tossing away everything leftover $$$ or if I need to just start printing Nylon 12 which seems to be the only material folks have luck printing on this thing.
The material properties are not there though with Nylon 12 for production parts in our market… so I’m not sure at this point.
Would be interested to sit through one of these Formlabs webinars on materials… as they don’t seem to be publicly letting folks know that their production materials are flawed…
I would say at this point if you are looking at this system and want to print Nylon 12 go for it…but I would not count on this thing running their advertised production material types until this is publicly fixed.
Ouch, really sorry to hear about this whole fiasco…but appreciate your updates as always!
I have now received confirmation from two different sources here in Germany that there are problems with the PA12 GF. Firstly from a dealer from whom we have not yet purchased anything and our main dealer who has direct support contact with Formlabs.
Yesterday, he asked about it for us and received a statement from Formlabs within a short time. The problem is clearly the temperature setting in the printer. The reason for this would be the release of the Fuse1+. This is supposed to have a different temperature development than the Fuse1. As I understood it from our dealer, the PA12 GF was adjusted in the Fuse1+ in the same way as on the Fuse1. When this led to problems, the print settings were adjusted so that these in turn led to problems in the Fuse1…
However, the statement was that it was clearly a software problem, mainly regarding temperature.
We were told to expect an update in early/mid April which should fix the problem and lead to reliable PA12 GF again.
The first dealer I spoke to seems to have switched to normal PA12 until the update comes out.
Although we have not yet printed the PA12 GF, it is of course on our material list and is offered by us as an alternative in customer discussions for corresponding applications. Of course, I wanted to know more about this before I offer it to a customer and then can’t deliver it.
Until then, I would clearly stick with the normal PA12.
Carlayers
Well at least it is good to hear that there is finally some outside acknowledgement of this issue. I’ve spent months troubleshooting it on my own confident that there was an issue before Formlabs finally identified it and acknowledged it on their end.
In my company I juggle software development and hardware manufacturing, which I know is hard but I’m shocked that Formlabs does not seem to have a machine dedicated and running each of their materials regularly to test firmware updates and material consistency… I swear, it seems I’m the only one, counting Formlabs themselves, trying to run Nylon 12 GF… in the world right now… well maybe not right now…because of the identified bug…
My machine is sitting idle right now, as Nylon 12 is not an option with our temperature and rigidity requirements for our parts. Also, as stated, I don’t believe their Nylon 11 CF is production ready either.
In doing so, I have also noticed an issue in leaving the Nylon 12 GF sit in the hopper for more than a few days, where the lower portion of powder in the dozer and hopper will fail out 3-4 times unless you “purge” out at least 2-3 cups of powder prior to trying to print again. I foresee a “purge” option in the Fuse settings in the future (wink wink to their software team)…but for now a quick “empty hopper” process for a few minutes before canceling the job will do the trick.
As software developers ourselves…I cannot understand why it would take so long to “fix a bug” if it was solely an identified “temperature issue between the Fuse and Fuse 1+”… I find that timeline needed, very hard to believe.
My gut is telling me this is a more complicated issue than they are letting on and talking to some of my additive manufacturing experts/dealers, they fear it may be more of a material limitation and/or problem. In which case, if this can’t be fixed in software, the material itself could need modifying…which would lead to a lengthy recertification of the material itself… I’m sure a software fix would be optimum versus a powder recall and recertification and possibly a change in advertised properties, if for example the density of GF in the material needed to be thinned out.
Regardless, if this was an “identified issue”…I don’t see why a software update to fix it would take that long if the problem and fix was known with certainty.
I will add to this… I’ve never been able to print Nylon 12 GF consistently below a 70% refresh rate on both the Fuse 1 and this Fuse 1+. The only few months that the system worked with Nylon 12 GF down to 50% refresh was when the engineers provided me a “custom PreForm Beta” which magically made the Fuse 1 work…until their very next Fuse firmware update “cooked” my machine.
Appreciate your findings and adding in from Germany.
Damian
Hello Damien,
Very interested in your experience with Nylon12GF. Our group bought the fuse1+ to print end use items in Nylon12GF as well. We are still learning how to best operate the technology, but have ran about 6 print volumes so far with a ~50% success rate in prints completing. These were all printed with 100% fresh powder. Just wanted to let you know there are others out there potentially in the same boat. Will keep you posted with anything we learn along the way.
1 Like