nallath

This has already been reported a few times. Unfortunately we've not been able to reproduce this on our systems, but we are looking into fixing this.

Save the workspace? You mean like what you have on the build plate? Cura never saved that.

This should be fixed for 5.1

It's a known issue. It's on our backlog to be fixed

Creality hasn't submitted any of the printers that we currently have.

This hasn't been reduced and the functionality is a core part of Cura (not an external plugin). I've just tried it on my machine and it works as expected

We had to switch out a number of systems in order go get things to work for windows 10 again, and this is one of the things that went wrong because of that. We already identified what went wrong and are working on a solution! I expect it to be fixed in 5.1

What you describe is also a bug in 4.13.0 that was fixed in 4.13.1

https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/11856

It was already reported by others. We're currently looking into it!

Use cura 5.0 😉 We reworked the entire engine so that it handles cases like this like it actually should.

Considering the amount of work needed to do that, I don't think that we will ever get to doing that. It would also not be allowed due to the current rules instantiated by Apple (they don't allow apps that have their own marketplace). Since the notion of plugins is fundamental to Cura, that might be something that would require a full re-write of Cura.

Looks like seam issues. One of the known issues of 5.0 is that the seam placement isn't as good as it used to be. You can try setting a manual one and see if that improves things.

Ah! You have discovered the magic of rubber duck debugging: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging

Are you perhaps printing multiple objects at the same time? The default order of the walls were changed. So if you're printing multiple objects, that might have a noticeable effect.

That is simply not true. I get how you're upset that there is an issue, but there is no need to spread untruths about it. The issue is reported by multiple people, we responded to most of them and it is on our back log. You can find one of those tickets here: https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/12197 It can be that we take a bit longer to respond to people as we're currently in between community managers. Harsh much? Their mess? Also, we are currently working on making it easier to run things from source.

Huh? the getConvexHull doesn't change anything in the scene... (or well, it sure as hell shouldn't :P) Also, what kind of crash do you get? A segfault?

The bug that it wouldn't reset is fixed for 5.1

I think you're just purposefully misrepresenting the arguments that I've posted. I understand that you're frustrated, but this is clearly not a discussion that is going anywhere. So good luck with another slicer. There are a lot of good ones out there and I hope it solves the issues that you have.

We generate the database based on the files. So the files are still there.

It's still pending approval from my Colleagues. Since it's my plugin, i don't want to sneak it past by approving it myself.

5.0.0 has already been released...

Soo, it works if you don' install the octoprint plugin?

No. Simply because it's looking at what quality profiles it shares. Since 0.8 nozzles support less profiles, you get a less profiles. As you already found, disabling the extruder is the fix for this. Currently platform adhesion is a global setting (aka; Not extruder dependant). We have a potential fix for that, but it's deceptively tricky. It changes a lot of code to properly facilitate this. It might take some time untill we have that in the main Cura features.

Love? What makes you say that? Let me word it differently; DO you think that the bank enjoys it that your payment bounces because of too little money? I doubt that 😉 I don't like saying that people can't have something, but sometimes it's the only answer I can give given all the other constraints. You are cherry-picking a single argument that I gave and pretending that that is my entire argument. Security isn't the only reason. And yes, there are mitigations to it. There always are. The question is never about "is it at all possible" but "Is it possible given the other things we also need to do" I keep sounding like a broken record player, but I'm going to try again. It's not about if it's possible or doable. It's about having 200+ more things that can be changed / fixed / improved / implemented. So we have to consider how many people do this (a handfull) and how much work it would be (some). Since that isn't the greatest "bang for your buck", other things are likely to get priority from Ultimaker developers. Since it's simple, i'd also love to see your stab at implementing it btw! I think a number of users would appreciate it. If you make a pull request, i will put that at the top of things to review 🙂 It's not a full fix, but you can use the arrow keys to move the camera.