Ultimaker Cura 5.0 beta

[GregValiant 1,251]

@tato1989 Can you post that Gcode file here?  What material is that?

[gr5 2,172]

@tato1989 - A print should never break on a layer so perfectly like that.  When that happens it implies that this particular layer was much weaker than the layer above and below.  Which should never happen.  This happens more often with ABS if there is too much cooling but I'm guessing this is PLA (which can't have too much cooling)?

 

My nozzle hits my prints hard all the time and we could go into that but it's not a problem for me as my parts hold together just fine.  Instead I think you had an underextruded layer.

 

Having just one underextruded layer can have many causes.  One common cause is that the Z moved farther than usual for that layer so it is all underextruded.  Another common cause is some kind of tangle or jam or grinding at the feeder that somehow recovered after another layer completed.

 

Another possibility is that cura skipped that layer due to minor error (but fatal) in the model.  If that is the case you would see this easily in cura in PREVIEW mode - it would just skip a layer or more than one layer.

[tato1989 0]

19 minutes ago, gr5 said:

@tato1989 - A print should never break on a layer so perfectly like that.  When that happens it implies that this particular layer was much weaker than the layer above and below.  Which should never happen.  This happens more often with ABS if there is too much cooling but I'm guessing this is PLA (which can't have too much cooling)?

 

My nozzle hits my prints hard all the time and we could go into that but it's not a problem for me as my parts hold together just fine.  Instead I think you had an underextruded layer.

 

Having just one underextruded layer can have many causes.  One common cause is that the Z moved farther than usual for that layer so it is all underextruded.  Another common cause is some kind of tangle or jam or grinding at the feeder that somehow recovered after another layer completed.

 

Another possibility is that cura skipped that layer due to minor error (but fatal) in the model.  If that is the case you would see this easily in cura in PREVIEW mode - it would just skip a layer or more than one layer.

Hello.
I have tried same model on Cura 4.13 and printed without any problem. Filament is PLA+ and printer has additional cooling fan so there is no cooling problem. What i noticed is that 5.0 doesn't like support, doesn't matter tree on normal. In this case it was normal support and nozzle was hitting pretty bad at support material, in previews Cura versions everything worked fine. The only reason i wanted to use Cura 5.0 was that it can print small details in better quality.

[tato1989 0]

3 hours ago, GregValiant said:

@tato1989 Can you post that Gcode file here?  What material is that?

It is PLA +
Here is Gcode

S2A_Back_Head_V5_cut_2.gcode

[Cuq 198]

On 5/5/2022 at 1:21 AM, Kingsidorak said:

BUG: Exporting profiles does not export a file

Also: Please do not hide all the buttons in a dropdown menu

 

I'm agree with you @Kingsidorak

 

Why leaving just the button import ? And not group all the functions in the same place?

 

And why complicate the use by hiding the functions in an unidentifiable menu area ?

 

Cura 4.X

 

Cura 5.X

 

[nallath 1,120]

31 minutes ago, Cuq said:

 

I'm agree with you @Kingsidorak

 

Why leaving just the button import ? And not group all the functions in the same place?

 

And why complicate the use by hiding the functions in an unidentifiable menu area ?

 

Cura 4.X

 

Cura 5.X

 

The rationale here is that the items in the "hamburger menu" are things that you do to the actively selected profile. The import isn't something that you do to the active profile.

[Cuq 198]

1 hour ago, nallath said:

 

The rationale here is that the items in the "hamburger menu" are things that you do to the actively selected profile. The import isn't something that you do to the active profile.

Ok "logical"  But it doesn't change that there is 3 "levels" of function to do the same thing  as in 4.X . And One is "Hidden" compare to the others and the operation in version 4.X

 

And in 5.0 you can Update a Default Profile . Dangerous because in this case you have no way to reset your parameter to the initial ones.

 

4.0 interface was not a bat solution 

 

 

The good point in the case of the 5.0 solution it's the button "Create New"  available as soon as you have made a modification and not nesessary linked to the active profile compare to 4.0

Edited May 12, 2022 by Cuq

[GregValiant 1,251]

1 hour ago, nallath said:

 

The rationale here is that the items in the "hamburger menu" are things that you do to the actively selected profile. The import isn't something that you do to the active profile.

@nallath You may have drawn too fine a line there.  They were right out in the open and now they aren't.  Spacing would have left them visible, understandable, and without the "where did they put 'em" moment.

(Activate)(Duplicate)(Remove)(Rename)        (Import)(Export)

[nallath 1,120]

33 minutes ago, Cuq said:

And in 5.0 you can Update a Default Profile . Dangerous because in this case you have no way to reset your parameter to the initial ones.

Ah, that is a bug. But not to worry, it won't actually update any of the built in settings. It will create a new profile called "empty" (which is incorrect, but not as bad as updating the built in profile!)

 

7 minutes ago, GregValiant said:

@nallath You may have drawn too fine a line there.  They were right out in the open and now they aren't.  Spacing would have left them visible, understandable, and without the "where did they put 'em" moment.

(Activate)(Duplicate)(Remove)(Rename)        (Import)(Export)

I didn't make the designs, i'm just repeating what part of the rationale I heard from our designer.

[GregValiant 1,251]

Sorry.  I meant "You" in the collective sense, not you individually.  In the collective sense, I think the controls made more sense in the previous layout.  An analogy would be a book.  It's easier to glance down to a footnote than to have to flip to the appendix.

Is that the same designer that decided that the dialog "dismiss (X)" would be the same as combining a Cancel and Save button?  (I'm thinking about the Machine Settings dialog there.)

[Cuq 198]

12 minutes ago, nallath said:

I didn't make the designs, i'm just repeating what part of the rationale I heard from our designer.

 

I am not a specialist but I have some notions about the ergonomics of a solution and one of the points is what we classify as Homogeneity & Consistency.

And in this case it seems to me that you have too many different modes for accessing functions.

 

Buttons that are visible / not visible depending on the situation

 

Some  Active / Non active buttons

 

An inconspicuous menu with active/not active functions depending on the case.

 

 

 

After that they are just remarks on the functioning if the specialists think it is better.

[ahoeben 1,948]

41 minutes ago, GregValiant said:

Is that the same designer that decided that the dialog "dismiss (X)" would be the same as combining a Cancel and Save button?  (I'm thinking about the Machine Settings dialog there.)

 

Well, I am affraid I am somewhat responsible for the Machine Settings dialog having only a "Close" button at the bottom instead of a "Ok" and "Cancel", though I am not responsible for removing said "Close" button and relying on the user to close the window with the "X".

 

Here are the humble beginnings of that dialog: https://github.com/fieldOfView/MachineSettingsActionPlugin

Edited May 12, 2022 by ahoeben

[GregValiant 1,251]

Yeah, but you're off the hook because you pointed out my self-inflicted wound on the the "Line1 Line2" thing.

 

I know I'm in that particular dialog more than most people but from a "consistency" point of view having an explicit option to "save" or "cancel" would seem to be the way to go rather than using the Cancel/Close "X" to exit the dialog.  I'm aware it has to be a pain to re-write all the code for all the controls on all the dialogs but I think from a users point of view consistency does matter.

"Wait...how do I get out of here?" is a question that shouldn't come up and neither should "I wonder if my changes got saved?"

I'm sure I'll get used to it but that's my 2 cents worth.

 

[lever63 0]

On 4/27/2022 at 9:55 PM, Smithy said:

 

Bingo, you got it! With one big exception, most users with other printers are fair enough to understand that they got and use an enterprise-grade software for free with their China printers and are happy that Ultimaker still offers Cura for everyone at no charge. Even when Cura is not fully optimized for their specific printer type.

 

But why do you use Cura when it is so bad? It would be better for you to use the slicer software from your printer vendor. Then you can expect 100% support for all features you need and don't need to spend time ranting about things that have been deprecated and unsupported for years. If your vendor has no slicer software, yes, that's a problem, but certainly not the problem of Ultimaker or the community.

 

So please cool down. Feel free to use Cura if you are happy with it or use the 4.x version if it fits better for you, or use something else if not, but it is annoying  to endless discuss such things.

just my two cents; Ultimaker decided to offer Cura free of charge, no one could disagree if Ultimaker ask money for Cura, but maybe a lot of users will change slicer; and a lot of tester will not test the software; test is not free of charge

i

[Smithy 1,144]

It's a question of the tone of voice when someone comes here and complains about issues. I think everyone is happy to get helpful bug reports, so I fully agree with your statement, but not at any price.

[ahoeben 1,948]

55 minutes ago, lever63 said:

no one could disagree if Ultimaker ask money for Cura

They could ask money for Cura, but they can not prohibit others from giving Cura away for free. Cura is open source, and making it closed source is highly infeasible.

[Lupus52 3]

On 5/5/2022 at 2:59 PM, Lupus52 said:

Hello,

 

I downloaded this version and tried an 3-Hours-USB-Print. No errors! Perfect!

 

Only one thing: In the time of about 90% to 95% of printing the Windows-USB-disconnect and connect sound was about 10 times. First I thought - "shit - crash". But nothing else happened ???? What was this? There was no other USB-Device.

 

Before the update the USB-prints always crashed within 1 to 5 Minutes after start. And Cura most too.

 

Thank you!

 

 

Sorry -  I tried printing via USB again. Some little Jobs with not more than 1 hour worked. But yesterday I tried a larger Job. Same problem like before:-( -  Cura prints more than an hour and blocks complete. Nothing else done at Windows.  It is really not usable as direct USB-Printer. 😞

[GregValiant 1,251]

Ultimaker isn't going to put any money into fixing it since their printers don't use it.  That means it either works for you or it doesn't.  My normal response is to either invest in a Raspberry PI and Octoprint, use PronterFace/PrintRun, or use Repetier Host as a print server.

 

Your problem is a little different though.  For the most part people complain that USB printing just doesn't work at all.

Understand that what I don't know about Python fills libraries.  Maybe one of the Cura software engineers can tell if either of these hacks has a chance to fix the "quits after a while" problem.  (You will notice I use the word "maybe" a lot.)

 

Since it is working for a period of time maybe Cura is just losing the Com Port because of what it might perceive as a lack of activity(?).  Maybe that is because all the communication is one-way and there is never a response from the printer to any command Cura sends during a print.

There is a gcode command M113 that is "Host keepalive".  You could try putting "M113 S5" in your StartUp Gcode.  When the printer is busy doing stuff it will send "echo:busy: processing" back through the USB every 5 seconds.  I don't know if it is enabled in your firmware though.  It is on my Ender 3 Pro and the default is 2 seconds (M113 S2).

Another code you may be able to use in your StartUp Gcode is auto temperature reporting.  M155 S5 will cause the printer to send a temperature report (example: "T:210.26 /210.00 B:60.44 /60.00 @:127 B@:127") every 5 seconds.  M155 should be enabled in the firmware.  It would require an M155 S0 in your end gcode to turn it off.

 

 

 

[Suzygs1000 0]

I am presently running both versions, and I have to say that every single print, using exactly the same profile, takes longer using 5.0 ....  is this me, or am I missing something here?

[Cuq 198]

7 hours ago, Suzygs1000 said:

I am presently running both versions, and I have to say that every single print, using exactly the same profile, takes longer using 5.0 ....  is this me, or am I missing something here?

I have the same analyse, on simple print the 5.0 is longer than 4.13. But it's a Beta of a new engine. We will have certainly to wait 2 or 3 release to have a really stable and optimized engine

[nallath 1,120]

I don't think it's so much the engine being optimized, but the profiles to slice with it that will need tweaking as well.

[GregValiant 1,251]

I've been saving project files from 5.0 and opening them in 4.13 (and vice versa) to take a look at things like that.  Sometimes the print time is faster in 5.0.  I suppose it depends on the settings.  I noticed that Monotonic Top/Bottom can cause a lot more travel moves.  That only happens on tops and bottoms of course so overall it may not have a big effect.

There are always complaints about the Cura time estimates.  I just finish a print sliced in 5.0 that Cura stated would take 3hours 53minutes.  The print actually took 3hours 55 minutes per the LCD timer.

Here is the project for that print in 5.0.

 

This is the same project file opened in 4.13.1...4hours 28 minutes (about 12% longer).

[gordread 0]

I've been using the the Generic PLA profile, and that seems to work just fine.

 

However, I purchased some eSUN PLA+ and decided to use the installed profile, but when I did that the slicing profiles all disappeared (even the default ones) leaving me with 'unsupported profile'.

 

When I switched back to the Generic PLA, the slicing profiles came back.

 

I was able to Duplicate the Generic PLA material profile, but as soon as I set the manufacturer to 'eSUN' (or anything else for that matter) the slicing profiles disappeared again.

 

Pretty sure this is not planned behavior.  I have uninstalled, cleaned up the Cura 5 profiles folder in the roaming and local profiles, and the reinstalled using the download of the stable release from this morning, and am seeing the same issue.

[Cuq 198]

Strange result , the difference looks like to be a gain mainly on the Travel and Skin times.  To compare both print can you check if the option :

Fill Gaps Between Wall are not set in the 4.13  (This parameter doesn't exist any more in 5.0 )

and Optimize Wall Print Order are on in your 4.13 profile ?    This parameter doesn't have the same influence in 5.0 but according to your result I'm curious to know if you have the same result in that case ?

[GregValiant 1,251]

The New and Improved 5.0 gives me 3:52 so essentially the same as the beta.  Turning off "Fill Gaps Between Walls" in 4.13.1 resulted in an identical print time of 3:52.

Here is the 3mf file.

60 Box 2 layer hgt.3mf