Brulti

I know what the issue is, thank you very much. But you obviously didn't read anything beyond that single thing that is of interest to you. Giving access to the SSH would allow people to set up a static IP address, but it would also allow them to perform other modifications to the JSON files, which are core files for the 'OS' of the printer, if I got that right, modifications that could result in a bricked printer. Thus why UM isn't supporting it or even documenting it. Besides, there are other ways to set up a static IP address, as mentioned by Smithy and SandervG. Why don't you try them instead of complaining?

I believe that all the online services send parts with the receipt to the customer. So, I think you could either get the part sent to you then send it to the customer yourself, but that would incur delays and additional cost of repackaging and resending, or try to find a local service or a printing company with whom you'll deal directly, and see if they would be willing to send the part to the customer without the receipt. Since I run my own 3D printing company, I'd do it if I was in the US, but I'm in France, shipping prices would be a killer.

Those three sentences are so absolutely, completely and irremediably wrong, up to a point that it pains me to read them. If there is one thing I learned after nearly 15 years of work in customer-related positions and in retail, it is that, no matter how well documented something is, or how failsafe you think you made your product, some fool will find a way to break it in ways that aren't supposed to be possible. Or will do something that is explicitly marked as 'DO NOT DO THIS!' on the documentation with big red flashing lights, because they didn't read it, skimmed through the documentation or something alike. And, as Murphy's Law would have it, the more detailed your documentation, the more people will break your product. Then they'll say that they aren't at fault, that the documentation wasn't clear enough. Let me share some personal experience: I sold mobile phones for years in a small shop. Back before the advent of smartphones and touchscreens, phones used to have a pretty extensive documentation; thick booklets included in the package, sometimes as thick or thicker than the phone itself. Many of those documentations also showed to the users, using pictures on the very first five pages or so, how to open the phone, place the sim card (and the memory card if there was a slot for it), battery, and then close it back. I've lost count of the number of people who managed to damage their phone right after buying it by trying to put the sim card or battery the wrong way, or place the sim card into the memory card slot, even though most memory cards were maybe a quarter the size of a sim card and not the same shape anyway. It wouldn't fit, then they would use their strength to force it in because they cannot be wrong, obviously, and end breaking something and come back to complain. And even when shown the nice clear pictures in the instruction booklet, they would complain that the pictures and text aren't clear enough, and ask for a refund or an exchange since, obviously, it's not their fault but ours as reseller or the manufacturer's for not being clear enough. So, while I have absolutely no idea what SSH is or means or what it is used for, if giving access to it is opening the door to potentially bricking the printers, then I fully understand why UM is saving themselves the headaches by not supporting it. You can never make anything failsafe, no matter how detailed and clear and concise your documentation is. I printed many engineered objects in Nylon, and other materials, on my UM3E since I got it last year, I never once even had to calibrate the steps, and my customers have always been very happy with the results. I printed a couple of prototypes and a handful of parts for use, including some things for the engine of a car or a motorbike, I don't remember exactly, and the customer told me that they fit nicely in the engine. Maybe you got unlucky and had the one in a million or so printer that wasn't calibrated right? That they choose to only provide support for the appimage and not the PPA is their right. That decision certainly has valid grounds for UM and was probably taken after a lengthy analysis by the people in charge at UM. Besides, the fact that they do not support versions of their open source software that isn't produced by themselves seems very normal to me. I don't see why they would provide support for the PPA made by Lulzbot since Lulzbot isn't part or related to UM in anyway. Or even to a version of the program done by an employee on their free time, since that version never went through the thorough internal process of testing and vetting and such. I disagree that UM does not have the willingness to listen to their customers. We have this forum where we can talk to them, and they usually reply with speed and efficiency, reaching out to people who post complaints or troubles here in a very short time usually. SandervG and a handful of others from the company are very active here, and questions and comments are forwarded to the relevant people inside the company, with some of them logging in to give the answers and other replying through SandervG. Of course, sometimes the answer or reaction from UM isn't what we expect or what we would like. But they are here, they do listen to us, and I would say that I know very little companies with such an active team, or even companies who have gone to the length of putting up a forum such as this one for their users and customers. @RudydG I concur with Smithy: that is a very nice set-up you have! ^^

It looks like the answer is yes to both, but you can get the plugin you need from the creator here:

I've given this a quick test, and I'm not much of a fan of the new interface for several reasons: - Information is scattered all over the place; - buttons/drop-down menus aren't what they seem to be, - wasted space and placement of windows is not intuitive. Now, in more details, with the good and the bad; get a coffee or a drink, it's going to be long! 😉 There might also be some repeat of things said above. Why is the 'View' drop-down menu so bloody wide? There's quite a lot of wasted space there, and since the menu is thin, it's easy for the mouse to wander off. It would be nice if we could choose the size of the font used in CURA, and everything in the interface would scale along with it. Also, sometimes the dropdown menu will disappear if the mouse wanders off, sometimes it won't, for some strange and unknown reason... The 'Marketplace' drop-down menu is quite useless, and we got a 'Marketplace' button already on the other side of the interface. I'd keep the button on the right side and remove it altogether from the top bar. The 'Preferences' drop-down suffers from a similar problem. It's two click instead of one to bring up the pop-up. Could you have the drop-down from 'Preferences' give us direct link to the tabs of the pop-up, ie clicking on the 'Preferences' would bring a drop-down menu with 'General', 'Settings', etc, and clicking on them would give us the corresponding tab directly? Kudos for putting all the available settings for the various Materials in one easy place in the Marketplace pop-up. Great idea. The list of add-ons that are installed is confusing because it does not adhere to one standard for showing up what is installed and what isn't: if the box is checked, I guess it means it's installed, so why are other add-ons grayed out with an unchecked box yet I have an 'Uninstall' button next to them? 🤔 I am confused. Also, one suggestion since I just realized that: maybe have the add-ons indicate for what version they're for? As you can see on the picture above, I have two 'Blender Integration' add-on, and I have no idea if I can remove the oldest one, going by version number, or not, since I still have Cura 3.4 on my computer just in case of a bug on 3.6 or later versions. The deep blue bar at the top with the 'Prepare', 'Preview' and 'Monitor' buttons is taking up useless space. It would be better to put those three buttons on the side on top of each other. Put them on the right side, just above the 'Print Settings' window. We cannot resize the windows, be it the 'Print Settings' one of the 'Marketplace', except for the 'Preferences' pop-up. There is a notable delay between clicking on a setting and having the whole menu appear. I'd say about twice longer than with 3.6 or 3.4. Some more remarks in picture form: The dark gray bar at the top is mostly useless and wastes screen space but also forces us to do extra click to set up our cores, which is very annoying in the long run when you're testing things, changing materials and cores to evaluate print times and cost and try to determine the best ratio between those. Please put the settings for the print cores ('Enabled', 'Material' and 'Print Core') back into the 'Print Settings' window where it was before. About pricing calculation, even when hovering over the 'i' button, CURA will not calculate the total cost as it did in previous versions. Centering that gray bar is a bad idea: The Cura icon is removed from the tray when Cura is closed, and there's no lingering Cura process in the system, thanks for fixing this.

Look in previous pages on this thread, you'll see quite a few of them! ^^

More like copper than red anything! XD

You got it right. Inkscape converts mostly any picture format into an svg file, which is a vector based format, that you can then import on any 3D modeling program and turn into a mesh, thus allowing you to manipulate them, then export as an stl for printing. Being a windows user, I have no idea what program on macs are able to do the conversion to svg, but I'm sure there are programs that can do so.

I have no idea. The inkscape method works for me, it's strange that inkscape doesn't download on your mac.

Tinkercad isn't a photo manipulation program. You can use Inkscape for that, I gave you a method on a previous message with a link to a video that shows and explains it all. It's a quick and easy solution that takes less than 2 minutes to turn your JPG into a 3D file that you can then print using Inkscape and Blender, both are free programs.

I fully support that idea!

I believe I opted-out of every newsletter because that's essentially repeat information since I'm often on the forums. Will that be a problem? As a side-note, this is something I appreciate with UM: you send the information through various channels and don't just rely on only one way of communicating with your customers and the community.

Bonjour, Je te conseillerais de contacter ton revendeur ou Dagoma directement. Ce forum est consacré aux imprimantes Ultimaker, je ne suis pas sur que tu pourras avoir une réponse à ton problème.

@johnEclark65 What you describe is best done in a modeling program, scaling only part of a mesh requires many calculations and that's not what CURA is for. You're not supposed to be modeling anything in CURA. Besides, there is the 'Scale' menu in CURA that allows you to scale your models either along all three axis or just one or two, depending if you check or uncheck the 'Uniform Scaling' option, and you can set it either by percentage of the original size or give it a precise size by entering the length in millimeters yourself. If you know that the horseshoer is 5 millimeters thick in the original, and you cant it to be 10 millimeters thick, then that's a 200% increase along the Z axis, for example. The calculations aren't very difficult.

I agree with this. CURA should focus on being a very good slicer and not try to cross into modeling territory.

You're welcome @PapaSean, though I just repeated instructions provided on another topic, by someone from UM I believe. Though, sometimes, it's not easy to find a specific information on the forums. I don't really understand why that person is adding so many support blocker cubes instead of resizing them, especially since the model doesn't requires that much support in the first place and they do show that you can resize them in the video! This makes no sense to me...

Thanks, I'll give it a look.

Thanks all for your answers. To sum it up: - Put in a tolerance of 0.2mm to 0.3mm in the design, - No support is better, - Clean the hole afterwards with a metal thread or a drill the size of the screw. Looking a bit more closely at the design on Thingiverse, it would seem that there is no tolerance at all between screw and hole, thus the problems I have making them fit. I'm not yet at the stage where I can design stuff, still learning. Although, I'm using Blender and I've found add-ons that adds premade mechanical objects like screws and gear that you can then edit via a menu. I guess I'll have to give it a closer look soon. @geert_2 Teardrop shaped holes is an amazing idea!

There isn't one such setting as far as I know. You'll have to play with the settings in the Support menu. And maybe put in some support blocker for those last bits of support if they are really annoying or damaging for you. Make sure that you have all the settings visible by going to Preferences > Configure Cura > Settings and click on the small box next to 'Check All' until there's a tick mark in it. That way you'll have all the settings visible on the Print Setup window. It can be a bit overwhelming at first, but you find your way soon enough.

@Shadowman You are misinterpreting or misreading what I posted, but it's alright, written communication via forums comes with it's drawbacks. The only thing that I consider spam in what you posted are the several posts in this thread that only contains '???'. They add nothing to the conversation and serves no real purpose except to keep poking Ultimaker every few days, which is, in my opinion, completely unproductive. As for your other points: - SandervG is, for all intent and purpose, the spokeperson of UM on the forums. Why would other people from UM reach out to you when it is his job to be listening and answering to people here on the forums, which he did by replying to you several times, and he already gave all the information he could here, on this very thread? This makes no sense to me. - You're wrong on two points: SandervG did apologize for the inconvenience on his message on November 2nd on behalf of UM, using those very words, and there has been communication from UM since SandervG did communicate with you on this thread and others. So, while I can certainly understand your feeling about this whole situation; though I'd point out that how much you spent is irrelevant since I consider that a company should always deliver what they advertise whether you spent 10$ or 10 millions $, my feeling is that you are overreacting a bit. Patience is a virtue, it's been barely two weeks since SandervG informed you of the situation. UM obviously got caught by surprise with this problem, which can happen to any company, and they're looking into solutions. But don't expect them overnight. It's highly likely, in my opinion, that the aluminum plate won't be shipped before next year, and I'm quite sure that Ultimaker will offer some form of compensation for the inconvenience and the delays at this time, once they've solved their problems.

You're pointing out something that I knew but forgot and should have checked: whether the designer did leave a bit of a gap between screw and hole, or lid and box. I'll give a look at some of the stl I downloaded online to check this. Also, lid/box alignment is sometimes important and annoying when it doesn't match. I downloaded and printed a point counter for a game, better than writing and erasing on a sheet of paper or a dry erase board, and the misalignment is big enough that the arrows on both sides of the number wheels are not aligned when all the pieces of the counter are properly tightened. It makes reading the score a bit difficult since you don't read the same number depending on which arrow you're looking at... 🤔

I think you could get rid of those by playing with the Support Horizontal Expansion setting.

I've found this solution whihc requires Blender and Inkscape, both are free programs:

Hello, I'm looking for some advice on how to properly print screws and lids that can be screwed on a box or whatever. So far, when I print files found online from Thingiverse and such, the lid or screw printed at 100% will never fit correctly. I have to increase or decrease the size by 1% or 2% to make them fit, but it's always a guesswork so they often end up with too much slack. Plus there are sometimes alignment problems, for example the lid will not align properly with the geometry of the box, same with the top of the screw. I usually print them in PLA, but advice for every kind of material (except TPU and the like, a flexible screw makes little sense 😂) would be welcome. Thank you.

I'm not too sure what more facts you might want beyond what Sander posted on his message of November 2 explaining the last-minute problems they found with the aluminum plates, thus the delay, then his message from Friday explaining that they have not yet decided what compensation there would, if there is even one. There's little else to add unless I'm missing something? Also, trying to keep a thread on top with messages such as '???' is considered bad form and borderline spam in most places online. UM is acutely aware of the problem and it's consequences, poking them every few days serves no purpose.