bagel-orb

The flow percentage should be hardcoded in the gcode. That means it is being applied, but didn't show in the tweak menu in the firmware. When you also set the flow percentage in the firmware you are actually applying the percentage twice!

No it will be fixed in cura 2.4... and then still not fully, because to fully reduce retractions to a minimum would require write a bit more slicing time. Inheritance issues are about how settings relate to each other. The bug resulted in some PVA settings being applied to the print you did with PLA if u would have them both selected, but printed with PLA only - I think..

No it will be fixed in cura 2.4... and then still not fully, because to fully reduce retractions to a minimum would require write a bit more slicing time. Inheritance issues are about how settings relate to each other. The bug resulted in some PVA settings being applied to the print you did with PLA if u would have them both selected, but printed with PLA only - I think..

The manual has been updated: https://ultimaker.com/en/resources/20415-shell

The implementation of that feature was tightly coupled with the feature Remove Overlapping Wall Parts. However, the latter feature became unnecessary when I introduced the Compensate Wall Overlap feature, so I removed it. Later I realized that by doing so I also removed the Fill Gaps feature, but then it was too late. The fill gaps feature will be reintroduced in Cura 2.3 I'm sorry!!

Go to the advanced tab on the right and scroll down to the Special Modes category. If it's not visible, go to preferences > settings; type 'spiralize' and enable the spiralize setting. It should then have become visible in the settings tab.

I'm sorry to say there is no such feature for the UM2. The UM2 is not connected to the network. With the UM3 it is possible to see the progress. You can even monitor the print from the images captures by the camera!

I'm sorry for this bug. I've solved it for the next version of cura.

I've implemented it such that there shouldn't be any retractions for straight travel lines from support to support. When such a travel is not straight as to Avoid Printed Parts, then a retraction should be performed. It does look messy sometimes, but the stringing never actually touches the object. At least, that is how the algorithms were designed. If it works differently then there is a bug. I haven't seen any non-retraction from within support to within the model, though. Could you send me your gcode? t [dot] kuipers [at] ultimaker [dot] com

That's a feature. It's called the raft air-gap. The only thing that's changed is that the raft air-gap is not being applied to the support and ooze shield etc.

I think your third idea has the highest chance of making it into Cura, but to be honest I expect none of these ideas will be incorporated into Cura any time soon. I haven't seen any delamination problems in the draft shield for ABS myself, so I'll contact the materials department and see what they think. I think a straight forward and robust approach to solving such an issue would be to make the draught shield a configurable amount of lines thick so that it's sturdier.

There's also the possibility to add a custom machine from within cura. Most important machine settings can be edited via the menu. Add printer > custom machine

If you want your custom machine files to keep working, submit them to github and we will incorporate them in Cura so that we will update them whenever we have to change the json file format.

You could also simply set the line width to 1 mm.

You could set the wall line count to 2 in this case. I hope to get this fixed automatically in 2.4, but I'm afraid it will have to wait till 2.5 because it takes quite some time to properly fix this problem.

The beta of cura 2.3 actually has version number 2.1.99, because there was never a 2.2, so it's both better and worse than you thought. I think the next release will be 2.3.1 with some amendments of bugs we didn't solve in 2.3. it's not a 2.4 beta, although we could continue our scheme and keep even numbers for betas and odd numbers for official releases. I thought the new Cura should be named "Cura+" but management decided on "Cura 2".

Those yellow parts are simply top/bottom skin infill. Are the skin settings the same across both cura versions?

I think you are mistaken. It's quite hard to see the 3d pattern by just looking at 2d layers. The cubic pattern has triangles / hexagons on each layer, while tetrahedral has 4 regular spaces line grids in two directions. (The two line grids in the same direction sway back and forth) Did this answer your question?

No, nallath is mistaken. Skin is the dense top/bottom fill. The three basic types are: walls, skin and infill. I've been thinking about renaming it to skinfill, but I'm afraid most people in my company don't like introducing new terminology.

Oh wow. The machine settings shouldn't be editable. That's a bug! If you select a UM2+ family machine you should be able to select your nozzle type from a drop down menu.

Those yellow lines are top/bottom fill. If you don't want that, you should set the Top Layer Count and Bottom Layer Count to zero. You could get it fixed using Infill Meshes, but those are probably a bit too advanced to get this working with easily.

Please file bugs at https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues

New beta is now online. Wireprinting is a bit buggy. though. When you encounter underextrusion, try setting the flow on your printer to 638%

It's in the Cura beta which is released today

@berndjm: yes Also you should clear ~/.config/cura See https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/wiki/Cura-Preferences-and-Settings-Locations