ahoeben

There is a setting in Cura named "Bottom Layers". Make it visible, and then see what happens if you change the infill density to 100. Spoiler alert: its value changes. Now change the value of "Bottom Layers" back to what it was, and slice again. I have no experience combining PLA and TPU. I think that Ultimaker Breakaway material is a mix containing TPU, and it has been specifically designed to break away easily from PLA. That makes me suspect that PLA and TPU don't adhere very well. You may want to look in to the "Alternate Extra Wall" setting to improve adhesion.

The variant name is not injected in the variables that you can use. In addition to that, the "maximum_value_warning" in your snippet is missing an "if". I have given this some thought. What you could do (but it is not officially supported, so it might break in some future version of Cura) is define a new value in your machine definition: "_material_print_temperature_maximum_value": { "label": "Maximum Printing Temperature", "description": "This is a private setting, please ignore", "type": "float", "default_value": 230, "enabled": false, "settable_per_extruder": true }, "material_print_temperature": { "minimum_value": "0", "maximum_value_warning": "_material_print_temperature_maximum_value - 5", "maximum_value": "_material_print_temperature_maximum_value" }, This adds a new, "private" setting to your machine type only, which can not be made visible in the settings panel. Then in your PTFE variant, you can just define a value for that setting (the other variants will use the default specified 230): [values] _material_print_temperature_maximum_value = 300

Yes, it is. If you want it not to be ignored, set the number of Bottom Layers back to 8 (or so). By default, Cura prints everything as a bottom layer when setting the infill pattern to 100%.

That line is not going to work in Cura; Cura has no (and never had) conditional gcode.

I agree, which is why I made the Sidebar GUI plugin. In your mockup, how would this behave with more than 2 extruders? Would the expanded extruder panels just get narrower? Also the settings panel become much larger in Custom mode, overlapping a sizable chunk of the viewport. Can it still be dragged to a different location on the window?

Make sure to set the Mesh Type back to the left most option (the filled vase-like-object)

Remove each setting by pressing the "-" button next to the setting

A much easier way of doing that is using the Machine Settings. No editing of files necessary.

The maximum OpenGL version supported by the Geforce 8800 GT is OpenGL 3.3. The full, non-compatibility mode in Cura requires OpenGL 4.1 or newer. This GPU is only capable of compatibility mode in Cura. If you had the full layer view before, it must have been using the other "non functioning" GPU.

Did you use the MSI installer? If so, use the EXE installer (like before).

You cannot do that via a variant file. The cfg files can only have values; for the definition of a setting, you need to use the .def.json. You could use a Python expression in your printer or extruder definition like this: "default_material_print_temperature": { "minimum_value_warning": "0", "maximum_value_warning": "230", "maximum_value": "300 if machine_nozzle_size == 0.4 else 235", "minimum_value": "0" } Ofcourse you'll most likely want to use something else than the machine_nozzle_size to detect this particular variant.

What infill pattern do you use? Try something other than gyroid.

Those paying attention to detail might see that I have also made sure the icons are now aligned in their buttons. That was such an eyesore. Sorry it took me since version 4.0 to get that fixed.

This is what it will look like (the pause button is provided by the Automatic Slicing Toggle plugin):

Check the model in X-Ray view. If the bow has red parts, the model needs to be fixed before it can be printed.

Yes, they are. If they are not there, in a folder named "setting_visibility", you are looking in the wrong folder. On Windows 10, the configuration folder can be found in %APPDATA%\cura\4.5 (where the last number is the version of Cura you use).

The most likely cause of the first two is that the model is not manifold. Inspect it in X-Ray view, and it will probably show you parts in red. The models need to be fixed. For the third example, I think the part is just too thin there.

Other than the gcode flavour, no. The default start gcode should work fine.

Well, technically... You have many plugins active, because most of the functionality in Cura is provided by plugins that ship with Cura and are enabled by default. Even the gcode postprocessing is provided by a plugin. This particular plugin will let you run scripts on the gcode created by Cura. Edit: forgot to say I like the idea. The button could also have a tooltip that lists the currently active script(s) so you don't have to click it and open the dialog to know the active script(s).

This is not currently possible in Cura.

Perhaps if you add some images, we can get an idea if the prints do indeed look like shit, if your S5 is underperforming, or if perhaps you have certain expectations that might not be realistic for this type of printer. At this point we simply can't tell.

Probably because it is not perfectly symmetrical, and due to rounding issues in the algorithm.

You could try saving as STL instead of 3MF from 3d Builder.

We can't tell without logs (Help -> Show configuration folder -> cura.log), specs of your computer (what gpu?).

Exactly because of toolchangers. Cura does not know what movements the head makes to change tools. That path might crash the head into previously printed parts, which can be higher than the current part. If you know that this will never be an issue for your printer, you can enable the setting in your printer definition. nb: this has not changed since Cura 2.x