Longtoke

To update this thread post and as a reply to your question, as far as I understand this issue, its due to the way Cura is structured and related to material profiles. Early on there was a phase were you could do custom materials without restriction, this was later identified by Cura devs to be a mistake apparently, so they changed it to how it is now. AFAIK, there are no plans to make material profiles more flexible or give similar functionality to what we had, the best solution is to use work arounds or stick to default materials.

Draft as a descriptor in the default profiles hasn't been used for a few versions now, at least on the Creality range of profiles using 0.4mm nozzles. They are labeled like so : Perhaps using the info above to pair off with layer heights, you may be able to force the profiles to import as you did. I wouldn't recommend it though as it could cause who knows what to go on ( which you seem aware of anyways ). For what it's worth, I can attest to the suitability of the current profiles for the Creality line of printers supplied with Cura on a fresh install ( I have several different Creality printers ). I would ask yourself what is important/different about those custom profiles and look to using the newer default profiles, even if they are just a starting point for your custom ones. Good luck and let us all know how you resolved it 😄

Not sure if I understand you correctly or not, but here goes lol. The show all toggle is for displaying the list of options you can select from to add to the mesh you are using. You then need to select the specific option(s) from the list, which will then populate the mesh settings window with your selections like so : Dunno that helps or not, let us all know if not and we will try and find a solution 😉

Z-offset is a plug in from the marketplace, provided by Ahoeben aka FieldOfView, it's not a part of the base Cura install.

Until Apple decides that it's a retailing platform and want a steep cut of all sales along with exclusivity arrangements under the guise of "protecting users". Go have a look at the Epic Games debacle for a possible window into a world where Cura is on the Apple store... How many of those have you needed repairs on, only to find that Apple doesn't believe in right to repair. I have no problems with the functionality of Apple products, the problem is when it fails and needs repair or you need software compatibility. Apple are almost militant in "protecting" users.

Yup, it caught me out too on my CR10s Pro V2. Notably, I have an Ender-3 which doesn't have the same issue. Technically, the CR range was developed before the Ender series, perhaps this is related to that earlier development. Yup...it's actually the type of the card that matters, the newer format SDXC type cards specifically are not combatable. The problem is, the older types of SD card are being phased out, along with the smaller capacities, meaning when you go buy a new SD card, it's likely to be an SDXC type and thus not compatible. Case in point, I have an old 64gb micro SD card that is a HC type, and it works fine in my CR10. The problem is it cost me $120 (AUD) a couple of years ago, and good luck finding a HC type one with that capacity these days as they are all the XC type. I agree completely. Better still, update their firmware to support the newer and current standard XC type's. I have been in contact with Creality directly recently regarding this issue and a couple of others, sadly they are moving slowly to say the least...and it may not be as simple as just updating firmware either from what I've been told. Good news with the silent mainboards that Creality has on offer though, they allegedly don't have this limitation, but I'm a month or two off being able to confirm.

I question if it would even be possible just on the basis of how Apple operates. To have Cura on the appstore or the like would mean Ultimaker having to navigate the appstore listing issues. With Apple's stance on revenue generation via the appstore, I just can't see any sane company / developer going down that rabbit hole. Cura is an open source program that's ongoing development is directly funded by Ultimaker, with the contributions from the wider community. I would love to understand Apple's commercial position on that before you could even look at the difficulties In suitably rewriting all the code. Besides, its 2020...haven't people learnt by now regarding Apple products ?

yes, and it does remove the unusual extrusion, but in turn it affects the strength of the part ( that section in particular is the pin for the chain ). I have also tried lowering the wall count, but the odd formations still occur on the yellow indicated sections. edit : just realized I didn't list my nozzle size in the opening post, It's 0.4mm for what it's worth.

>use the support blocker ( 6th icon on the left side missing a tool tip ) to generate a generic cube model OR add a model of your own for custom shapes > select the model you just placed > select Per Model Settings ( 5th icon down on left side also missing tool tip ) > change the mesh type to "Modify Settings For Overlaps" > hit the "select settings" button and add the "infill density" option > set the infill density as required ( in my case I needed 100% infill for a section of my model ) > move the model/mesh to where you need it. The end result is a model with different infill densities as specified by the overlapping of the modified "support blocker" model/mesh.

Ok all you Cura grand masters out there, educate meh !!! I'm having weird things happen with slicing and circular objects than manifests in confusing ways. Firstly, this one : And then this one : These have been sliced in Cura 4.8, using CR10s Pro V2 default profile for PLA on 0.16mm layer height, 50% tri-hex infill. The 2 photos are from the same object and slice, just at different points in the object. I have tried changing the design numerous times to account for layer heights etc, but to no avail. I think it's fairly self explainitory what the issues are, but here goes anyways. Photo 1 - this one is sort of understandable, as it is doing the thatched inner layer ( yellow lines ) in the circular section. While it prints ok, I want to change it so that it does that section in a circular pattern rather than the thatching, because the the short line length makes my printer try and shake itself to death. The second photo shows the issue that is really doing my head in, as it seems to want to try and print in a circular motion, but as you can see it tries to switch to the thatching mid way through the extrusion line. Every layer on this section is the same, every effort to redesign to compensate has failed in removing the weird deviation. What makes it extra weird is how it has an extrusion line far smaller than the rest. If anyone has any clue what's going on and how I can correct it, that would be awesome. The STL's are included below. Thanks in advance all 😉 Chain link part A.stl Chain link part B.stl

While I get you're upset at your printer being damaged, you've incorrectly and unfairly attributed it to Cura... Firstly, the Tronxy you mention is a DIY kit printer, that takes some experience to correctly assemble, while having several design flaws that leave the door open to all sorts of issues. To quote one of the reviews I've just endured "My testing, however, was a long and frustrating experience due to a range of poor design decisions on this printer." And another quote "I think with a total overhaul by an experienced owner, this thing could really shine. It’s just that the way it works out of the box leaves a lot to be desired". While these issues may not be directly associated to the issue you have, it forms a continuing pattern with the printer in general. The manufacturers of the Tronxy package a butchered early version of Cura with a firmware that is a complete mystery and doesn't appear to function correctly. Also notably, the provided slicer requires excessive configuration for the default profile settings which also invites other gremlins into the scene. Why am I detailing this ?....3d printing in general is not a plug and play affair. It does require some care, attention and time to learn the varied aspects involved, especially when you go the cheap route. DIY + cheap can end up being more expensive in the long run, especially if you don't invest time into it. That said, even with a high priced printer designed to be as user friendly as possible, there's still going to be issues at various times. Another thing to note is the profiles themselves within Cura for 3rd party printers are community contributed, the Cura developers have little to nothing to do with them beyond gathering them up each release phase. If the profile itself caused the issue, contact the manufacturer and get them to address what is at issue with the printers firmware and / or profile for use in Cura. Simply put, the onus is on you to ensure your printers compatibility with Cura ( which ever version you use ), and using 3d printers in general is not for the light hearted, especially when you're talking DIY kits from Chinese manufacturers. From the sound of it, you suffered an issue that could have been prevented by installing a $2 end stop on an axis, and was likely caused by the poor coding of the firmware driving it ( that seems to have misinterpreted the G-code commands issued by Cura ). Sorry you've had such a poor experience, for many of us Cura works extremely well once CONFIGURED correctly when used on a printer with STANDARD Marlin based firmware that has appropriate safely equipment integrated ( end stops ). I would recommend figuring out which 32-bit control board you have and learning the ins-and-outs of firmware updates, install some additional end stops and then configure a profile suitable for Cura. Perhaps even contact the manufacturer and see what they can do to address it, but Cura isn't to blame for your printers malfunction.

From what I can make out from your screen shot, you are using an older version of Cura and a Custom profile ?. The little bit of info I can see on your settings shows your are also using some experimental features ( coasting enabled ) so at this point I'm going to say I'm out of my depth in advising you in any useful way beyond what I've already suggested, sorry 😞 If you manage to figure out what the issue is, please do update everyone here as it may help someone else out in future.

From what I understand of this issue, it's only manifesting on 8-bit boards, predominantly on ( but not limited to ) Creality brand printers like the original Ender-3. If someone out there has a stock Ender-3 and could specifically test this fix ( use the benchy boat to test ), you would be doing a huge favor for your fellow Creality users and the Cura dev's. I would do so on my own Ender-3 but I'm using an skr 32-bit board and my other Creality printer has Creality's 32-bit silent mainboard on it, both printers do not have this issue, yet a friends Ender-3 is seeing it intermittently. Sadly, great bloke as he is, he isn't very computer minded so having him test the updated version just isn't an option :(. Not nit-picking or complaining, but I thought we we're going into V5.xx beta phase next ? has that been delayed or did I misread ( which is far more likely lol ). edit - yep, i misread lol, disregard. Either way, time to test !

This would be an awesome solution, and I do remember it being suggested by another forum user a few months back. My biggest concern for future development of the materials interface is with how restrictive and incomplete the current method available to users is, and what that may mean for the features suitability in the long run when paired with things such as this : I'd also expect that there is a financial cost associated to such an endeavor, that when combined with Ultimakers requirements, will likely combine to act as an impetus to most small to medium sized commercial manufacturers. The end result is less choice and higher costs for users unless there is a simple way to add materials to Cura for end users. While legacy influences understandably restrict they ways in which you can change the current feature, surely there is a mid ground to found that would better accommodate end users adding in their own materials to Cura while also continuing support for those on the marketplace. Simply put, we currently have the ability to use pre-existing quality profiles when making new material listings in Cura via the trick I detailed. Surely there is a way to include that within a "custom" definition you describe perhaps pairing it with a warning acknowledgement system so they end user isn't constantly confronted with excessive warnings. I.E. - the user selects custom material from the drop down selection in the <material type> field, at which point you could then sub divide the custom material option to allow for a templated copy ( including default quality profiles ) of an existing material or a completely "green" material profile, followed by a one time warning pop-up ( requiring user acknowledgement to advance further ) for the unsupported aspect of these custom materials. Amen, lol.

yikes, is there a better example of why we need an undo function in Cura. I shudder at the thought of placing 50 of these without an undo function lol.

No go on the picture sadly Zorg, but I'll ask a few questions that may assist us in helping you. Is the model too big for the build area ? - if it's even slightly outside, it can cause what you might describe as greying of the model. Is the progress bar popping up while slicing ? and is it completing the slicing process completely before you then try to preview the model ? You said you're having it happen on all slices now ? have you tried to slice something that you've successfully sliced previously without issues ? If it's none of those, we may need to dig deeper, and I would recommend updating Cura too, after backing up all your profiles etc, then try the new version of Cura with the default profiles first, then the new version using your imported profiles. One of those / more info and we should be able to figure it out 😉

Thank the gods it's not just me, I was about to head out for new glasses lol. Ok, first thing that looks like a possible explanation - The model pictured here appears to have its own internal walls that are thin thus requiring no infill. If you are expecting infill to go into the three hollow cross sections inside the outer shell, you will need to edit the model. If you can upload the STL, we can confirm by slicing and analyzing it ourselves. Edit : gods damn gr5, you are quick !!

What version of Cura are you running ?... Just tried this through v4.7.1 and it works fine aside from one small thing - if you rename a printer and then rename it back to what it was originally, it will automatically append the name with a numeric ( print name #2 for example ) while leaving the original name unusable. Possible work around - if you are looking to rename the printer to change the prefix Cura attaches to file names, there's an addon on the marketplace by Ahoeben aka FieldOfView called "Custom Printjob Naming" that works beautifully.

In the preview section, you'll note the bar at the top center of the screen that reads "Color Scheme : Material Color", click that and a sub window appears with a drop down box. Use the drop down box to select "Line Type". That will color the sliced model based on the various actions during the print. You can also change the color coding once you're in that setting. Enjoy !

Rapidly caught and well spotted, most wouldn't think to check their measurement tools 😄 Don't be ashamed or apologetic and thank you for updating your post so no one is chasing white rabbits.

Very odd.... I tested the issue by creating a basic sphere ( 80mm diameter ) and using a basic cube base of 100mm x 100mm x 50mm to losely replicate your model, but a very low res version Tremendous Wluff.stl ( made with tinkercad ). Did the slice on a 0.2 layer height and the same odd pattern appears in the low point center ?!?! It looks like Cura is getting confused by the shallow gradient of the curve at the bottom ( note the tell-tale concentric walls in the preview ). Now really weirdly, even with the concentric walls, the layering still seems correct ( from the Cura preview ) on the low res poor mans version I did anyway. From the look of your model failure, I'd suggest having a few layers of material below the lowest point of the sphere, as it looks as though you've had adhesion issues due to the mix of small concentric walls and diagonal fill. Even a 2mm layer below it could be enough to sort it. Good luck and let us know how you go.

Have you tried the "Preview" selection after slicing ? When you are in the preview section ( post slicing ) there is a slider on the right side of the screen you can use to view the individual layers, which is where you will see the infill at various stages. If that's not the issue, we need more info to assist you, things like the version of Cura you are running / an upload of the model(s) you're having issue with / Cura settings you are using / screenshots or all of the above.

Yes and No. Changing the material type to one not recognized by Cura ( even something as simple as PLA+ vs PLA ) immediately locks out the default templates. Beyond that there are a few things that are linked to the materials like retraction speed, extruder temps, bed temps etc. While the quality profiles can override these settings, it's handy to have a base template that reverts to a known default. Variance in material properties between colours for one thing. The PLA+ I use is generally very consistent between batches and colours, but with certain colours I've found using slightly different temperatures keeps my print quality consistent. There's also the PLA vs PLA+ to account for, and hybrid filaments ( like say PLA wood ) can really mix it up. Another thing is while most of my PLA and PLA+ is regarded as food safe, a few of them aren't, and they also require different material settings accordingly ( eg PLA+ Gold or Silver ). Yes, I also usually end up making a quality profile specific to filament, but I use the default quality profiles as a starting point each time. The final point on this is just good record keeping. When you use several variants of PLA and PLA+ materials, each with say slightly different printing temps and speeds but identical property's otherwise, yes I use the create materials function as I thought was intended. This is just PLA vs PLA+ vs Hybrids, but similar can apply to ABS vs ABS hybrids for example. Poor wording on part, my apologies. Is "locking out" more appropriate or perhaps "hides" ?. What else would you call it when simply entering say "PLA+" to the <material type> field results in access to the default profiles disappearing ? Another thing to note is it also removes / hides /"doesn't exist" the quick selection slider, another bonus the trick I use gives. If I want to use the default quality profiles as a template, I am forced to either write down and cross check every data point or use the trick I mention above. It's very natural for a user to create/clone a new material and then change the material type to match ( i.e. PLA vs PLA+ ), adding the "+" to PLA and having the resulting wipe of profiles just doesn't make sense. Hence the users who fall in this trap then posting as above. In a perfect world, every filament manufacturer would go through the process the get their material officially listed with Cura in the Marketplace, the realistic chance of that happening is none, for varied reasons. Perhaps you can explain what's involved ( or direct us all to a link ) for a filament manufacturer get their materials listed within Cura ? - Near as I can find out, Ultimaker limits the marketplace material listings to "Members of our alliance program". What are the typical costs ( if any ) for such a venture ? I would love to champion Cura Marketplace Material Listing to the manufacturers of the filaments that are readily available within my region, as this would save me needing to side step the "rules" of Cura.

For what it's worth, there is an easier way. Generate your own set of basic shapes just like you would for any model, then import that model and change it's properties to be a mesh overlay to use in place of the generic cube.

Seems paradoxical to include a method for creating a new material within the UI of Cura that is so convoluted and incomplete for something that should be simple and commonplace. Also, I put the "obligatory disclaimer" there for a reason.... I don't dispute that this method is "unintended" as far as developers are concerned but if a user wants to add their own materials while retaining the default profiles to work from as a starting point, this "trick" works extremely well, especially when were are talking about similar or near identical materials. For some of us, buying the materials listed as "supported" isn't an option, they simply aren't readily available in some sections of the world, so we resort to those disgusting and evil "other brands" and bend the rules Cura puts in place to achieve the same functionality.