Ultimaker Cura 5.0.0

[rbrome 1]

... I should add that when un-installing, I did delete the hidden "cura" folder in ~/Library/Application Support/ , then I re-installed. No luck. 

[gr5 2,173]

It might be helpful to publish the log file (cura.log).  It can be found here:

%APPDATA%\cura\<Cura version>\cura.log (Windows)

$USER/Library/Application Support/cura/<Cura version>/cura.log (OSX)
$USER/.local/share/cura/<Cura version>/cura.log (Ubuntu/Linux)

 

[hako 2]

On 5/29/2022 at 7:43 AM, ahoeben said:

In previous versions, where this also happened to people, this could be fixed by unchecking the "Restore window position on start" option in the General preferences. Does that help in Cura 5.0?

I literally tried everything. I stopped after trying to fix their mess in the source code as creating a working development environment is more difficult than writing a complex linux kernel module from scratch.

There is nothing you can do except for disabling all secondary monitors entirely to make it not crash.
I also made a bug report in Beta and I made one for Release version which was never even responded to, that said they don't seem to respond to any of the thousands of reports.

[nallath 1,120]

7 minutes ago, hako said:

I also made a bug report in Beta and I made one for Release version which was never even responded to, that said they don't seem to respond to any of the thousands of reports.

That is simply not true. I get how you're upset that there is an issue, but there is no need to spread untruths about it.

The issue is reported by multiple people, we responded to most of them and it is on our back log. You can find one of those tickets here: https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/12197

 

It can be that we take a bit longer to respond to people as we're currently in between community managers.
 

9 minutes ago, hako said:

I literally tried everything. I stopped after trying to fix their mess in the source code as creating a working development environment is more difficult than writing a complex linux kernel module from scratch.

Harsh much? Their mess?

Also, we are currently working on making it easier to run things from source.

[hako 2]

Alright I see some of the bugs are handled/noticed by now, I did follow those crashes for some weeks and they were not handled until very recently (none of those I had found and I found a lot of reports that seemed to originate from the same cause).

By "mess" I meant the hard crash on computers with two monitors or a laptop with docking station.
I'm aware Cura is opensource but when paying thousands of USD for a printer I somehow had the expectation that the software that accompanies it goes through a QA process that includes a test with two monitors. Especially when the same sort of bug occurred for years regularly. 

Regarding development environment, you currently maintain a docker environment (or a couple of them) that come without the actual source code, without howto, without any readme and the vast majority of people will never even find out how to use it as it also comes without a working entrypoint.
All you can find online about it is a couple discussions in forums that in most cases fail to ever see the inside of the container
I guess when using so many libraries and dependencies a docker environment is a good choice, just the state it is in now is not useful.
In my opinion such a docker container should come ready to use, including GIT, including the working source code that can be compiled with a single command which is printed boldly after 'login' in the working entrypoint environment.

[Nosybottle 9]

I don't want to speak for the devs out of turn here, as I don't know them and haven't even read the bug reports in question, but I imagine it might not be as easy as "a test with two monitors." I've used Cura from I think 4.10 on about 7 different computers, all with 2-3 monitors (few quite old work stations at work, couple of new ones and two custom built PCs, all with very random assortment of monitors) and never had a crash like this. I don't even want to imagine what pain it'd be to try to debug something PC setup dependent

Also, I love the new engine. Is it not called Arachne anymore, was that just a temporary name while it was still in pre-release development?

[hako 2]

4 hours ago, Nosybottle said:

I don't want to speak for the devs out of turn here, as I don't know them and haven't even read the bug reports in question, but I imagine it might not be as easy as "a test with two monitors." I've used Cura from I think 4.10 on about 7 different computers, all with 2-3 monitors (few quite old work stations at work, couple of new ones and two custom built PCs, all with very random assortment of monitors) and never had a crash like this. I don't even want to imagine what pain it'd be to try to debug something PC setup dependent

Also, I love the new engine. Is it not called Arachne anymore, was that just a temporary name while it was still in pre-release development?

Does Cura 5 work for you on your 2 or 3 monitor setup ?
I would have expected it to crash in most environments like that.

In general I would expect the majority of professionals to use more than one monitor, that's why I would normally expect QA to also at least have one workplace like that before ANYthing hits public use.

[wimh 0]

I am having issues with printing the first layer while using 5.0. I think this happens because the support structures for the first layer are printed at high speed causing the layer not to stick. I switched back to the previous version and everything worked fine again. This is on an Ultimaker 2+

[Nosybottle 9]

@hako Yes, Cura 5 (beta and full release) work just fine for me. I would be quite surprised if no one at Ultimaker used Cura with two monitors (using only one is such a pain for me now..)

[Super_paulie 12]

11 hours ago, wimh said:

I am having issues with printing the first layer while using 5.0.

Same. It's really messing up that initial layer and its obviously higher from the bed than it used to be for some reason.

[GregValiant 1,251]

" its obviously higher from the bed than it used to be for some reason."

Open the gcode file in Notepad or some other text editor.  About 6 or 8 lines down will be a line like this:

;MINZ:0.2

Then just before the first extrusion of the skirt/brim there will be some lines something like this:

G0 F9000 X81.638 Y127.923 Z0.2
G0 X81.55 Y128.472
;TYPE:SKIRT
G1 F2100 E0
G1 F4500 X81.638 Y127.923 E0.01759

So in the gcode file I copied those from the initial layer height was 0.2 and that number was reflected by the MINZ line.

What does one of your gcodes say?

[Yamie 0]

I experimented with Cura 5 for a few weeks now, and I am going back to 4.13 for now.

The old dark theme looked better and when using different monitors with different resolutions, the AA is not messed up when switching. But those are minor issues.

 

My bigger problem is a inconsistent flow and very bad skin.

 

I tried many settings and disabled and reenabled plugins, but it seems to be caused by something else.

First the flow for all my materials was to high after the update to 5.0 when not using a 0.4mm nozzle, when printing with different size nozzles the flow is no longer accurate.

 

 

I printed this flow test file of mine.

It's simply 2 walls to help me calibrate the flow.

 

All a printed top to bottom one after another. So V5 then V4 then V5 again.

Printed from the same spool of CPE HG100, very well dried.

 

As you see, the V4 looks clean, linear advance is working well and the dimensions are fine.

V5 causes blobs and zits on the skin, is inconsistent in flow and to tall in Z dimension, also the linear advance is not working well.

 

 

 

Did I miss a new setting that might cause this, or is there something wrong with V5?

 

 

Thanks in advance!

[GregValiant 1,251]

What is the Wall Order setting?  The new default in 5.0 is Outside to Inside.  In 4.13 it was Inside to Outside.

[Yamie 0]

Since there are only 2 walls and both are skin, there is no inside or outside.

But I pretty much always print "inside to outside" or in  V4 not enabled outside before inside.

 

 

I only use this setting for specific prints in TPU where it might prevent curly overhangs.

I never had problems with dimensional accuracy after a good calibration.

 

Still the new engine looks a lot better with its variable flow.

 

 

New (V5 left) vs Old (V4 right)

Edited June 6, 2022 by Yamie

[H3nshy 0]

On 5/31/2022 at 9:05 PM, GregValiant said:

In 4.13.1 in the Marketplace the Solidworks plugin has a link to the author / maintainer of the plugin.  You would need to contact them and find out if they have a timeline for re-submitting the plugin to the Cura Team.

 

EDIT:  I found a contact form for the author and sent a query regarding the plugin and if/when it will be available for 5.0.

 

Did you happen to get a reply on this at all?

 

Very handy plugin for me.

[GregValiant 1,251]

@H3nshy I haven't received any response.  Have you tried contacting SolidWorks?

[Yamie 0]

I did some more testing, with more materials and different nozzels, all the same.

While V4 prints clean skins, V5 leaves those marks 😞

I guess I will wait for a later version and try again.

[Super_paulie 12]

Yep, my version 5 is frankly awful compared to 4.13... like going back to the early days.

[motolelozzo 1]

On 5/31/2022 at 10:05 PM, GregValiant said:

In 4.13.1 in the Marketplace the Solidworks plugin has a link to the author / maintainer of the plugin.  You would need to contact them and find out if they have a timeline for re-submitting the plugin to the Cura Team.

 

EDIT:  I found a contact form for the author and sent a query regarding the plugin and if/when it will be available for 5.0.

Thank you, appreciated! Please to share news if any...

[Sandman_d 0]

Hello. I have a problem with printing "pockets" in the new Cura 5.0.0. To explain, I modeled a detail with 6 pockets, the thickness of the outer wall of each pocket is different: 0.3, 0.4, 0.45, 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0 mm. I use a 0.4 mm nozzle.

 

Cura 4.12.1 requires 1 line for printing 0.3 and 0.4 mm thick walls, 2 lines for printing 0.45, 0.6 and 0.8 mm thick, and three lines for 1.0 mm printing. The outer line for walls with a thickness of 0.4 - 1.0 mm is printed in the print cycle of the outer perimeter. Therefore, the outer wall of the whole model is inseparable. Except for the 0.3 mm wall, but this is understandable because it is smaller than the nozzle diameter.

 

Cura 5.0.0 requires 1 line for printing 0.3, 0.4, 0.45 and 0.6 mm thick walls, and 2 lines for 0.8 and 1.0 mm walls. And the outer line for walls with a thickness of 0.3 - 0.6 mm is printed in separate pieces. For 2-line walls only, the outer line is printed in the outer perimeter print cycle. Therefore, the outer wall of the whole model will have gaps. This works poorly with both "Inside to Outside" and "Outside to Inside" - the outer surface is brittle and uneven.

 

How to solve this problem?

Test pocket.STL

[pawPrinter 8]

Wow! I'm absolutely loving v5. The tool paths and walls are just sooooo good. Thanks for all the hard work.

[GregValiant 1,251]

@Sandman_d  In 4.13 there were no changes in flow in the outer wall.  The line width was fixed.  In 5.0 you are asking for different wall widths and to accommodate that Cura must change the flow.  The outer wall path is no longer a straight line.

The 0.3 wall dictates that the centerline of the nozzle is .15 from the outside surface of the model.  The .45 wall dictates that the centerline of the nozzle is .225 from the outside surface.  That means jigs and jogs so the outside surface is planar.  At every jig and jog the flow changes as well.

 

Coming in from the left is the extrusion of a single wall, then the "buttress" feature, and then another single wall.  You can see the jig-jogs (inside my circles) at the buttress as the line width changes and Cura makes the adjustment to keep the outside surface planar.  The line coming from the left is not co-linear to the line exiting on the right.

 

Here is the same area in 4.13.1.  In this case the left line is co-linear to the far right line.  There is still a jig-jog.

 

As you point out, this behavior in 5.0 leaves artifacts on the outer surface of that particular model.  I will assume that the artifacts are the result of the real world intruding as the printer struggles to keep up with the rapid nozzle pressure changes.  Maybe some sort of Pressure Advance or Linear Advance would help but in a mechanical contrivance I think there will always be a lag time and hence artifacts.  In my test print I did not notice any real "strength" difference as everything seemed to bond together correctly.

Under the microscope I can see that the wall is planar and that the printer left bulges at the direction changes.  Trying to measure them isn't easy but they appear to be about .01 to .03mm tall.  Enough to catch the light.  The areas between the "ridges" appears to be planar.

 

On any single wall print my Ender 3 Pro will have marks on the outside where the infill touches the inside of the wall.  That is the same sort of artifact as is being left by the printer in regards to the pressure changes that 5.0 dictates.

 

In this last image one of the prints was sliced in 4.13.1 and the other with 5.0.  Both are with your test model and both have the same side facing the camera. 

The question is...which is which?  A second question would be...are you getting different results?

In regards to your question "How to solve this problem" I have no idea.  In my case I'm pretty sure it's the printer unable to keep up with the rapidity of the pressure changes.  I've been known to be wrong.

[GregValiant 1,251]

New experiment.  This time I used my own model.

One half of this was sliced with 5.0 and the other half with 4.13.  The gcodes were combined and printed one on top of the other.

Those who correctly determine which half was sliced with which version (AND explain how they could tell) will win a possibly wonderful virtual prize possibly suitable as a screensaver.  It will not include Flying Toasters.

 

First is the thin wall side (.45, .40, .35 left to right):

 

Second is the thicker walled side (1.00, 0.80, 0.60 left to right).

 

[Sandman_d 0]

1 hour ago, GregValiant said:

New experiment.  This time I used my own model.

One half of this was sliced with 5.0 and the other half with 4.13.  The gcodes were combined and printed one on top of the other.

Those who correctly determine which half was sliced with which version (AND explain how they could tell) will win a possibly wonderful virtual prize possibly suitable as a screensaver.  It will not include Flying Toasters.

 

First is the thin wall side (.45, .40, .35 left to right):

 

Second is the thicker walled side (1.00, 0.80, 0.60 left to right).

 

I think these photos are from the same side but from slightly different angles. Or your printer made exactly the same artifacts on different walls).

[Yamie 0]

@GregValiant Thanks a lot for that insight.

That makes a lot of sense and I will try to confirm this again with my setup.

 

 

I usually have a very well tuned linear advance.

My DDE is my own design using a trianglelab bmg newest version with hardened gears and a dragon hotend.

The PIDs are also tuned in very well.

 

The distance between the extruder gears and the nozel is 93mm in my case. I will pay close attention to what LA does during printing.

 

Regarding your pictures, I think @Sandman_d is right and you mixed them up somehow, both show the same prints.

And to your question, I would guess the upper print is V5 because those are the same problems I am seeing in my comparison

 

 

Left V5, Right V4

 

 

If it's not the case, yould you provide your testfile and some printing informations, so I could repeat the test on my printer.

 

 

Thanks!