nallath

Have a look at modifier meshes. There are a number of tutorials out there.

Yeah, that should be possible. It's not entirely there already, but you can have a look at the lay flat in the rotation tool. That allows you to pick faces already.

Please do. Could you also report the bug on github? That's where we keep track of all of them.

This is what I applied a patent for (or well, not quite, but it's close). My idea was to actually move the nozzle down through a number of layers. This makes the layers less planar and re-applies heat as it moves down, improving the layer adhesion in z direction.

We are now working on a fundamental new way of slicing things, that should solve this. But the solution is in the ballpark of man years of work. It's really really that difficult to fix.

Yeah, we recently added that feature. I'm not quite sure if it's in 4.7, but i'm sure it will be in 4.8. Previously you would only get a "update" or "create new" when you loaded a 3mf file. In the new worlkflow you will get "Update machine A", "Update machine B" and "create new". When selecting "Update machine ...." it will take the settings from the project file and apply them to that machine.

You're right! You can set the offset that the model has in the machine definition. If you add "platform_offset": [0, 0, -14], In the "metadata" of the definition, you can move the display location of the platform around.

These are the kind of things we need: https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/wiki/Reporting-issues

Have you checked https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/8321?

It's not. A cura profile never contains information about the machine. What they gave you is one single custom profile.

https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/8321

We have an article on the github wiki wrt the things that we need to diagnose issues. You can find that list on https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/wiki/Reporting-issues Please report issues on github, since that is the place that we use for that. A forum isn't really suited for it.

It would become less of a moving goalpost if Creality would contribute. I can fix things if I know about them. So using the beta definately helps. How else do you think that we can so quickly bring out patch releases? It's not that we fix these things slow (or that we can't fix it), but we just don't know about it.

Just because it's common / basic, doesn't mean it's easy to support it. The firmware (and hardware design) of the Ender is fundamentally different from the Ultimaker. The reason why the machine is so cheap is because they provide no software and no support. We get a lot of very upset people when we say that we don't want to fix those mistakes. I still don't understand why people get upset with us and not with Creality... We do test the changes that we make with Ultimakers. Quite a lot really, but that doesn't guarantee that those same changes (with different values) work with an Ender. That's also why we desperately need people to use the beta; It's the only way for us to test if the things that we changed don't break stuff with those other printers. Unfortunately, people seem to think that it's best to wait a few releases to download the newest cura. This just makes the problem worse; We find issues much later and thus fix them much later. That in turn lets people even become more wary of downloading the newest version. Thats a race to the bottom with no winners.

https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/8229

Indeed they didn't, because they don't release software at all. The cura installer is actually the only bit where a profile can get deleted, apart from a manual deletion from the interface. Cura will only ever delete a profile if you explicitly told it to do so. I don't have a low regard for third party printer users. Far from it. But we simply have far too much work on our plate as is. Cura is being developed by a relatively small team and being used by hundreds of thousands of users, using hundreds of different configurations. The only way how we could do something about these issues if we would have 2-4x the resources that we have right now. So lets do a bit of math here. We currently have 5 developpers, 1 UX er and 2 testers working on Cura. So we would need to get at least 8 extra people working on Cura. Lets lowball the number what that costs, and say it's 50 euro an hour. That would already mean that Ultimaker needs to spend an extra 16k per week on this. It's not that I don't want to spend the time on it, but I simply cant. The money just isn't there. What I do have a low opinion of is people still complaining even though Ultimaker is already spending a ton of money on providing this and isn't even asking money in return for it. How much will it take for you to be happy? Can you also understand how frustrating messages like this are to me? So if you want this to change, contact Creality and ask them to start contributing back to Cura. They have been boasting that they had the most profitable year they have ever had becuase of Corona. Surely they can spare at least a single developer?

Cura simply checks what files are different from how you originally loaded them. So the last instance of Cura that you shut down is the version that is saved to disk. Good suggestion, but unfortunately, it's easier said that done. Implementing this would take months of work from the entire team.

UFP files are essentially zip containers. These containers just have a gcode file inside them. Assuming you are on windows, you can just change the extension to zip, change the g-code and zip it again. The S5 will also accept gcode as normal. So you can also just save it as g-code from Cura and then use a thumbdrive to move the file over to the S5 to be printed.

Yeah that is a good workflow, which is also why I'm asking for the project file. Anyhow. Could you just send a project file without the model in it? I'm just interested in what profiles are active (since that is where the problem is). My guess is that somewhere you have a BB nozzle selected for a material that doesn't need it. That's usually why and when this happens.

Could you share the project file?

Next candidate is the minimum layer time.

Have you had a look at acceleration / jerk settings?

Do you have any network drives configured on your machine? We've recently had someone else report an issue where having the X: drive unreachable would result in a very long boot time.

I can't really reproduce the issue. I've done the following 1. Load both files 2. Select both of the objects 3. RIght mouse -> merge models 4. Ctrl + click on the letters to select it 5. Select second extruder for the letters

As a matter of fact, it's exactly the feature I'm working on right now. We're currently implementing the same auto positioning library as PrusaSlicer uses.