AbeFM

I did/tried-to install it. I'm unable to import any parts since the reinstall of the plug-in. Do you have some suggestions to make this work again?

I've since loaded the new 0.5.0 version you'd linked me to, and I haven't had luck getting it to import. After getting the macro set up, removing and reinstalling the CURA add-in, everything looks like it works (SW will load CURA if initiated from SW, CURA looks like it runs SW as needed) after some waiting I get a window saying my file is in an invalid format. "Invalid File Failed to load <file-with-path>" Running : CURA 3.2, SW2016 SP3 WIN10 I get the same response for each of the four fine/course/print/SW choices in the dialog. This all worked on CURA 3.0 (and 3.1 I think), and the same install of SW. Can you point me in a good direction so I can get back to the topic of angular accuracy? :-)

Happy I found the right thread! I'd posted elsewhere about issues with the latest plug-in, specifically how the presets of "fine" and "course" aren't realistic, that we need better settings (typically done under custom) than are provided as default options. I see you have "prepare for printing" - I'm assuming this is orientation? - but I don't know if it will smooth out the steps. As posted in another thread ( ) I'll leave this as its own post.

I'm far from any pro, but I've used things like support inflate distance and support upper layer to help with things like that, in short you want support further up than just at the tip. Another option is to add some to the object itself.

Ashen, I believe I have seen this before - when 3.1 came out, I noticed the first couple models I loaded didn't sit on the bed properly - automatically "dropping" them drops them to the some imaginary plane, but nothing on the model. I've had some come in under the plane as well, I almost wasted half a roll of filament for a missing cm off a bigger model just now. :-) Anyway, uncheck the auto drop, and prepare for a world of frustration trying to get 100 micron accuracy placing the model on the bed. Sometimes it ignores the triad and just won't move the object till you grab "it" and not the triad - triad changes color but there's no reaction. Hope this helps, anyway! Try another model.

Is there a better thread to put feature suggestions in?

I'm actually going to push back on this - while the reasons may be in line with what yellowshark is saying, I have printed with the wrong nozzle installed and found it was a lot harder to get the prints to come out. If the setting is worth in putting in, it's worth making a bit more accessible than this one is. I could see the claim that many things are dependent on it, but I would like to see the setting more accessible.

I'm pretty sure it's a bug. Chill out and let's see if we can help them fix it. Losing my old settings is more impactful. The filament settings DID work if I just kept trying. Inexcusable in release software but something that is solvable.

Having messed with them, you may well want to try them all before using them on something big. Many of them have odd behaviors, I found the one that worked for me after trial and error.

When adding a material, and editing it., the window where I set the material properties will spontaneously disappear. I did this both from "create" and "duplicate". I thought it had to do with setting the spool mass (perhaps some divide-by-zero error), but editing any of the blanks seems to encourage it to 'crash'. The rest of the program functions fine. During this process, the added material may or may no appear on the material list. It may not appear there, but can be there the next time you open the list. After 3 failed attempts, I reloaded CURA and found the 3 materials there. I deleted them and was able to get one functioning. I know it's not a heck of a lot of info - I'm happy to help debug as I can if you have something for me to try. CURA 3.2.0, Win10, updated.

It isn't really fill that I'm after - that can increase the total wasted material, print times, etc. I'm looking for a way to improve printbed adhesion specifically and separately for supports.

Doing my first Tree supports, and mostly really liking it. I've noticed the outer edges have very fine detail, often under a line width, and the printer following these makes all sorts of racket. I have some aggressive accel settings, etc, but the rest of the print doesn't do this (small zig-zags being the exception). As you can see, there is a lot of detail in there which is so small that it hardly makes a difference that it is there. The segment in question (9 lines) could easily be reduced to 2 without changing anything about the support it applies. The uppermost layer/layers may well have stringent accuracy requirements, but the bulk of the tower could be smoothed to within 1-2 line widths without hurting the print. This would reduce file size, wear on printer, print times, etc etc. That's my take.

On "Tree", that's what I get, the only option is to add more walls. Even on regular support, I didn't get as much as I would like, I got a grid under my "zig-zag" support, but I'd like some inflation distance. Adding a Brim everywhere can lead to an ugly part, but looking at these little supports, you can see the huge lever arm they have to pry themselves off the bed with only a couple lines of adhesion. I've used a similar feature with other slicers and I can tell you from experience it can really save your bacon.

Just that, a "duplicate printer" setting would work, then I could change the nozzle size. Linked settings would be even better, so I can make a change across a collection of "printers".

Ah, looking in I found the following code (C:\Users\CaptainFantastic\AppData\Roaming\cura\3.2\plugins\CuraSolidWorksPlugin\CuraSolidWorksPlugin\SolidWorksConstants.py): class swUserPreferenceIntegerValue_e: swExportSTLQuality = 78 swExportStlUnits = 211 class swSTLQuality_e: swSTLQuality_Coarse = 1 swSTLQuality_Fine = 2 swSTLQuality_Custom = 3 I have a sense these would do what I want (even if I have to set settings in SW itself), but I'm not sure how?

When exporting STL's from SolidWorks, you get "Course", "Fine", or "Custom". While the line sizes are reasonable (Fine gives good detail), it does a terrible job on circles. Printing a blow off valve for a friend, the low angle tolerance even on fine setting assured that I had a triacontakaihexagon* instead of a circle which in turn meant my part didn't fit without encouragement. 50 um accuracy sacrificed on the altar of poor assumptions. I propose adding a "custom" setting to the plug in, I'd like to add to the current: Course (Deviation: 0.0397 mm Angle: 30*) Fine (Deviation: 0.0153 mm Angle: 10*) ...the following: Course (Deviation: 0.0250 mm Angle: 1.5*) I end up doing this manually now, exporting from SolidWorks each time - but I miss the tool, and I miss how much HDD space I save not having multiple copies of each model. Is anyone else seeing this or do they have a better way to deal with it? If there's a config file I can just put the numbers into, I would be very happy about it! *36 sided polygon (I had to look that up)

I change my nozzle relatively often, and right now I either have to edit the machine definition, or copy it. While I can see that a number of settings may be effected together with a nozzle change, recreating the printer settings 6 times is a pain. Could there be an easier way to select this from the print settings screen, or could a button "duplicate machine" be added to make it easier to create 6 identical printers which differ (at least on creation) only by nozzle size? Thanks again, CURA is awesome!

I'm really excited to try the new Tree settings - I've done some slicing and they look really great, and save a bunch of material. I've been hopping back and forth between CURA and some competitors as CURA lacks a feature I've suggested/seen implemented elsewhere: Adhesion settings specifically for supports. I would like to see a nice, inflated, near-solid raft under the supports while leaving the finished surface of my print unmolested on the bed. In the case of objects with good bed contact but tall support structures I often find myself knocking off a support tower due to the tiniest warping of the beginning of the part topping said support. Allowing a brim or a raft just in that area would be awesome. A possible work around would be exporting the generated support as an object, then importing it with different adhesion settings, but perhaps there is a better way?

When installing 3.2, I got an error about the config file, and CURA wouldn't run until I let it wipe out configurations. Is there an easy way to get all that back? I did find a saved project file from fairly recently, and that brought in many settings (filaments definitions and all) but that seems tied to the machine. Kinda a vague question, but any help would be appreciated - importing the few good settings from 3.1 would be awesome. Thanks!

I can select the "Tree Support Wall Line Count" but I cannot get it to show up as an edit I can make. I would like to try setting that option to "2". As I select Tree Support Wall Thickness the option appears and disappears in real time, and has no effect on the display of TSWLC.

Ah, I think I found it. There's a hidden setting: "Ignore Small Z Gaps" under "Shell" in settings. Clicking that fixed most of my issue.

Howdy folks! Getting back into Cura with the new release, tried printing an item ( https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1767851 ) with two parts meant to be unattached, separated by a small z-gap. I had real trouble getting the parts to separate (before I figured out how to single step the print-preview I couldn't tell it was bonded in the g-code). This won't embed, but click for a here pic I thought perhaps the issue was the oversized first layer, but even turning that off leaves the items joined. I tried the object in a couple competing slicer packages and they do not have this issue. What do I do? Thanks! -Abe

I've been an on-again-off-again CURA user for some time, trying out the new version, I have a couple insights: Could the center of rotation of the main 3D viewport be *within* the print volume? If not some sensible place like at the first surface the center of the view-port comes into, or the geometric center of the currently active model, then even the center of the print volume (or center of print surface) would help. When zoomed in (in this case trying to see if a defect in my print was in the slicing or the printing), it is very hard to inspect the surface up close. It's a non-trivial problem, but I think even a trivial solution would improve things. Perhaps I'm more alone in this than I realize, but I change my nozzle regularly, editing the printing profile is awkward. Adding a pull down for it would work. An alternative would be to link the printers as you do the materials - having a master printer profile, then several linked ones (for instance, one per nozzle diameter) would be a quick and easy way to deal with the problem. Right now I'm managing many parallel profiles and it's a bit cumbersome. It would be nice if we could prune, or hide, filaments we don't use plus-and-minus buttons on the layer sliders. I discovered that clicking on the number like you're going to type a new one, then using the arrow keys makes it easier to step one layer at a time, but it's less than obvious. This may be overkill, but it would be nice to have a flow compensation as a percentage - I have filament that flows a few percent over/under, and I can compensate by tweaking the filament's "diameter", but you've got a squared function in there that can make tweaking it a pain... And sometimes it's not from "diameter" but rather feeding anyway (tpu's, etc), and it would be nice to put it in there right by filament diameter, just multiply the two together.[\li] Thanks everyone!

Another item I find a little too hard to get to - nozzle size. Perhaps I'm more alone in this than I realize, but I change my nozzle regularly, editing the printing profile is awkward. Adding a pull down for it would work. An alternative would be to link the printers as you do the materials - having a master printer profile, then several linked ones (for instance, one per nozzle diameter) would be a quick and easy way to deal with the problem. Right now I'm managing many parallel profiles and it's a bit cumbersome. Per my previous post - and others' - just adding a "Beta" to the beta version icon would at least make the stable one easy to differentiate for when you're done testing and just want to print.

Is there a better place to put observations/suggestions/questions about the new software? It set up smoothly (aside from not realizing I still had the old beta floating around) and some new features were readily apparent out of the box. My suggestion: Could the center of rotation of the main 3D viewport be *within* the print volume? If not some sensible place like at the first surface the center of the view-port comes into, or the geometric center of the currently active model, then even the center of the print volume (or center of print surface) would help. When zoomed in (in this case trying to see if a defect in my print was in the slicing or the printing), it is very hard to inspect the surface up close. It's a non-trivial problem, but I think even a trivial solution would improve things. And in case I'm just clueless, am I just doing something wrong? Thanks!