WolliBer

I do not agree with the statement and, above all, with the justification. Whether a computer starts counting its arrays or anything else with zero is completely irrelevant to me. But if a situation is discussed in nature, it should be self-evident for every programmer who leaves his workplace and touches a tree that he should start counting the picked apple at 1. The comparison with the commands in G-code is flawed. In particular, if the numbering in the code is not absolutely necessary, it should be a matter of course to start with 1. I know from my own training that you start loops and arrays with 0, but then it is the programmer's job to adapt his work to reality. I have less and less understanding for these sloppy ways of working. WHY should humans adapt to the work of computers just because "a" programmer is too lazy to start his loop at 1? - Unfortunately, this problem is very pronounced and your comment shows that you also understand it and try to justify it with comparisons that don't fit. - Very incomprehensible! People should not adapt to computers! Computers, machines and programs should / must adapt to humans. The number of different programs is too large to have to ask yourself every time how they are counted and whether the programs and displayed values are "compatible" or whether I have to convert them. If the value in the G-code is not relevant, the probability that Klipper will make the error is low. In addition, the change of a layer from 1 to 2 from the line to the object can hardly be explained by an error in Klipper.

2 related errors ============== Note: I have to use version 4.8 because that is the version that comes with Elegoo Neptune 4 Pro / for which there is a profile. The 1st bug I noticed earlier, still exists "today" and I doubt it has been fixed by the current version. 1st error - Cura cannot count! In IT and mathematics, it is possible to start counting at 0. In reality, however, you start counting at 1 and the 1st layer is the first to be printed! Current observation: While he places the test line at the edge of the print bed, "Layer 1" is displayed in Klipper. When switching to the object, the count changes to "Layer 2". - Does the layer change in reality or is it just the reported number that is incorrect? The error is probably in the G-code. Under these conditions, should a filament change be carried out on a specific layer? 2nd error - at one point, before or after? In addition, the specification in the scripts (Filament Change, ...) simply specifies a number. It should not be possible to label the description in front of the text box with "before layer x" or "after layer x"? HOW should the script recognize whether the filament change is carried out before a layer or after a layer? I think that other scripts are also affected. @Dustin: I'm mentioning you here because you were recently invited in another post. I'm not sure whether I should reply to it directly. Before I do, I'll send this real error message.

Hello, "not-so-sunny-today Florida" ... but much better than Catrina 😉 Were you affected by the busy lady back then? I happen to be sitting here in the dark. My age is no coincidence. I saw it coming 😉 thanks for the hint with the "t" - it also works in my language. Unfortunately, "t" only activates the tool (at least in 4.8). If I then use the cursor, only the construction space rotates. I still have to move and manipulate the object with the mouse. I have found that some, but not all, functions are selectable: T - transform R - rotate S - scale M - mirror + / - zoom in / zoom out = zoom in I have also activated other tools: - J - one of the many anti-warp tools (a tool that looks like a 5-pointed star with ) dots ("Tab + Antiwarping 1.1") - F ... previously unknown tool (you shouldn't install too many tools that have good-sounding names - uninstall them again quickly) . After the search: "Custom Support Cylinder" A very disturbing tool.... I can configure something in 6 tabs and remove with a single button what is not there, but I can't add anything. 😮 You should only install tools that you need NOW and not ones that you want to try out soon because the name sounds nice. Get rid of it! - I ... TabAntwiwarping 1.4 (without +)

Version 5.6 doesn't support Elegoo Neptune 4 🥵

Y E S !! , thank you. If you have written all possible "keys" and file names identically, then it works. 😄 One more note: It sounds as if you are not helping privately, but as if you are working for Ultimaker. My impression is that you (@Ultimaker) think in a very complicated way in many places, or you make solutions so complicated that the result is impractical. I could add a list of irritating solutions that perhaps "have to" be like this because they have grown over the years and expand it later. But I can already show you a few quick shots: ===================================== - In the list of settings for the current print, there are categories: Quality, Housing, Material, etc., etc. Question: (a) Why is "double extrusion offered as a category when NO printer is configured with two extruders? b) Why are such crucial properties (for the print and its result) as "Spiralize" at the bottom of the list and can be overlooked? Parameters that change the result so fundamentally should be at the top! c) For the "Housing" there are parameters "Wall thickness" and "Number of wall lines", which are directly related. Although an indentation is displayed, it is still possible to change the lower parameter, which is actually hierarchically dependent and must not change the higher-level parameter. For programming purposes, it is certainly easier to program a vertically arranged list than controls positioned "in a triangle", which also visually display the dependency. Even if the dependencies are very widely branched, these closely linked parameters should be presented in a different visual representation. It probably makes sense to try out this concept in one place (e.g. the wall thickness) and see how users get on with it. As the content is not changed, but only the way it is displayed, it is possible to switch the option for the new display on or off. d) If parameters are displayed, they are given a default value.... This can then be changed by the user. It is not clear what happens if the parameter is then hidden again. ... i) is the parameter then ignored? ii) is the parameter used with the new value even though it is not displayed? iii) If I make the parameter visible again... it will probably have the value I set when I made it invisible. (I haven't checked this yet, as I'm currently struggling with major problems. - However, there should be clear communication for the user here. e) Help texts are displayed for parameters. e1) The inserted images are "old" (of poor quality). You can roughly recognize what is meant, but you often have to guess! e2) e.g. the setting of the bridge / gantry has such a bad drawing that you cannot recognize which length to read and where to enter it. f) There are parameters and settings for different areas: - The program - the different printers - the different filaments - the parameters for printing All settings are divided into 2 dialogs ("Configure Cura" and "Profile"). The clarity and the dependencies are not clear! In the 90s (Windows 3.0) there was a time when programs introduced tabs. Not only to distribute parameters to different windows, because this created more space, but especially to bring the work steps into a sequence. You had to work through the tabs one after the other and could be "sure" that you had seen and processed everything before starting the backup, for example. Unfortunately, this approach has been lost for the workflow. g) The many parameters in the dialog to make them visible are an endless list. At least "blank lines" should be inserted here to display parameters that belong closely together. The indentation is not clear enough and not sufficient! This is especially true if many parameters belong to one topic and the sub-topics themselves have several sub-topics. Then the transition to a completely new topic is not clear. I regularly have the thought that if I work with a program 24/7/356 every day and can work through all the steps blindly and my hand and mouse fly across the table as if controlled by a robot, that my observations are not bad at all. However, I would prefer (at least for me) if the program presented the work steps in a factual and logical sequence and the computer could do the necessary work. - This is also helpful for people who rarely use a program and don't need help, but simply want to follow a workflow and adjust this workflow to their own requirements. The simplest example, which applies to ALL programs in all operating systems: "Open file" and "Save file as" dialogs: ALL file formats that the program knows are generally offered. I can set this via a drop-down field, but this is time-consuming and dull, especially if work steps are repeated frequently. Nobody has ever thought of the fact that the user / company administrator / security and company guidelines do not provide for certain file formats and do not offer them as standard. What am I supposed to do in Word, Excel or Photoshop with dialogs where 25 formats (alphabetically) are offered and I always need the 17th format? And I always have to 1) open it again, 2) search and read 3) click? I want MY 3 most important formats (possibly with radio button) and only open them when required. h) The "speech bubbles" with the help texts always appear very close to the cursor. However, if I want to read something very close to the cursor, this help window is in the way 70% of the time and I have to move the mouse away first. The help window could be displayed at the bottom or on the "other" side, where you can read, but where it does not interfere with the current point of interest. i) Positioning AND enlarging the support structures and especially the blockers is a disaster! The mechanism that enlarges the cube does not adhere to any scheme learned in other programs! If I want to enlarge the cube in one direction, it grows in the opposit direction and then I have to compensate for this "growth" by moving the cube and for this I HAVE to change the tool again and again, because you can't get to the place you want! Subsequent moving after an enlargement is not a solution, because you always have to estimate whether the enlargement (including the crab-like enlargement on the other side) is sufficient or already too much for my needs. j) Also disturbing is the delayed AND floating movement of the objects (rotating, sliding, enlarging) k) You can influence the orientation in the printer with the cursor, but you can't move the objects on the heating plate with the cursor? Ok, that's it for the quick fix. - Now my task will be to identify and "copy" the relevant parameters from the printer that works reasonably well with Cura 4.8 and add them to version 5.5 or 5.6, because Elegoo delivers the new printer with a 3-year-old program and because Cura 5.5 does not yet have Neptune 4 (Pro) in the list. I have to check the new 5.6 first 😉 Thanks for the quick help with FilamentChange. If you really work at Ultimaker, it would be nice if you could direct my suggestions to the right place. Have a nice week for now 😉 <

Hello, a note in the script (c:\Program Files (x86)\ELEGOO_Cura\plugins\PostProcessingPlugin\scripts\ExampleScript.md) brings me to this page. I am using version 4.8, which is offered by Elegoo for the Neptune 4 Pro since 8.12.2023. I am looking for hints on how to translate an existing script "Change Filament" i) from English to German and ii) adjust some default values x/y park position, retract to values that I like. Unfortunately it does not seem to be enough to copy the file and - the file name - the class - the corresponding texts and numbers to change. Where can I get information? ========================== a) whether I can save the script under "Program Files (x86)\" or also under "appdata\roaming\...\scripts\"? b) There is also a subdirectory "Program Files (x86)\...\scripts\__pycache__" in which the same scripts are stored. However, the file extension has been changed. ("py" ==> "pyc") c) I would like to delete the original script on success or place the displayed name at the end of the list. d) If successful, I would like to "delete" further scripts or place them at the end of the list and only display the scripts at the top that I have tested for my requirements. It is unbearable that several scripts offer similar functions and the differences are not made clear. Unfortunately, the same applies to plugins, which are not the topic here. thanks ;)