ctbeke

To anyone in this thread, please install the Cura 3.3 Beta. If there are still problems for you there, share some logs, video's or anything substantial that we can use to debug with.

Bundled plugins: https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/tree/master/plugins Installed plugins: https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/wiki/Cura-Preferences-and-Settings-Locations

I'm not familiar with LanSchool, but by scanning their website for a bit it seems it tries to record and catch pretty much everything you're doing on a PC, which takes up A LOT of resources. Fi that PC is not too fast, that can interfere with other software that needs resources (like CPU and memory). Do you have problems with LanSchool in combination with other (heavy) software? Could you share the task manager details so we can see which processes are taking up those resources?

Currently that's not really possible, but we're discussing several options for backup/restore functionality, so we'll take this as input for that discussion. Thanks! cc @Msuurmond

You might also try the Cura Connect API (on newer firmware versions) which currently has not authentication. Docs are available on http://{PRINTER_IP}/cluster-api/v1/.

I can't imagine that Cura would add a PDF generator just for this. IF this feature happens, expect a simple text (cfg/ini, csv) output.

What is the reason that it takes long to get Cura through IT security screening? Is it because of their process or a potential issue with Cura itself? We have many business, University and school users, so it really shouldn't be a problem. It's open source so all code is available to read.

You can find it on this page: https://ultimaker.com/en/products/cura-software/list. 15.04.6 is the latest legacy version. We don't support it anymore so don't expect any help if it doesn't work for you.

Good for you! You can always try legacy Cura (15.x) if you're up for it

/on-topic Another great way to interact with the Cura developers and contributors is via GitHub: https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues. Most technical conversations are held over there.

We don't really support 2.1.2 (or anything of similar age) anymore. I'm afraid your only fix is to upgrade your laptop/desktop to a 64 bit machine and download the latest version of Cura (3.2).

Cool, might need some setting tweaking indeed. I also want to improve the gradual change in the future, starting a bit earlier so it also covers the lower part of a slope. It's a bit tricky because it would need to 'look ahead', but we'll see.

You select the middle (that's your profile's layer height). The variation goes both up and down. The first layer is just static from the profile's first layer height because we need good bed adhesion. Please play around with the feature to get a feeling for it, it's hard to understand from a few comments and screenshots.

That's the one I meant, thanks!

Great examples! @catohagen any chance you can share the STL file of that cup holder? I'm writing a report on adaptive layers and I think it would make a great example use case!

https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/wiki/Adding-new-machine-profiles-to-Cura

About the input field change, I totally agree with you, it shouldn't have ended up in there, it's a worse UX than before. My statements were more in general, related to the endless stream of comments we get from the community (which is great!), and to indicate that we really hear you, but at the same time it's also impossible to incorporate all the feedback into our existing backlog. No personal attack whatsoever. It's also true that we often say it's too hard. The reason for that is that, even though Cura is not super old yet, it already has a lot of legacy code due to internal decisions (supporting legacy profiles, dealing with new printers). This makes it hard sometimes to make even the smallest change. Other things are generally difficult to implement, like input fields for rotations (that's a math problem described here: https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/2779). Sometimes we want to push features/changes early (often as experimental, not enabled by default), just to get it out there and get feedback. This doesn't mean however that when the feedback comes, we have time or priority to actually do something with it at that moment. All the feedback is recorded in our internal ticketing system though. Again, it might feel a bit defensive sometimes, but I'm just trying to shed some light into all the aspects of our development process. Please keep the feedback coming because our (and everyone's) ultimate goal is to make Cura the best slicer software our there, just not overnight.

@kmanstudios I can assure you that we think a unified performance and UI/UX are very important. I can also tell you that they're very difficult. I expect great improvements on this in the future, but it's an ongoing process that we constantly have to think about with every new feature we implement, so sometimes we choose speed over UX in order to get early feedback and get it out there. We know what the biggest issues are, and we will deal with them. It's just not possible to fix all of it within 1 or 2 releases, especially with the added list of work for everything else that's going on at Ultimaker. Don't get me wrong, we get your (and everyone's) frustration, but would your rather have the feature/product out there with some improvements to make, or not have it at all?

It's somewhere on our backlog, but I'm currently working on something else than Cura, so it's really up to the PO of Cura when to plan it. It's also not very trivial, mostly due to preserving print quality when changing flow rates.

It's probably not possible to find 'perfect' default settings as there are so many different models. As for the increased print time, please compare a constant small layer height for the whole model against using adaptive layers with a larger base layer height (profile) but the smallest layer height the same or even smaller than the constant small one (e.g. 0.06mm for the whole model vs adaptive layers 0.15 with a 0.1 variation). Otherwise it would indeed increase the printing time, because you're limiting your upper limit to 0.06 + 0.1. The idea behind it is not to get lower print times when just enabling it, but get lower printing times with similar visual quality for the detailed parts and courser quality for the straight parts. I agree the UX can be much improved, but my initial development was focused on getting it to work in the first place and not destroy print quality when changing flow rates.

Ah, it's a thin wall. I thought it was support material In that case it seems like a bug indeed, maybe some rounding issues. I'll create an internal ticket, but maybe it's easier to report this on GitHub where we keep track of more issues and all Cura developers can update a ticket.

We haven't tested adaptive layers with support thoroughly, we just made sure Cura wouldn't crash when enabling it, but no tests on print quality. It might be in this case that the layer height on that layer is a bit larger and the support Z distance becomes obvious.

Also note that the first layer height will always be the first layer height entered in the settings (needed for proper adhesion), so you might see a gradient from that layer height upwards depending on other settings.

No worries, not taking any of it personally Btw, here's a shortcut to the CuraEngine code that's used for calculating adaptive layers: https://github.com/Ultimaker/CuraEngine/blob/master/src/settings/AdaptiveLayerHeights.cpp.