nallath

Tree supports are in the experimental category. Which ya know, kind of give away that its well... Experimental. The popup issue has been resolved.

Can you share your logs?

@kmanstudios Thanks for the expansive report. We're looking into this right now. I hope to get back to you with a solution (or at least a few more questions so we can figure it out)

I'm not a 100% sure (so please; try and figure out of this works for you, it will help us a great deal to fix it). It seems the issue only occurs for "newly added machines". So if a machine is loaded from file, the memory leak doesn't occur. If you add a new machine and view the camera without closing it down it should occur.

Ah, right. I assume that you changed the type of the material right? In that case, it can't find a matching quality profile, so the quality gets set to empty.

I've tried switching on the camera with Cura connect a few times on Fedora, but I don't get the memory leak (or any network issues ?

No profile changes have been made for 3.5.1, nor any profile upgrades.

Most issues that you reported have been user errors, firmware issues or simply to vague to reproduce. We do quite some testing (despite you not believing this). Nowhere did I, or anyone from ultimaker claim that this was a reason. Why do you keep repeating this point? I actually agreed with you in a previous post. Failed patch? Can you explain how / why 3.5.1 is a failed patch? Because we consciously decided to leave certain bugs in there to ensure that there was stability (which you are arguing for that we should strive for). If that's the case, I'm confused. Fair enough. If I recall correctly it used to do this. Bricked? Cura isn't deploying any firmware update. So how would the Cura 3.5 brick your machine in any way? I'm getting the feeling that there have been issues with the operation of your machine that you've not shared here, but are blaming on Cura 3.5. But we need logs to diagnose your problems. Based on the fact that you are the only one with these kinds of problems, it does have something to do with your system / your actions (which still means we need to fix them, but it also means that we could not have found them with the testing we did). Most of your comments regarding bashing (or the perception thereof) are, I think, because of the way that you explain things. You seem to assume that because mistakes were made that the other party knows nothing about software, development or testing and subsequently explain the entire process as if you were explaining it to a first-year student. Although you might not mean it as such, it feels smug and derogatory. I think it's a far shot from going "Hey, there are some bugs in there" or "Hey, I'm seeing a weird bug that I feel should be obviously checked in testing" to "Nothing has been tested and you don't know what you are doing". This on its own is probably also why it's seen as bashing since others are not experiencing these issues (and thus claiming that its a "disaster" is a bit of an over exaggeration) See my previous paragraphs. Although valid advice, it gives the impression that you believe that we don't know this. We do. We also follow the advice.

Impossible? It hardly ever is. Impractical or simply too expensive is usually the reason for this. Same reason why we dont support 32 bit anymore (although that is a tad bit older)

No need to wory about my paycheck ? But yeah, I agree. Cura is not "free" for UM clients. You already paid for it by buying the machine. If you have a look at github, you can see that we quite often say things like "Yup, you found a bug, but UM machines don't have it / don't need the feature, so we won't spend time on it". We also focus much more of our testing on UM machines because of this reason. If you have 35 years of experience, you'd also know that no matter how much you test, there is no such thing as bug-free software. Are some of the issues things we should have caught? Maybe. It's always easy to say afterward. I would have loved to squashed em before we shipped it, but here we are. That being said; what makes you think it wasn't tested? We did, especially for UM printers. The main issue is however that a lot of people complain about it not working, post very, very poor reproduction steps (if at all) and then do get mad about it not working. I can fully understand this frustration, but realize that this frustration is also there with me; Help me to help you. I'm not telepathic. If something doesn't work, I need info to resolve it. We are monitoring. I've been reading what people say. I've also been typing my fingers off. You claim that there is no bashing involved, but I would like to ask you to look at a number of the assumptions that you make. Don't you feel that claiming that it's not tested or that "were not monitoring the situation" can be seen by some as bashing? I know that this is probably not your intent, but making these assumptions is a bit hurtful. Mostly because I am actually doing all of these. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be critical of what we do; but do try to think about what it is that you are saying. Saying that "More testing" is needed has the same value as telling someone that was in a car crash to "pay more attention next time".

Releases should not have any features in there that were not in the beta. If anything, this provided us with a valuable leasson that we should stick to it.

Update your video drivers.

This is currently not possible.

This is an issue with your video drivers. Update them to the latest version

Nope, that should be it... Could you check if it's your firewall / virus scanner that's messing things up?

This is really weird. As far as the logs tell me, it never even got to the bit where the legacy reader did anything. Alternatively, you could export the profile again from the version where it did work.

Hmm, I don't see anything odd either. What is the exact message that it gives you?

Nope, not yet. We originally designed the UM3 with the notion that everyone that has access to the wifi network is to be trusted. Providing more control is something we're looking into. All that being said; Could you say a bit more how you think this should work? What features would be a must for you?

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

Seems to be an issue with your drivers. Are you on the latest version?

Could you share the logs?

Could you also share the logs that cura gives?

I guess so, but I don't have any experience with labview, so I can't help you there.

I tried, but it wasn't meant to be. Silly thing is that we actually posted marketing material of printer walls with different RGB color leds on to indicate status. We got a lot of questions about it (because it actually shows the status of all your prints within seconds...)

It used to be that we used the RGB color leds to indicate that things need to happen. But it was deemed to negatively influence the professional look of the machine, so the feature was removed to be replaced with the "breathing" effect. I personally also don't like the pulsating, since I'm really, really distracted by things that happen in the corner of my eye.