UltiMaker uses functional, analytical and tracking cookies. Tracking cookies enhance your experience on our website and may also collect your personal data outside of Ultimaker websites. If you agree with the use of tracking cookies, click “I agree, continue browsing”. You can withdraw your consent at any time. If you do not consent with the use of tracking cookies, click “Refuse”. You can find more information about cookies on our Privacy and Cookie Policy page.
Unfortunately this isn't much to go on. If you could post your Cura project (.3mf, in Cura go to File > Save Project) as well as gcode files generated by 5.6 and 5.7.1 so we can see if there are any important differences.
(If you uninstalled 5.6, you can have multiple versions installed side by side with no problems at all, so you can have both 5.6 and 5.7.1 on there. I have about 5 different versions installed to try and help people who don't want to update 😠)
7 hours ago, jimstapenell said:
so no file fragmentation on the SD
Nitpicking (I swear it comes from good intentions 🙂, feel free to ignore my ranting): fragmentation (the kind that's bad) doesn't occur in flash memory (SD cards, SSDs, etc.).
Hard drives are like a vinyl record... except magnetic and on a much smaller scale: there's a spinning platter (multiple in most hard drives, besides the point) and a head that reads, and in the case of a hard drive, writes. If a song on your record is split up so you have to move the arm and needle mid-song, then that adds the time it takes to how long to listen to the song. If it's in three different places there's even more time spent moving the needle and arm.
Now imagine you have a one gigabyte file on your hard drive, and is split up so each ten megabyte section is in a different place on the platter. Instead of just being able to move the head to one place and keep going, it has to read a little bit (won't even get up to its maximum read speed) then move the head, repeat 100 times. When defragmented, files will take up contiguous sectors on the platter, so it can just move the head there and read straight to the end, reaching their maximum speed (because of the time it takes the drive to get to spinning at full speed, a short read won't do it).
*/me tries to think of a similar analogy for flash memory*
Not sure I can come up with one. But flash memory has no moving parts. It takes no time to move from one sector to another, it can call any sector up at will with no delay, even if it's on a different chip (large SSDs tend to have multiple chips of memory). So when it starts and has to move to another part, the move is instant, so it doesn't matter that it's there.
Flash memory actually deliberately splits up files. Each memory cell can only have its state changed a finite number of times, so you'll eventually get to the point where you can't change the value in a cell, i.e. you can't overwrite a file stored in that sector - don't worry, to actually reach this point with good quality memory you either need to be a very heavy user or deliberately do it by constantly writing random values to each part of the memory (which is is also actually the second most secure way to delete files, behind only "stick it up on a pole so it gets struck by lightning", maybe third behind "fire"). When writing new data, it will write it to the sectors which have been written to the fewest times, and it doesn't matter if those sectors are in order. It's called wear levelling, so you don't end up with storage where half of it has been written so many times it's permanently fixed but half works fine.
🚀 Help Shape the Future of Cura and Digital Factory – Join Our Power User Research Program!
We’re looking for active users of Cura and Digital Factory — across professional and educational use cases — to help us improve the next generation of our tools.
Our Power User Research Program kicks off with a quick 15-minute interview to learn about your setup and workflows. If selected, you’ll be invited into a small group of users who get early access to features and help us shape the future of 3D printing software.
🧪 What to Expect:
A short 15-minute kickoff interview to help us get to know you If selected, bi-monthly research sessions (15–30 minutes) where we’ll test features, review workflows, or gather feedback Occasional invites to try out early prototypes or vote on upcoming improvements
🎁 What You’ll Get:
Selected participants receive a free 1-year Studio or Classroom license Early access to new features and tools A direct voice in what we build next
👉 Interested? Please fill out this quick form
Your feedback helps us make Cura Cloud more powerful, more intuitive, and more aligned with how you actually print and manage your workflow.
Thanks for being part of the community,
The full stable release of Cura 5.10 has arrived, and it brings support for the new Ultimaker S8, as well as new materials and profiles for previously supported UltiMaker printers. Additionally, you can now control your models in Cura using a 3D SpaceMouse and more!
Recommended Posts
Slashee_the_Cow 619
Unfortunately this isn't much to go on. If you could post your Cura project (.3mf, in Cura go to File > Save Project) as well as gcode files generated by 5.6 and 5.7.1 so we can see if there are any important differences.
(If you uninstalled 5.6, you can have multiple versions installed side by side with no problems at all, so you can have both 5.6 and 5.7.1 on there. I have about 5 different versions installed to try and help people who don't want to update 😠)
Nitpicking (I swear it comes from good intentions 🙂, feel free to ignore my ranting): fragmentation (the kind that's bad) doesn't occur in flash memory (SD cards, SSDs, etc.).
Hard drives are like a vinyl record... except magnetic and on a much smaller scale: there's a spinning platter (multiple in most hard drives, besides the point) and a head that reads, and in the case of a hard drive, writes. If a song on your record is split up so you have to move the arm and needle mid-song, then that adds the time it takes to how long to listen to the song. If it's in three different places there's even more time spent moving the needle and arm.
Now imagine you have a one gigabyte file on your hard drive, and is split up so each ten megabyte section is in a different place on the platter. Instead of just being able to move the head to one place and keep going, it has to read a little bit (won't even get up to its maximum read speed) then move the head, repeat 100 times. When defragmented, files will take up contiguous sectors on the platter, so it can just move the head there and read straight to the end, reaching their maximum speed (because of the time it takes the drive to get to spinning at full speed, a short read won't do it).
*/me tries to think of a similar analogy for flash memory*
Not sure I can come up with one. But flash memory has no moving parts. It takes no time to move from one sector to another, it can call any sector up at will with no delay, even if it's on a different chip (large SSDs tend to have multiple chips of memory). So when it starts and has to move to another part, the move is instant, so it doesn't matter that it's there.
Flash memory actually deliberately splits up files. Each memory cell can only have its state changed a finite number of times, so you'll eventually get to the point where you can't change the value in a cell, i.e. you can't overwrite a file stored in that sector - don't worry, to actually reach this point with good quality memory you either need to be a very heavy user or deliberately do it by constantly writing random values to each part of the memory (which is is also actually the second most secure way to delete files, behind only "stick it up on a pole so it gets struck by lightning", maybe third behind "fire"). When writing new data, it will write it to the sectors which have been written to the fewest times, and it doesn't matter if those sectors are in order. It's called wear levelling, so you don't end up with storage where half of it has been written so many times it's permanently fixed but half works fine.
Link to post
Share on other sites