nallath

Could you share your logs?

Did you look at the model in x-ray view? It could be that the model is broken. If there are red areas in the x-ray view, than thats probably the case.

The behaviour of a nozzle is always different if you change anything (be it the material or the geometry) about it. So that's also the case here.

Because we didn't make profiles for it. You can use them, but the results will probably not bee that good.

We did look at it at some point. Our biggest issue was compatibility; there are a lot of issues with different hardware. We also estimated that the actual improvements wouldn't be that much for what most people slice.

This should be fixed for 3.6. I already spotted this issue in our crash reports.

Well, getting the USB stuff to work is a bit more effort than just writing a profile, but it's nowhere near as much work as writing a slicer from scratch (for obvious reasons).

Update your graphic drivers.

Share logs.

I don't need data, i need an actual machine to test with. Since Ultimaker pays my salary, it's not something that Ultimaker is going to spend resources on (Because let's face it, why would Ultimaker invest in fixing the software for third party printers even more?)

We can't and won't support all printers. Some USB based printers work. Some don't. If you send me a copy of the specific printer you want to get working, I will attempt to fix this in my own time ?

Yup

We don't really put much effort into the USB printing part, since Ultimakers don't really need it. Other people / companies are more than welcome to pick it up, but so far, no-one has really taken the time to do so.

It also has the Ulti-bus, which we will use in the future. Appart from that, it also has significantly improved stepper drivers (making it more silent and being more future proof).

https://github.com/ultimaker/cura#logging-issues

As is tradition; Without logs there is nothing we can do to help you.

Yeah, i'd love to provide a completely open issue tracker. Unfortunately, we ocasionally have to work on things we want to keep a secret a bit longer, so it was decided to close our JIRA tracker.

This is what happens. Obviously once the "branch" has been made, no changes made in an older version will ever be ported to the newer version (unless you delete the newer config data, in which case the copy & upgrade dance starts again) Yes. That's because it's going to be in the next version.

Hmm odd. I have the idea it has something to do with the lockfile, but I don't see anything in the logs. I'm going to investigate this a bit more.

He was talking about that installing 3.5 would ruin his 3.4 setup, which is obviously not the case. Cura first copies the older version (so in this case; copy 3.4 to 3.5 files) and subsequently upgrades them (if needed). This is irrespective of if the upgrading step (which can modify your profiles) actually succeeded.

You could also try to remove the 3.5 folder (also remove the ~/.config/cura/3.5 folder). It should have copied them in the first place.

The answer is "out and about". There are multiple types of profiles. The most important ones are in the user folder (eg; settings you changed but didn't save yet) and in quality_changes (settings you did save to profile). The machines are stored in /extruders and /machine_instances

This is exactly the way Cura handles it right now.

You're not the only one, but your message just slipped under my radar. Sorry for that. I'm not running on Ubuntu myself (As i'm using Fedora), but we do test using Ubuntu. So yes, profiles should be moved over from 3.4.1 to 3.5 automatically. The steps you describe should be all you should do for this to work. Could you provide the logs and look at ~/.local/share/cura and see if there is a 3.4 and a 3.5 folder?

You won't lose warranty as far as I know. Also note that if it's "just" a different type of PLA, there isn't any need to make custom profiles. Cura connect doesn't have the full ability to handle new profiles yet (will get it in 5.1).