ungutknut

Would like to test and give feedback but the linux appimage doesn't slice. There are already a couple of bug reports on the cura git and it also seems to affect MacOS users. So no non-windows specific feedback this version I guess? All I can say is that the latest version of the sidebarGUI-plugin is working fine as always. Thx for that again.

I don't think this is a cura specific problem, and it usually doesn't make sense to judge your flow calibration by the first layer. Better try to adjust your z-offset by having the nozzle move closer to the bed.

As far as I remember, this is about what I've done to the script. Here's the issue I raised and you can test the attached file im my post: https://github.com/Ultimaker/cura-siemensnx-plugin/issues/6 Unfortunately my programming skills are next to non-existent and I don't know how to install it, so I can't tell if this fix really helps.

There's not a lot I can help you with, but I can point you to the repo for this plugin: https://github.com/Ultimaker/cura-siemensnx-plugin I even tried to debug (see the issues section) it for Cura 5.x but ultimately failed at installing the corrected file. Should be an easy fix since I suppose the new folder structure of new cura is the culprit... but who knows.

Thank you, Nalath, for the background information. Very appreciated. Similar experience with a company I'm working for... as soon as there's a safety audit, you can be sure, they'll find something and turn your office into a kindergarden where people have to use dangerous workarounds in order to accomplish their daily work. Best strategy is to evenly distribute hundreds of safety hazards across the office so the auditors get distracted and with some luck only find some minor ones. Just kidding (...kind of). Hm. Strange. Maybe because I normally don't do an upgrade, but just a parallel install. I always have several cura versions installed in parallel on most machines. That moment I posted this "genius" idea, I knew it will be used against me. I need to rephrase my previous conclusion: I'm such an idiot! As mentioned before: I actually have no idea what I'm doing here on these definitions. I also have multiple no-limit extruder files which I have absolutely no idea what they do and why I need them... but I have them and migrate them on each new install and send them to people who'd like to use my project files. They seem to work for at least 2 different (none DIY) types of HT printers but I'm pretty sure they're just templates and there's all kind of stuff missing. Probably they're even dangerous; I wouldn't dare to release them to some wider audience.

With your background in firefighting I can understand your point. Still I don't believe it makes a lot of sense to have some random limit and don't provide a way to override it that doesn't require creating your own printer definitions from scratch for semi-closed source machines. For me THIS is a safety issue... who knows what else I, as a simple printer operator, could mess up with these def files? And if that teenager you mentioned before would really be into aluminum wire extrusion and home combustion, he'd most probably reckoned that there are various alternatives out there allowing for higher temps without having to jump through hoops. One other suggestion to ease the pain would be to have cura migrate existing printer definitions when installing new versions. Or store them in some common folder which multiple cura versions would access. This might be beneficial in other scenarios too. Oh, here's the final, the best suggestion: Cura allows for controlling of a heated enclosure - which is a fact and which I'm very thankful for. There's no limit set to the build-volume temperature; I just set it to 9999999999°C and cura just goes like "Yeah, whatever... print hotter than the sun, I don't care. Just let me paint this value here in orange so it better matches the sun.". Obviously cura trusts operators of printers with heated enclosures. So why not conjunct the addition of a heated chamber in the machine settings with a limitless nozzle? I'm a genius! It's more like a couple here and there. Still annoying each time.

IMHO it was a really bad decision to set a hard limit on the nozzle temp. HT printers are getting more and more common these days and that 365°C limit is kind of arbitrary. IF one normal printer (without a reasonable FW limit set) would be operated at 350°C or 360°C doesn't matter. It would probably be dangerous to the same extent in both scenarios. And overriding the limit is really a PITA. I'm testing a lot of cura versions and different printers and constantly I have to set up new printer definition files + no-limit extruders. It's not documented (at least not in a way I as a non-programmer would understand) and if one kind cura dev wouldn't have provided me aforementioned files, I'd have to change slicer because I wouldn't know what to do. Which is also the reason why I currently recommend HT printing people to choose a different slicer... and I as a cura fan am even thinking about changing to prusaslicer myself. Wouldn't it be a better compromise to only set a limit for machines with a known limit? Or have the user choose a limit in the "create custom machine" dialog? Or at least have a "create custom machine" + "create custom no-limit machine" as separate options... hell, even an annoying warning message like "you're about to set your house on fire!!! by clicking ok, you legally refrain from claiming any compensation" would be better than the current state.

I have no issues with updating from 4.8 on Win10. Went smooth as it can (nevermind the quirks I have to deal with in order to unlock printing temperatures of >365°C). One thing however I noticed is the machine settings dialog (start/end g-code section) has shrunken down way too much. The machine settings menu has always been a bit neglected from a usability point of view IMHO but this time it's worse than ever. See my screenshot with 4.9 on the left and arachne alpha (would be the same on 4.8) on the right. Since this menu can't be resized I'm stuck to those 1-liners as you can see. Barely usable. Another minor issue (not specific to 4.9): When creating a custom machine, the default material diameter is always set to 2.85mm. AFAIK there are almost only Ultimaker printers that use this diameter... and they don't require custom profiles. So it would make more sense to make 1.75 the default value for custom printers. edit: talking about shrinking... is it just for me or does the ultimaker forum shrink uploaded pictures to thumbnails?

It's a rather difficult filament to print and requires an all-metal hotend but I really love it for it's properties and look (specifically the blueish transparent one). And since it's crystalline PET you can anneal it afterwards to increase it's stiffness and temperature resistance which makes it pretty versatile. General print settings that work well for me are very similar to PET-G settings (slightly underextrusion, slow and steady print speed, 70°C bed temp, low fan speed or none at all, etc...). Where it differs are print temperature (260°C on my printer) and it's tendency to crystallize already in the nozzle when printed slow; which causes clogs. So always keep a high and steady flow and try to avoid retractions. And most important: dry it before printing... it's very hygroscopic; similar to nylon. All in all it's not a beginners filament.

I use their polycarbonate filament. It's a rather pure PC without many additives which gives superb technical properties but is harder to print than some other highly modified PCs (polymaker for example).

Hello there, I'm trying to gather some information about manufacturing UL(94) recognized parts and it seems that the cheapest option is the UMS5 with novamid. There are a few processing parameters that a manufacturer has to pay attention to and therefore I'd like to know if Ultimaker provides cura profiles tailored for bluecard conformity. Also I'd like to find out how to read the "post process method" section. In the UL file ( https://iq.ulprospector.com/en/profile?e=601705 ) it says "none". Does that mean that I'm not even allowed to remove support? Which would basically mean that either I have to ship the finished product to a customer with supports attached or use no supports at all. Is there anybody with some knowledge on that topic here? Thanks in advance.

Attached you can see all the vertices that are non-manifold (in orange). It's too much for a quick manual fix for me at the moment but anyone familiar with blender can get it done in 10-30 minutes.

What a bummer... but thanks for the answer. Do you by chance know what I have to edit in the machine definition to make cura accept higher temperatures for this custom printer? This is my definition file which I found in .../AppData/Roaming/cura/4.6/definition_changes (don't know if this is the right file in the right place; I believe not - but there's no file for this printer in Program Files\Ultimaker Cura 4.6\resources\definitions where I'd expect it to find) [general] version = 4 name = P220_settings definition = custom [metadata] setting_version = 13 type = definition_changes [values] extruders_enabled_count = 1 machine_depth = 150 machine_end_gcode = machine_gcode_flavor = RepRap (RepRap) machine_head_with_fans_polygon = [[-20, 10], [-20, 10], [10, -10], [-20, -10]] machine_heated_bed = True machine_height = 150 machine_start_gcode = machine_width = 205 BTW, I found 2 other threads about the same topic which I'd like to reference here: https://community.ultimaker.com/topic/31565-peek-400°c-not-able-to-slice/?tab=comments#comment-259028 https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/7342 I'm additionally also operating the Funmat which was mentioned in both of these threads, so for me this is an issue on two printers already. Also the suggested workaround doesn't work for me since I don't know where to put these additional lines (and there's no feedback from the affected user). I found the definition files wiki but nothing about changing max temps. It would be great if there was an option to define max temps in the machine setup GUI in cura.

You can try playing around with the mesh-fixing options in cura. But generally you shouldn't expect a proper gcode when you feed the slicer with a faulty model.

Just for cross-reference reasons here the link to another thread about the same topic: