jens3

How about something like a weekly build or even builds that are substantially improved? I would not (and did not) report bugs on a beta build that is 4 weeks old. Many bugs will have been reported by that time and will have been corrected in the current code base so anything I have to add is out of date. I guess it depends on your reason to release beta code - if you want input on bugs than intermediate releases are required. If you want people to see 'roughly' what is coming up then the single beta is fine. It should (says he who has no clue) be pretty easy to enforce that no time is wasted on any bug reports that do not include a complete enough version number to make your attention worthwhile (boiler plate message to supply version number in order to be able to respond). I would actually suggest a boiler plate response of 'During our beta program, code is updated on a frequent basis. Please install the most recent beta to get the latest code updates before reporting any bugs. Please confirm which beta version this bug report applies to in order for us to respond'. Don't look at it as 'support' but rather as extra eyes helping with input. It is (or should be) made pretty clear that a beta is not for production use and is liable to have significant issues. If you do not make current code available, you will potentially be wasting time responding to issues that have long been resolved. Like anything, there are positives and negatives to every choice ......

Thanks for the current build for Linux (20190116). I linstalled it and it seems much more refined than the official beta version. Well done ! While I have not had a chance to use things yet, I did poke around a bit and have a couple comments .... 1) The icons on the far right on the main screen (right under the Marketplace box) only turn on/off the settings box but don't seem to do anything else. I am assuming the code for these is not complete yet but just in case they are supposed to be working I thought I would mention it. 2) The second issue is something that has bothered me for a while and thought that with the new UI it would be something that could be 'fixed' . This might also be a situation where I just don't fully grasp things so please bear with me. In the center of the screen under the blue main banner is a box to indicate material choice. To the right of it is the selected profile. This works fine if for example I choose generic PLA and 'draft' as the profile but suppose I have a custom profile called 'PETG on glass' ? The material box still says generic PLA but he profile is now set up for PETG. To me this is very strange and counter intuitive although I do not have a magic solution to suggest at this point. Off hand it would seem that the material setting is irrelevant when you use a custom profile ?? Maybe there should be a way to select the material and then a profile just for that material (rather than being allowed a choice of all profiles. I don't know if that issue has come up before but I thought I should mention that the current setup is confusing to me. Edit: Also, if I change the material after having loaded a custom profile, nothing changes in the profile. This begs the question as to why that material selection is there if a different selection there does not change anything elsewhere. Edit #2: I just realized that the icons (see suggestion #1) are just there to give a quick view on important settings .... totally not clear to me at first glance.

That would be expected of daily/nightly builds by the very nature of the beast.

Just tried it and that box works as expected. Also, I tried 4.0 beta and the issue in the settings visibility box are working as expected as well! Thank you for your reply ! Also thanks for all your other replies with other issues, it is very much appreciated !!!

Is there a daily build image available ? The published version is the one from December and is too early for me - lots of issues that I am sure have been reported before. I don't want to be commenting on stuff that has already been sorted out or is old news.

Boy do I feel silly ... I went to that page but didn't scroll down far enough 😞 Thanks !!

It would appear that the beta is only available for Windows - is there a Linux 4.0 beta available someplace ?

I am not sure if it is a known issue or not but this was not an issue in 3.5.1 but is an issue in 3.6.0 under Linux: In Cura, settings menu, on the right side of the window you can select 'Basic', 'Advanced' and 'Expert' settings as well as 'Custom selection'. Anything chosen here will not alter the tick marks in the visibility selections. Also, after exiting the window and re-entering, the selected mode always returns as 'Custom selection' rather than the mode previously chosen. Using Ubuntu 18.10

Thank you, that makes perfect sense. Never thought about the mounting (or non mounting in this case) details.

Hmmmm .... an interesting question and one I had never thought about before. I will have to think about what I am actually doing for mounting. Currently the drive shows up in my 'files' browser as smb://computername/sharename. Thanks for giving me something to think about !

FWIW, I had this issue for the longest time. Today I upgraded to 3.6.0 and it would appear that all settings, profiles and everything transferred over exactly like it should. First time in many releases. I was a VERY happy camper !

Just a followup - it turns out that the lines I am seeing are wall lines of the model and at my knowledge level they are always straight lines that depend on proper support to squish into each other. Substantial improvement was obtained when printing without walls and 100% infill. Of course this had some negative effects on the outside of the model. In a wild leap of faith I completely changed the way the model was printed and I used tree support and got a very acceptable result.

When loading a new file into Cura for slicing, Cura will only see the local drives. I am running Cura under Linux and when displaying files in the file browser I see attached network drives but these do not show up under the Cura load dialog. Currently I go into the remote directory and drag the file into Cura. That works but is cumbersome. Is there a better way available ?

WoooHoooo!!! The first upgraded that has brought all previous setups, profiles visibility settings across! Thank you very much for improvimg the upgrade process!

The 0.1 mm resolution print came out quite nice ... on all surfaces except the surface that was giving me issues. It still prints as single lines instead of zig zag and the lines are quite messy. The support interface layer came out quite smooth and solid but as long as the lines are laid down parallel on the support, this thing isn't going to fly 😞 I don't know if the geometry is forcing individual lines or if I am missing some magic setting somewhere .

I tried printing slower, both increase and decrease in extruder temperature, more of a gap between support and model, less of a gap ... all without appreciable improvement. Early on in my tries I managed ts switch the support roof from parallel lines to zig-zag which improved the support surface by a very large amount but unfortunately did not help any with the finish on the model side. The model side is laid down as single parallel lines. I believe that the lines sag to meet the support and in some cases lightly stick to the support. Because we are talking very thin lines that have sagged and are not really held up by other lines higher up (or at least not much), these lines might stick to the support or the model causing a terrible finish. This is by no means the only issue ... the other issue is that the lines are not necessarily laid down parallel, even with a speed of only 20 mm/sec and because the lines are not supported they can move sideways causing more of a mess. This is all conjecture of course. Anyway, as I have mentioned, I managed to get the support structure roof to print in a zig zag pattern. The zig zag covers two parallel lines but it does give structure. I have been unable to produce a zig zag pattern on the model side ... it always comes out as parallel lines. I suspect that if I can get the mating surface to the support roof to also print in zig zag fashion then possibly I would see a good surface finish improvement. If anybody has a brilliant (actually even if it is not brilliant) idea as to how to force a zig zag, I would really appreciate it if you could share the method. Currently I have the support interface enabled with a thickness of 0.8 mm, a resolution of 0.1 mm, a density of 100% and with a zig zag pattern. The model has a top and bottom thickness of 0.6 with top/bottom pattern being zig zag and bottom pattern initial layer being zig zag as well. I do not know if I am missing any other settings to force a zigzag. Heck, I don't even know if is possible to force a zig zag because there is a slope and each line laid down would be laid at a slightly different height which probably prevents zig zag. I am fresh out of ideas as to what to try next 😞 Hmmm, I think I will try increasing the bottom thickness y a couple more layers just for the heck of it and while I am at it go from 0.2 mm / layer to 0.1 mm / layer

Thank you for the suggestions. I will try them all out tomorrow. This is driving me nuts, especially since the flat overhang prints perfectly in the same print! Unfortunately I only have a single extruder system ... but again, why do I get a perfect result on the flat portion of the print and then garbage on the sloped part. I would be happy (but disappointed) if I would get similar results on the entire underside, flat and curved - but the way it is printing one section fine one one section terribly bad has me feeling like somebody is sticking their tongue out at me and daring me to figure out why this is happening. I will design a smaller test object tomorrow as the original print takes about 16 hours 🙂 Going through all the support options tonight, the only possible issue I can see would be x/y support distance priority over Z support distance and I will check that out as well. Again, thanks for the suggestions!

33 views and no thoughts ? Anyone ?

I am fresh out of ideas as to what causes what I am seeing and more importantly, how to fix it. The attached picture shows the underside of a part that is printed with full support, a roof in the support. There is 0.4 mm gap between support and the model. There is a narrow strip on the far left that is on the glass build surface. The next section is maybe ten times the width of the part that sits on the glass. It is flat and when cura prints it it prints alternating 45 degree right lines and 45 degree left lines. It produces what I would call a perfect finish on the underside as you can see. The next / remainder section is where the problem shows. The model is no longer flat so Cura can no longer do the alternating 45 degree lay downs but it forced into printing individual lines and as you can see the entire thing goes to pot with a horrible and unacceptable finish. Not only that, but if you look at the area where the extruded filament changes from horizontal to vertical travel, the lines are not necessarily laid down right between each other. So, why do I get a perfect roof and an extremely messy roof section in the same print? What is going on and how can I fix it. It almost looks like the support is somehow too far away from the model but reducing the gap makes pulling the support impossible. BTW, this is printed in PETG, 250C extruder, 60 mm/sec speed. I can't see the temperature or speed to be the cause because I get a section of perfect finish which probably indicates that the parameters are correct. It seems to me that I must be missing a fundamental parameter on the roof support that shows up when the roof is not flat.

Just to follow up on this, if I remove the 3.5 folder (and the ~/.config/cura/3.5 folder) and start up 3.5.1, the folders are recreated but at a minimum the custom profiles do not get copied over nor do the extensions (z-offset and backup). There may be other stuff that doesn't get copied but I did not investigate beyong the profiles and extensions.

Thanks, I found all the profiles in the 'quality_changes' in 3.4 - that folder is empty in 3.5. Edit: I copied all the files in the 3.4/quality_changes to 3.5 and now have all the profiles available. I have not tested operation but it is looking promising. Automatic transfer of profiles would be nice of course .... but it looks like this will make 3.5 usable for me. Thanks !

Thanks, that explains that. Where are the user profiles located? This is the biggest issue as currently I would have to go into 3.4, export every profile, go into 3.5 and import every profile ...

I can confirm the existence of ~/.local/share/cura 3.4 and 3.5 folders .... HOWEVER, some 3.4 folders (ie setting-visibility) are empty when I expected to see stuff. Could I have somehow changed the location of these files? I did not see any custom profiles - where would these be kept ? Log is attached cura.log

Am I the only one running Cura under Ubuntu and not seeing any attempts of the new install trying to carry stuff over from the old install ? Maybe I am doing something fundamentally wrong ... I seem to recall that several versions back the setup and profiles were carried across. About all I do is download the appimage file, set the executable bit and run the file - should I be doing anything else ?

Based on previous experiences, I consider any x.x.0 an alpha release and x.x.1 a beta release. A lot of times the beta version works well enough, especially with the user community having come up with work around's. While I am firmly in the house of 'I want the product t be stable rather than having fancy new features', I must admit that every time a x.x.0 release comes around I am like a kid in a candy store and load it up, just to be disappointed and saying to myself 'next time wait for x.x.1 dummy'. You'd think I would learn but alas ...... I think re-naming should go a long way towards letting people know that if you are running a business do not work with the latest. I also believe there should be at least one more version , x.x.5, that is strictly a bug fix issue without new features. If .0 is Alpha, .1 is Beta then .5 should be considered the actual release. It is nice to see .1 shortly after .0 as a 'we have fixed show stoppers'. .5 should come well down the road when the development team has had the time to catch up with things.