nallath

We recently found this issue as well. We didn't notice it for the longest time because most people here in the office updated their firmware. This issue is specific to firmware versions that are lower than 4.0. A quick workaround for this is to upgrade your firmware. Sorry for the inconvenience, this is one of the bugs we should have caught (but didn't)

Well, I did do the upgrade on my machine (eg; linux). So it's a tad bit different from windows, but it shouldn't be that different. The profiles are in the quality_changes folder. The file I sent you has a number of those there.

We zijn ook bezig om gebruikersbeheer te introduceren op de machines. Maar dit kost domweg tijd, zeker omdat er best veel verschillende setups mogelijk zijn (en dit een van die dingen is die je als je het doet, goed moet doen)

Oh! Sorry, I missed this topic. On linux Cura has 2 locations where the files are placed So if you want them for 3.6, the config files need to be in ~/.local/share/cura/3.6/ The cura.cfg (preferences) and the plugin.json need to be located in ~/.config/cura/3.6

De firmware van de 3 en de S5 kunnen aangepast worden, maar dan moet je de machine eerst in dev mode zetten.

Display wise, Cura always assumes that the center of the build plate is the (0,0) origin (So; if you use the move tool, that's the location where it's moving from!) The machine_center_is_zero basically defines if this assumption is true. For most printers, this is not the case, since they tend to use the lower left corner for the 0,0. That being said; What you want isn't possible without code changes.

So when I reply in a snarky way to a snarky comment it's disappointing? Could you explain to me why this is disappointing? I'm really not understanding the issue here, to be honest.

What Cura does is that it copies the newest version it can find (say you upgrade from 3.4 to 3.5). In that case, it copies the 3.4 folder to 3.5. After that, it will try to upgrade the files to the new version. The main issue is that we were forced to make some changes that are not easy to upgrade. So even though the settings might still be more or less the same, the structure to which they need to be converted is not. Unfortunately, a lot of these things are always easy to see in hindsight. Some of them are also things that we should have done right away, but for various reasons, didn't do/ see/ realize. I've just tried to only put your 2.7/3.0/3.5 folders through the upgrade process of 3.6 and it works without a hickup (I'm not a 100% sure that it got all your profiles, but it seems that it did). So my best guess is that something went wrong along the way (and once it's gone from the upgrade tract, it won't re-do it, since it upgrades version to version) So, if you want your old profiles back, delete the 3.6 folder and try again. Alternatively; Use the attached 3.6.zip (the 3.6 folder that my cura upgraded from 3.5). You could also try and delete all other folders apart from 2.7 (I do seem to get more profiles that way, but since I don't know what profiles you want / actually deleted, I can't help you with what version is the "correct" one).

Huh. Weird. We had some issues with this a few months ago, but we fixed that at some point. Ugh, back to the drawing board then...

I don't really see how my first response is in any way rude. It provides a reason why in this case the solution fails. It doesn't ignore your claim, nor does it write it off as invalid. I do see how my third response can be seen as rude. I intended it to be a bit snarky, since your response to an honest attempt to explain why it was doing it was "Oh, so you don't even fix simple things anymore". I hope you can understand that that comment in and on itself is rude (and a bit shortsighted). Was that the best way to respond for me? Probably not. But I don't feel that my response was that out of line. I'm not customer support and I don't care to be one. I will answer technical questions as I would like to be treated when I am a customer. This means that I won't sugar-coat it, I won't give vague promises as "I'm sorry that this happened, we will look at it as soon as possible". Instead, I explain what is going on, why it is like that and (in this case) why it hasn't been solved. I don't feel that this is something that has changed. It's the exact same kind of response that I've given countless times in the past.

Nope, but the mobile notifications have been implemented for the 5.1 firmware release.

Even though an issue seems obvious, it doesn't mean that the solution is easy by any means. Properly fixing this is months of work (because then you'd also take rotation into account). If you want to get it really right, it's easily 6-9 months of work research-wise (hence, me wanting to get a master thesis student for it). There is a reason we didn't fix it in the first place (which I thought was rather obvious from me stating that it's naive instead of confirming that it's indeed a bug as originally claimed)

It's somewhere on the list, but I can't give any specifics as to when it will be built. It's one of the projects that we want to start as an internship project.

There is probably a bug that gets triggered with your setup that we didn't find about yet. Since this has been going on for some time with you, I expect it's the same bug. Could you share the logs and the files you created? I can't promise that we will be able to fix it anytime soon (as there is always more work than time), but I can probably at least tell you what's wrong (and hopefully provide at least a workaround)

I think the CC core would not even have been launched if we would have forced the "it needs to support all materials" notion. Can we get it to work? Sure. But it's also about price. I expect that the CC core will be a niche product in the first place (I don't know for what number we targeted of course, but if 10% of the owners buy one, it's going to be a lot IMHO). This pretty much means that we have to smear out the one-off costs (eg; profiles) over a limited number of sales. So the more profiles we make, the more expensive they get. This isn't really a problem for the AA 0.4 print core since it's used so much (and the cost per nozzle per profile remain pretty low)

The arranger is a bit naive. It places the largest object in the middle and tries to fit all other models around it. This is a decent strategy if there are objects with multiple sizes, but as you can see, it fails if both objects are a bit larger than 30% of the buildplate in either direction.

I don't see anything in the logs that would explain why it's crashing. Can you save to UFP or any other filetype?

What is the value of the "Initial layer horizontal expansion" ?

Cura can already do this to some extent. Try changing the "infill layer thickness" setting. We have considered it, but it's quite difficult to get this working. For starters; you need to use fundamentally different settings depending on your layer height. Switching from one layer height to another will also cause issues with flow, since it might take some time to adjust. There is also the issue of having to avoid parts that have already been printed (or being forced to press the nozzle into already printed parts).

Not at the moment. It's not that hard to make, but it's probably mostly an issue of "Where are we going to put the button that handles this"

Have a look at the g-code postprocessing plugin. You can find it under extensions in the top menu bar. The tweak at Z might do what you need.

In order to properly test it i need the machine. Since I can't fix it during work time (As Ultimaker is paying me to make Ultimakers work better, not fixing other printers), i need to do it in my own time. In order to convince me to fix it in my own time, I want to get something in return (since I value my time and can think of more fun things to do with it). That's why i say that if people want me to do something, they either ask it nicely, pitch a really really cool idea or pay me (or a combination of the above). In this case; sending me the printer will count as payment and help me actually fix the issue.

We had a van at some point that we also dubbed the ulti-bus. But even now, Ultimaker isn't big enough to have those kind of facilities ?

Kijk even of je fans caps goed afgesteld staan. Als ze over de nozzle heen blazen kan dat er voor zorgen dat het wat sneller afkoelt. Hetzelfde geld voor andere tocht / luchtstroming.

Internally we dubbed it the "UltiBus". No idea if that's going to survive any form of sensible copywriter (but probably not).