Jump to content
maht

Now available: Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Stable

Recommended Posts

Posted · Now available: Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Stable
7 hours ago, johnEclark65 said:

It is not modeling that is wanted.  it is scaling feature by measurements and not just to X, Y, Z or %.  I have made the model in Fusion 360.  I just don't want to have to create 10 to 15 different models for every size horseshoe I get, only have have to tweak them for each print, and reprint them.  One, real life, horse shoe that I insert into the print is 91mm tall, another one may be 92mm tall, one might be 25mm tall. All different sizes, but the same shape.   I would like the ability to scale an a to z point, so if I say, from point A to point Z make 85mm, then the whole piece will scale accordingly.  The points on the print are arbitrary. It is just marker points.  They have no meaning other than to place an anchor point here.  Just a place anchor point A here, place another anchor point Z here, and scale it to make the two points XXmm long.  This is just a finer scaling than what is given, X,Y,Z scaling and % scaling is the same thing, only this scaling is pin point scaling.

 

I have to agree with @kmanstudios. That is definitely not what Cura is for, and neither should it be included. If you want to scale in Cura, you just have to know the as-exported dimension of the feature you want to be a certain size. After that, it is a matter of very simple calculations, and then entering the percentage in the Cura scaling tool. If you need very exact dimensions or more than simple scaling, you have to do it in your modeling application, where you can comfortably parametrize your model, locking certain dimensions while scaling others, just as you wrote. Maybe you'll even be able to make a script which puts out the models you want semi-automatically. 

 

I'm all for integrating useful features, but Cura (or PreForm, or any other slicing/3D-print-preprocessing application) just isn't the right place for such features. (By the way, measuring dimensions on a STL file is not as easy as you might think, since it is a polygon model, as opposed to the usual feature/geometry based CAD data formats).

 

 

By the way: What would be *really* useful is a 3D mouse support for Cura!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Now available: Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Stable
2 hours ago, Fred804 said:

I upgraded from 3.5, but now I can't open Cura 3.6 no matter how long I wait.  I tried reinstalling - no luck.  I tried removing and reinstalling 3.5, but now I can't run that either.  I then downgraded to 3.4.1, and that worked.  I then tried reinstalling 3.6, but it still would not open.  Now, I have to use a version (3.4.1) that is older than my orevious version (3.5).  The worst part is that I did the upgrade only to stop the nagging message that comes up every time one opens up an obsolete version of Cura (there should be a way to disable that warning. 

 

The message will only be shown once in the next release. As for the actual issue, without logs, there is nothing we can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Now available: Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Stable
4 hours ago, kmanstudios said:

That IS modeling. Not slicing. Again, get a program that is made for this and can work in a more efficient way. Crazy stuff like independent world and object spaces.

 

I honestly think that until you have some real experience with what you are asking a program to do, and you will not get it as long as you refuse to actually see the difference in what you are asking i.e. using a modeling program, this will never be a productive conversation. You refuse to accept information from a group of people that have a lot of experience in what you are asking, and them telling you that modeling programs are the way to go with this.

 

so, stick with your insistence if you like. It is not really a good idea. It is far more complicated than you think. And when it is said and done, Cura Devs are working hard to make a solid slicer, not a halfassed hybrid. I believe that a solid slicer should be all they focus on.

 

I second your opinion @kmanstudios

CURA allows to scale models by X, Y, Z or % and it shows the exact dimensions of the object, it's more than enough in all reasonable use cases...

 

it will be more realistic to ask if cura supplies more API for other modeling softwares to interact with it, but not the other way around. Like currently in Fusion360 you can sent and forward the project file to open in CURA directly in one click. E.g. like many 3D rendering engines, there are plugins for modeling software to do shortcuts and send for rendering, but never the other way around.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Now available: Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Stable

Well if scaling is modeling, take scaling out of CURA all together.  Take out that feature.  If you want a different size object, re-model it in your modeling software.  All I, and others, are asking for, is a more exact way to do scaling.  If you don't like the feature we are asking for, don't use it.  What we are asking for is just more exact way to do what you are doing.  If you can scale by x, y, z, or %, what is the difference between that and pin point scale?  As far as the comment about me not having enough experience do this, you are wrong.  I may be new to the group, but not any 3 axis CNC.  I have years of experience in CNC machining. A 3D printer, is just another CNC Machine.  Oh, and the high end CNC Machining software does have this feature.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited) · Now available: Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Stable
10 minutes ago, johnEclark65 said:

Well if scaling is modeling, take scaling out of CURA all together.

Another person who is not familiar with the two concepts through experience.

 

What Cura does is general, world scaling and nothing else. What is being requested is precise scaling, and to do it right, requires separation of world and object space. In Cura now, try to rotate the object  off a 90¯ angle (say 30. 45 60) and then scale... what do you see?

 

Again. When you get around to actually using a modeling program, you would see the difference.

 

10 minutes ago, johnEclark65 said:

what is the difference between that and pin point scale?

 

If you have to ask, see above....

 

I have years of experience in CNC machining. A 3D printer, is just another CNC Machine.  Oh, and the high end CNC Machining software does have this feature.   

 

Then try to use it as a slicer.

Edited by kmanstudios
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Now available: Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Stable
4 hours ago, P3D said:

 

I have to agree with @kmanstudios. That is definitely not what Cura is for, and neither should it be included. If you want to scale in Cura, you just have to know the as-exported dimension of the feature you want to be a certain size. After that, it is a matter of very simple calculations, and then entering the percentage in the Cura scaling tool. If you need very exact dimensions or more than simple scaling, you have to do it in your modeling application, where you can comfortably parametrize your model, locking certain dimensions while scaling others, just as you wrote. Maybe you'll even be able to make a script which puts out the models you want semi-automatically. 

 

I'm all for integrating useful features, but Cura (or PreForm, or any other slicing/3D-print-preprocessing application) just isn't the right place for such features. (By the way, measuring dimensions on a STL file is not as easy as you might think, since it is a polygon model, as opposed to the usual feature/geometry based CAD data formats).

 

 

By the way: What would be *really* useful is a 3D mouse support for Cura!

 

I kind of understand why he is thinking scaling with pin points will be logical, since he's from CAD/CAM tool background. And many CAD/CAM tool can just send jobs to hardware right away without problems. Starting with curves, sketches and restraints, and export them into paths. It's all logical in that sense, when it's Parametric modeling

 

What he might not understand is 3D printers and slicers have to deal with Non-Parametric modeling. Scaling in Parametric modeling world can be easy since they work with constraints and paths, but once a model is converted into STL they became static. What he is asking for is that CURA might hv to allow user to pin-point and select vertices on a model to make scaling accordingly... which can be a nightmare and might require a whole new engine and the whole workflow needed to be reimagined. The mechanics of a 3D printer might be similar to a CNC but no it's not the same thing. I also work with similar projects where i have to export joints and pegs in different sizes and clearances. I use variables in e.g. Fusion360 to make constraints work for models in different sizes and export them separately. Eventually I use scripts to automate that, and I still prefer to keep the resizing/exporting and printing procedures separated, rather than trying to use the same file and print different sizes. It wouldn't be a good way to manage files and bad for the workflow.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Now available: Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Stable
28 minutes ago, kmanstudios said:

Another person who is not familiar with the two concepts through experience.

 

What Cura does is general, world scaling and nothing else. What is being requested is precise scaling, and to do it right, requires separation of world and object space. In Cura now, try to rotate the object  off a 90¯ angle (say 30. 45 60) and then scale... what do you see?

 

Again. When you get around to actually using a modeling program, you would see the difference.

 

 

If you have to ask, see above....

 

 

Then try to use it as a slicer.

He was thinking in a very Parametric Modeling way, that is common in CAD/CAM practice working with constraints and paths, but not in the world of most Non-Parametric Modeling softwares.

In Fusion360 or other CAD/CAM that can be easily done with constraints, where I redefine the size of one feature the whole model follows the scale accordingly.

However in Maya, 3DMAX or Blender, it's very very tricky to scale to whole model based on adjusting the distance between two pin-pointed points/vertices. Usually we just do the math and scale the whole thing, at best we hv the center point of the object redefined before scaling, but still it's tricky.

When a file is exported to STL for slice it's pretty much static and the constraints wont work. The scaling method is much the same as if in Non-Parametric Modeling software environment. Not saying it cannot be done but if such method is introduced(scale whole object based on redefining distance of 2 pin-pointed vertices), it also opens up to a lot of potential errors and too big a risk to meddle with.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Now available: Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Stable

@kmanstudios  I don't understand why you think you have to insult people and their "Knowledge"  Yes, I am new to 3D printing.  No lies about it.  But CNC machines, no.  a 3D Printer is nothing more than a CNC machine with a different head than milling.   Like I said, if you don't like the feature that is being ask for, don't use it, but you don't have to play bully and put people down for asking for a feature they would like to use and see.  Just because you have umpteem thousand posts here on this forum, does not make you the be all, end all expert in any manner.  People are asking for this feature more than just I.  But it is people like you and your attitude that are keeping new people from coming in to this group/forum to ask for features.  I was told in the CURA Facebook group, that if I was to ask Ultimaker in the forums for this feature, I woould be bullied and put down, because certain people think they run it.  You don't.  Don't like what is being asked for, too bad.  Suck it up and let new people request and ask for features they would like to see, and not what you option is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Now available: Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Stable
2 minutes ago, ultradryan said:

that is common in CAD/CAM

I get that. They do not. That is why I do not understand why they just do not get a modeling program and do what they need there.

 

Basically, once people start learning things, and the restrictions of what they thought they wanted, they will just want more until they want a true modeling program.

 

Just shortcut the process and learn to do it now.

 

4 minutes ago, ultradryan said:

However in Maya, 3DMAX or Blender, it's very very tricky to scale to whole model based on adjusting the distance between two pin-pointed points/vertices.

That is the difference between mesh based and parametric modeling. That is why I urge people to actually go get the free program that does what they need. Not try to shoehorn a half solution into another program.

 

6 minutes ago, ultradryan said:

When a file is exported to STL for slice it's pretty much static and the constraints wont work. The scaling method is much the same as if in Non-Parametric Modeling software environment.

And that is a defining statement about the needs of a program. Very well put. And, it defines more than just the .STL format, but the above mentioned mesh based program.

 

7 minutes ago, ultradryan said:

it also opens up to a lot of potential errors and too big a risk to meddle with.

I agree....just focus on solid slicing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Now available: Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Stable
2 minutes ago, johnEclark65 said:

@kmanstudios  I don't understand why you think you have to insult people and their "Knowledge"  Yes, I am new to 3D printing.

Ummm, what was the insult?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Now available: Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Stable

@ultradryan  Thank you.  You are 100% correct.   I am in the milling frame of mind, and may not completely understand sliceing software and the differences between.  Thank you forpoint out the differences.  Your answer was very helpful and understanding of what is what.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Now available: Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Stable
53 minutes ago, kmanstudios said:

Another person who is not familiar with the two concepts through experience.

This is the insult.   I take this with great offense.  That is belittling and condescending.  Exactly the tone people told me I would get here.  No constructive feed back like ultradryan said and did.  He got it, he understood, and he helped me understand it better.  Now from what he has said, I understand it better.  I am use to exact pinpoint processes.  I typically work within a .0001mm tolerance and have control over every aspect of the milling.  Now I understand that I need to rethink the way I need to approach these, and my modeling will have to supplement errors and mistakes.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Now available: Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Stable
4 minutes ago, johnEclark65 said:

This is the insult.   I take this with great offense. 

You are perfectly able to do so. I was just pointing out that you did not get it even though others had tried to explain it. If you are insulted by that, then what would you have had me say?

 

That you are right, and then prove the concept wrong?

 

And, by the way, all I did was point out a lack of experience. If that bugs you, then get experience.

 

6 minutes ago, johnEclark65 said:

No constructive feed back like ultradryan said and did. 

That had been done many times in previous posts. You are the one who took it personally. Maybe it should be pointed out that you had no less than three people showing the differences. Yet it finally took one person to hit the magic button of words you could grasp. Think about that.

 

Do I seem a bit short about it? Yeah, after days of this, and not a single person doing their own investigating to understand the differences, well, yeah, my limited ability to assuage people who refuse to investigate is even more limited.

 

10 minutes ago, johnEclark65 said:

Now from what he has said, I understand it better.

Good for you. And, I mean that in all the best possible ways. It took three different people telling you the same thing before you got the magic words, but do not take offense when someone points that out. Now go and find something that will help you. Only you can do that. Seriously. What works for one does not work for all.

 

At least now YOU understand. Now for people with experience to find the magic words to convince everybody else that has the same level of arguments without independent study or investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Now available: Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Stable

@johnEclark65: If you get off your high horse and actually start exploring 3D printing (which, like all manufacturing technologies, has its specific pros/cons, associated hard- and software, benefits and caveats) without trying with all your might to imprint your CNC workflow onto 3D printing, you may actually get somewhere. But flinging around insults (which is what your are doing right now) when people don't do what you want or say what you want to hear is not very productive.

 

By the way, if, as you say, a 3D printer is just a CNC mill with another toolhead, it should be really easy for someone of your experience to write a postprocessor for interfacing with your favourite CAM program, right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited) · Now available: Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Stable

@johnEclark65

I worked with both mesh-based (non-parametric) and parametric modeling softwares. 

Tell you what the resizing part I too find it confusing when I first started to learn 3DMax and Blender. They are more organic and at the same time less accurate when it comes to modeling precise objects. Yet That is also the beauty of it, you can do more complicated things easily.

 

I end up building structural parts in Fusion360 into different sizes and export them for use in 3DMax/Blender.

These two types of modeling methods each has its pros and cons, resizing them being one of the major differences due to the lack on constraints in mesh-based environment, and STL is a mesh.

When working with CNC files, we sent the file to mill on the fly, edit a few features/sizes and send for another mill.

It's like editing texts on a microsoft word file on the fly, send for print without saving into each separate versions of files.

 

But honestly this is not a good habit. From management perspective, one should always keep a master and export each different sizes/versions into an seperate one-off file for execution. Thus if you do this, saving STLs for 3D print is much the same idea.

 

Now since the slice engine/software is made to deal with static files(e.g. STL), and it is not built into parametric modeling environment from the beginning, it is doomed to work like 3DMax/Blender, dealing with a mesh object.

 

@kmanstudios would hv fear that if such feature be introduced it could do more harm than good, and I do agree. He was trying to express that your definition of "scaling" isn't quite the same as scaling of a mesh based object. And he might hv implied that you might not fully understand the aspects of 3D modeling concepts, let me try to explain

 

In theory, you are not actually "scaling" a model when u redefine distance of 2 vertices and expect the whole object will follow, you are actually "altering" the related constraints thus result in a scaling i.e. you are not "scaling" the object but "editing" the variables in the sketch that causes a chain reaction to resize related matters. Thus you are actually "modelling" it. This can be considered not a scaling feature.

 

So I guess if i understand correctly that is what @kmanstudios meant.

 

Then I guess you would understand why many experts here, whom have solid understanding of the modeling concept, might hv express objections on including such method of "scaling". Usually ppl who hv experiences working with both mesh-based and parametric modeling software could really see the the problem here.

 

Edited by ultradryan
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Now available: Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Stable

Hi everyone, I feel it's necessary to step in for a second. It's good to have a healthy discussion about features and why we think a feature should or should not be included in Cura. I think we should be able to have such a discussion with facts and conviction, but respect others who might have a different opinion. 

It can easily happen that intonation may not always come across in writing or come across different as intended, but I trust everyone in our community means well. 

 

Please continue on why you think Cura should have or should not have such a feature, but do so as civilized men. Civilized men who are familiar with our code of conduct 😉

 

Thank you all for understanding and cooperating. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Now available: Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Stable
36 minutes ago, johnEclark65 said:

This is the insult.   I take this with great offense.  That is belittling and condescending.  Exactly the tone people told me I would get here.  No constructive feed back like ultradryan said and did.  He got it, he understood, and he helped me understand it better.  Now from what he has said, I understand it better.  I am use to exact pinpoint processes.  I typically work within a .0001mm tolerance and have control over every aspect of the milling.  Now I understand that I need to rethink the way I need to approach these, and my modeling will have to supplement errors and mistakes.  

 

Thank you for coming here and proposing your suggestion and being open to conversation and feedback from our users. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Now available: Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Stable
12 minutes ago, P3D said:

By the way, if, as you say, a 3D printer is just a CNC mill with another toolhead, it should be really easy for someone of your experience to write a postprocessor for interfacing with your favourite CAM program, right?

I am going to have to flip the other way on this one. For instance, I have nearly 30 years of modeling experience and could not do this. One aspect of expertise does not lend itself to another.

 

5 minutes ago, ultradryan said:

They are more organic and at the same time less accurate when it comes to modeling precise objects.

🤣 Try magnitudes less in accuracy. And if your really wanna get out there and forget about it, try voxels! ACK!

 

7 minutes ago, ultradryan said:

So I guess if i understand correctly that is what @kmanstudios meant. 

That and so much more. But for this pooint specifically, very well put and good job cleaning up what my language made yucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Now available: Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Stable
8 minutes ago, ultradryan said:

@johnEclark65

I worked with both mesh-based (non-parametric) and parametric modeling softwares. 

Tell you what the resizing part I too find it confusing when I first started to learn 3DMax and Blender. They are more organic and at the same time less accurate when it comes to modeling precise objects. Yet That is also the beauty of it, you can do more complicated things easily.

[.....]

So I guess if i understand correctly that is what @kmanstudios meant.

 

Then I guess you would understand why many experts here, whom have solid understanding of the modeling concept, might hv express objections on including such method of "scaling". Usually ppl who hv experiences working with both mesh-based and parametric modeling software could really see the the problem here.

 

8

 

Thank you for your detailed and thought through response @ultradryan , very helpful! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Now available: Ultimaker Cura 3.6 | Stable
On 11/16/2018 at 12:57 AM, 7s7 said:

Hi,

Since installing Cura 3.6 I have found that it has a very large memory leak, I have disabled all plugins excepy octoprint and auto orientation, and I am find that after a print memory usage keeps going up until my PC (Windows 10) becomes unresponsive.

Cura using about 8gig of RAM.

Was previously using 3.5.1 and have never had this issue with Cura before.

 

Any Ideas

 

Thanks

 

Steve

 

On 11/16/2018 at 12:57 AM, 7s7 said:

Hi,

Since installing Cura 3.6 I have found that it has a very large memory leak, I have disabled all plugins excepy octoprint and auto orientation, and I am find that after a print memory usage keeps going up until my PC (Windows 10) becomes unresponsive.

Cura using about 8gig of RAM.

Was previously using 3.5.1 and have never had this issue with Cura before.

 

Any Ideas

 

Thanks

 

Steve

I have the same problem. It seems to happen if you switch to the Monitor view and then back. In task manager you can see its allotted memory creeping up and up. Mine ended up eating 14GB of my 16!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Our picks

    • Ultimaker Cura 4.0 | Stable available!
      Ultimaker Cura 4.0 is mainly focused on the improved user interface and cloud integration.
      As always, we want to collect your user feedback for this release. If there are any improvements you can think of, feel free to mention it here and help us to shape the next release.
      • 98 replies
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to the Ultimaker Community of 3D printing experts. Visit the following links to read more about our Terms of Use or our Privacy Policy. Thank you!