burtoogle

Hi @ahoeben, I've seen this fix mentioned a couple of times recently, would it make sense for Cura on closing to either detect when those lines should be deleted because there's more than one monitor or just delete them anyway?

Hello @uloxer. I'm afraid I can't answer your question as the printers I use don't have Linear Advance. They do have what I think is a similar feature (it's called pressure advance) but I don't use that either! I think that the only way to find out is by experiment. Good luck!

Sorry, I'm not really the right person to answer that, here's some general info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_(geometry)

I managed to upgrade my ancient MacBook Pro to MacOS 10.13 (High Sierra) and can now build experimental Cura releases for that platform again. Please note that the builds will not run on earlier versions of OS X / MacOS. Support for multi-threading has been enabled in the slicer so that should reduce slicing times for large/complex models. As always, the builds are supplied with no warranty, YMMV. All feedback is welcome, please add to this thread if you have anything (good or bad) to report. You can find the releases at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s43vqzmi4d2bqe2/AAADdYdSu9iwcKa0Knqgurm4a?dl=0, the README.md file in there tells you about what's in the releases.

The problem is with the model's normals. You can fix this in Cura by installing the mesh tools plugin from the marketplace, selecting the model and then using the extensions -> mesh tools -> fix model normals menu item. Hope this helps.

Hello @cHubbz, please save the project file (File -> Save) and attach the resulting .3mf file to this thread so it can be investigated. Thanks.

I have submitted the PR(s) for these changes. All we can do now is wait...

If I remember right, someone (maybe @SteveCox3D) has tried that filament with gyroid infill? Unfortunately, I can't remember the outcome.

I doubt very much they will be integrated into Ultimaker's releases any time soon. What happens is that I can submit a pull request (PR) asking for the changes to be incorporated. At some point in the future the Cura developers will look at the PR and either reject it outright for some reason, or they may request changes. When they are happy they will merge the PR into their source code and assuming that it works OK, the new features will appear in the next release. So far so good, the problem is that PRs can hang around for many months before they get around to looking at them. I currently have 18 PRs in the queue. Some are trivial and some fix (IMHO) important bugs. One is now almost a year old. I have other changes that I really would like to submit as PRs but, quite frankly, I can't see them ever being accepted because they are simply not getting through the backlog. I've gone past the point of being pissed off, I just accept it now and no longer care whether they use my PRs or not. Anyway, just to show willing, I will submit a PR for these changes and then I can say I've done my bit.

You should understand that changing the infill vertical scaling doesn't alter the amount of filament used compared to the un-scaled version. What differs is the paths the filament takes. It will only save you weight if by using scaling you can reduce the infill density required.

I'm not sure which changes you are referring to. I've made so many changes to many parts of Cura. To see how they are different. Clone my CuraEngine repo and then compare the mb-master branch to the master branch and you will see all the stuff I have changed. I just did that and the diff contained 4845 lines!

Thanks. Sorry, I won't be implementing the non-planar slicing feature because I think it would be a lot of effort for rather dubious benefit. In my mind it has novelty value but little else. If you want to print non-planar, you need a printer with more degrees of freedom so the nozzle can always been normal to the surface being printed.

Here's an example...

Thanks for the image (very creative), I understand now what you want. I have implemented a new setting called Infill Vertical Scaling. Default is 100%. Larger values stretch the infill pattern vertically, smaller values shrink the pattern vertically. Not sure how much use it is except if one is being "artistic". Will be in build 0914 available on dropbox soon.

Yes, that's right, the model has problems. Install the cura mesh tools plugin from the market place and you will see this when you load the model...

Hi, thanks for the file. Using the no-skin combing mode should avoid any un-retracted travels over air. This model is difficult to print well as it is because it has a curved wall on layer 88 that should be supported but it isn't recognised as a bridge because the individual line segments are shorter than the minimum bridge wall length. Even if you reduced the min bridge wall length it still wouldn't print well because bridge walls have to be straight lines, you can't have an unsupported curved line! The best solution would be if the model itself provided support which could be removed after printing.

Hello @KHANtech, I have implemented the Infill X/Y Offset and Infill Line Directions settings for gyroid infill. If you want to try them out you will need to install one of my future Cura builds (Linux and Windows only). My next release which will probably be later today will have these changes. You can find my releases at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s43vqzmi4d2bqe2/AAADdYdSu9iwcKa0Knqgurm4a?dl=0 Here is a cube whose gyroid infill has been rotated 12 degrees... I still don't understand your 3rd request about scaling in Z.

Hello @joecap5, I'm afraid that is what you get when you use the thin wall setting in Ultimaker's Cura. There are two ways you can get around this: 1 - turn off the thin wall setting and then reduce the line width until the wall is printed using "non-thin" walls. You should then ensure that the wall overlap compensation is enabled and set the min wall flow to something > 30%. This may require the wall line width to become thinner than optimal and so you would be better off going for option 2 (read on). 2 - download and install one of my Cura releases (Linux and Windows only) that does the thin walls differently and it should handle your example with ease. These releases can be installed alongside the Ultimaker releases. You can find them at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s43vqzmi4d2bqe2/AAADdYdSu9iwcKa0Knqgurm4a?dl=0 There's a README file in there that explains how my Cura differs from Ultimaker's Hope this helps.

It looks like that circular part has thin walls. You could try enabling the print thin walls option but that doesn't always do a good job. Alternatively, reduce the wall line width enough so that the walls on the circular part are created, enable the overlap compensation and set the minimum wall flow to something like 50. Hope this helps.

Hi, as the implementer of the gyroid infill, I can answer your questions.... Yes, that would be possible. Almost certainly possible but may require quite a lot of coding, I would need to look into that. I can't picture how that would work. Can you provide a graphic showing how you imagine it would be?

Because when the wall compensation isn't checked, all wall flows are 100%. It's the wall overlap compensation that reduces the wall flows.

Hello @desconocido, set the minimum wall flow to something like 30, set combing mode to no-skin, set max comb distance without retract to 10 or 20 or similar. Quality should improve. Hope this helps.

Please save the project (File -> Save) and attach the .3mf file to this thread so we can see the settings you are using. Thanks.

If you have the mesh tools plugin installed then you will see this diagnostic when you load the model. Basically, it's saying that there are gaps in the model and it cannot be sliced correctly.

Except that smart hiding fails for this particular example.