thanhtacles

Did you ever find the solution to get cura to do the shortest path instead of the longest path when bridging?

I'll often find tiny structures with little to no need for infill at all and I'd rather have them be hallow. Is there a way I can set a type of Minimum Infill Area, but have it not filled in 100%? Have it be 0% instead?

Both dragging in multiple models, and multiplying models causes them to collide and overlap with each other. Pretty obvious unintended use, as this will cause a ton more time spend rearranging objects.

Looks good. The only feedback I've always wanted was the ability to hotpatch and update Cura directly in client, instead of having to uninstall, and redownload every single time.

I had the same problem today and ran into this thread. Wow. Such a simple and random error to happen all the way in 4.7. I would have expected this in like, a beta release. I'm more curious as to how this could even happen.

I imported both of these and cant seem to get it to work. It's full of sporadic movements

That's cura if you set the color scheme to speed

Look at the outer walls. It should be 26, not 18.27. This is not a minimumlayer time issue, I have that set to 1. What else could it be?

This outer wall is suppose to go at 26mm/s. It's showing as 14. I've exhausted every explanation and there are no results for something this niche. What edge case is this.

Hi. It's now cura 4.7 and this issue is still ongoing; there's a requirement for minimum wall flow stating you must print outer walls first, and that's terrible. I dont' want that. Is there any reason why it can't just underextrude that inner wall for 3 walls total?

So for top skin filling (the yellow diagonal cris-crossing), I notice on some holes it won't do it if it's too small. I want to know where to modulate this setting. I want it to not fill in very small holes and gaps. If there's a minimal infill area, why is there no minimal skin area?

Coasting does not seem to apply on exceedingly small extrusions, even though the threshold is very clearly set to do so. This results in a lot of blobs and bumps on the print that render it unacceptable. We need coasting applied to all extrusions.

I think I may have found an easily replicatable way to reproduce this. If you rely on wall line counts rather than thickness (in mm) to increment your wall/skins, you need to specifically have those turned to 0 too. This is an easy fix in the cura code as youd just need to add an if in there.

What format do you expect a project file to be in? Just the gcode?

bump

I used a support blocker cube to generate an overlap area for this example. Whenever you use an overlapping shape to influence a main object will always create extra walls wherever these overlaps occur.

I'm making a vase with a spiral pattern and these little microbumps in the wall seem to appear I have literally no idea how this is. What can possibly cause this.

Here's the outer wall of a simple 20x20x1 square, if you slice it with relative extrusion. You get these really thin lines, and travel lines, and that's about it. I don't understand it. It SHOULD look like the below figure. This error does not happen when sliced with absolute extrusion checked

If you have a decimal or period (say, dot version numbers) in the lower left name, cura will truncate that string early right at the period and replace it with .gcode

So I have this structure of small rectangles. If I use 3 walls, they leave a (desired) gap in the middle, and there are only two walls. If I use 2 walls, it proceeds to fill it. I think for 2-wall option, it would make sense to leave it empty, but I don't know how to do that. Fill small gaps is already disabled.

Okay, so after a ton of digging, I think I may have found an answer to my own question, and I hope it helps other people who have encountered the same problem. The trick is to set your min xy to 1mm or something high.

I keep getting these weird little tiny subinterface layers that aren't really supporting anything and it's infuriating. I don't know what's causing it. This is just one simple super clean super easy overhang with nothing complicated, and it does this. Why. Here's one layer up: I've tried modulating resolution to no avail

Suppose you want the first 20 layers to be .2 layer height, and the rest of the print to be 0.3. done. Simple and clean. What so hard to understand? It's a pretty straightforward setting to have. Adaptive layering is straight up not the same you can't compare those two

S3d has this, and I think so does PrusaSlicer. I really need this for an up and coming project. When Is cura getting the ability to adjust CONTROLABLY variable changing layer hegihts?

@burtoogle in S3D, there's this absolutely crucial setting called extra restart distance and I can't find anything equivalent to it in cura. I searched the GitHub and only found that people have attempted to put in a negative number for "Retraction Extra prime amount" in an attempt to emulate how S3d does it but I dont know if that's correct (it turns orange when you enter a negative value) but I figure I might as well have on. It's a very clean and intuitive way to implement this, and I think CURA would serve to learn from it. Unfortunately I'm still getting blobs at the seam start.