nallath

Oh wait. I understand the confusion. He was looking in the cache. Those are binary files, but they are generated based on json files.

Binary files? Cura doens't have any binary files for configurations. All of them are text files (XML, JSON, CFG). You can find more info about it on the wiki on github

Could you share the project file? As far as the message goes; a number of settings are incorrect so they can't be used to slice with. You might want to check in the generic setting window and see what their values are.

If you have any questions, it's best to post them on github. Thats where are the developers hang out.

Uh. No it wasn't. I can still enter 0.195 for instance.

You can also import a model and tell Cura to print that model as if it's support.

Could you share the entire project file? It might also be model related.

If you could provide some more information, we might actually be able to debug it. Just saying "it doesn't work" isn't going to solve it at all. Please join the discussion & provide more info on https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/8321

Uh. You're going to need to be a little bit more specific. What do you want to do?

Forgive me for not knowing in what version I exacly fixed this, but I do know that i recently fixed an issue with this. I'm fairly sure it was fixed for 4.8. The issue was that a rename wasn't marking the machine as "dirty" (eg; needing to be saved to file again). You can still get the name to "stick" as a work around by changing the selected quality / material.

This has to do with the image that tinkergnome already posted. So if you have an UM3 with a 0.4AA nozzle and select PLA+, it tries to find all quality profiles that match those three criteria. Since we never added those quality profiles (We only have them for UM3, 0.4 PLA) it reverts to a "empty" profile. That empty profile is what triggers the warning and also what makes the list be empty (because well; that are all the profiles that it has!). If PLA+ really needs almost the same defaults, it makes total sense to just set it's type to PLA and just change the display name. One of the reasons that we can't really change the behavior now is legacy. Looking back at this system now, i would set it up differently with the knowhow i have at this moment (but hey, find me an engineer that doesn't have that opinion about a complicated product! ;)) Yeah. I agree. We are also considering making the material type a dropdown; one of them being "custom". If custom is selected, it's more clear to the user why the warning pops up. It's a pretty simple solution, but for some reason we didn't come up with it ourselves. I don't exactly remember who suggested it, but it's a great example of how we can also just overlook stupidly simple solutions to long running issues. I agree. That was also my original intent when I first championed the materials marketplace. Unfortunately, we now have all kinds of policies and things you have to do to get on the marketplace. I don't exactly know what one needs to do to get in that program, but it's only the manufacerers themselves that can get in it. Once you are in, we do provide software that runs people through tests to create quality / material profiles from with Cura.

The name support blocker is a bit of a misnomer. What it actually does is mark a certain area as "Don't start generating support here". Although this might appear to be a small semantic difference, it does matter quite a bit, especially for PVA. By default, the horizontal expansion for support is set to 3 mm. This means that all places where it starts to generate support get an extra 3 mm of support on all sides. This is done because you want a certain min amount of PVA support per layer, since it burns / breaks off really fast. By ensuring a min amount of filament per layer, you can prevent most of these issues. A support blocker also doesn't say "don't print any support in this area". So there is that as well. If you have an suggestions, feel free to leave them at our github issue tracker. Can't promise that they will be handled, but we do consider all of them. Also, if this is your complaining, I don't mind. You're much nicer about it than a lot of people we have to deal with on a daily basis 😉

I obviously can't help you with the exact modifications, but i can help out in answering any questions about the code you might have. That being said; you could try @ahoeben

The issue I linked isn't operating system specific

Could you have a look at https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/8229

I think you just need to make the letters a bit bigger. There are a number of things that make the letters disapear; thin walls being one of them. The other likely culprit is the "minimum resolution"

Uh. No. Maybe you disabled the support blocker plugin?

The thing about moving fast is that there is always a next release 🙂 This problem is a tricky beast, so i expect we will need multiple incremental fixes to fully slay it.

We didn't delete them; they simply don't exist.

You just need to install the arduino drivers. Those should do the trick.

What is showing that warning? Your operating system? Also note that the FW of the UM2 hasn't been updated in quite some time now. So updating might not even be needed at all.

You can also have a look at the smart slice plugin sourcecode. They also do something with it: https://github.com/tetonsim/is-cura-ui/tree/master/SmartSlicePlugin

By posting the logs on github: http://www.github.com/ultimaker/cura/issues

It would. But this is also why we didn't catch it (and why fixing it isn't as simple as it might seem)

Nope, this isn't possible (not without a fair bit of custom code development). We don't generate a 3d model from the final toolpaths. If you want to do some simulation, I'd suggest you have a look at the smart slice plugin from Teton.