productdesign

Seems that if i turn off my firewall Cura behaves as it should. Can anyone advise of the actual process I am looking for other than Cura to give permissions? I have permitted Cura.exe or what ever but that doesn't do the trick. so far only running without a firewall is the workaround. Any help appreciated. Chris

Just found this thread. must have given up. WOW i am now checking out if my Firewall is interfering! https://ultimaker.com/en/community/view/6985-urgent-stable-version-req?page=1&sort=#reply-55938

Been getting back into using the Ultimaker and still using Cura 14.01. I recall we did not update due to this issue before. So thought we would let a few itteratons pass before trying again. Just tried with 15.04 and same issue. All looks good except part wont slice. Save button is greyed out and you see a quick 0.5 second flash of the build progress bar. Layer view shows 1 or zero layers. Please help as would like to be using the latest version. Win7 PC. Quad core with Ram Spare. Cheers Chris

Many thanks to @Yellowshark and @illuminarti for your help on this :-P Thanks Guys!

HI Peeps. Just stuck with a step file that unrelated to Ultimaker is causing vendors a problem on import. Pretty sure if someone could import it to SW and auto fix and spit back a Step at me, this would be a big help. File is confidential so, if you can help please message me. Cheers Chris

I know this is an old thread, i have always thought the robot a kinda odd icon for the UM because it never has printed that well with the natural overhangs.( otherwise hes cool ) now on the UM2 are you all seeing a better robot. I think if your finding slowing speed is causing less sag on overhangs, surely this is due to cooling as suspected, rather than slowing your hole print down, It would be good if Cura could somehow have a slower cooling time especialy on the overhang slices as these are well detected in the slicer. So you would not just have min cool time, but a min for overhangs? Is this actualy going to help. If so, would it be considered in the next release? Along with a few other on my wishlist. I found this thread problem solving suport material attachment issues. I wish suport material had more options than just xyz distance and density. Would be good to have pattern options and the potential for gaps in the z. this would save on material and make the support much easier to remove. Im often trying to print enclosures for electronics and im destroying my ABS prints just removing the support. ( as a side note, can anyone point me in the right direction for preventing fat bottomed or sagging at base of prints. ) Ie. print a column and the first 15mm is fatter. is this due to its proximity to build plate? )

Thoughts on why the current version is broken for me? Is this unusual or common problem?

Cheers for coming to the rescue. that was a close call. Win 7. But to be frank this machine does have issues with windows update. Have problems with .net stuff for example. Just installed version 14.01 and thats got me out of a bind. For future ref is there any reason not to use the latest marlin etc with backdated versions of cura. As it would be written before the firmware im now running. Thanks Chris

Then again, could someone advise why latest version fails to slice with blank space where the progress bar should be? Thanks. Chris

Embarrasing...but finding a specific version with .exe to google brought up this page http://software.ultimaker.com/?show=all Which I now see is expanded from clicking the link in that page...could I flag a note to who ever makes that page, to make this easier to spot or use an Icon? Sorry to waste ur time reading this.. Solved. Chris

Hi All, Version 14.03 Doesnt slice and has been unusable for me since launch. So been using prev versions. However I can find the Github page, but must be thick or something as cant for the life of me find a list of versions to download. I know of these pages http://software.ultimaker.com/ https://github.com/daid/Cura Cant find a download list on Daids page...:s Can anyone send me a link to prev versions, have a print job required for the morning :S Hope someone can help Cheers...

Well fingers crossed all will be well. I did receive an offer of help from a group member so thanks again for that. on my travels I did contact the makers of Instep and received a indepth reply if people are interested I thought I might share it . At this stage, I don't think I will require this after all. "Thank you for your interest in the InStep application. I took a closer look at the file you provided and there are a few things to mention in regards to your request. · As I am sure you are aware, parametric modelers will only work in a parametric manner with native files, so any time you import a file (Step, Iges, Parasolid, etc.) you will not get parametric data but rather surface data (basically a BREP). In most cases this is perfectly fine since the intent is to simply use the imported data as a starting point to then do something else with it, but I wanted to be clear about this distinction. Some packages will offer ‘direct’ modeling tools which allow you to interact with un-parameterized features… · The source file is fairly large by any measure. There are some 260k facets which is above our recommended size (usually applications will be fine working with files up to about 100k facets; some more powerful applications can go far above that though). In order to work efficiently with the data, especially if this is just a starting point for some project, I would recommend reducing the density of the file to something more manageable prior to conversion. There are a number of (free) applications that can do this reduction in data with only little loss of accuracy (though in some cases issues can be introduced). Blender and MeshLab are the more prominent ones. · The original data actually has some slight gaps and offsets which make direct conversion impractical. In order to close these gaps, I applied a tolerance value to the data which allowed the body to be recognized as a single, solid body. In general, the InStep application does not manipulate the underlying data. Rather it performs a uniqueness conversion whereby vertices in space are collapsed and thereby features such as edges and surfaces recognized (the STL format consist of triangles only so several corner points can overlap or be in close proximity, the application merges these together and makes both vertex and edge information unique). Therefore the generation of smooth surfaces is (not yet) implemented and the output is just a different format of the original geometry with some corrective measures applied. This is fine for cases where the object is geometric in nature (boxes, flat covers, etc. where larger surfaces can be merged without loss of detail) but does not do well with organic shapes like the one you have. In those cases, additional work is required to manually (with different software) generate NURBS surfaces from the data. The issue is still that there is a loss in accuracy in this step since these applications use some shortcuts to get the smooth surfaces where there were previously sharp edges. I wanted to showcase the differences in these approaches and files and put together a sample of these (I’m afraid I cannot give you the full files for free since that is a service we offer). Due to the file sizes, I went ahead and placed them on our website (I will remove them as soon as you can let me know that you have accessed them): https://www.solveering.com/temp/chrisflynn_tempFiles/owl_010RED_Partial.zip This is the file you provided, reduced to 10% of the original density (with Blender) and then imported into InStep, exported as STP (and then cut to the given size in NX7.5). https://www.solveering.com/temp/chrisflynn_tempFiles/owl_InStep_Partial.zip This is the full density file, converted in InStep, loaded and manipulated in NX7.5 and re-exported as STP. https://www.solveering.com/temp/chrisflynn_tempFiles/owl_2_NURB.zip Full density file, manually converted to NURBS surfaces. There is obviously quite a difference in the file content and size for these different items, hopefully this explains the different options. It is our goal to be able to offer InStep with the option to generate NURBS surfaces directly from within, however that capability is still some ways out and currently only available as a service. Please let me know once you have downloaded and viewed the files and if I can be of further assistance. Should you require us to perform conversions like this, I would be happy to provide you with cost options depending on the details of your project. Kind regards, Ben "

Thanks to everyone for your help. I have found a vendor in the UK with a decade experience, Aerospace / F1 standard equipment who offer to create "automated surfaces" ie output a step. ( mesh to Solid ) which is what was discussed here. For just over the cost of a spool of filament. So looks like the search is over for the time being.

I have lost touch with Rhino. are there any tools there that could help even out the mesh. or average. Have you used http://www.meshmixer.com/%20?%C2%A0 So we have a more usable Nurbs file in the Solid modeller.

thanks to all. Chopmiester, I understand your getting into accuracy and semantics. video interpolation is not like for like, more a transformation is taking place. And Thanks Nick for going to the effort. I couldn't open the file first try. Will try again. Cant go into specifics, but it is useful in hand tool design to be able to work with a material like airdry clay and then get it scanned to bring into the product development workflow. If the surfaces are averaged / smoothed as a result then this is a win. Will investigate the options you mention. and also have emailed Instep to see if they can handle organics. Appreciate your input.