Introducing Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Beta

[kmanstudios 1,120]

3 hours ago, Shadowman said:

This is my “exact” intention otherwise the CC is an expensive specific use only Print Core.

 

I too am very surprised.

Thank you for understanding. I would venture that things are not fully read and understood. There seems to be a very limited scope in many replies.

 

But a start up on a limited budget would not be able to afford both and would want to use the CC core as a large bore nozzle for more than just abrasive materials.

[Shadowman 53]

21 minutes ago, kmanstudios said:

Thank you for understanding. I would venture that things are not fully read and understood. There seems to be a very limited scope in many replies.

 

But a start up on a limited budget would not be able to afford both and would want to use the CC core as a large bore nozzle for more than just abrasive materials.

I am 100% with you.....

[Smithy 1,144]

I think the CC core is .6 when I am right, so it would also be a nice addition to .4 and .8.

But let's see, maybe just a predefined profile is missing for "normal" materials and the core works well.

[CarloK 203]

On 11/4/2018 at 8:30 PM, rebekah_harper said:

just to mention that the Wanhao D4S profile is still a single extruder with no option to change.

 

The Wanhoa profiles were supplied by a community member. We don't own Wanhoa printers, so for all the info and feedback we are dependent on you community people.

 

Regarding this particular printer's configuration I asked more details in the thread about that subject and we will use the provided information to update the 4S's profile. I can't make a promise on the Cura release it will be in.

 

As a workaround you can create your own custom FDM printer in Cura based on the settings of the current Wanhoa 4S and an x-offset of 33mm for the second nozzle.

[ctbeke 133]

On 11/5/2018 at 7:32 PM, kmanstudios said:

Thank you for understanding. I would venture that things are not fully read and understood. There seems to be a very limited scope in many replies.

 

But a start up on a limited budget would not be able to afford both and would want to use the CC core as a large bore nozzle for more than just abrasive materials.

It is very time intensive to make the profiles work well to such a degree that Ultimaker is comfortable enough to release them, so we have to make choices in which profiles we invest time. If someone from the community with a CC core finds the time and energy to make PLA profiles for it, go right ahead and use it.

[kmanstudios 1,120]

2 hours ago, ctbeke said:

It is very time intensive to make the profiles work well to such a degree that Ultimaker is comfortable enough to release them, so we have to make choices in which profiles we invest time. If someone from the community with a CC core finds the time and energy to make PLA profiles for it, go right ahead and use it.

PFFF...I am gonna get one and play, play and play with it. While it may be time consuming, I am surprised that UM would launch a product and then just go, "meh" it is just enough.

 

And, you put in the time for the 0.8 core. Cannot really be that big of a difference. But,. I will see.

[ctbeke 133]

3 hours ago, kmanstudios said:

PFFF...I am gonna get one and play, play and play with it. While it may be time consuming, I am surprised that UM would launch a product and then just go, "meh" it is just enough.

 

And, you put in the time for the 0.8 core. Cannot really be that big of a difference. But,. I will see.

 

It's a pity you see it that way. We always try to deliver products with the highest possible quality, hence we have to focus on a few items instead of doing many. Did you visit our office at any time? If so, you'll see several rooms with big test rigs containing many printers and material setups, just to get the perfect profiles to deliver to customers.

 

I think it's best to use the UM support channels to get an 'official' statement on this or request other products, as I'm not going to get into a discussion here about what and what not Ultimaker works on.

 

Anyways, Cura is open for everyone, so there's not reason technically why you couldn't put PLA in that core as long as you take the time to dial in the settings.

[Shadowman 53]

I will state that I am very surprised too particular since the CC core’s target market is the S5 which is targeted as a ready to use business printer aka tool rather than a development platform for enthusiasts.

[AbeFM 35]

On 11/1/2018 at 5:06 AM, smartavionics said:

it is possible to induce resonance in your printer when printing large areas of gyroid infill if the frequency of the head movement matches the resonant frequency of your printer.  When I observed it happening, a 10% speed reduction was all that was necessary to stop the resonance. Reducing the density of the infill will also reduce the frequency.

 

Speaking of "mutating", perhaps one could rock the (spacial) frequency back and forth just a bit if a stretch is more than XXXmm - making the wavelength longer like a cubic 3D infill? Probably too much to keep track of, but it's a thought - as would be slowing/speeding the head every wave or two?

 

I think you're right just to watch out for it, but perhaps it could be avoided altogether. Thanks for adding it!

[kmanstudios 1,120]

42 minutes ago, ctbeke said:

It's a pity you see it that way.

Ummm, no, that is the impression you gave me. Basically, "We put out a product but do not have time to make it fully functional." That is the essence of what you said.

 

43 minutes ago, ctbeke said:

I think it's best to use the UM support channels

Care to share them because this is the support channel I was pointed to when I first purchased my printer.

 

44 minutes ago, ctbeke said:

Did you visit our office at any time?

You know I did. So, what was the purpose of this question. And, I never mentioned it publicly because I carry my NDA very, very close to my heart and actions. But, since you opened that door.....

 

45 minutes ago, ctbeke said:

Anyways, Cura is open for everyone, so there's not reason technically why you couldn't put PLA in that core as long as you take the time to dial in the settings

Correct me if I am wrong, but is not UM positioning itself as a one and done solution to businesses? This statement would be contrary to that:

 

6 hours ago, ctbeke said:

so we have to make choices in which profiles we invest time.

 

47 minutes ago, ctbeke said:

so there's not reason technically why you couldn't put PLA in that core as long as you take the time to dial in the settings.

I do believe I said I was going to do that....so, ummmm, thanks for paraphrasing my intentions, I guess?

 

You guys seem to really be defensive these days. The only point I was making is that it appears to me, as a consumer, that it is a half developed product that is only geared towards a very limited set of materials. And, I kinda do not think that if I notice this impression, I am the only one.

 

What I also find interesting is that I am making comments to try and put a consumer's point of view on the table. But, it seems to be taken as an attack or something, or am I missing the gist of "It's a pity you see it that way.?"

 

 

[kmanstudios 1,120]

24 minutes ago, AbeFM said:

 

Speaking of "mutating", perhaps one could rock the (spacial) frequency back and forth just a bit if a stretch is more than XXXmm - making the wavelength longer like a cubic 3D infill? Probably too much to keep track of, but it's a thought - as would be slowing/speeding the head every wave or two?

 

I think you're right just to watch out for it, but perhaps it could be avoided altogether. Thanks for adding it!

I have not run into that. I have been playing with the Gyroid infill a lot (Hint: Polalchemy Elixir is not good for Gyroid type prints where the walls are missing). And another print (with typical walls and infill) is drying as well. It is a very strong infill.

 

But I have a print drying that is gyroid without a wall, printed with PVA as a support and another where the walls are see through and the pattern is visible. Took several prints to do it too.

 

But, so far, no issues with resonance. It really helps that it is so strong that you do not need it to be very dense to get strength from it.

[Brulti 177]

I'll join the others on this thread in saying that I'm surprised that UM decided not to dedicate the time and energy to make settings for the new CC core for all of the UM materials and not just the new abrasive ones. While I do understand that the main goal of the CC core is to have one in-house core that can deal with abrasive, and not force people to rely on external products like the Everlast cores from 3D-Solex, the fact remains that this diminishes the usefulness of the new CC core.

 

I did bought an Everlast, and I was considering buying a CC to have two 0.6 cores, which would allow me to use the dual-extrusion feature of my UM3E with 0.6 cores, not only for abrasives, but also for PLA and all the other materials. Being able to print with thicker layers is helpful with some materials like HDglass, thicker layers means better transparency in this case, or speed up printing on models that do not have fine details.

 

While it was understood that I would have to play with settings for my Everlast, and I send a heartfelt thanks to the members of this forum who helped with that directly or indirectly, having to play with settings for a core that is made by UM for UM feels very strange and not in line with the way UM advertises their products as 'plug-and-play', or close enough.

 

Since this is a beta version, is there any chance that we expect UM to add profiles for the CC for all of it's materials, and not just the new abrasive ones, before the official release of CURA 3.6?

 

Also, as a completely unrelated side note, looking at the new gyroid infill in the screenshot provided makes my eyes glitch... Curse you @smartavionics! ?  (More seriously, thanks for your work on this! ? )

[JohnInOttawa 104]

Hmmmm.

 

@ctbeke I don't know you, indeed I have never actually met anyone from Ultimaker face to face.  But your comments to Kman  have really struck a nerve.  I don't think it is a personal choice you are making.  My concern is regarding the entire crew of the good ship Ultimaker.

 

I am reminded of a very old conversation- 'this job would be so much easier if not for the customers'.  Spoken to me by a harassed company owner just before his enterprise imploded.

 

While it has been a rough ride on a number of fronts lately, and I would not presume to advise you on technical details of your products, allow me this - your customers' expression of frustration is not something to be pitied.  It is something to be studied.  There is as much data there about what you should do next as there is in the system logs you are receiving.

 

In the airline business, the most dangerous time in the lifecycle of a company is when it is expanding.  That is when unrecoverable business errors like permanent customer relation fiascos, unsustainable capital projects and loss of the core clientele while courting new frontiers are most likely.   None of these steps are done intentionally but are often reactive.  There is even a model that describes this.   Maybe unrelated, but those in my business will know this - the first sense to falter during a task saturation event is hearing.  When I see what is taking place on this forum, I wonder about a parallel condition - have you guys perhaps been in overdrive too long?

 

There has been aggressive expansion on a number of fronts lately.  A new printer, new materials, new print cores, new Cura.  Likely a number of things I have missed.   My hope, and I speak only for myself, is that Ultimaker leadership recognises the need to downshift and give the creative staff a shot at stablizing the products now out in the wild.  Part of that is going to require giving your interface staff enough time and resources to listen, and then listen some more, without reacting, until the whole story has been told.  Then start to dampen down the oscillations until the line is flat.

 

So an early holiday wish for you - that you guys get the time you need to do what you have to do, and recharge a bit.  

 

John

[kmanstudios 1,120]

46 minutes ago, JohnInOttawa said:

So an early holiday wish for you - that you guys get the time you need to do what you have to do, and recharge a bit.  

Honestly, I think it is the powers that be that are driving this issue. The super fast software updates and such and the feeling of being in perpetual beta, even on actual releases.....

 

47 minutes ago, JohnInOttawa said:

the most dangerous time in the lifecycle of a company is when it is expanding.

This goes for any company. And, I am hoping that people at UM see that I am saying the things I am saying from a couple of vantage points, one being a person who has had to evaluate hardware and software solutions for companies. And, it is out of sheer love for my printers. I am usually not enamored with tech per se. It is nothing but a tool. But, some tools I get attached to.

 

And, if there was not a desire for comments from people, not rants, but comments and perspectives, then, why the public beta? I thought it was to weed out issues, not create divides.

[ctbeke 133]

@JohnInOttawa Thank you for those kind words. While it is true that pressure is high, also from the market, it's our job to make great products. It's always good to get feedback from the customers and community to see how we can improve. Next week I'll be attending FormNext personally to see what is out there and what people are looking for. I'll try my best to gather much input for the R&D department.

 

@kmanstudios It was never my intention to come across as defensive or to insult you, or anyone else. So sincere apologies if that is how it was perceived, I tend to forget how awful the Internet is as as medium to communicate with the right intentions. I was merely trying to explain why not all materials would be supported via a profile from the beginning. That could indeed be described as defending that decision, as I personally understand why this was done.

 

The main focus for the CC core is abrasive materials, but I can imagine that from another point of view, it seems weird that capable hardware would not be supported via software. I'll relay that information to the involved people internally, maybe more support might be added in later software versions?

[kmanstudios 1,120]

27 minutes ago, ctbeke said:

I'll relay that information to the involved people internally, maybe more support might be added in later software versions?

I think that would be most beneficial. And seriously, as a guy who has spent (now) 40+ years in the advertising and marketing  and publishing fields I kinda have a grip on what can be perceived by marketing materials and voids in information.

 

Here is just a simple thing that caught my eye and made me cringe.

 

Yadda, yadda, yadda, 'improved profiles to produce the perfect print', yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

Greatly paraphrased of course, but the 'perfect print' statement was made.

 

And, that is the crux of an issue. There is no perfect print based on a lot of conditions out of UM's control. People not buying certain materials, certain lack of care on machines (or, in my case, not noticing the cores had worn down until the prints looked like hell) and of course, the dreaded PVA and environmental issues that can plague all materials.

 

Simple things like heat in one environment and cold in another can affect just about any filament's performance.

 

So, while a departure from 3.6 beta, it is something that a sharp consultant would notice.

 

And, when I get around to doing the tests of the CC core, I will be posting about that as well. For instance, I noticed that the 3.6 beta would not let me really work with the CC red choice and any other material and defaulted to a 0.1mm Layer height (?). So, I will have to fake it out and use the 0.8 core to start with. With that as an issue, I am wondering what will be the firmware response. I am getting ahead of that game the same way I played with Cura for a full 3 months before I actually received my first printer.

 

And, I will look at it from a new consumer's point of view. UM's machines, from day one were a dream to work with because so many issues had been worked out and I did not have limitations as described.

 

And, honestly, @ctbeke, having met you early this year, you do not really strike me as a person with a mean bone in your body. And, the internet sucks for real communications.

[JohnInOttawa 104]

This discussion reminds me of a very different situation.

 

I once had a fellow working for me who had, by all accounts, limitless potential.  But almost every project he got involved in ended up with high drama situations where people were storming out of the room.  I was called in to referee and try and get my staff to back away from defcon 1.

 

It turned out that 'limitless potential' created unique focussing issues.  There was never one direction that the guy would settle on. The team would agree on something, charge off in a direction, only to have this fellow rip it all down because he no longer felt it was optimal. There was always a better idea, and the cycle repeated until everyone else exploded in frustration.

 

In the end, I had to pull him off of some of the key, time sensitive projects and look for safer spaces where he could contribute.

 

My director called me in, 'what the heck are you thinking?  He's the smartest guy you have.  Limitless potential'.  I said the first thing that came to mind - 'you know, lightning has just about limitless potential too.  But just try to power your house with it.'.  At least he laughed before kicking me out of his office, but he got the message.

 

In this setting, there are so many ways an Ultimaker can be used, each one of them with an expansion or enhancement branch.  I don't know how you corral all of that into a corporate strategy without turning your entire staff into something that looks like a transporter accident.  All I can do is cheer you on and hope you guys get some breathing room.

 

All the best

John

[nallath 1,120]

I think the CC core would not even have been launched if we would have forced the "it needs to support all materials" notion. Can we get it to work? Sure. But it's also about price. I expect that the CC core will be a niche product in the first place (I don't know for what number we targeted of course, but if 10% of the owners buy one, it's going to be a lot IMHO). This pretty much means that we have to smear out the one-off costs (eg; profiles) over a limited number of sales. So the more profiles we make, the more expensive they get. This isn't really a problem for the AA 0.4 print core since it's used so much (and the cost per nozzle per profile remain pretty low)

 

[JohnInOttawa 104]

Clearly you folks have a business to run and these are business decisions.  Fair enough. 

 

That said, Cura restricts printcore selections to only Ultimaker provided options, so it tends to backdrive the demand for as much capability in these options as possible.

 

As an alternative, what about allowing user-specified printcore configurations?  For those of us with 3rd party printcores, it would be nice to be able to specifiy a nozzle size not offered and might take a bit of pressure off your development team.  You can concentrate on the configurations that make sense for you, and users with corner case applications can do their thing.

 

For your consideration...

John

[kmanstudios 1,120]

1 hour ago, nallath said:

CC core will be a niche product in the first place

Then I guess I would be very comfortable telling people that it is a niche product and only for abrasives and not a doable solution for large bore prints and to buy the cheaper options if needed for more materials.

[kmanstudios 1,120]

Well, this is a major issue:

 

I purchased some Zytel, which is a loadable 'profile' through the marketplace. And, guess what, it is faulty on the Cura end as well as Cura Connect. Oh, and 3.6 did not like it at all. It wanted to reset all my printers and stuff, so I gave up on that and rolled back to an earlier version. This did not throw the same error.

 

1. Loaded it up and it is not fully supported. Never one to be daunted by these type of messages I configured it anyway based on what I can find about printer temps. This is even though it is 'available' on the marketplace.

 

2. Even though it is part of the market place, which by my thinking should be 'ready' to go if it is there, I cannot directly support it through Cura Connect or the S5. So, I have to choose CPE+ (On the S5) to make sure I hit the temp range for proper loading and such.

 

3. Then it tells me to Load "Zytel', but, there is no 'Zytel' to choose from. OK.

 

4. It cannot load it in Cura Connect. I hit override and it just bombs out and queues up the next print after that.

 

At least I can load it from the USB drive, but that negates the use of the software and firmware as it exists at this time.

 

We shall see if my kluge has worked, but wow, this is expensive stuff (Zytel) and it seems to not be really ready to go even though there is a push on the material partnerships.

 

So, yayyyyyy.........?

[Msuurmond 28]

6 hours ago, kmanstudios said:

Well, this is a major issue:

 

I purchased some Zytel, which is a loadable 'profile' through the marketplace. And, guess what, it is faulty on the Cura end as well as Cura Connect. Oh, and 3.6 did not like it at all. It wanted to reset all my printers and stuff, so I gave up on that and rolled back to an earlier version. This did not throw the same error.

 

1. Loaded it up and it is not fully supported. Never one to be daunted by these type of messages I configured it anyway based on what I can find about printer temps. This is even though it is 'available' on the marketplace.

This is fixed in the 3.6.0 stable that will be released today.

 

6 hours ago, kmanstudios said:

 

2. Even though it is part of the market place, which by my thinking should be 'ready' to go if it is there, I cannot directly support it through Cura Connect or the S5. So, I have to choose CPE+ (On the S5) to make sure I hit the temp range for proper loading and such.

 

3. Then it tells me to Load "Zytel', but, there is no 'Zytel' to choose from. OK.

If you connect your S5 through your network, Cura will sync the materialprofiles in the background when connected to that printer (printer needs to have firmware 5.1+) After that you can select it on your printer. (The CPE+ trick should also result in good prints)

 

[kmanstudios 1,120]

2 hours ago, Msuurmond said:

This is fixed in the 3.6.0 stable that will be released today.

Will wait to see....I am hoping so. That was a bit of a drag to see.

 

2 hours ago, Msuurmond said:

If you connect your S5 through your network,

Can you please be more clear? If I am using Cura Connect, then I am on a network, yes? Wifi in my case

 

2 hours ago, Msuurmond said:

(printer needs to have firmware 5.1+)

5.1.7

[Guest maht]

3.6 stable released!

 

https://community.ultimaker.com/topic/25273-now-available-ultimaker-cura-36-stable/

[P3D 46]

On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 10:30 PM, ctbeke said:

I think it's best to use the UM support channels to get an 'official' statement on this or request other products, as I'm not going to get into a discussion here about what and what not Ultimaker works on.

 

Just a word concerning the "support channels". The last time I tried to get some info - I think it was about the actual release date of the UM3 Advanced Printing Kit - via the "UM support channels" (info@ultimaker.com), I was told that support had been outsourced to the resellers, and I should contact my nearest reseller (who was clueless on that issue, of course). I got ping-ponged a few times between UM and the reseller, and I had to toughen up the game (i.e. express my dissatisfaction in a more direct way than I usually do) to get a usable answer in the end.