R3DE

Since the UM2+ Connect is incompatible with the previous UM2+ model, we are looking for a way to avoid reslicing hundreds of STL models for the Connect so we can expand our production capacity like we used to do with adding UM2+ printers. Does anyone have an idea whether it would work to replace the Connect controller and control panel with the controller of an UM2+? I would think that, if the motors, heaters and sensors are the same, this should work. We can print an enclosure for the UM2+ display panel.

The Ultimaker 2+ is a 3D production workhorse in many companies as it provides a reliable, flexible and tunable machine. Production capacity was always easily expanded by adding more machines and copying SD cards. The UM2+ is also GCODE compatible with most other Ultimaker printers so we can have a mix of printers. The introduction of the UM2+ Connect, and discontinuance of the UM2+, disrupts the existing workflow completely. The UM2+C does not print anything for the UM2+. This means reslicing all STL files for the UM2+C. However, Cura doesn't accept UM2+ profiles for the UM2+C so all profiles have to be redeveloped before reslicing over 150 STL objects. Also, since the material profiles are now moved into the sliced objects, when using a new material, or a material from another brand, the designs have to be resliced for the new material. With the UM2+ only a material profile on the printer itself needs to be added. This creates a jungle of files that need to be maintained during design changes. This is an R&D and production nightmare. In addition, the UM2+ allows tuning parameters like temperatatures, flow rate, retract settings etcetera on the fly, seeing what the effect is and working towards optimized settings that can be used in the print or material profile. The UM2+C does nothing like that and shows nothing about the current print job except the remaining time. Settings can not be verified during printing, not even the current material settings. This feature request proposes a UM2+ compatibility mode for the UM2+C. We propose to have the option to switch the printer over to full functional and visual compatibility with the UM2+, including its (text) screen layout (the dancing filenames on the UM2+C are dizzying and make it very time consuming to select a file from a long list). The rotary button can be emulated with some kind of slider on the touch screen. With this UM2+ compatibility mode we can continue our hassle free production process without having to spend a lot of resources on R&D, debugging and changing production procedures. At the very least, we request that the UM2+C can print existing UM2+ GCODE with material profiles stored on the printer. Without this compatibility we have to explore other avenues such as replacing the hardware in the UM2+C with UM2+ hardware, or take our loss on the UM printers and moving to other printers altogether.

I get it that the current UM2+C doesn't do what we need. But it already keeps material profiles for loading and unloading filament. We could do what we need with a minimal change in firmware: Accomodate a MATERIALS.TXT import with material profiles, and use the currently selected material settings in a GCODE print (the GCODE could always override this if it includes the material settings itself). But again, a full UM2+ emulation would be much more desirable for the installed base out there. The hardware shouldn't be a problem: I determined that the UM2+C uses an Onion Connect 2+ module with 128M RAM, 32M Flash and a 580MHz CPU, running Linux. There should be room for some material profiles with 20 bytes each... I have added pictures of the contoller boards here.

@Smithy, @CarloK Thanks for your replies. First, where ever I look the S3 is specified with a build volume of 230 x 190 x 200 mm, while the UM2+ has 223 x 220 x 205 mm. We need all 223 x 220 mm for several of our print objects. In any case the S3 is not a viable option because of the price. The UM2+ has always been a perfect printer for us to do production runs of about 15 print tables that take up to a week for a complete product. We needed to add a printer so we got an UM2+C. The slightly increased price was not a problem, and we didn't need the Connect part. But then we found that we couldn't just add it to the farm and do more printing at the time. Our work flow is this: We have a lot of STL objects that we have gathered onto 15 GCODE print tables. We use 4 slicing profiles for different tables. When we need to change a design (STL) we pull up the 3MF project file for that table, replace the STL, slice it and copy the GCODE onto all SD cards so we can print on any printer. On the printers we have the material profiles for PLA, PETG and ABS. So at print time we can still decide on the material by selecting that during filament loading, since the GCODE objects don't include material properties. We tried to print the GCODE with the UM2+C. It prints but it does not set the temperatures so there is no output. I can imagine that the printer won't be happy to print with a cold nozzle. We also tried to slice with the existing profiles saved to a .UFP but the UM2+C refuses to print that because it is for the UM2+. Then, Cura doesn't reuse a profile if you change printers. This is where the trouble starts. We now have to slice for he UM2+ and then again for the UM2+C. But Cura is very particular and doesn't allow using a UM2+ profile for a UM2+C project. So we have to develop our 4 profiles again from scratch. To complicate things even more, we have to maintain those profiles for 3 different materials. To summarize: Currently, for each table we have the STL files, a 3MF project file and one of 4 profiles. We slice that into a GCODE and that prints on any of the printers with any of our materials. When we add the UM2+C in the mix we have to maintain 4 project files for each table, 13 profiles (1 + 4 x 3 materials) and slice that into 4 outputs (1 GCODE and 3 UFP) and distribute all that to the SD/USB carriers. This is quite unworkable. When we want to add a material the amount of files explodes exponentially. An easy fix may be if the UM2+C would accept the GCODE without material settings and apply its internal material settings (temperatures and retraction settings) if they are not found in the GCODE, like the UM2+ does. It would then print our exiting UM2+ GCODE. But a much more satisfying fix would be to have a real UM2+ compatible mode, including the settings menus. Many of us feel a lot more comfortable to be able to control, monitor and adjust the printer as on the UM2+. I'm sure the rotary button can be emulated with a slider or something like that on the touch screen. The current UM2+C yields an unworkable workflow and we feel we are on a dead end road with our UM2+ setup. Our UM reseller told us about several companies that are scouring the market for used UM2+ printers so that they can keep printing. I find it hard to believe that Ultimaker would leave their installed base out in the cold like that. Other than that, the UM2+C seems to be well built and quiet, although a filament sensor would have been nice and it is hard to understand why UM has downsized their processor in times of ever expanding firmware requirements.

We own a 'fleet' of UM2+ printers that are running day and night, and we bought a UM2 Connect, assuming that we could just add this to our print farm. However, we discovered that the UM2 Connect does not fit in our development and work flow at all. We have a unified set of print tables and changing between materials is easy, just change the setting on the printer when loading material and the rest is taken care of. The UM2 Connect does not print gcode for the UM2+, nor does it handle a print object (.ufp) using different materials. So our design cycles would get hopelessly complicated as we would have to maintain profiles and slicings for different machines and materials. In addition, we don't want to use the UM clould for several reasons: * We don't allow company designs to leave the premises to unverified cloud providers * We don't want to add a completely useless layer of complexity and infrastructure. SD cards work just as well. * The clould service would make us dependent of a range of providers that can all break down. See this UM message this morning: "Printers are currently experiencing issues connecting to Ultimaker Digital Factory". So our production would just stop and be at the mercy of the Ultimaker IT managers. * We don't want more machines that connect to internet and introduce more cybersecurity risks. A centralized cloud printer management seems useless anyway, unless it includes a robot to clean print tables and replace filaments. The UM S3 might be an option for the compatibility, but its print table is too small for our designs. The UM2+ is rightfully a very popular production machine. Reliable, simple and tunable. It seems that Ultimaker has given up on this professional market in favour of beginners and hobyists, or just hitch with the fashion market. Ultimaker, please provide a UM2+ compatible mode on the Connect, so we don't have to look for UM2+ compatible machines from other places.