Cura Material Selection Highlighted Reason?

[10pura 1]

Hi All, I have imported cura profiles (CHEP's 4.6.x) which I have played around a bit. A few days ago I received my eSun PLA+ and tried to add this to my printer (ender 3 v2), but there is this constant Exclamation mark next to the filament selection and the selected "eSun Grey PLA+" is highlighted. Does anyone know why this is happening and how to remove the Exclamation mark?

 

[nallath 1,120]

It's because Cura doesn't have a quality profile for PLA+. The warning that you get is that it's not using material specific quality settings (as it normally does), but using defaults (which may or may not what you expect).

If the material is a lot like PLA, you could change the material type to be PLA (instead of PLA+). It will use the quality settings of PLA instead (and stop showing the orange warning)

[10pura 1]

Hi Nallath, thanks for your reply!

1) eSun PLA+ is built in if I'm not mistaken?

2) I actually manually added a filament called "Spider filament" with name PLA Matte, and it doenst have this issue? Is it because I copied the profile from Generic PLA?

 

 

 

 

Edited August 11, 2020 by 10pura
redundant images

[nallath 1,120]

Just because it's built in doesn't mean that it has an actual quality profile. There are mutliple "levels" of profiles. A number of machines have quality profiles per material. So if you select "normal" quality for PLA you get a different quality than with normal ABS. If it doesn't have those profiles, it only has the basic material settings.

The profile you created yourself probably has the type PLA, so it's using the PLA qualities.

[DeepSeaDaddy 0]

I had the same thing happen for eSUN PLA+

I went into the settings and found that the "minimum extrusion distance window" setting was at 10 instead of being around 1.5 (should be approximately the same as as the retraction distance). Might be another issue in the settings but it'll show highlighted on the actual issue in the settings. 

[Longtoke 25]

The custom materials section currently has a massive "trip wire" of sorts, that results in the warnings plastered everywhere and the "not supported" message. 

 

Don't change the <Material Type> to anything not pre-existing.

 

When you copy a "generic" filament to use as a template if you change the <Material Type> field to anything not recognized by default, the messages appear. In the example of a PLA+ filament, copy the default PLA material and just change the <Display Name> field and leave the <Material Type> as is. This will give you a selectable custom material that lets you use the default profiles without pointless "not supported" messages popping up. 

 

Why this field exists without a drop down selection of pre-defined material classes instead giving a open entry field is beyond my understanding, as this is exactly the issue that it creates. Something to be said for the "kiss" principle. 

 

* Obligatory Disclaimer *
 

The "Not Supported" message is there for a reason. If you choose to ignore that message, that's on you entirely. While there may be little to no difference between PLA and PLA+ ( depending on the manufacturer ) the developers obviously felt the need to automatically delete all profiles when using non-recognized materials.

[nallath 1,120]

7 hours ago, Longtoke said:

The "Not Supported" message is there for a reason. If you choose to ignore that message, that's on you entirely. While there may be little to no difference between PLA and PLA+ ( depending on the manufacturer ) the developers obviously felt the need to automatically delete all profiles when using non-recognized materials.

We didn't delete them; they simply don't exist.

[tinkergnome 927]

9 hours ago, Longtoke said:

When you copy a "generic" filament to use as a template if you change the <Material Type> field to anything not recognized by default, the messages appear.

 

Only defining a new material is not sufficient in most cases. That's what @nallath tries to explain all the time...

 

Here is the reason:

 

- the machine definition is (probably) configured to use materials and quality profiles (in combination)

- quality profiles are made for a specific machine, a specific material and a specific variant (nozzle size e.g.)

- adding a new material is only the first step

- you have to create proper quality profiles for all combinations as well (only the material is not sufficient)

- once the quality profiles are in place - they will show up in the dropdown

- if there are no quality profiles for the choosen material.... then there is nothing to choose from

 

Be aware:

Creating the whole stack of needed files can be a lot of work. There's no user interface AFAIK, but all you need is a text editor.

Kind contributors have done this for many of the non-Ultimaker machines. But if you add a whole new material, it's your task.

 

Alternative:

Set "has_machine_quality" and "has_variants" to "false" in the machine definition.

Afterwards you should always see the basic profiles in the drop down.

 

There's a nice pictures in the wiki. As you can see, "material" is only a small part in the stack...

 

[Longtoke 25]

13 hours ago, tinkergnome said:

Creating the whole stack of needed files can be a lot of work. There's no user interface AFAIK, but all you need is a text editor.

 

Seems paradoxical to include a method for creating a new material within the UI of Cura that is so convoluted and incomplete for something that should be simple and commonplace. Also, I  put the "obligatory disclaimer" there for a reason....

 

I don't dispute that this method is "unintended" as far as  developers are concerned but if a user wants to add their own materials while retaining the default profiles to work from as a starting point, this "trick" works extremely well, especially when were are talking about similar or near identical materials.

 

For some of us, buying the materials listed as "supported" isn't an option, they simply aren't readily available in some sections of the world, so we resort to those disgusting and evil "other brands" and bend the rules Cura puts in place to achieve the same functionality. 

[tinkergnome 927]

12 hours ago, Longtoke said:

I don't dispute that this method is "unintended" as far as  developers are concerned but if a user wants to add their own materials while retaining the default profiles to work from as a starting point, this "trick" works extremely well, especially when were are talking about similar or near identical materials.

 

On 10/21/2020 at 3:33 AM, Longtoke said:

Why this field exists without a drop down selection of pre-defined material classes instead giving a open entry field is beyond my understanding, as this is exactly the issue that it creates. Something to be said for the "kiss" principle.

 

I see what you mean.
Creating a new material ist not a problem - as long the material type stays the same. So making it harder to accidentally create a new (unsupported) type could be helpful.

 

On the other hand - since the quality profiles are depending on the material type (or: are linked to it). What's the point to duplicate a material without creating a corresponding quality profile as well? Especially if we are talking about similar or near identical materials.

Just to give it a different name? 🤷‍♂️

 

Or does it actually change any relevant print setting of the pre-defined quality profiles?

If one has to make changes to the quality profile in any case - why should i bother with the material at all?

(as you can see 🙂 - i use Cura for years and never touched the material configuration)

 

 

[Longtoke 25]

11 hours ago, tinkergnome said:

does it actually change any relevant print setting of the pre-defined quality profiles?

 

Yes and No. Changing  the material type to one not recognized by Cura ( even something as simple as PLA+ vs PLA ) immediately locks out the default templates. Beyond that there are a few things that are linked to the materials like retraction speed, extruder temps, bed temps etc. While the quality profiles can override these settings, it's handy to have a base template that reverts to a known default. 

 

11 hours ago, tinkergnome said:

What's the point to duplicate a material without creating a corresponding quality profile as well? Especially if we are talking about similar or near identical materials.

 

Variance in material properties between colours for one thing. The PLA+ I use is generally very consistent between batches and colours, but with certain colours I've found using slightly different temperatures keeps my print quality consistent. There's also the PLA vs PLA+ to account for, and hybrid filaments ( like say PLA wood ) can really mix it up.  Another thing  is  while most of my PLA and PLA+ is regarded as food safe, a few of them aren't, and they also require different material settings accordingly ( eg  PLA+ Gold or Silver ). Yes, I also usually end up making a quality profile specific to filament, but I use the default quality profiles as a starting point each time. 

 

The final point on this is just good record keeping. When you use several variants of PLA and PLA+ materials, each with say slightly different printing temps and speeds but identical property's otherwise, yes I use the create materials function as I thought was intended. This is just PLA vs PLA+ vs Hybrids, but similar can apply to ABS vs ABS hybrids for example. 

 

 

On 10/21/2020 at 5:05 PM, nallath said:

We didn't delete them; they simply don't exist.

 

Poor wording on part, my apologies. Is "locking out" more appropriate or perhaps "hides" ?.  What else would you call it when simply entering say "PLA+" to the <material  type> field results in access to the default profiles disappearing ? Another thing to note is it also removes / hides /"doesn't exist" the quick selection slider, another bonus the trick I use gives.

 

If I want to use the default quality profiles as a template, I am forced to either write down and cross check every data point or use the trick I mention above. It's very natural for a user to create/clone a new material and then change the material type to match ( i.e. PLA vs PLA+  ), adding the "+" to PLA and having the resulting wipe of profiles just doesn't make sense. Hence the users who fall in this trap then posting as above. 

 

In a perfect world, every filament manufacturer would go through the process the get their material officially listed with Cura in the Marketplace, the realistic chance of that happening is none, for varied reasons.

 

Perhaps you can explain what's involved ( or direct us all to a link ) for a filament manufacturer get their materials listed within Cura ? - Near as I can find out, Ultimaker limits the marketplace material listings to "Members of our alliance program". What are the typical costs ( if any ) for such a venture ?

 

I would love to champion Cura Marketplace Material Listing to the manufacturers of the filaments that are readily available within my region, as this would save me needing to side step the "rules" of Cura. 

Edited October 23, 2020 by Longtoke

[nallath 1,120]

7 hours ago, Longtoke said:

Poor wording on part, my apologies. Is "locking out" more appropriate or perhaps "hides" ?.  What else would you call it when simply entering say "PLA+" to the <material  type> field results in access to the default profiles disappearing ? Another thing to note is it also removes / hides /"doesn't exist" the quick selection slider, another bonus the trick I use gives.

This has to do with the image that tinkergnome already posted. So if you have an UM3 with a 0.4AA nozzle and select PLA+, it tries to find all quality profiles that match those three criteria. Since we never added those quality profiles (We only have them for UM3, 0.4 PLA) it reverts to a "empty" profile. That empty profile is what triggers the warning and also what makes the list be empty (because well; that are all the profiles that it has!).

If PLA+ really needs almost the same defaults, it makes total sense to just set it's type to PLA and just change the display name. One of the reasons that we can't really change the behavior now is legacy. Looking back at this system now, i would set it up differently with the knowhow i have at this moment (but hey, find me an engineer that doesn't have that opinion about a complicated product! ;))

 

7 hours ago, Longtoke said:

If I want to use the default quality profiles as a template, I am forced to either write down and cross check every data point or use the trick I mention above. It's very natural for a user to create/clone a new material and then change the material type to match ( i.e. PLA vs PLA+  ), adding the "+" to PLA and having the resulting wipe of profiles just doesn't make sense. Hence the users who fall in this trap then posting as above.

Yeah. I agree. We are also considering making the material type a dropdown; one of them being "custom". If custom is selected, it's more clear to the user why the warning pops up. It's a pretty simple solution, but for some reason we didn't come up with it ourselves. I don't exactly remember who suggested it, but it's a great example of how we can also just overlook stupidly simple solutions to long running issues.

 

7 hours ago, Longtoke said:

In a perfect world, every filament manufacturer would go through the process the get their material officially listed with Cura in the Marketplace, the realistic chance of that happening is none, for varied reasons.

 

Perhaps you can explain what's involved ( or direct us all to a link ) for a filament manufacturer get their materials listed within Cura ? - Near as I can find out, Ultimaker limits the marketplace material listings to "Members of our alliance program". What are the typical costs ( if any ) for such a venture ?

 

I would love to champion Cura Marketplace Material Listing to the manufacturers of the filaments that are readily available within my region, as this would save me needing to side step the "rules" of Cura. 

I agree. That was also my original intent when I first championed the materials marketplace. Unfortunately, we now have all kinds of policies and things you have to do to get on the marketplace. I don't exactly know what one needs to do to get in that program, but it's only the manufacerers themselves that can get in it.

Once you are in, we do provide software that runs people through tests to create quality / material profiles from with Cura.

[Longtoke 25]

15 hours ago, nallath said:

We are also considering making the material type a dropdown; one of them being "custom".

 

This would be an awesome solution, and I do remember it being suggested by another forum user a few months back. My biggest concern for future development of the materials interface is with how restrictive and incomplete the current method available to users is, and what that may mean for the features suitability in the long run when paired with things such as this : 

 

15 hours ago, nallath said:

Unfortunately, we now have all kinds of policies and things you have to do to get on the marketplace.

 

I'd also expect that there is a financial cost associated to such an endeavor, that when combined with Ultimakers requirements, will likely combine to act as an impetus to most small to medium sized commercial manufacturers. The end result is less choice and higher costs for users unless there is a simple way to add materials to Cura for end users.

 

While legacy influences understandably restrict they ways in which you can change the current feature, surely there is a mid ground to found that would better accommodate end users adding in their own materials to Cura while also continuing support for those on the marketplace.

 

Simply put, we currently have the ability to use pre-existing quality profiles when making new material listings in Cura via the trick I detailed. Surely there is a way to include that within a "custom" definition you describe perhaps pairing it with a warning acknowledgement system so they end user isn't constantly confronted with excessive warnings.

 

I.E. - the user selects custom material from the drop down selection in the <material type> field, at which point you could then sub divide the custom material option to allow for a templated copy ( including default quality profiles ) of an existing material or a completely "green" material profile, followed by a one time warning pop-up ( requiring user acknowledgement to advance further ) for the unsupported aspect of these custom materials. 

 

16 hours ago, nallath said:

find me an engineer that doesn't have that opinion about a complicated product!

 

Amen, lol.