nallath

There is also a flow setting in Cura. Setting that to 95 should have the same result.

You can move the "focus point" of the camera down in this way. The zoom limit won't change, but it might get you a bit closer (at least if you're not in ortographic mode)

Most people just check the first layer. Pausing interrupts the flow which might actually defeat the purpose of the skirt.

Move your camera so that you are facing the front of the object. Use ctrl + middle mouse button to move the camera down.

I personally don't touch the print once it's started. If the skirt is completely loose i do tend to pull it off so it won't mess up the rest of the print, but that's it.

Its to ensure that the flow is nice and steady before the print starts.

It describes it correct, yet we have encountered multiple firmwares that implement responses and behaviors fundamentally different. So again, you are arguing the theoretical difficulty of something and I am arguing the practical difficulty of it. No, it's a qualitative explanation. But in the same sense, your arguments aren't quantitative either, so why is it suddenly an issue? Just go over to the Octoprint forums and the amount of issues that project has with supporting all the different types of USB printing. Note that Octoprint is a product that is run by an incredible talented developer and even she isn't able to fix this issue completely. What more proof do you want? The moment that someone writes a change for the usb printing that works, I will withdraw my comments. Hell; I'll buy you a case of beer / beverage of choice and celebrate that you were able to do it and made the lives of a lot of people a lot better. Until that time I'm going to stick with the years of fighting that I've (and people Like Gina) had to do with USB based 3D printer connections and call it "Horrible". It's quite easy; because the USB printing is a relatively small part of the amount of users that we have. Or are you arguing that just because that the USB printing isn't good that the entire software is therefore no longer good? A product can still be the best even if it's not the best in every feature that it provides.

But there is no clearly defined protocol 😉 The USB bit is, but what is then actually sent over is very far from standardised. The problem is not "getting a message to reach the other side". The problem is "Making sure that the other side understands what you mean". You're basicly arguing that the name USB is a misnomer. You're right. But that still doesn't change any thing at all. Well, usb printing is worse for 3D printing, because of the implementation and all other things involved. You might be theoretically right that it's stable enough to work, the reality is that it's horrible (which is also why almost every 3D printer company moved very far away from it). Again, i didn't argue that we couldn't. I just argued that it's too much work to spend on something that we don't even use for our own printers. If it would have been super simple, I would have built it, if only so people would stop complaining (or worse). Anyhow. Just because we don't want to spend time on it, doesn't mean that we will not accept pull requests. But unfortunately, we simply haven't gotten any such PR's. It's my sneaking suspicion that quite a few people tried and simply found out that our warnings about how complex this is were true and gave up.

Nope.

The make overhangs printable is one of those settings that causes a singificant part of the issues that we get on github (people enable it, forget about it, then see weird results). I don't know why it's that setting or why they even chose to enable it in the first place.

UUh. The electronics inside of the printer can't stand that high temperatures. For the anealing you will need the entire volume to reach temperatures of 120 degrees. The slider blocks are made of ABS, which will melt well below that temperature. I'd strongly recommend that you first get the annealing process working outside of the printer before you even think about trying to combine the two.

Have you looked at the way that all the different firmwares and operating systems handle this? I am pretty sure that you did not, since you would not be making this statement if you did 😉 It's also not the USB connection that is the problem. You are confusing two things here. Your argument is basicly the equalivent of "Roads are simple to design, how hard can it be to create a car that is completely safe, fast and easy to drive". Sure, but all firmwares itself also handle this different. So it is not complicated, but it sure as hell is complex. Also; It's not so much that it's impossible to fix or that we can't. We simply have other things to do and this is very very low on our priority list. That has absolutely nothing to do with Cura being free (because despite it being free; there are 5+ developers / engineers working on Cura full time).

Poorly 😉 (I'm still convinced that the function shouldn't be in Cura, and it causes a lot of bugreports from people that enable it without knowing what it does). I obviously don't know what you are using it for, but is this really what you need? Cura goes into 2D as fast as possible by slicing. From that point on it pretty much does everything on 2d polygons. So almost all operations that we do are subtracting polygons from other polygons and inset & offset them.

Can you try the 4.9 beta?

Please report issues on github: https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues

Cura expects units to be mm. STL doesn't define units, so cura just makes a guess what you mean if the model is too small or too big. Cura is metric only. There is a plugin to convert from inches to mm, but thats it.

Cura only handles tessalated surfaces. Even with STEP importing, it will probably still just convert it internally for the moment.

Well, the project file that you shared didn't have the "generate support" setting enabled. After enabling that, support is generated. The screen you posted is about the setting visibility, not about the value of the setting.

Could you share a project file?

I think you are right. This is a really messed up model.

It's not pampering mode, there literally isn't a profile. You can still print with it and create your own profiles, but it won't be on a profile that we provided (because they aren't there)

Wait for the next release. One of the libraries that we used wasn't compatible with big sur. The beta of Cura 4.9 will be out super soon!

Also, please don't post octoprint issues in the ultimaker.com feedback part of the forum.

Ooh! This is why our bug template also asks you what machine you are working with! The UM2(+) wants the material temperatures to be set on the machine (and not in the slicer).

Well not all of the settings. But some material temperature settings should be visible.