Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts
  • Sign Up

Longtoke

Member
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. /facepalm Thank you good sir, I was certain there had to be an option for it somewhere, but for the life of me i couldn't find it yesterday lol. Was already doing the manual rename, but forget every now and then. Interesting to know, thank you again. Cheers Nallath, I went and found a plugin by fieldOfView (aka ahoeben on forum ?) called "Custom Printjob Naming" that works precisely as advertised.
  2. Using a CR10s Pro V2 and I've found it has issues with filenames more than 16 characters long. The problem is compounded by Cura's default file naming process, which adds "CCR10SPRO" to the start of every file name, chewing up 9 characters of my 16 character limit. Is it possible to stop Cura adding this prefix to every file or better yet, alter the prefix that's automatically attached ?
  3. One change I noticed in version 4.7 was the line you have highlighted. Previously bed leveling was done with M420 and it's related parameters. There's some discussion going on among CR10 users prior to 4.7 release in a couple of threads where some were having issues with a triangular extrusion pattern between the bed leveling process and initial purge print, possibly resulting in the change from M420 to G29 in the 4.7 release. We would have to have someone from Ultimaker confirm that to be certain though. Best thing i can suggest is go have a read of marlin's g-code on their site, it elaborates on the differences between G29 and M420. G29 info here - https://marlinfw.org/docs/gcode/G029.html M420 info here - https://marlinfw.org/docs/gcode/M420.html You may need to double check what functions are enabled in your firmware version too. If you're using firmware 1.70 from Creality, M420 is bugged thus you need to use G29.
  4. The fact that you have engaged in this conversation is testament to your dedication, I empathize with your frustrations on some levels but...... Just one example of part of the issue that I think is being overlooked. It would be immensely helpful if each "patch" and/or beta had a specific list of what changes have occurred. You can't honestly expect high uptake of beta's and new releases when you leave people in the dark. While there's notes accompanying releases etc, they need to be far more comprehensive. Even a simple "We undertook a change to how Cura internally references profiles", would say to the end user don't be surprised if your printers start g-code has been altered and/or it requires you to remake the printer profile from scratch. The more informed people are about what changes have been undertaken, the better able they are to assess what impacts trialing a beta will have beforehand.
  5. Agree completely. As soon as Cura updates stop routinely and inexplicably breaking printer profiles etc, I'll be happy to continue testing beta releases. Until then, I can do without the "new" features so I can have a usable slicer.
  6. Hello Nallath and everyone else here, I don't mean to derail to topic etc, but I felt the above quoted post might benefit from a reply. To give a slight background, I have 3 printers, an ender-3, a cr10 and a prusa i3. My first foray into the world of 3d printing was with my ender-3, back in 2017. It was my first introduction to Cura and Ultimaker in general as the software bundled with my ender-3 had a version of Cura with it. A great example of how 3rd party printers ( and by extension, support for them ) is not zero return for Cura developers. Without Creality choosing to bundle Cura with their product, I would not have found my way here, nor would I have ever looked at an Ultimaker printer. Now i freely admit, Ultimaker printers are well outside my own price range, but not everyone is in the same boat as me. There is a level of free advertising being given just from a third party printer being bundled with Cura. One thing to note here, I only recently bought my cr10, and with it came creality's knock off version of Cura. I'm not sure why creality has opted for this other than possibly the next part of my post. As to your wanting people to adopt beta's and test accordingly, to provide feedback to help pin issues before release versions become official, it's an admirable ideal that's key to open source development. Sadly, as an end user my own experiences over the years have been mixed to say the least. These days i'm very reluctant to even update using official releases, let alone a beta solely due to issues cropping up far too often that are casually dismissed as "well it's not an Ultimaker printer so...". While I respect changes are often required in code to incorporate new features / fix old issues / support new Ultimaker products, the regular breaking / removal of printer profiles etc gets old really fast. I mean no offence when i say this, just stating how it appears as a 3rd party printer user, but deliberate ignorance and planned obsolescence are a few phrases that come to mind. Now I completely understand and respect it's not anywhere near that simple with respect to coding etc, but as an end user it gets extremely frustrating to update Cura with a mindset of "Let's see what they broke this week". Some of the changes seem questionable to say the least, one great example is how materials are managed these days. The original version of Cura that shipped with my ender 3 was simple enough that I could make a custom material ( in this case a simple PLA+ ) configuration, which was easily usable across multiple default print profiles ( i.e: standard, draft etc ). It took me 3 minutes as someone completely new to 3d printing and Cura to setup for my new PLA+, and all the default setting print profiles were there to use and worked great. These days ??.......I have tried countless times to do custom materials while retaining the default print profiles with no success, leaving me no choice other than using the default materials, some of which still also result in the "not supported" message and lack of default print profiles. The work around I've adopted is to change the temp settings within the print profiles themselves while using a default material of basic PLA. Whatever the reasoning was behind this change, as an end user it feels like a push to migrate to a supported material on a supported printer just "because". Then there's things like changes to existing printer profiles that make no sense, which has also resulted in "bugs" (missing ender printer nozzles anyone ?). When my printer hasn't changed in 3 years, why have changes impacted the profile within Cura so frequently ?.....again on the outside as an end user, it seems to be a push to try and have 3rd party printers fall into obsolescence. TL;DR - Updating has numerous frequent pitfalls, which when then discussed are met with "not an ultimaker printer so..." mixed with the vibe that using a 3rd party printer is offensive to some, ending in a "why bother updating" feeling. The way things currently sit, I wouldn't ever touch a beta release without planning on spending a day or two screwing with it to try and fix what breaks, only to have to revert to a previous version so I can continue printing. I'll admit not every update is like this, but when it happens with such frequency, people naturally become apprehensive or avoid it entirely. In conclusion, I apologize if I have caused offence as that was not my intent and I freely admit there's many aspects of coding and software development I myself am ignorant to, but if you want people to test beta's more, the way things are done currently isn't going help. Just because there's no direct funding on paper to show executive's doesn't mean Ultimaker has no net benefit in supporting 3rd party printers. I've often said i'd gladly pay for a version of Cura that wasn't so ignorant to 3rd party printers, when it works reliably, Cura is a fantastic product and outstanding example of what open source can be. It would be great if Cura could remain as intuitive and reliable as it once was. I dream of the day I can afford an Ultimaker printer, hopefully by then my existing printers won't have become incompatible with Cura for "reasons". I guess i'll always have the older versions to work with.
  7. First thing to note is the USB connectivity has largely been left "as is" for a while now, Ultimaker have essentially classed it as redundant. As to the COM port configuration within Cura, it's all automated and not configurable by the end user. Each time you connect via USB, Cura will poll all COM Ports and attempt to auto-configure. If it works, Great !! otherwise your SOL. As a general rule, connecting via USB through Cura is a bad idea anyways, you're one OS auto update / system crash / power outage or surge away from losing your print. Go for the SD card option or setup Octoprint. Now regarding the update to version 4.7.....i'd personally recommend not updating Cura unless you find you absolutely NEED to. There's too many incidents in the past of updates causing issues and support after the fact is non-existent for 3rd party anything. That said, you're using a 3rd party made printer with an altered firmware, which has the potential to complicate things. I too use the TH3D Firmware on my Ender-3 without issue and in theory it shouldn't cause any issues between Cura versions as G-code is generated by Cura, how that G-code is interpreted is what the firmware does ( Marlin used in TH3D's unified firmware in this instance), but the USB functionality of both Cura and 3rd party printer firmware is another can of worms. @scorch5000 - I would recommend using anything other than Cura to do firmware updates due to the aforementioned ignorance of 3rd party anything as far as Ultimaker concerned. Its possible you may even need to use an Arduino ( or similar ) as a boot-loader too depending on your main board anyways. Anyways, good luck the both of you.
  8. Nothing 100% confirmed as a cause yet, but at this stage and after my own testing etc, it would appear to be an issue with M420 within the Marlin version 1.70 that is shipped with the printer as stock. Going to have to dig around in the firmware creality issued and see if i can pin the issue 100%, perhaps even try a different firmware to help diagnose. Short and simple - while executing the final stage of M420, after the bed leveling measurements but before the purge line extrusion, the extruder is being activated. This is resulting in the triangle extrusion. As to the rest regarding Cura and it updates, while I respect there's such a vast multitude of printers out there before you even look at custom jobs & homebrews etc, Cura does seem to be excessively ignorant to anything not ultimaker branded. I get it, don't support stuff they don't make money off etc, but that doesn't excuse what sometimes seems to be "planned obsolescence" ( for want of a more polite phrase ? ) of 3rd party printers. Lets be fair here and remember the open source nature of Cura and consider that creality printers are not uncommon. While I haven't been posting on these forums long, I have been reading them on and off over the years and it's sad to see the inevitable and frequent "not an ultimaker printer so...." stylized reply in every one of these type of threads. That's what i mean when I say I would gladly pay for a Cura that offered more support and insights. Not everyone has the money to burn on a printer that costs several thousands of dollars, just so we can continue contribute and participate in an open source development through testing and feedback. It too often feels like hostile environment not conducive with community development to turn up here and post something, unless you have a ultimaker printer, you're pretty much entirely dependent on the wider community to work through issues that are often related to the software more than the printer it's being used on. Anyways, don't mind my old man ramblings lol, I'm going to go have that twinkie.
  9. Confirmed fix for the triangle issue. Vruize you are a credit to the open source community. Interesting side note to elaborate on some of this. M420 does a bed level and writes it to the EEPROM, then retrieves the saved bed mesh to use. Over the life of your printer, this is actually a bad thing because of how EEPROM will eventually fail after so many writes to memory locations. In an ideal world, you would only call on the saved mesh each print and do a manual bed level ( which will save the results on completion to the EEPROM ) every 10 or so prints, thus limiting the writes to the EEPROM over the printers life. This is why the M420 has the [S1] followed by the z axis fade value ( [Z2] in the above quoted g-code ). G29 on the other hand is an automated function of sorts similar to M420, but the big bonus is it stores the bed mesh in the RAM instead. The only downside I can see is the lack of z-axis fade value, which is used to "absorb" the discrepancies in the bed height by the value set. I.E; a [Z2] as used, will account for the bed leveling until the z-axis moves beyond 2mm. A [Z10] setting would result in the z-axis fade applying until it goes beyond 10mm. The other thing to with G29 is the resulting bed mesh being stored in the RAM means it will be wiped on power loss, hence you need to include G29 each time you print. Bonus round for the real g-code nerds - how do we set a z-axis fade value / what is the z-axis fade value default when using G29? Anyways, I have tested this fix thoroughly, and it seems to be the solution for the moment. My mind won't accept using a fix just "because", I need to understand what is going on lol. OCD is evil.
  10. ok, first thing I can see is you're using both the M420 command and the G29 command.They are similar commands, you should be using one or the other, not both ideally. As far as the M420 command goes, I've found it to be the cause of a glitch with the purge resulting in a triangle pattern extrusion in addition to the edge side line purge on job start. Still working on why/how this happens so for the moment i'd recommend using the G29 instead. From what i understand witth g-code and marlin ( very limited i freely admit ) G29 is an all in one function where as M420 is more manipulable. Just having a poorly educated guess here, but using both M420 and G29 could be causing a conflict ?......either way, it's an avenue to explore. Next I note you're using a magnetic bed, does this mean you are using an induction based bed leveling sensor ? As to firmware version, i'm using the same 1.70 that comes installed as stock, shouldn't be an issue there unless you've managed to somehow receive a printer with a glitched version of the firmware. I would recommend a reflash of the same firmware, but only as a last resort. As to how to do this using a mac, I have no clue sorry 😞 Finally, regards your Cura version, have you tried using an earlier version of Cura. Creality ships their printers with Cura Version 2.xxx, so that's another thing to test to help pin the issue down. See how goes, I will gladly explore it further, but hopefully a more knowledgeable forum user can weigh in and further clarify. another question - are you printing via USB from Cura or from the micro SD slot. Reason i ask is in testing the direct connect today, it does limit the level of control you have on your printer, and that leads me to think it might be an issue related to the direct connect. You could also do some diagnostic by direct connecting via the g-code console. I.E; plug it in and give it about 30 seconds for Cura to realize whats going on then use the g-code console to send a G29 and then try the M420 the same way. It may help pin the issue down.
  11. I too have just recently bought a CR10s Pro, specifically for the ABL, and have had zero issues outside of the "triangle" patttern extruder purge at the start of each print. 1st question i have - the g-code you're using looks very different to the one I have, what version of Cura are you running ? 2nd - what printer config did you use ? i.e; have you used the stock printer config or did you custom it ? 3rd - which version of firmware are you using ? 4th - Have you tried manually running the bed leveling ( which then stores the resulting "bed map" ) and then tried to print as normal ? - this is only a possible work around and diagnostic, not a fix. Hopefully with more info, we can track down the issue 😉
  12. I too can further confirm the mystery triangle issue on my new CR10s Pro, seemingly related to the ABL. I'm in the middle of a 2 day print at the moment, so haven't had the opportunity to implement the community supplied fix listed above. Yet another Cura update......yet another 3rd party caused "glitch".....I would gladly pay for a version of Cura that didn't ignore non-Ultimaker branded printers EVERY time an update is done.
  13. OMFG Thank You !!!!! This work around solved my immediate issues with the print profiles dropping !......but this now raises more questions lol. I've done as you described but used a "duplicate" of the generic PLA material profile, and this is where it gets really weird. I can now configure the temps for the PLA+ i'm using via the materials, and selection of my "custom" material list doesn't nuke the default profiles nor the quick select slider. The odd thing is, if i relabel either the material type field OR the display name field, it instantly drops the profiles and slider again. So in conclusion, could this be a bug ?? or is their some reason for it still nuking everything. I would have thought the process of setting up and defining a custom material would allow exactly the same functionality I regardless of a token name choice. It's almost like there's some hidden parameters that are tied to the name fields ? Just seems really bizarre that changing ONLY a name field ( displayed name OR material type name ) is enough to remove functionality. We're talking about the difference of a "+" symbol in a name field altering default functionality. I.E; if i label either as just "PLA", everything works great, the moment I change either field to "PLA+" it nukes everything in the print profiles. If this is intended to function like this, can I ask why/what benefit this brings as I prefer to understand rather than just blindly step forward. Regardless, I can deal with the displayed name / material type name missing a "+" symbol, as the brand name of the filament is enough for me to quickly recognize my material is set correctly. I will experiment and figure out if i can word this better/understand why it's like this and report back later. Thanks again 😄 p.s. - you've done an old bloke a huge favor in preventing his millennial children screwing with his mind, so double bonus i guess....i don't have to dig through my settings every time and a couple of millennials have been blocked from their usual.
  14. an update after having fired up my new cr10s. Looks like no matter the printer profile, selection of non-generic materials causes all the print profiles to "wipe"....doesn't matter if i choose a default listed material ( i.e. - eSun PLA+ ) or make my own material parameters, the end result is "not supported" constantly displayed and the removal of the quick select slider and default print profiles. While I respect the multitude of printers out there making it impossible for the Cura devs to accommodate EVERY printer out there, this is not a printer profile issue, that's just how the problem manifests itself. While i can understand these issues if you made a custom material profile, surely selecting default listed materials shouldn't cause these issues ? Here's hoping a fix comes in a later version of Cura, in the mean time if someone can clarify which version of Cura brought this awful change into to existence so I can work out which earlier version of Cura I need to grab, that would be awesome 😄 Cheers.
  15. yup, I understand that but.... That doesn't explain why simply switching from a generic material to say eSun PLA+ ( which is apparently supported as it's in the default material list ) also brings about the removal of the standard default print profiles and quick selection slider. This then requires a completely custom profile to be setup ( going through numerous exhaustive options and settings ) with a persistent "not-supported" message on display and no quick selection slider for profiles being available thereafter. I have tried to make my own profiles and materials, but there is no way to copy across the default profiles and have them retain the same functionality and similarly with material "duplicate" function, the associated profiles disappear bringing about the same problems. To put it simply - there seems to be missing links between materials and print profiles just because i'm using a non-generic listed material, and there is no way to configure the custom or non-generic but default listed materials with the profiles to ensure the quick select slider and default profiles are still available to use. Bonus question - when / what changed to make this so convoluted compared to the much earlier version of Cura I was using without issue ?. At this stage I think reverting to the last version before these profile / materials issues came about may well be my easiest fix.
×
×
  • Create New...