By
Nerfstrike,
in Ultimaker Cura
2 minutes ago, Kenobinai said:Or maybe create some beta/alpha groups, etc.
We tried to do this (as it has been suggested quite a few times). Unfortunately, no-one seems willing to then actually test things and report them. We got so little info from this that it just wasn't worth the effort. We might try again some time in the future.
7 minutes ago, nallath said:
We tried to do this (as it has been suggested quite a few times). Unfortunately, no-one seems willing to then actually test things and report them. We got so little info from this that it just wasn't worth the effort. We might try again some time in the future.
I think the key to getting test users, is that they feel that they are listened to and that their effort makes the program better.
Your answers here now, has completely changed my hope of getting Cura to work better (especially since the compatibility mode seems to help). As long as I feel we have good communication, I'm definitely willing to help out test beta versions and give feedback 🙂
Thanks a lot for answering!
(You know, I have already payed €7000 for the printer, and really want it be useful. We just replaced the Ultimaker S5 at work with a €500 Wanhao D9, so that we get up to speed again, and I took the S5 home for hobby use).
Edited by MaxQ15 minutes ago, nallath said:
We tried to do this (as it has been suggested quite a few times). Unfortunately, no-one seems willing to then actually test things and report them. We got so little info from this that it just wasn't worth the effort. We might try again some time in the future.
I hear you. Unfortunately users will always want the latest stuff, but very few are really willing to write up any feedback.
We found out that the best you can get from beta/alpha is logging. This can also be somewhat of a pain as you'll have to create something to handle it, but worth it.
6 minutes ago, Kenobinai said:I hear you. Unfortunately users will always want the latest stuff, but very few are really willing to write up any feedback.
We found out that the best you can get from beta/alpha is logging. This can also be somewhat of a pain as you'll have to create something to handle it, but worth it.
In 4.5 we also switch to a much more extensive crash logging system, so let's hope it gives us what we need 🙂
2
6 minutes ago, nallath said:In 4.5 we also switch to a much more extensive crash logging system, so let's hope it gives us what we need 🙂
I'll be here waiting to try it - although it never really crashed for me, it would keep running on the background and nothing would happen.
9 minutes ago, nallath said:In 4.5 we also switch to a much more extensive crash logging system, so let's hope it gives us what we need 🙂
Cool, looking forward to i!
If you need any user feedback or testing on Macs, please feel free to PM me or send me a mail!
16 minutes ago, MaxQ said:
If you need any user feedback or testing on Macs, please feel free to PM me or send me a mail!
@nallath - same here. Just a hobbyist here, but if you need someone to run any test versions (on Ryzen), try some stuff and emails some logs and/or write some feedback ping me 😉
FWIW, I've been using most of the recent Cura versions both at home and at work, since at least 3.5. I've encountered the same issue that Cura gets really, really slow (read: not usable), which gets better for a short period when restarting the program. Interestingly, this (so far) only happens on my work computer (notebook with i5-6300U), not on my home computer (previously i5-4560K, now Ryzen 5 3600 - this one shows the best performance).
It seems to have become better with 4.4.1 however. We'll see how this develops.
3 hours ago, neute said:It seems to have become better with 4.4.1 however. We'll see how this develops.
I agree with this, slicing still seems slower than old versions but navigating the GUI in 4.4.1 is remarkably faster.
I am new to Ultimaker and CUra. I love the S3, BUT HATE CURA!!!
What in the workd are they thinking that such a great machine should be hobbled by a truly bad slicer. Cura is practically un-usable! Every phase ia agonizingly slow... from starting the prog at 65 secs, loading a very simple model 30 secs, loading a profile 8 secs, editing a profile is terribly slow. Slicing said small model took 45 seconds, loading the preview about 12 seconds. Is this written in interpreted Basic? It runs like it.
If Ultimaker is stuck with Cura, at least UM should put some S3D fff files out there so that people who hate Cura have a professional slicer option. S3D runs circles, in every way, around Cura.
I just bought an UM 2+ because it seems like an S3 which I love the hardware, but that will work with S3D, at least I have a UM2+ fff on my S3D.
As someone said on this thread earlier, I hate Cura so much that it is painful to use my S3, because I can't use S3D and must use Cura. Come on Ultimaker...wake-up to the problem that Cura is for many of your customers. Make my S3D work with the S3D.
Just thought I'd pipe in here. I'm happy to help in any way, but I can confirm that Cura gets almost unusable for me after which I need to restart it. It then works great for a while then gets more and more slow until i have to close and restart it. Here are my computer specs:
System: Mac Pro (mid 2010)
OS: Mojave 10.14.2
Mem: 64GB RAM
CPU: 12-core 3.33GHz Xeon
GPU: Radeon RX 580 8G
Printer: Ultimaker S5. Firmware 5.4.27.20191212
Cura: 4.3.0
FWIW, I had the same issue when using BCN3D Cura with my Sigma and Sigmax, but I know that's a different version.
When Cura is slow, top shows the cura process consuming a single core at 100%. Right now, Cura is not doing anything but sitting in a background window, but it's consuming 100%, but again - only one core.
@GAD: logs? See Help -> Show configuration folder -> Cura.log
3 hours ago, ahoeben said:@GAD: logs? See Help -> Show configuration folder -> Cura.log
I had restarted it an of course it's running fine so far today. When it happens again I'll grab the logs. Logs are pretty large - do you want the whole thing or just the last hour or so?
If they are large, and things are running ok now, feel free to throw away cura.log now. The file will be recreated, and be much smaller (until it is big again 😉 )
Cura 4.4.1 is running incredibly slow on two of my less-than-year-old laptops. Exactly the same symptoms on two different laptops. Both are on Windows and high performance setups. All the functions are slow e.g. selecting an object or editing print parameters. The software is running slow even if theres no objects or even very simple objects. Using Cura as current is wasting at least 10x time compared to what would be reasonable.
OK. My printer sat unused all night which means Cura was sitting unused in a window all night as well. This evening I went to start a print and Cura is again running at 100%.
Log is attached. As is a screenshot of its current condition as I found it.
Note that before I went to Cura, I had loaded new filament on the printer. This is generic MatterHackers PLA Pro that I manually selected as "Tough PLA" on the S5's screen.
Also here's a screenshot of top for the sake of more data.
I've been dealing with this problem for several months now not actively trying to fix it just being irritated by it, as soon as I turned off the plugin listed above it totally fixed everything. So SO grateful for this thread.
How to Fix Issue:
- Open Cura and enter the Marketplace at the top right in application.
- Navigate to the "Installed" tab when in the market place.
- Scroll to find the plug in titled "UM3 Network Printing" and just uncheck the box.
- I don't suggest deleting plugin just in case there is a reason for you to utilize it in the future.
- You will now see a new blue button in the marketplace at the bottom right - "Quit Cura"
- Quit Cura and restart. If this was your problem, Cura should now be running smoothly.
Obviously, you should only use this if you do NOT print wirelessly. If you're printing wirelessly on a large network (College, Work), you may just have to live with this issue.
@imcarterschmidt could you check the Cura 4.5 beta, with that plugin enabled? A third party component in that plugin has been fixed/updated by UM, which hopefully fixes these performance issues.
1
Will jump in and say I'm also having horrendous performance issues on an Intel I7-4700k OC'd to 4.5 ghz. Multiplying a simple model can take 12 seconds, profile settings can take 5-10 seconds to change, and merely selecting a model can cause the whole thing to freeze up for 5+ seconds. All on 4.4.1 with only 1 plugin (OctoPrint)
I've also seen it leak several gigabytes of ram, so daily restarts are a must.
1
On 9/3/2019 at 11:52 AM, Nerfstrike said:I think I figured it out. I was looking at some forums about internet slowing down cura, and apparently cura tries to connect to web printer servers like octoprint. I am on a large wireless network because I am a college student using dorm wifi, so Cura was trying to find all the wireless printers on the large server (there is none), thus slowing it down. I just went to the plugins and deleted the one that has to do with wireless printers. C:\Program Files\Ultimaker Cura 4.2\plugins and delete the one called UM3NetworkPrinting. That instantly fixed the problem, and I dont use wireless printers. If I ever do, I'll just reinstall cura or something to get all the proper network plugins back.
This does improve performance....thanks for your findings. It is troubling to me that default settings would cause an issue like this.
1
You don’t have to delete the plugin, you can also disable it through the Installed tab of the Marketplace. That way you don’t need to delete the plugin each time you reinstall a version of Cura.
On 9/2/2019 at 4:00 AM, nallath said:It's not a general software bug, since that would never have cleared QA on our side. For me it takes less than 2 seconds for all settings to load on boot and drop down menus open in 100 ms or something like that.
Nallath, how does this answer help to resolve the issue? Telling us how fast your software is running is not a means to an end for the person with the issue. If I may, how about an answer like this-- Our QA department works diligently to remove any general software bugs, so that should not be the issue here. As a reference, if the software is running properly, you should see the settings load in around 2 seconds on boot and drops down menus open very quickly (100 ms or so)
4 hours ago, ronanweb said:Nallath, how does this answer help to resolve the issue? Telling us how fast your software is running is not a means to an end for the person with the issue. If I may, how about an answer like this-- Our QA department works diligently to remove any general software bugs, so that should not be the issue here. As a reference, if the software is running properly, you should see the settings load in around 2 seconds on boot and drops down menus open very quickly (100 ms or so)
It doesn't (and it wasn't intended as such). I was merely saying that it's not an issue that occurs for everyone, as was implied by the poster.
SandervG posted a topic in Official news,
SandervG posted a topic in Official news,
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
6
5
5
Popular Days
Jan 3
12
Jan 2
6
Sep 2
5
Jan 20
5
Top Posters In This Topic
nallath 11 posts
Kenobinai 6 posts
ahoeben 5 posts
MaxQ 5 posts
Popular Days
Jan 3 2020
12 posts
Jan 2 2020
6 posts
Sep 2 2019
5 posts
Jan 20 2020
5 posts
Popular Posts
Nerfstrike
I think I figured it out. I was looking at some forums about internet slowing down cura, and apparently cura tries to connect to web printer servers like octoprint. I am on a large wireless network be
nallath
In 4.5 we also switch to a much more extensive crash logging system, so let's hope it gives us what we need 🙂
ahoeben
@imcarterschmidt could you check the Cura 4.5 beta, with that plugin enabled? A third party component in that plugin has been fixed/updated by UM, which hopefully fixes these performance issues.
Posted Images
Kenobinai 0
First of all, I just want to say thanks. Cura is indeed an awesome software, and thank you for making this free for everyone. I have it running flawlessly on my laptop, and it works 100% OK and fast.
That said, and as a past dev and now a somewhat delivery manager these days, if users are experiencing issues related to a particular hardware this should be flagged somehow. A little warning or note on the download page would do, this would save many hours for everyone; I wouldn't spend hours trying versions, reading through numerous threads, and you would have to reply to multiple threads/issues flagged.
On these (Ryzen) issues, I've never experienced any. The only issues I've ever had on this machine have been with Cura. Either by trying to use it normally, or by running on a VM, which crashed VirtualBox on some Linux dists (got it running now on lubuntu).
All of these posts are also more than 1 year old.
I still think that my initial comment still holds, you need a better (exhaustive) QA process. I know, QA sucks, but on the other hand it looks like you need different platforms/systems to test your software, so... new toys 😄.
Or maybe create some beta/alpha groups, etc.
Anyway, Happy New Year, and once again thank you for your work.
Link to post
Share on other sites