LucidWolf

At this point I will just once again copy the Creality way that "trouch" did. So any nozzle(variant)/material has a single quality file that is empty for setting other than to make Cura have a profile. Then in the global profile I add my settings so that my printer.json is clean and all the nitty gritty for quality is in the quality cfg files. My main workaround will just be to add the speed and fan properties into some custom materials from fieldofView's material settings plugin. I just find it silly that with nozzles/variants i have to replicate so much, when i would prefer a material setting and a variant setting and let the program mix them based on stack. I could just be doing it wrong as well... seems i do it wrong almost annually now based on this necro. ^^ Thanks for the verification.

I might have figured out the issue that was driving me crazy. Even if the files are in a different directory Cura does not like repetitive names? So copy and pasting from other printers quality or the global quality files without giving a unique name will cause conflict because Cura is not tracking to the full path just the file name.. is that a true statement developers? As before you need to have some blank file linking a material/nozzle to a quality profile. The values for that can be blank and you can keep values in a separate quality file that just has a nozzle or a material and the weight determines the value that wins... Is that a true statement developers? Thanks in advance for any confirmations.

Sorry to necro but it has been a year without any good solution I found. I am now updating my Ultibots with a Revo so am updating the machine profile. I see there was a solution to setting layer height by nozzle, but I still cant find a simple way to overwrite the default quality settings for a machine without just manually overwriting the defaults for fdmprinter since i have two printers that i want to slice with Cura that will be a problem... Here is my machine metadata in ultibots_D300VSp.def.json "metadata": { "visible": true, "author": "LucidWolf", "manufacturer": "Ultibots", "file_formats": "text/x-gcode", "platform": "ultibots_D300VSp_platform.stl", "first_start_actions": ["MachineSettingsAction"], "machine_extruder_trains": { "0": "ultibots_D300VSp_extruder_0" }, "has_machine_quality": true, "has_variants": true, "variants_name": "Nozzle Size" }, If I set has machine quality = false everything works but I am using the quality profiles from fdmprinter in the root of the quality folder. Per the guide I make a folder called ultibots_D300VSp in the quality folder. I copied the standard quality files to this folder and replaced the definition to match mine as shown and turn on machine has quality. There should be no issues it should just be using these files now and not the default. For example my new generic "course" setting: [general] version = 4 name = Coarse definition = ultibots_D300VSp [metadata] setting_version = 20 type = quality quality_type = coarse weight = -3 global_quality = True [values] layer_height = 0.4 When I load my printer I have Nozzle options because the variants are working but i get Not supported... What am i doing wrong? I just want my own quality defaults so I can optimize them for the machine, let alone begin making quality variants per nozzle size. For reference here is an example of a variant file: [general] name = 0.6mm Nozzle version = 4 definition = ultibots_D300VSp [metadata] setting_version = 20 type = variant hardware_type = nozzle [values] machine_nozzle_size = 0.6

I concur on the I never really changed my nozzle in the past. I kept a 0.6mm tungsten carbide nozzle on my workhorse from whenever Dyze design made them. I am only nozzle switching crazy now because of the Revo. I also imagine Cura 5.0 is going to make line width less important. But switching nozzles lets you get higher layer heights. Just how Cura 5.0 makes line width less important to end users. I would think quality settings based on nozzle size could make layer height less important to end users. I think you could just have 3 quality settings and then based on nozzle they would adjust. I did not think through dual nozzles for that kind of setting. I guess default to the smallest nozzle for setting max layer height? Ramblings: Normally when you increase line width without a nozzle change and increase layer you have to slow it down to get that extra squishy goodness. My thought now is change nozzle and keep speed since its so quick to change a nozzle. To get really fast nozzle change speeds I don't even let the old nozzle cool down when i change it out: I heat up prime and retract to get the old nozzle clear of filament. Shut off heating. Put on my mechanics gloves, pull the old nozzle while still hot (Risk of burns, why I imagine E3D tells you to wait and change it cold. To me its no worse than a hot engine block or accidentally burning myself on old nozzle changing.) Screw in new nozzle command heat back on and wait for rewarm then run auto level (delta so quick to do and part of normal process). Its only about 2min mostly waiting on heat up for both nozzles. Both nozzles usually beat my bed warm up anyways so really no loss of time. I would normally run a delta level as part of my print. So for 2min I don't have to sacrifice my 100mm/s print profile. (I keep outer walls still 50 mm) I did have to make my nozzle holders out of stacked silicon/wood since the plastic holder I printed will not take a 200C nozzle for obvious reasons. I didn't even keep the PLA holder in the area knowing i would put my nozzle in it at full temp and that would be a mess... ^^

Greetings Greg, Yeah this is just me trying to get better before I upgrade a less savvy user. I told them to hold off on upgrading back on Cura 0.15 since it was still new and did not have all the stuff they expected, and they held to that belief for 1/2 a decade. ^^ Will probably leap frog them to Cura 5.0 and Klipper. I never thought to just save my profiles in the 3mf files themself somewhere. I might just start doing that to keep the profile list clutter down. I have 2 printers(delta kinematics) but use 7 different machines in Cura based on nozzle/material then the list of dummy user profiles all {printer name}_{Nozzle Size}_{Material}_{Intent}, but i could purge about 75% of them and only focus on intent if the settings stack just worked after a slight change to the quality profiles. I am not concerned with 100% verified values because each printer/material/nozzle combo is its own special snowflake so i will adjust those with a user override and now save it in a 3mf file. I use that custom print name plugin to keep it all straight in the octoprint server. I will say that so far just overwriting the base fdm profiles in the program files quality section to what i want for quality is working swimmingly, I imagine the risk is much lower than messing with FDMPrinter.def.json. I will probably only need to modify the quality profiles this one time till i get my list of standard profiles saved in a 3mf files.

Just to add I was able to get the Not supported cleared by adding individual quality files for: PLA All four nozzles 2/3 Quality (layer heights) Using flyingbear values as a reference, but as expected switching to ABS back to Not Supported... What i would like is a quality setting that says (Material = any). Or some simple way to overide the .cfg that link to fdmprinter in the quality folder. For now i am going to just purge all the speed values in fdmprinter files so they don't mess up my machine defaults and my material defaults and it only sets line height. (Note: Would love to have line height just set by some fraction of nozzle height like i manually do in my home brew user profiles. That is probably another thread topic so i started that.) I love this program and I don't want this to be too negative on the developers but I see some "why does my printer act differently after update" threads and its because the machine definitions were purged and never added back. I can see why manufacturers/users don't add there printers back if Cura designers think requiring a x^3 material, variant, layer matrix as necessary to modify even the most basic of quality settings is required. Why even have the default stack profile if the code gate keeps on the quality settings when you add custom quality defaults. I actually think the print settings are pretty well laid out but they just need to allow a fail safe in the printer file that just does not care if you don't have a specific material to quality to nozzle like the baseline fdmprinter. I still feel like I am doing something wrong based on the fact that that i have to enter all that data just to get a custom quality default, so if I am wrong i will happily eat my words above. Also while Cura 5.0 is beta what would be nice if there was some sort of queue on the print settings telling us where the default value is coming from. I used colors but would probably be better to use the icons you already have for the color blind. (User override is no icon because we already have the revert symbol. ^^)

Greetings, Is there a reason not to have a layer height defined by a nozzle diameter. When i try to code that into my quality profile it does not seem to grab the updated nozzle size from the variant and instead defaults to the machine nozzle size. Am I crazy yes. But am i crazy because i want my quality setting to be based on speed, and % of nozzle height? I think this is a much more intuitive way to set feeds and speeds now that quick changing nozzles are a thing. Ex) draft: layer_height = =machine_nozzle_size*0.5 speed_print = 100 standard: layer_height = =machine_nozzle_size*0.4 speed_print = 50 ultra: layer_height = =machine_nozzle_size*0.2 speed_print = 50 The stack documents show this should work. extruder_stack.getProperty("layer_height", "value") user.getProperty("layer_height", "value") -> Returns None quality_changes.getProperty("layer_height", "value") -> Returns None intent.getProperty("layer_height", "value") -> Returns None quality.getProperty("layer_height", "value") -> Returns "=machine_nozzle_size*0.5" user.getProperty("machine_nozzle_size", "value") -> returns None quality_changes.getProperty("machine_nozzle_size", "value", "value) -> Returns None intent.getProperty("machine_nozzle_size", "value") -> Returns None quality.getProperty("machine_nozzle_size", "value") -> Returns None material.getProperty("machine_nozzle_size", "value") -> Returns None variant.getProperty("machine_nozzle_size", "value") -> Returns 0.6 <= Is there some issue with using nozzle size and layer height on a quality call? I did notice the upper window tab was updating just not the profile. Thanks in advance.

Thanks Greg... I just have to ask the question to then find out my answer later. I understood the inheritance but failed on the syntax Correct answer is strings in data file need '' as well as ' ... actually am shamelessly copying flying bears file. They use as defaults what i would as well. Thank you flying bears. "infill_pattern": { "default_value": "'gyroid'" } Have you had any luck on making a quality default profile for your machine defaults. I added to my machine definition: "has_machine_quality": true, "preferred_quality_type": "normal", I made a folder in quality called micromake_d1 copied all the base profiles and then changed definition = micromake_d1. Cleared all the speed properties issues that were causing me problems under values that were overriding my values but when i start Cura it goes sideways. My material selection is orange and my profiles all say "Not supported". I did not think i would need to add individual profiles for each material/quality if i did not state "has materials" in the machine definition. now i can fix this issue in my personal install by just modifying the defaults quality for fdmprinter, but i want something that can merge into the Cura base and I imagine Cura does not want me modifying that file... I am concerned that what Cura wants is a file for each material/nozzle/quality setting and that not a data structure that is non-trivial to set defaults.

Greetings, I am going to generate some profiles for a mini-kossel (Micromake D1) and was curious about where the default setting are for the profiles. I can overwrite them in my variant configs for nozzles but that seems the wrong place for infill and support changes. I would like to "override" some of the more basic features in my machine definition file. Ex machine.) "infill_pattern": { "default_value": "gyroid" } When i do this there is no change to the default 'Grid' selection in any of the profiles... when i check the quality folder the default quality profiles just have the [metadata] and no values other than layer/speed... I see in the quality folders lots of setting which are onerous because there is a profile for each material, variant, and quality. This is getting cubic quickly... Searching https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/wiki/Profiles-&-Settings I was expecting something hidden in material or intent, but found nothing... Questions: 1.) So where are the default profile values stored if not machine, intent, or quality? (Is there a cache under appdata i need to clear for a machine update?) 2.) If I make one quality setting for my machine definition everything goes sideways... Do i need to make a quality definition for every variant and default quality type before Cura will function? I would like to cut down on the number of quality selections. I saw the "has_machine_quality": true and expected that to not default the normal so if i have only one quality that should be the only option in the pull down. 3.) Is there a way to set layer height based on nozzle size using equations in quality file? ( I would prefer Quality = 1/4 nozzle diam, Standard = 1/2, Fast 3/4) as my default line height based on nozzle) That way i don't have to make 4x the quality files for variant + quality settings for the 4 standard Revo nozzles. 4.) Is Cura 5.0 going to break all of this? I will continue to muddle around trying to get something working... thanks in advance to anyone who can answer and takes pity on this lost non-coder using notepad.