Shadowman

A very well thought out and presented proposal. I agree with you and think that such a program would as a byproduct create the basis for one; being business or hobbiest to contribute to the ongoing development when compared that which you personally experienced in past and many; including myself experienced with the deployment of Ultimaker Cura 3.5 afterwhich albeit desirous of we are extremely reluctant to participate as such contribute to new deployments. In my opinion this was a great suggestion. Thank you.

I appreciate your clarification of my position. Yes, Tree Supports are experimental as such “use at your own risk”; this was clearly defined and understood. With you and the development team having eliminated the popup issue; I thank you.

I for one; thank you for your ongoing effort to share as able with the development team to insure that this is corrected. Takes care.

Your comment is interesting but carries no weight with me. As a business using a product targeted for a business that I am told is ready for prime time I expect “nothing” less. Your comments set the stage for acceptance at a level that is unacceptable. For example; when you go to update your firmware it states whether a tested stable version or in testing as such you can make a conscious decision. In the case with Ultimaker Cura 3.5 we were told that it was not only ready for prime time but encouraged to load it via the pervasive pop-up when opening any previous version of Ultimaker Cura. If the chain of events as assiciated with this deplyment caused you no issues and or concerns then I suspect that your printer is not depended upon during the course of your business. I do respect your position however, let me make “very” clear that the premature deployment of Ultimaker Cura 3.5 caused me significant issues with us initially believing that we had secondary issues that we spent 2 days attempting to fix until we realized that the culprit was “exclusively” Ultimaker Cura 3.5. If this is not understood by you then no words conveyed by me will make my position more clear. I do suspect that many lessons have been learned and I also expect that future deployments will have much more consideration given as such will be as they should be; stable and fully functional on the core level. Three things; 1. Remove that pervasive pop-up within earlier versions encouraging one to udate. 2. If features are not fully tested within the program then so note it such as was the case with Tree Supprts. 3. Make darn certain that the core tools within are fully functional such as “Breakaway Support”; this one being broken and the subsequent casual it should be fixed by Ultimaker Cura release 3.5.6 completely dumbfounds and troubled me. I do appreciate the comments as shared by the many that have been affected while also appreciate the development teams work. Like everyone else I look for this to be an anomaly; albeit a significant one that we all learn from. Developers, slower fully tested deployments. Users, consider any deployment as beta until you confirm that within your world it performs as needed.

It remains my opinion that you and others should be given significant notice of such a drastic change and frankly, accommodated because believing that a business can simply and spontaneously make a change is naive regardless of the cost as cost is not the only variable. As I stated earlier; many companies personally developed software is tied to a specific operating system; take for example Microsoft and Windows XP; the transition period has been years with many companies still not fully transistioned yet. Some of this is as the direct result of the time required to write new software and fully test it before deployment. No matter; one can not be presented with an upgrade path; particularly for a business without a comprehensive understanding of the “cause and affect”. It simply can’t be done blindly. Release notes are pivotal. For what it’s worth; I had lengthy conversations with Ultimaker about how the mindset and manner of doing business would have to change significantly if they are to successfully penetrate the business market as the leaders when compared to the hobbiest market which is far more forgiving. I was assured that such was discussed at length and integrated into their long term business development program.

nallath You comment by comment reply is appreciated. It is obvious that developers care and want only to present software advances and improvements and for this I thank all of you. Having shared this I share the following; I watched as issues were presented and even went so far as to share that I was not experiencing the same as encouragement to others until I experienced the same issues. I then commented and continued to read as more and more folks shared their frustrations during which no one from Ultimaker (that I am aware of) engaged as such the situation spiraled downhill. Yes; my printer was effectively “bricked” on Ultimaker Cura 3.5 as I presented a screen shot earlier; the same one that I include now which was experienced by many others too. With regards to the manner in which I presented; very mechanical but certainly not in an angry demonstrative way. Was frustration conveyed; absolutely as I was now experiencing that which I have for years and never expected when I committed to the Ultimaker S5. As for Ultimaker Cura 3.5; I still say that the deployment was a disaster if for no other reason than the fact that it took so long for anyone from Ultimaker to engage but rather it appeared to be left to fester and grow. Now to Ultimaker Cura 3.5.1; the deployment of it was also in my opinion a mess as the end users was left to use it and determine if the patch fixed their specific issue or not; breakaway support as a great example. Breakaway support material along with PVA are a fundamental part of the core marketing of the Ultimaker 3 and S5 as such to simply say; it will be addressed in Ultimaker Cura 3.6 left me shaking my head; when is Ultimaker Cura 3.6 to be released; no answer expected. It remains my opinion that Ultimaker Cura 3.5/3.5.1 are not ready from prime time; this is a program under development as such and at best, a “beta” version. Just reading the numerous and diverse issues and then the workarounds being presented as a “stop gap” measure is more than enough to make this obvious. There is no shame in saying; ugh, in all the excitement to present many cool and exciting features and enhance we prematurely deployed Ultimaker Cura 3.5/3.5.1. And then finish it and redeploy it. However, if fir whatever reason Ultimaker Cura 3.5/3.5.1 is to remain as “deployed” then ........ Proactively the Ultimaker Team should acknowledge the known issues as SandervG eluded to earlier and make clear what was tended to within the initial Ultimaker Cura 3.5.1 patch along with a clear sharing of when the remaining issues will be tended to. Hence my earlier comment about stopping the deployment of Ultimaker Cura 3.5/3.5.1 because I don’t think the roadmap has began defined. It is as if once Ultimaker Cura 3.5 was deployed the only logical step was to begin patching; this scenario is not unique to this situation as many companies i.e., Microsoft, Apple, do this is all the time nonetheless, it is ridiculous. Now if this is being to strong on the Ultimaker Development Team then please accept my apology as I made very clear that I did not and do not see this as the direct responsibility of this team but rather something that Ultimaker needs to review because deployment practices such as this can be and often are, very damaging as they bring “trust” into question. Again I want to make “very” clear; if I did not care I would not create the time to participate within this situation. Mentally and financially I committed to Ultimaker and look for more great things to come but want, as do many others; for situations such as this to be accepted, learned from, and not repeated. In closing; Here in part is why folks such as myself committed to Ultimaker; and it had nothing to do with price but rather, the belief in where Ultimaker is today, the forward vision, and that which I referred to as the total package which is referred to by Ultimaker as “ecosystem” derived of the hardware, Ultimaker Cura, and hand selected and extensively tested filaments with printing profiles. The 3D printer that anyone can use within a typical business environment and not an expensive novelty item. I offer no apology for my participation within this issue nor for my lengthy posts but rather only if I offended someone along the way as this was “never” meant to be. From Hobbyist to Professional 3D Printing Kawola explained that the Ultimaker 3 was the company’s big step toward professional 3D printing, with the S5 meant to take that progression further. Whereas the Ultimaker 2 was popular among 3D printing enthusiasts, both the market and the company have since been transitioning toward professional applications. “It’s a feedback loop that continues to swirl around,” Kawola said.“Our first iteration of printers, the Ultimaker 2 and Ultimaker 2+, were pretty good. Then the market would ask for things like more materials and consistency and accuracy. We saw that there was a real opportunity there and guided our product development accordingly. The market has, in a lot of ways, pulled companies like Ultimaker into the professional space.” Discover the easy-to-use desktop 3D printer with a large build volume that delivers accurate, industrial-grade parts, time and again. With simple setup, high uptime, and reliable dual extrusion, Ultimaker S5 is the complete professional 3D printing solution. Ultimaker materials are extensively tested to give the best results on the Ultimaker S5. And Ultimaker Cura software comes with preconfigured profiles, so you don’t need to spend time on complex slicing settings. Make 3D printing a smooth process by using an integrated ecosystem of software products designed to work seamlessly with each other. With high speed Wi-Fi and LAN connectivity built directly into the Ultimaker S5, regular firmware updates, with new features and improvements, will enhance the printer’s capabilities over time. Ultimaker Cura ensures a seamless workflow. Prepare prints, send them to the printer wirelessly, and monitor jobs remotely using the printer’s integrated camera. Learn more about Ultimaker Cura. Scale up your operations with confidence using Cura Connect. Queue jobs, manage multiple Ultimaker S5 and Ultimaker 3 printers, and maintain a full overview of your operations so you can efficiently meet demand. Learn more about Cura Connect.

Perfect!!! and thank you for sharing your successful conclusion. Which version of Ultimaker Cura? Enjoy!!

I won’t speak to the ability to improve one software while maintaining its ability to operate within another however, as my previous posts makes clear; release notes should make clear compatibility changes so as to insure one is not blindsided; or worse. Marketing products into the business world is much different than the consumer world with many companies maintaining operating systems for many many years because their proprietary software is often developed around it so the idea of saying; well; you need to update your company’s operating system in order to continue using the products you purchased from us is a not realistic nor a viable path. Blind deployments; meaning deployments without release notes can not be the norm as many have made clear; the Ultimaker printer is a component of their business.

An interesting series of posts. Let me begin by making very clear that I care as do many many others. If I did not I would not spend the time as I have involved with various aspects as associated with forum and Ultimaker. First and foremost I appreciate SandervG's replies as presented by Ultimaker. Now there were a couple replies that referenced previous comments that were and in my opinion there were presented out of context but rather that cut and paste a bunch of quotes I will do my best to convey my thoughts in a single series of thoughts. To begin with; in my opinion deploying "Ultimaker" Cura 3.5.1 was a mistake. Yes, I have been active in software development for plus 35 years and contrary to replies that were made the release of "Ultimaker" Cura 3.5 was not comprehensively tested; period. I suspect that independently many modules and add-on features were developed, tweaked, and tested however, once compiled as a solo package it was not. Again, this is only my opinion because "if" truly tested many of the bugs simply could "not" have been missed. Furthermore, I participated within numerous threads and within at least one I made clear that bugs are a byproduct of software development; meaning that all software has something that can be construed as a bug. This was not a deployment with bugs but rather an untested deployment that in my opinion created a significant cause for concern for many including the inherent trust of the developer which in this case is Ultimaker being at the top of the list. It does not matter how many folks and or at what level they contributed to this deployment as the proverbial buck began and ended with Ultimaker. My position remains as it was; this is an Ultimaker forum and any issues as related to other printers that use the "free" version of the Cura software (albeit the same) are moderately interesting at best. I purchased the Ultimaker printer; specifically the S5 and expect the operation of the Ultimaker printers to be the concern and frankly; not the other brands. If as a byproduct of the Cura software others are able to use it for free then the only caveat should be presented to them; "designed and tested" on our Ultimaker products as such use it at your own risk. Is this is a bold and less than compassionate comment; "no" as many including myself paid for the Ultimaker Cura and software. The idea that Ultimaker customers received it for free is both not true and in my opinion a shallow pert near ridiculous way to side step the responsibilities associated with it. I spent weeks speaking with many folks within and associated with Ultimaker prior to purchasing the S5; a printer that in my opinion takes 3d printing to the next level. It was the first printer that I received and removed from the box. plugged it in, and created a successful print having to do nothing more that load, slice, and print. To say the least I was elated. Yes, there were questions and a couple minor issues however, nothing that I considered significant and even more so; all questions and concerns were answered and or tended to quickly often my members within this forum. For plus 5 years; like many I have been involved with 3d printing during which much of the time was spend using it as a hobby as the consistency of the 3d printing was often a crap shoot at best. Yes we used them within our business however, it was always an effort with the results far less than consistent and dependable. I discussed this at length with Ultimaker as this was and frankly remains, my number one concern. I was assured that the Ultimaker 3 and S5 was truly ready for prime time. That when the Ultimaker hardware used with the Ultimaker private label NFC filament in concert with their Ultimaker Cura software it was a reliable consistent "package". So to make clear for those reading my thoughts for the first time; it is because of this solicitation and my belief in Ultimaker that I stroked a check for roughly $8K USD for the S5, spare parts such as Print Cores, build plate, fans, retainers, etc. as well as many rolls of the Ultimaker NFC filament. I can comfortably say that if all wanted was a nice 3d printer I could have purchase many of them for this price. I share this to make clear; I was not drawn to price nor measurable value but rather; I was willing and did pay for the behind the scenes development costs along with the assurance that I was not purchasing "another" 3d printer that was still being made ready for primetime. If this was not something that Ultimaker was able to assure me then I was prepared to wait until such a product came to market. Now back to the deployment of Ultimaker Cura 3.5 and my comment about how deploying Ultimaker Cura 3.5.1 was a mistake; deploying Ultimaker 3.5.1 was in my opinion a knee jerk reaction rather than a fully feted deployment as is evidenced by the comments made immediately after it was deployed; ridiculous. This reminds me of Apple years ago; a cloaked released that immediately brought with the same and or more issues. Once comment alone left me having to read it more than once; "the breakaway support issue could not be resolved but will be in 3.6"; what the heck. I don't care if it's not fixed but don't tell me 3.5.1 fixes known issues (which this is one) only to have to find out that it has not been fixed followed by "ooops" it will be fixed later. No Ultimaker Cura 3.5.1 should have been released but rather Ultimaker Cura 3.5 should be taken down and the list of the known bugs which could be presented as features and issues being working while in beta. At this moment the deployment of Ultimaker Cura 3.5 was a disaster and with the deployment of Ultimaker Cura 3.5.1 it is in my opinion worst because trust and credibility will diminish rapidly as the result of deploying failed patches. I encourage all to stop and take a deep breath while regrouping. Begin by removing access to Ultimaker Cura 3.5 as well as the pervasive Ultimaker Cura 3.5 update popup within the earlier versions of Ultimaker Cura; and frankly in the future do "not" make any upgrade notification pervasive. I can read it once and if I opt to update I will however, having that greet me every time I load the program is unnecessary and annoying. Typically I would say yo simply withdraw the Ultimaker Cure 3.5/3.5.1 and go inti a comprehensive testing routine however, I dare say that there are credibility and trust issues at stake as such I would likely become and remain an open book throughout this process. ***** Share the list of acknowledged issues features being developed so that if something is missed it can be acknowledged ***** Agree to what will be corrected; meaning establish a known plan ***** Complete the comprehensive beta testing ***** Present the list of all that was done that differentiates the "tested" release from Ultimaker Cura 3.4.1; for example; if the new version will no longer work with specific "operating system" this fricken darn well better be shared. ***** Deploy while encouraging folks to try it along side the version they are using to make certain that there are at best isolated incidents when compared to that which happened with the deployment of Ultimaker Cura 3.5/3.5.1. In addition; I believe that there are far too many thin skinned individuals that worked relentlessly to create Ultimaker Cura 3.5. I say this because it appears that because they put forth significant effort that they feel the crappy deployment should somehow be overlooked as evidenced by comments such as "bashing"; not a chance. I for one trusted all of you and blindly updated my program only to have my printer effectively bricked until I went back to Ultimaker Cura 3.4.1. Seems like folks such myself are owed the apology and appreciation shown for our tolerance of this situation as we had "no" control over it. For example; I use the S5 within our business and last Friday with prints in the "Q" I was shut down because of Ultimaker Cura 3.5 as was the situation for many others. In any case; I do not see this as a developer issue nor a tester issue but rather a Ultimaker issue which in this case is a team as such "no" one person or group. I see this as a significant lesson for Ultimaker and look forward to quality future deployments. In closing; In my world of software development the developers are "not" the testers "and" unless an agreement is reached; our customers are "not" our testers. The primary responsibility of a tester is to validate that "all" systems operate as designed and solicited while to some degree trying to make the software crash by introducing all sorts of variables so this does not happen to the customer. This involves not simply loading the UI and saying "see it works" but rather clicking on "every" button to see the various variables and functions come into play. Then add to this the process needs to be repeated on "every" operating system that it is be intended and even more so; solicited to be used on. In this case; Windows 7-10 (including the various versions of Windows 10) as well as Macintosh and its numerous operating systems.

Great write up !! Thank you

I agree that the thread can have value however, I think the pervasive issue is Ultimaker deploying software as “ready for prime time” rather than as a “beta”. Certainly I can and will share issues as evidenced and yet Ultimaker and the Cura development team need to create a comprehensive testing routine supported by those desirous and willing to participate. I certainly don’t have time to do so; I have been doing so for years with numerous 3D printers which is why I stroked the big check believing that I was now simply an “owner and user” of a proven package and not a member of the development team. Albeit different; I don’t purchase a new car expecting to be the tester, I don’t purchase paper printer expecting to be a tested, etc.. When I make a purchase I evaluate many things including what I am willing to pay for a product and or service some of which is what I feel it took to bring it to market i.e. the development costs. You see; I wasn’t looking for the lowest price or best value but rather the best product; one that I can trust and use without making the operating of it a full time job. When anyone makes the decision to invest in a Ultimaker product; particularly the last 2 offerings; the 3 and S5 then it is Ultimaker’s resonsibity to do as needed to make certain that it arrives ready to perform as solicited “without” an unspoken caveat about how everyone is doing their best. This is what Ultimaker told me and blindly I trusted them. Now I can’t speak for others and yet I can reiterate that we invested roughly $8K for a S5 with spares and materials; an amount that most certainly puts this printer in a non hobbiest catagory. Again; I see value in thread as long as it is not created with the expectation that those that purchased the printers are now somehow responsible for the ongoing development of the associated software. As if to say; “hey” you purchased it and now you expect it to work; LOL without your help this can’t happen. I am purposely being blunt because the issue is being placed in-part on the backs of the owners of the Ultimaker printers; at least this is part of what I read. Again I say; where is Ultimaker’s Official statement?

Absolutely!!!!!!! We are on the exact same proverbial page. This needs to be convey and understood by Ultimaker or ......... they need to.. Present their products as simply another printer within the world of ever testing 3D printers and significantly reduce the prices. I for one could care less about the name aka the lapel pin; I simply want to send a sliced item to a printer and whether hours or as is often the case; days later, remove the completed print; period. If I opt to test widgets such as plugins I will do so on my own time “if” so desired while assuming all associated risk. I believe that Ultimaker presents a wonderful albeit comparatively expensive package; a package that many including myself stroke the check for because of the “package”. I made clear that we bought into the package and “not” the printer which included the much higher priced private labels filament because it is part of the plug and play package as solicited. Having dealt with fussy and less than consistent 3D printers while growing tired of them and after “much” consideration I purchased the S5. The printer has presented some wonderful finished multi day prints with the addition of PVA allowing us to expand our horizons on a grand scale. Thank you again for your comments. Now in my opinion; Ultimaker as a team need to open a new thread and acknowledge the situation and make clear their plan. Add to this; an apology would be well received.

I appreciate the clarification; thank you As stated I thought there was. Takes care

No.... absolutely not!!! If Ultimaker wants to be the standard then whether consumer or professional the exact same concern and commitment is required. Now if they want to expand their development team and beta program then I support this however, once the printer is placed in a box and shipped it damn well better be ready for prime time. I can’t afford to play games with the system and for others they simply don’t want to and even more so; many being introduced to the 3D printing world have not a clue; it works... or it doesn’t. A fairly easy concept to understand.

This is a Ultimaker forum and the Ultimaker printer is sold with “Ultimaker” Cura and as interesting as issues with other printers maybe; I don’t care. As I recall; Cura used to have a Ultimaker Cura version and the Cura version. The idea being that the Ultimaker Cura version likely did not have all the latest tweaks because it was the throughly tested version and if you have wanted them you had to use the Cura version and effectively become part of the beta program; this appears to have changed. As shared by others; I did not purchase a mechanical box referred to as an S5 but rather a printer with Ultimaker Cura as the operating system. Your comment makes no sense; it was akin to one purchasing a laptop and with Windows and told but use can use Linx or? The fact that the printer was sold with Cura as the operating system is all that is being discussed. Lastly; you are correct. Ultimaker Cura 3.4.1 seems to work fine this too is not the issue; the issue is we were encouraged; infact directed to upgrade to Ultimaker Cura 3.5 and then after a lengthy process of dealing with the issues opted to go back to Ultimaker Cura 3.4.1. Ultimaker should be telling everyone to roll back, remove access to 3.5, and aggressively working with the developers to fix the program. You “don’t” seem to be troubled by the fact that many, including myself, were presented with a mess but rather, you are trouble because we express our frustration based on “realistic” expectations and solicitation by Ultimaker. For what it’s worth; if the S5 had been presented with Ultimaker Cura 3.5 rather than Ultimaker Cura 3.4.1 there is no doubt that we would have sent it back however, it is because we had great success with Ultimaker Cura 3.4.1 that this was never considered. Ultimaker Cura 3.5 reminds me of all the BS we dealt with for years; effectively a undependable novelty item that has no place in our business. Having shared all this; I do respect your opinion even though I find them illplaceed and odd.

Well stated. The software as associated with the purchase of an Ultimaker is not free but rather bundled with the printer. The printer is being marketed as a total package; printer, software, NFC filament, service items, etc. When the original Ultimaker was sold the idea of free open source software was an acceptable and frankly accepted situation however, with the Ultimaker 3 and the S5 that I purchased this is no longer the case as these printers are sold at comparatively speaking; a significant market premium because they are presented as the total package. How and if Ultimaker compensates developers is unknown to me and frankly of little concern and yet I hope that they are compensated well. In fact, more than hope; they darn well better be as the software; Ultimaker Cura, is akin to the motor in a car for the average person and without it the printer is at best; a novel mechanical box. The reference to “free” can only be applied to those that use Cura as a slicing tool for “non” Ultimaker printers. Use Ultimaker’s private labeled filament with the NFC chip as a solo example; when we purchased the S5 we also purchased roughly 15 rolls of Ultimaker private labeled filament. We did so knowing and accepting the fact that the same material (Ultimaker is not a filament manufacturer) was available at a “much” lower price but without the Ultimaker label and NFC integration. We discussed it internally as well as with Ultimaker and did so because of the software aka Ultimaker Cura that was presented to us as a throughly tested platform so we could truly operate pert near plug and play when ment that anyone could use the printer. If I wanted to set temps, speeds, etc. as we did for years we would not have stroked a check for over $8K USD for the printer, spares such as Print Cores, hot end fan, build plate, many rolls of Ultimaker’s private branded NFC filament, etc. but rather contunued using what we have. Yes, we have developed software for 35 plus years and bugs are part of the routine however, untested deployments of software are unacceptable. Being told that the core Cura Team is extremely experienced however, some of the recent additions to the team not so much is no excuse for a poor deployment. Test... test... test.. monitor.. and if needed quickly respond. The fact that Cura 3.5 is still being pushed and no apologies shared but rather people seem to be “butt hurt” but the comments is in my opinion; dumbfounding. In my case turning the printer on and being able to depend on it is pivotal as is the case with numerous other businesses. For us; it is no longer a hobby but rather a tool for which we made the conscience decision to purchase at a price much higher that a hobby printer and we certainly did not agree to be a part of a beta program; in fact m; we were never asked. Ultimaker shows OEM’s such as VW as using their printers; do you think for a moment that they would find such a chain of events acceptable; not a chance and even worse; Situations such as this scare prospective customers away and deminish the overall value and confidence of 3D printing. So back to the word “bashing” of the devoplers; I did not see “bashing” but rather a laundry list of issues being openly shared along with understandable frustration; mine included. In my opinion; Ultimaker and their Cura developement team should be saying “thank you” for believing in us and purchasing our product followed by “we are sorry” and we will endeavor not to have this situation repeat. Humiltity goes along way.

Hi Arturas Based on what you shared you should be able to send files by your network “and” see your camera feed within your network both on your computer and phone. If you can send a file but not see camera feed then based on what I have read either the camera cable came loose during shipping or is defective. At the top right corner of Cura there is a arrow down icon; click on it and does your printer show? Confirm whether you can send a print file from Cura to your printer via network.

My experience has been the same because once the build plate cools the PLA comes off easy which is why I let the build plate cool before removing the print; particularly if a delicate print. Regardless, people find all sorts of personal tweaks that work for them and in this situation Redslifer was presented with a change with Cura 3.5 that he was not anticipated.

I appreciate your insight; as Bigbrit said; we both certainly glanced over that bold notation when reading the release. As for the distributor’s comments; they were simply sharing what they thought was to be. Once you made clear it was over a month out we made some print scheduling changing. It’s all good as the ability to use alternative materials in the near future is exciting. Thank you

When you look at your network configuration on the printer what does it say, for example; ”connected to the the SSID of your network? or ”unknown network”

Never used this product but the information on it sounds great; generally we don't need anything and when needed a little glue stick has typically worked. If real concerned we will print a raft to give a large based to build upon. Thank you for the suggestion.

Not knowing what he is setting it to do I can only speculate. Apparently he is experiencing differing characteristics between Cura 3.5 and 3.4.1. For myself when printing as an example; the bed warms and stays warm throughout the print I “think” to so as to maintain a stable thermal environment throughout the layers as the item is being printed while also promoting adhesion. Once the print is completed I remove the glass build plate and let it cool after which the printed piece is easily removed.

Nor did I because I believe the release date was added after the original informational text was released. If this was not the case then my distributor and their buyer would never have told me the 15th. For what it’s worth I already have CC Print Cores in my order “q” to be shipped upon receipt of them. I was disappointed to read that we are at least another month out. With regards to initial release of new materials to be released as associated with the CC Print Core, NFC coding, and default print setting within Cura; someone must know but all I get is “mums” the word. In my last material order I added some NylonX because I want to try the carbon fiber filament and then after speaking with the distributor removed it because I firmly expect private label aka Ultimaker branded filaments to be released at the same time. Like you I would like to know as it would allow us to prepare and maybe even forgo a few present prints projects until alternate products are released.

I am glad that that you took the time to share your experience. I dare say that many will not nonetheless, the issues as associated with Cura 3.5 as shared by many including myself are in my opinion, extreme and inexcusable. I just reinstalled Cura 3.4.1 on the 3rd machine and when opened the first thing you are greeted with is Cura 3.5 is available. I have said before that it remains my opinion that the encouragement to update to Cura 3.5 needs to be removed and Cura 3.5 taken down entirely until fixed and then redeployed.

Based on all that I have read within this forum and others, I can comfortably say; yes.