nallath

The issue here is that the frontend of Cura has an amazing plugin structure. The engine doesn't.

Uh. We're going to need a tad bit more information before we can help you.

And a different language to top it all off. Merging them isn't going to happen. As for the variable layer height, it's something that is pretty high on our feature list, but due to some dragons in our architecture it will require more work than is should / would have. This is the main reason why we don't have it already.

Cura 2.5 can open g-code files. The feature was developed by AlephObjects (Lulzbot) and contributed back to us. Because they were working on it, we didn't build it. In the end they didn't met the deadline (also because we were quite strict with reviewing) for 2.4, so it was moved to 2.5

Have a look at github.com/nallath/postprocessingplugin The source code of the plugin is there.

The source is always released So run it from source and you have it seconds after it's committed.

This is actually a rather hard issue to solve. I don't think we're going to do this anytime soon.

I think i already mentioned that it was not in 2.4

Ah, I wouldn't worry about Trump, he knows what to do. Give it a few days and he'll be on twitter claiming it was Obama who caused Ultimaker to file a patent. Or fake news

Uh. Yes it is. I just looked at the commit that changed that line of code. The 2.4 release was in beta for a long time and someone fixed this on the master branch.

Scale to fit is disabled by default. This was changed about 2 months ago, so this is in the 2.5 release

It is intended behavior, but one that will change. We just had a discussion about this last week. The proposed solution is that the buttons on the lower right corner will "pre-select" the preferred file type of a printer (*.gcode in 99% of the cases). The save / save as button will have project as a default.

I've said this a few times already, but there is no harm in doing it again. Prior art protects you from losing the lawsuit. Having a patent will make it far less likely that a patent lawsuit happens in the first place, as you have the ability to negotiate with others (under threat of counter suing). Counter sueing does indeed not protect against non practicing entities (aka Patent Trolls), but it does protect against companies such as 3D systems and Stratasys, who are known for agressively sueing others when it comes to patent infringement. Take a look at form one for example. If i recall correctly they were forced to pay 8%(!!!) of their earnings. That is also money that isn't going anywhere near development. So does it suck that we need to get Patents? Hell yes. All of us would much rather have had a world where this was not required.

Oh and first one to complete the easter egg gets a reward!

I'm not aware of any tag that gets replace with regards to print time. A number of flavors have it in comments in the code. Another alternative would be to write a post processing script that does this.

No, it's an argument why having a patent would protect the comunity. You already stated a few time that it does provide some protection. I merely tried to link the protection that it provides ultimaker to the protection is provides to the comunity (eg; It protects Ultimaker, therefore protects me, therefore protects the time I can work on Cura). If it is a fallacy, I'm not sure which one. It would give some ground against them. Without patents UM has nothing. So if a few patents can ensure that a deal is 25% more favorable, it's worth considering. As I said before; protection is not a binary thing. Partial protection is also a thing worth investing in. My argument here is that Ultimaker has been using intelectual property to enforce behavior for quite some time. How come if it's not a patent, we are aplauded by everyone, but once it's a patent it's worse? All i'm saying is that nothing changed, but now it's seen as a problem. Yep. I don't like it either. I honestly don't see another option here. You're right when it comes to startups, who can fly under the radar. We don't have that luxury. That is the nature of a defensive patent is it not?

Has been there since 2.1 Since 2.3 it's possible to trigger it by means of "machine actions". Go to manage printers & select the umo+. On the right you should see a "Level build plate" button. This starts the bed level procedure.

We didn't listen quick enough so this messed with peoples settings. Sorry about this. It has been changed for 2.5. There only the UM printers have this behavior. It is in the changelog however.

What do the logs say?

You can get octoprint to work almost (but not entirely) like the UM3 with Cura if you use the amazing plugin made by @ahoeben which can be found on https://github.com/fieldOfView/OctoPrintPlugin I think anyone made similar support for Repetier Server, but it should not be that much work. I'd gladly welcome a pull request or a plugin.

And please do tell, how would the +-7 full time engineers on Cura be paid if there is no business? I sure as hell won't spend 40 hours a week developing open source software (as much as I would love to, but i also have a morgage to pay). Ultimaker has a symbiotic relationship with the community. We need each other. So you're telling me that because it does not provide a 100% protection, it provides no protection? Thats a bit of a strange claim to make. If you look at companies that hold the most 3D printing patents, you will find that those are practicing entities. You are right that having a patent does not protect against patent trolls. But right now at least Ultimaker (and by extension, the things we do for / with you) is more protected than before. You are aware that we've been "slapping" people around with intelectual property for some time right? The only reason why we can enforce people to be AGPL, is because we have IP on the code. Now we have IP on a technological feature and have stated that as long as you use it open source we will not sue you. Could you explain to me why you feel that this is different? I'd like to invite you to read my posts about this subject again. I've been involved with this process a long time and fully side with the decision to apply patents (even though I believe that patents are evil!). Your blog post is simplification of how patents work and are used.

Ultimaker is already part of OIN. It just doesn't provide all the protection that we need yet.

We considered it way back when IP first became an issue (+- 2 years ago). At that point it was decided to not do it, as UM was too small and it would cost (relatively speaking) too much to do it. I've just pitched the idea again and got some positive responses about this. I'm going to see what can be done about this. I think this is an excellent solution to the patent problem!

We're well aware of this. This is also why Ultimaker promised to not use those patents offensively. The patents that stopped 3D printing innovation were held by companies that had no such promise (and aggressively pursued legal action against infringement)

Re-appear? They never left. A few patents expired, but the number of patents in 3D printing have grown quite a bit the past few years. As much as I dislike the concept of a Patent (due to various reasons), it is, however it pains me to say it, a necessary evil. At the moment there are two ways to defend yourself against other companies on the area of technology; A. Publish everything you do. B. Get a number of patents so you can "counter sue" Both of the options have their own advantages and disadvantages. Lets start with the publishing. By publishing everything you get protection, as a patent can not be awarded if it isn't "Novel". So if you publish something and someone tries to patent that tomorrow, the patent should not be awarded in the first place. There is a small problem there; How can a single person in the patent office search through all knowledge available to man? That's right, he / she can't. So it will happen that patents are awarded, even though they aren't novel. This is especially the case in America, where the patent office puts a whole lot less effort in the process compared to Europe. The problem with this approach is that you can never prevent a lawsuit, as you don't have any bargaining chips. You can only try and prove (in the courtroom) that the patents of the opposition should not have been awarded in the first place. This is an expensive (and risky!) situation. You also run the risk that if you forget to publish something (or described it wrong) that it does not invalidate the patent of the other party. So on to the Patent approach. The main disadvantage of this is it's cost. It's rather expensive to write and apply a patent. Holding on to a patent becomes more expensive the closer you get to the max term. It does provide a distinct advantage; Counter suits. If the "opposion" sees that you have a large pile of patents, it is much less likely to pick a fight with you, as they might also be infringing a patent that you own. It can even be that company A sues company B for a single (minor) patent infringement, only to be sued for dozens of other patent infringements. You can of course debate the morality or correctness of this system, but it is how this works. This "warchest" way of "wielding" patents is also used by the "Open Inovation Network". All members have signed a non-agression clause with respect to eachother regarding Linux and all members can use the patents in the network to defend themselves if needed. This would not have been needed if the patent system was not there in the first place, but it's there and not playing the game is simply not an option.