jbernardis

Attached is the screen shot. It's just on the manage printers dialog. The buttons on the right are the same for both printers once activated. I cannot find a setting anywhere that affects this. I even scoured through the config files and couldn't find anything there either.

With all the help you've given me over the past few days, I finally have a cura configuration that I can use. The only anomaly I see is that 1 printer is tagged as "Network ready" and the other is "Local", whereas both of them are connected to my network via octoprint. Despite this difference, I see no difference in the operation of either printer. Thanks again. I will be busy over the next few days tinkering with the settings.

An oversight on my part. Both printers are 1.75. Thank you for finding this!

Yes, although somehow one shows up as local, and one as network enabled. Both are accessed through octoprint, and the octoprint plugin works fine for both. But to answer your question, both were entered as custom fff printers.

Theyre both custom built printers

I'm sorry, but this is not totally unrelated. You say you want testers, but then you disregard empirical data out of hand. Your plug in affects the way filaments are presented to the user, and i observed a difference in the way filaments are presented. It may not be a problem with the plugin, but it's valid to ask the question. If it did not solve my problem, I'd be tempted to uninstall your plugin. It may be moot anyway because I haven't yet decided if cura is something I want to use.

I just posted a question on the cura board. After installing your plugin, I was inspired to doing some experimenting with Cura - I never really used it before because I really didn't like the clutter that your plug in took care of. I don't know if this is something that happened before, but now when I create a new filament entry, it is only available to the currently active printer. If I change to a different printer (I have 2) I am presented with a different list of filaments. Has Cura always separated the filaments by printer like this? Or am I doing something wrong? Or have I found another reason to not like Cura?

I have two printers in my shop that I use interchangeably. They both have identical hot ends and extruders. When I define a new filament in cura (4.6), that new filament is only available to the currently active printer. If I switch printers, the newly defined filament does not show up on the list. Is there a reason for this, or might I be doing something wrong? Any help is appreciated.

similar results for me. I didn't realize that I'd have to choose both optimizations, so it took me 2 passes, but my load time went from >35 seconds down to 20 seconds. The best part is I don't have all those crap filaments from companies I've never heard of and I don't have 2100 printer configurations I'll never use. Well done!

I will definitely give this a try, although from this description it doesn't sound like it optimizes filaments. Over 2000 printer profiles unnecessarily loaded. That's unbelievable that the developers don't see that as an issue.

Unless there's something new with cura, this does not work. Cura is now packaged as am AppImage for linux. This means that it does not use the filesystem of the host computer - it has its own filesystem burned into the appimage and this can't be changed without significant effort. All that's stored locally are filaments you add.

Your method works well for windows where Cura is installed on the local disk. In Linux, all of these files are embedded in an applimage file, and there is no deleting them. This is probably the biggest thing I hate about cura. I never even heard of many of these companies (except perhaps verbatim - but I didn't know they made filament) let alone purchase filament from them. On top of that, the companies I purchase from (and even those I don't purchase from but see all over the internet) are NOT listed - where did this crazy list of filament vendors come from? I know can define my own, and I have, but they get lost in the forest of all of the other brands. Oh - but wait - I can lump ALL of my filaments under favorites - but that gives me no way to organize them by type or brand. I saw a thread earlier where someone else was asking for the ability to remove these filaments. The reply was that Ultimaker made a conscious decision to disallow deletion of these filaments because if the user deleted all of them, there would be no way to define a new one. That's nonsense; solving that problem is simple - just don't allow them to delete the last one. Instead, the poster was told that "favorites" was the solution to this - as stated above, "favorites" is not a solution. To me, all of this just points out a programming flaw that they refuse to accept responsibility for.