New: Ultimaker Cura 3.5

[AAGC 3]

We didn't try to print on the UM3 and S5 yet but the software is more fluid.

[Msuurmond 28]

4 minutes ago, RunTime said:

Thanks for the link. Sad if this really is the end of line. I am 'stuck' at 10.9.5. But it should not be impossible, there still some great complicated software still in development for 10.9.5 (for example FormZ). I may have to go back to Simplify3D that I left when I bought the UM3 (if this keeps evolving in my environment).

We are still looking into this, MacOS 10.9 is 4 years old. We rely heavily on Qt and version 5.8 is out of support starting this year. 5.8 is the last version that supports MacOS 10.9

You can still keep on using Cura 3.4.1 as a current 'workaround'.

[P3D 46]

Unfortunately, the "breakaway bug" is still there... I also updated https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/4575 with this information.

 

Edited October 16, 2018 by P3D

[Msuurmond 28]

Just now, P3D said:

Unfortunately, the "breakaway bug" is still there... I also updated https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/4575 with this information.

This fix had too much of an impact to be included into 3.5.1 It will be fixed in Cura 3.6

[P3D 46]

1 minute ago, Msuurmond said:

This fix had too much of an impact to be included into 3.5.1 It will be fixed in Cura 3.6

 

Well, thanks for the information... so this means breakaway supports will be broken in the newest Cura version for how long?

[Msuurmond 28]

18 minutes ago, P3D said:

 

Well, thanks for the information... so this means breakaway supports will be broken in the newest Cura version for how long?

 

This is model specific right? You can change the 'Support Floor pattern' to 'lines' and then in should work ok.

 

[Brulti 177]

Profiles are weridly updated with 3.5.1.

 

I have a specific profile for my Everlast 0.6 core, and, when I try to upgrade it by clicking on the little arrow then selecting 'Update profile with current settings/overrides', Cura will instead create a new profile. This new profile will either have a similar name to the profile I was trying to updater or just be named 'Empty'.

 

I need to close and reopen Cura for the update to be taken into account, although the 'Empty' profile is still there.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Brulti

[jonnyplastic 0]

4 hours ago, SandervG said:

For your information, Ultimaker Cura 3.5.1 is now available

Thank you all for your hard work! On my core 2 duo iMac OS 10.11.6, it's still laggy... there's a 1-second delay when rotating the model, but it seems to be running a bit faster. However... in layer view, it's so slow, it's pretty much a constant beachball.

Edited October 16, 2018 by jonnyplastic
more detail

[kmanstudios 1,120]

45 minutes ago, Msuurmond said:

We are still looking into this, MacOS 10.9 is 4 years old.

I think the question this brings up is that it must be evaluated how far back in OS history should one be expected to support. OS's constantly evolve as does the machinery.

 

That being said, when will I get to use these new toys on my WIN95 machine? ? ?

[Shadowman 53]

An interesting series of posts.

 

Let me begin by making very clear that I care as do many many others. If I did not I would not spend the time as I have involved with various aspects as associated with forum and Ultimaker. 

 

First and foremost I appreciate SandervG's replies as presented by Ultimaker.

 

Now there were a couple replies that referenced previous comments that were and in my opinion there were presented out of context but rather that cut and paste a bunch of quotes I will do my best to convey my thoughts in a single series of thoughts.

 

To begin with; in my opinion deploying "Ultimaker" Cura 3.5.1 was a mistake.

 

Yes, I have been active in software development for plus 35 years and contrary to replies that were made the release of "Ultimaker" Cura 3.5 was not comprehensively tested; period. I suspect that independently many modules and add-on features were developed, tweaked, and tested however, once compiled as a solo package it was not. Again, this is only my opinion because "if" truly tested many of the bugs simply could "not" have been missed.

 

Furthermore, I participated within numerous threads and within at least one I made clear that bugs are a byproduct of software development; meaning that all software has something that can be construed as a bug. This was not a deployment with bugs but rather an untested deployment that in my opinion created a significant cause for concern for many including the inherent trust of the developer which in this case is Ultimaker being at the top of the list. It does not matter how many folks and or at what level they contributed to this deployment as the proverbial buck began and ended with Ultimaker.

 

My position remains as it was; this is an Ultimaker forum and any issues as related to other printers that use the "free" version of the Cura software (albeit the same) are moderately interesting at best. I purchased the Ultimaker printer; specifically the S5 and expect the operation of the Ultimaker printers to be the concern and frankly; not the other brands. If as a byproduct of the Cura software others are able to use it for free then the only caveat should be presented to them; "designed and tested" on our Ultimaker products as such use it at your own risk. Is this is a bold and less than compassionate comment; "no" as many including myself paid for the Ultimaker Cura and software. The idea that Ultimaker customers received it for free is both not true and in my opinion a shallow pert near ridiculous way to side step the responsibilities associated with it.

 

I spent weeks speaking with many folks within and associated with Ultimaker prior to purchasing the S5; a printer that in my opinion takes 3d printing to the next level. It was the first printer that I received and removed from the box. plugged it in, and created a successful print having to do nothing more that load, slice, and print. To say the least I was elated. Yes, there were questions and a couple minor issues however, nothing that I considered significant and even more so; all questions and concerns were answered and or tended to quickly often my members within this forum.

 

For plus 5 years; like many I have been involved with 3d printing during which much of the time was spend using it as a hobby as the consistency of the 3d printing was often a crap shoot at best. Yes we used them within our business however, it was always an effort with the results far less than consistent and dependable.

 

I discussed this at length with Ultimaker as this was and frankly remains, my number one concern. I was assured that the Ultimaker 3 and S5 was truly ready for prime time. That when the Ultimaker hardware used with the Ultimaker private label NFC filament in concert with their Ultimaker Cura software it was a reliable consistent "package". So to make clear for those reading my thoughts for the first time; it is because of this solicitation and my belief in Ultimaker that I stroked a check for roughly $8K USD for the S5, spare parts such as Print Cores, build plate, fans, retainers, etc. as well as many rolls of the Ultimaker NFC filament. I can comfortably say that if all wanted was a nice 3d printer I could have purchase many of them for this price. I share this to make clear; I was not drawn to price nor measurable value but rather; I was willing and did pay for the behind the scenes development costs along with the assurance that I was not purchasing "another" 3d printer that was still being made ready for primetime.

 

If this was not something that Ultimaker was able to assure me then I was prepared to wait until such a product came to market.

 

Now back to the deployment of Ultimaker Cura 3.5 and my comment about how deploying Ultimaker Cura 3.5.1 was a mistake; deploying Ultimaker 3.5.1 was in my opinion a knee jerk reaction rather than a fully feted deployment as is evidenced by the comments made immediately after it was deployed; ridiculous. 

 

This reminds me of Apple years ago; a cloaked released that immediately brought with the same and or more issues. Once comment alone left me having to read it more than once; "the breakaway support issue could not be resolved but will be in 3.6"; what the heck. I don't care if it's not fixed but don't tell me 3.5.1 fixes known issues (which this is one) only to have to find out that it has not been fixed followed by "ooops" it will be fixed later.

 

No Ultimaker Cura 3.5.1 should have been released but rather Ultimaker Cura 3.5 should be taken down and the list of the known bugs which could be presented as features and issues being working while in beta.

 

At this moment the deployment of Ultimaker Cura 3.5 was a disaster and with the deployment of Ultimaker Cura 3.5.1 it is in my opinion worst because trust and credibility will diminish rapidly as the result of deploying failed patches.

 

I encourage all to stop and take a deep breath while regrouping.

 

Begin by removing access to Ultimaker Cura 3.5 as well as the pervasive Ultimaker Cura 3.5 update popup within the earlier versions of Ultimaker Cura; and frankly in the future do "not" make any upgrade notification pervasive. I can read it once and if I opt to update I will however, having that greet me every time I load the program is unnecessary and annoying.

 

Typically I would say yo simply withdraw the Ultimaker Cure 3.5/3.5.1 and go inti a comprehensive testing routine however, I dare say that there are credibility and trust issues at stake as such I would likely become and remain an open book throughout this process.

 

***** Share the list of acknowledged issues features being developed so that if something is missed it can be acknowledged

***** Agree to what will be corrected; meaning establish a known plan

***** Complete the comprehensive beta testing

***** Present the list of all that was done that differentiates the "tested" release from Ultimaker Cura 3.4.1; for example; if the new version will no longer work with specific "operating system" this fricken darn well better be shared. 

***** Deploy while encouraging folks to try it along side the version they are using to make certain that there are at best isolated incidents when compared to that which happened with the deployment of Ultimaker Cura 3.5/3.5.1.

 

In addition; I believe that there are far too many thin skinned individuals that worked relentlessly to create Ultimaker Cura 3.5. I say this because it appears that because they put forth significant effort that they feel the crappy deployment should somehow be overlooked as evidenced by comments such as "bashing"; not a chance. I for one trusted all of you and blindly updated my program only to have my printer effectively bricked until I went back to Ultimaker Cura 3.4.1. Seems like folks such myself are owed the apology and appreciation shown for our tolerance of this situation as we had "no" control over it. For example; I use the S5 within our business and last Friday with prints in the "Q" I was shut down because of Ultimaker Cura 3.5 as was the situation for many others.

 

In any case; I do not see this as a developer issue nor a tester issue but rather a Ultimaker issue which in this case is a team as such "no" one person or group. I see this as a significant lesson for Ultimaker and look forward to quality future deployments.

 

In closing;

 

In my world of software development the developers are "not" the testers "and" unless an agreement is reached; our customers are "not" our testers. The primary responsibility of a tester is to validate that "all" systems operate as designed and solicited while to some degree trying to make the software crash by introducing all sorts of variables so this does not happen to the customer. This involves not simply loading the UI and saying "see it works" but rather clicking on "every" button to see the various variables and functions come into play. Then add to this the process needs to be repeated on "every" operating system that it is be intended and even more so; solicited to be used on. In this case; Windows 7-10 (including the various versions of Windows 10) as well as Macintosh and its numerous operating systems. 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2018 by Shadowman
addeed

[RunTime 0]

1 hour ago, kmanstudios said:

I think the question this brings up is that it must be evaluated how far back in OS history should one be expected to support. OS's constantly evolve as does the machinery.

 

That being said, when will I get to use these new toys on my WIN95 machine? ? ?

 

Well, of topic sort of, but 10.9.5 is optimal on our hardware (even though 10.6.8 was even better we do have replaced it except on our servers). To go to a later system would brake tons of intricate software solutions and the gain (new fancy 'hands of' etc) would be 100% non productive (and also hundred of hours replacing software). We can survive without emojs and Apple applications. Instead of spending hours of continuos configuring and upgrades, tens of thousands $ investments in hardware we focus on our work. From time to time we loose an upgrade path such as photoshop, lightroom etc. But then the loss is often just some uninteresting feature. I expect 10.9.5 is here (for us) for at least 6+ more years. I do expect, for example, FormZ or Simplify3D to be frozen in some year or so, but again, they are rock solid and complete as they are. Still, if I can push for 10.9.5, as in this forum, I will. (We do have some (isolated) WIN95 and MacOS9 running!) Sorry for the OT.

 

[kmanstudios 1,120]

That makes sense...but, as hardware evolves and so must the OS to capitalize it (or worse, as hardware demands the newer OS) one cannot stay at old OS levels forever.

 

I mean, look at how many companies are still using NT.........

[Shadowman 53]

12 minutes ago, RunTime said:

 

Well, of topic sort of, but 10.9.5 is optimal on our hardware (even though 10.6.8 was even better we do have replaced it except on our servers). To go to a later system would brake tons of intricate software solutions and the gain (new fancy 'hands of' etc) would be 100% non productive (and also hundred of hours replacing software). We can survive without emojs and Apple applications. Instead of spending hours of continuos configuring and upgrades, tens of thousands $ investments in hardware we focus on our work. From time to time we loose an upgrade path such as photoshop, lightroom etc. But then the loss is often just some uninteresting feature. I expect 10.9.5 is here (for us) for at least 6+ more years. I do expect, for example, FormZ or Simplify3D to be frozen in some year or so, but again, they are rock solid and complete as they are. Still, if I can push for 10.9.5, as in this forum, I will. (We do have some (isolated) WIN95 and MacOS9 running!) Sorry for the OT.

 

I won’t speak to the ability to improve one software while maintaining its ability to operate within another however, as my previous posts makes clear; release notes should make clear compatibility changes so as to insure one is not blindsided; or worse.

 

Marketing products into the business world is much different than the consumer world with many companies maintaining operating systems for many many years because their proprietary software is often developed around it so the idea of saying; well; you need to update your company’s operating system in order to continue using the products you purchased from us is a not realistic nor a viable path.

 

Blind deployments; meaning deployments without release notes can not be the norm as many have made clear; the Ultimaker printer is a component of their business.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Shadowman
Spelling

[nallath 1,120]

7 hours ago, RunTime said:

Thanks for the link. Sad if this really is the end of line. I am 'stuck' at 10.9.5. But it should not be impossible, there still some great complicated software still in development for 10.9.5 (for example FormZ). I may have to go back to Simplify3D that I left when I bought the UM3 (if this keeps evolving in my environment).

Impossible? It hardly ever is. Impractical or simply too expensive is usually the reason for this. Same reason why we dont support 32 bit anymore (although that is a tad bit older)

[kmanstudios 1,120]

Somehow this comes to mind....

 

[nallath 1,120]

5 hours ago, Shadowman said:

Yes, I have been active in software development for plus 35 years and contrary to replies that were made the release of "Ultimaker" Cura 3.5 was not comprehensively tested; period. I suspect that independently many modules and add-on features were developed, tweaked, and tested however, once compiled as a solo package it was not. Again, this is only my opinion because "if" truly tested many of the bugs simply could "not" have been missed.

 

1

Most issues that you reported have been user errors, firmware issues or simply to vague to reproduce. We do quite some testing (despite you not believing this). 

 

5 hours ago, Shadowman said:

It does not matter how many folks and or at what level they contributed to this deployment as the proverbial buck began and ended with Ultimaker.

 

My position remains as it was; this is an Ultimaker forum and any issues as related to other printers that use the "free" version of the Cura software (albeit the same) are moderately interesting at best. I purchased the Ultimaker printer; specifically the S5 and expect the operation of the Ultimaker printers to be the concern and frankly; not the other brands. If as a byproduct of the Cura software others are able to use it for free then the only caveat should be presented to them; "designed and tested" on our Ultimaker products as such use it at your own risk. Is this is a bold and less than compassionate comment; "no" as many including myself paid for the Ultimaker Cura and software. The idea that Ultimaker customers received it for free is both not true and in my opinion a shallow pert near ridiculous way to side step the responsibilities associated with it.

3

Nowhere did I, or anyone from ultimaker claim that this was a reason. Why do you keep repeating this point? I actually agreed with you in a previous post. 

 

5 hours ago, Shadowman said:

At this moment the deployment of Ultimaker Cura 3.5 was a disaster and with the deployment of Ultimaker Cura 3.5.1 it is in my opinion worst because trust and credibility will diminish rapidly as the result of deploying failed patches.

 

1

Failed patch? Can you explain how / why 3.5.1 is a failed patch? Because we consciously decided to leave certain bugs in there to ensure that there was stability (which you are arguing for that we should strive for). If that's the case, I'm confused. 

 

5 hours ago, Shadowman said:

Begin by removing access to Ultimaker Cura 3.5 as well as the pervasive Ultimaker Cura 3.5 update popup within the earlier versions of Ultimaker Cura; and frankly in the future do "not" make any upgrade notification pervasive. I can read it once and if I opt to update I will however, having that greet me every time I load the program is unnecessary and annoying.

 

3

Fair enough. If I recall correctly it used to do this. 

 

5 hours ago, Shadowman said:

In addition; I believe that there are far too many thin skinned individuals that worked relentlessly to create Ultimaker Cura 3.5. I say this because it appears that because they put forth significant effort that they feel the crappy deployment should somehow be overlooked as evidenced by comments such as "bashing"; not a chance. I for one trusted all of you and blindly updated my program only to have my printer effectively bricked until I went back to Ultimaker Cura 3.4.1. Seems like folks such myself are owed the apology and appreciation shown for our tolerance of this situation as we had "no" control over it. For example; I use the S5 within our business and last Friday with prints in the "Q" I was shut down because of Ultimaker Cura 3.5 as was the situation for many others.

 

 

2

Bricked? Cura isn't deploying any firmware update. So how would the Cura 3.5 brick your machine in any way?  I'm getting the feeling that there have been issues with the operation of your machine that you've not shared here, but are blaming on Cura 3.5. But we need logs to diagnose your problems. Based on the fact that you are the only one with these kinds of problems, it does have something to do with your system / your actions (which still means we need to fix them, but it also means that we could not have found them with the testing we did). 

 

Most of your comments regarding bashing (or the perception thereof) are, I think, because of the way that you explain things. You seem to assume that because mistakes were made that the other party knows nothing about software, development or testing and subsequently explain the entire process as if you were explaining it to a first-year student. Although you might not mean it as such, it feels smug and derogatory. 

I think it's a far shot from going "Hey, there are some bugs in there" or "Hey, I'm seeing a weird bug that I feel should be obviously checked in testing" to "Nothing has been tested and you don't know what you are doing". This on its own is probably also why it's seen as bashing since others are not experiencing these issues (and thus claiming that its a "disaster" is a bit of an over exaggeration) 
 

5 hours ago, Shadowman said:

In my world of software development the developers are "not" the testers "and" unless an agreement is reached; our customers are "not" our testers. The primary responsibility of a tester is to validate that "all" systems operate as designed and solicited while to some degree trying to make the software crash by introducing all sorts of variables so this does not happen to the customer. This involves not simply loading the UI and saying "see it works" but rather clicking on "every" button to see the various variables and functions come into play. Then add to this the process needs to be repeated on "every" operating system that it is be intended and even more so; solicited to be used on. In this case; Windows 7-10 (including the various versions of Windows 10) as well as Macintosh and its numerous operating systems. 

 

 

 

See my previous paragraphs. Although valid advice, it gives the impression that you believe that we don't know this. We do. We also follow the advice. 

Edited October 16, 2018 by nallath

[nallath 1,120]

7 hours ago, Brulti said:

Profiles are weridly updated with 3.5.1.

 

I have a specific profile for my Everlast 0.6 core, and, when I try to upgrade it by clicking on the little arrow then selecting 'Update profile with current settings/overrides', Cura will instead create a new profile. This new profile will either have a similar name to the profile I was trying to updater or just be named 'Empty'.

 

I need to close and reopen Cura for the update to be taken into account, although the 'Empty' profile is still there.

No profile changes have been made for 3.5.1, nor any profile upgrades. 

[Shadowman 53]

1 hour ago, nallath said:

Most issues that you reported have been user errors, firmware issues or simply to vague to reproduce. We do quite some testing (despite you not believing this). 

 

Nowhere did I, or anyone from ultimaker claim that this was a reason. Why do you keep repeating this point? I actually agreed with you in a previous post. 

 

Failed patch? Can you explain how / why 3.5.1 is a failed patch? Because we consciously decided to leave certain bugs in there to ensure that there was stability (which you are arguing for that we should strive for). If that's the case, I'm confused. 

 

Fair enough. If I recall correctly it used to do this. 

 

Bricked? Cura isn't deploying any firmware update. So how would the Cura 3.5 brick your machine in any way?  I'm getting the feeling that there have been issues with the operation of your machine that you've not shared here, but are blaming on Cura 3.5. But again, as a software engineer with 35 years of experience, you would know we need logs to diagnose your problems ? Based on the fact that you are the only one with these kinds of problems, it does have something to do with your system / your actions (which still means we need to fix them, but it also means that we could not have found them with the testing we did). 

 

Most of your comments regarding bashing (or the perception thereof) are, I think, because of the way that you explain things. You seem to assume that because mistakes were made that the other party knows nothing about software, development or testing and subsequently explain the entire process as if you were explaining it to a first-year student. Although you might not mean it as such, it feels smug and derogatory. 

I think it's a far shot from going "Hey, there are some bugs in there" or "Hey, I'm seeing a weird bug that I feel should be obviously checked in testing" to "Nothing has been tested and you don't know what you are doing". This on its own is probably also why it's seen as bashing since others are not experiencing these issues (and thus claiming that its a "disaster" is a bit of an over exaggeration) 
 

See my previous paragraphs. Although valid advice, it gives the impression that you believe that we don't know this. We do. We also follow the advice. 

 

nallath

 

You comment by comment reply is appreciated.

 

It is obvious that developers care and want only to present software advances and improvements and for this I thank all of you.

 

Having shared this I share the following;

 

I watched as issues were presented and even went so far as to share that I was not experiencing the same as encouragement to others until I experienced the same issues. I then commented and continued to read as more and more folks shared their frustrations during which no one from Ultimaker (that I am aware of) engaged as such the situation spiraled downhill.

 

Yes; my printer was effectively “bricked” on Ultimaker Cura 3.5 as I presented a screen shot earlier; the same one that I include now which was experienced by many others too.

 

With regards to the manner in which I presented; very mechanical but certainly not in an angry demonstrative way. Was frustration conveyed; absolutely as I was now experiencing that which I have for years and never expected when I committed to the Ultimaker S5.

 

As for Ultimaker Cura 3.5; I still say that the deployment was a disaster if for no other reason than the fact that it took so long for anyone from Ultimaker to engage but rather it appeared to be left to fester and grow.

 

Now to Ultimaker Cura 3.5.1; the deployment of it was also in my opinion a mess as the end users was left to use it and determine if the patch fixed their specific issue or not; breakaway support as a great example. Breakaway support material along with PVA are a fundamental part of the core marketing of the Ultimaker 3 and S5 as such to simply say; it will be addressed in Ultimaker Cura 3.6 left me shaking my head; when is Ultimaker Cura 3.6 to be released; no answer expected.

 

It remains my opinion that Ultimaker Cura 3.5/3.5.1 are not ready from prime time; this is a program under development as such and at best, a “beta” version. Just reading the numerous and diverse issues and then the workarounds being presented as a “stop gap” measure is more than enough to make this obvious.

 

There is no shame in saying; ugh, in all the excitement to present many cool and exciting features and enhance we prematurely deployed Ultimaker Cura 3.5/3.5.1. And then finish it and redeploy it.

 

However, if fir whatever reason Ultimaker Cura 3.5/3.5.1 is to remain as “deployed” then ........ 

 

Proactively the Ultimaker Team should acknowledge the known issues as SandervG eluded to earlier and make clear what was tended to within the initial Ultimaker Cura 3.5.1 patch along with a clear sharing of when the remaining issues will be tended to. 

 

Hence my earlier comment about stopping the deployment of Ultimaker Cura 3.5/3.5.1 because I don’t think the roadmap has began defined. It is as if once Ultimaker Cura 3.5 was deployed the only logical step was to begin patching; this scenario is not unique to this situation as many companies i.e., Microsoft, Apple, do this is all the time nonetheless, it is ridiculous. 

 

Now if this is being to strong on the Ultimaker Development Team then please accept my apology as I made very clear that I did not and do not see this as the direct responsibility of this team but rather something that Ultimaker needs to review because deployment practices such as this can be and often are, very damaging as they bring “trust” into question.

 

Again I want to make “very” clear; if I did not care I would not create the time to participate within this situation. Mentally and financially I committed to Ultimaker and look for more great things to come but want, as do many others; for situations such as this to be accepted, learned from, and not repeated.

 

In closing;

 

Here in part is why folks such as myself committed to Ultimaker; and it had nothing to do with price but rather, the belief in where Ultimaker is today, the forward vision, and that which I referred to as the total package which is referred to by Ultimaker as “ecosystem” derived of the hardware, Ultimaker Cura, and hand selected and extensively tested filaments with printing profiles. The 3D printer that anyone can use within a typical business environment and not an expensive novelty item.

 

I offer no apology for my participation within this issue nor for my lengthy posts but rather only if I offended someone along the way as this was “never” meant to be. 

 

From Hobbyist to Professional 3D Printing

Kawola explained that the Ultimaker 3 was the company’s big step toward professional 3D printing, with the S5 meant to take that progression further. Whereas the Ultimaker 2 was popular among 3D printing enthusiasts, both the market and the company have since been transitioning toward professional applications.

 

“It’s a feedback loop that continues to swirl around,” Kawola said.“Our first iteration of printers, the Ultimaker 2 and Ultimaker 2+, were pretty good. Then the market would ask for things like more materials and consistency and accuracy. We saw that there was a real opportunity there and guided our product development accordingly. The market has, in a lot of ways, pulled companies like Ultimaker into the professional space.”

 

Discover the easy-to-use desktop 3D printer with a large build volume that delivers accurate, industrial-grade parts, time and again. With simple setup, high uptime, and reliable dual extrusion, Ultimaker S5 is the complete professional 3D printing solution.

 

Ultimaker materials are extensively tested to give the best results on the Ultimaker S5. And Ultimaker Cura software comes with preconfigured profiles, so you don’t need to spend time on complex slicing settings.

 

Make 3D printing a smooth process by using an integrated ecosystem of software products designed to work seamlessly with each other.

 

With high speed Wi-Fi and LAN connectivity built directly into the Ultimaker S5, regular firmware updates, with new features and improvements, will enhance the printer’s capabilities over time.

 

Ultimaker Cura ensures a seamless workflow. Prepare prints, send them to the printer wirelessly, and monitor jobs remotely using the printer’s integrated camera. Learn more about Ultimaker Cura.

 

Scale up your operations with confidence using Cura Connect. Queue jobs, manage multiple Ultimaker S5 and Ultimaker 3 printers, and maintain a full overview of your operations so you can efficiently meet demand. Learn more about Cura Connect.

Edited October 17, 2018 by Shadowman
Spelling

[Adam324 13]

I tested the official 3.5.1 and there is still an extreme memory leak when printing via Octoprint.  After I launch a print to octoprint, a couple minutes later my system becomes unresponsive.  Committed memory ends up consuming all swap space (virtual memory in windows terms I think).  Cura starts increasing in regular Memory for the Cura process before system is unresponsive and also consuming committed memory which is not a visible column in task manager by default.  You have to right click on the column title in Details view in Task Manager and enable commit.  This is with Windows 10 and 16 GB of memory onboard.

 

This is a picture after finally getting control back after I assume the system started doing something to Cura or Cura did to get things under control again because of low memory.  Cura went back down in 'Memory' and I assume Committed too but committed is still around 6.8 Gigabytes.

 

If I switch to Prepare view quickly, the memory consumption stays where it was.  If I then switch back to Monitor view which shows the video, it starts climbing about 95 MBytes/sec.

 

EDIT: When I have time I will submit a bug to github if nobody else has.  Work has me consumed right now.

 

Edited October 17, 2018 by Adam324

[RunTime 0]

2 hours ago, nallath said:

Impossible? It hardly ever is. Impractical or simply too expensive is usually the reason for this. Same reason why we dont support 32 bit anymore (although that is a tad bit older)

 

OK, so let me opt-in to a charge (I don't grasp the impractical view). Try $1,000.00. Give me (and some others) a (practical) choice, keep 10.9.5 running for five more years. No? That's OK. I may then find other software that does. Or not. Still I _am_ resisting this; upgrade OS - upgrade hardware (throw working stuff in bin) - upgrade OS - upgrade app - cirkus. I _know_ I will lose in the end, and rebuild it all. But then over a 10-15-year cycle I will have less problem (less emoijs, hands-of, silly stuff) but a stable environment that works with what I already got. I am not saying that working for all foreseeable future with 3.4.1 (as a 'workaround') is a bad thing (even though some bug fix would be nice), it's more that I'd like to point out that att least one single user is here and stuck wit 10.9.5. (And regarding 32b, I am not suggesting you suport MacOS9 on my Pismo either... that would be rather silly).

 

[Shadowman 53]

28 minutes ago, RunTime said:

 

OK, so let me opt-in to a charge (I don't grasp the impractical view). Try $1,000.00. Give me (and some others) a (practical) choice, keep 10.9.5 running for five more years. No? That's OK. I may then find other software that does. Or not. Still I _am_ resisting this; upgrade OS - upgrade hardware (throw working stuff in bin) - upgrade OS - upgrade app - cirkus. I _know_ I will lose in the end, and rebuild it all. But then over a 10-15-year cycle I will have less problem (less emoijs, hands-of, silly stuff) but a stable environment that works with what I already got. I am not saying that working for all foreseeable future with 3.4.1 (as a 'workaround') is a bad thing (even though some bug fix would be nice), it's more that I'd like to point out that att least one single user is here and stuck wit 10.9.5. (And regarding 32b, I am not suggesting you suport MacOS9 on my Pismo either... that would be rather silly).

 

It remains my opinion that you and others should be given significant notice of such a drastic change and frankly, accommodated because believing that a business can simply and spontaneously make a change is naive regardless of the cost as cost is not the only variable.

 

As I stated earlier; many companies personally developed software is tied to a specific operating system; take for example Microsoft and Windows XP; the transition period has been years with many companies still not fully transistioned yet. Some of this is as the direct result of the time required to write new software and fully test it before deployment. 

 

No matter; one can not be presented with an upgrade path; particularly for a business without a comprehensive understanding of the “cause and affect”. It simply can’t be done blindly. Release notes are pivotal.

 

For what it’s worth; I had lengthy conversations with Ultimaker about how the mindset and manner of doing business would have to change significantly if they are to successfully penetrate the business market as the leaders when compared to the hobbiest market which is far more forgiving. 

 

I was assured that such was discussed at length and integrated into their long term business development program.

 

 

Edited October 17, 2018 by Shadowman
Spelling

[Brulti 177]

11 hours ago, nallath said:

No profile changes have been made for 3.5.1, nor any profile upgrades. 

 

Sorry, my mistake, I didn't write that properly: I meant when I try to upgrade my Custom profiles for specific materials that are not UM-brand.

 

I was doing test with Laywood with my Everlast 0.6 core, and every time I adjusted a setting for the Laywood profile and clicked on 'Update profile with cureent settings', Cura would create either a copy of the profile (named Laywood #2) or one named 'Empty' instead of updating my Laywood profile. I need to close and reopen Cura to have the changes taken into account in the Laywood profile, and the Laywood #2 and Empty profiles are still there.

[nallath 1,120]

2 hours ago, Brulti said:

 

Sorry, my mistake, I didn't write that properly: I meant when I try to upgrade my Custom profiles for specific materials that are not UM-brand.

 

I was doing test with Laywood with my Everlast 0.6 core, and every time I adjusted a setting for the Laywood profile and clicked on 'Update profile with cureent settings', Cura would create either a copy of the profile (named Laywood #2) or one named 'Empty' instead of updating my Laywood profile. I need to close and reopen Cura to have the changes taken into account in the Laywood profile, and the Laywood #2 and Empty profiles are still there.

Ah, right. I assume that you changed the type of the material right? In that case, it can't find a matching quality profile, so the quality gets set to empty.

[Brulti 177]

3 minutes ago, nallath said:

Ah, right. I assume that you changed the type of the material right? In that case, it can't find a matching quality profile, so the quality gets set to empty.

 

Ok, thanks for the explanation.

[Nklerk 0]

Hi All,

 

I'm a noob so bare with me, I've installed 4.5.1 and i'm having startup issues. The application only start's once after installation.

 

What i'm doing:

1. Open "Ultimaker Cura-3.5.1-win64.exe"
2. Select Yes to remove the former installation
3. Select Yes to remove the configuration files. (if i don't i cant start cura)
4. Finish installation with default parameters.
5. After the installation Cura is launched.
6. I select my printer (Creality Ender-3)
7. <Cura works normal at this point and i can slice>
8. I close the cura application.
   cura.exe is not active in Task Manager so really closed.
9. I start cura, but it wil not start.
   No popup loading screen,
   No taskbar icon.
   cura.exe is active in Task Manager.
10. I cant start cura in any way. tried rebooting, run as Admin. Only a full re-install works (for one time then it doesn't again)

I'm running cura on a windows 10 x64 surface pro 4 [Windows Version 10.0.17763.55]