-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add Blocks machines to ultimaker cura #11620
Conversation
Definition files to add Blocks printers
Extruder files for Blocks printers
Mesh files for Blocks printers
Quality setting files for Blocks printers for nozzle and print core variants
Variants files for Blocks printers that include nozzle and print core variants
Belongs to Ultimaker/fdm_materials#195. They should be merged at the same time. The tests are currently failing. It fails for a lot of files, but it seems that at least for some of them it's because the SettingVersion is outdated (should be 19 instead of 17). That indicates that you might have tested this in Cura 4.13 instead of in Cura 5.0. Do they work with Arachne? |
Thanks for the feedback @Ghostkeeper, yes we tested them on Cura 4.13 but they work in Arachne, we will fix the SettingVersion of the files. |
You can just update the master branch of BlocksTechnology's fork with new commits. Github will automatically update this Pull Request with your latest changes. That's also the easiest for us. |
Variants files for Blocks printers that include nozzle and print core variants
This reverts commit 6d7617b.
Variants files for Blocks printers that include nozzle and print core variants SettingVersion updated to work with Cura 5.0
Quality setting files for Blocks printers for nozzle and print core variants SettingVerison updated to work with Cura 5.0
Edited start Gcode of Blocks Zero and Blocks R21
Updated Start GCODE
@Ghostkeeper any updates when this branch will be merged? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Apologies for the slow review! I'm trying to get through all the open PR's again.
I've not checked all the settings, but I've found quite a few settings that re-define defaults. This makes it a lot harder to maintain the profile, so it's generally best to adhere to the DRY (Don't repeat yourself) as much as possible.
Furthermore, we also require buildplate meshes to be well below 1mb. Try to exclude any unneeded details like springs / screws.
[values] | ||
layer_height = 0.1 | ||
layer_height_0 = 0.15 | ||
material_diameter = 1.75 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should not be set in a quality profile. It's already being set by the extruder. THese can (and should) be removed from all of them.
definition = blocks_base | ||
|
||
[metadata] | ||
setting_version = 19 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
setting version is 20 now (not a big deal if you don't fix it, but it will make the tests fail right now)
"travel_avoid_supports": { "value": true }, | ||
"travel_retract_before_outer_wall": { "value": true }, | ||
|
||
"retraction_enable": { "value": true }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"retraction_enable": { "value": true }, |
This is already the default in fdmprinter, no need to repeat yourself.
|
||
"retraction_speed": { | ||
"deafult_value": 40, | ||
"maximum_value_warning": "machine_max_feedrate_e if retraction_enable else float('inf')", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"maximum_value_warning": "machine_max_feedrate_e if retraction_enable else float('inf')", |
Already the default, no need to repeat yourself
"speed_wall": { "value": "speed_print / 2" }, | ||
"speed_wall_0": { "value": "speed_wall" }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"speed_wall": { "value": "speed_print / 2" }, | |
"speed_wall_0": { "value": "speed_wall" }, |
"speed_topbottom": { "value": "speed_print / 2" }, | ||
"speed_roofing": { "value": "speed_topbottom" }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"speed_topbottom": { "value": "speed_print / 2" }, | |
"speed_roofing": { "value": "speed_topbottom" }, |
"line_width": { "value": "machine_nozzle_size" }, | ||
"wall_line_width": { "value": "machine_nozzle_size" }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"line_width": { "value": "machine_nozzle_size" }, | |
"wall_line_width": { "value": "machine_nozzle_size" }, |
"machine_height": { "default_value": 290 }, | ||
"machine_depth": { "default_value": 310 }, | ||
|
||
"retraction_retract_speed": { "value": 40, "maximum_value_warning": 130 }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why not just define the maximum value_warning in the base file? THey seem to be the same for all machines.
|
||
"retraction_retract_speed": { "value": 40, "maximum_value_warning": 130 }, | ||
"retraction_prime_speed": { "value": 20, "maximum_value_warning": 130 }, | ||
"speed_print": { "value": 50 }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's the same for all printers. So why not just put it in the base file?
Co-authored-by: Jaime van Kessel <[email protected]>
@nallath changes were made and machines added. Thank you so much for the help |
@nallath any chance to review the printer and quality profiles? thank you |
Can you sync your fork, with our If it finds issues for which it knows a fix it should post a comment with that suggested fix such that you can easily commit that fix if you're okay with it. |
@jellespijker how are you? is it possible to approve the workflow to check if there is more diagnostics with printer-liner? thank you |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
clang-tidy
found issue(s) with the introduced code (1/1)
Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
@jellespijker just updated with the last commits! Let's hope its the final one :D |
Improves readability
Contributes to CURA-10101
The settings: - travel_compensate_overlapping_walls_0_enabled - fill_perimeter_gaps - filter_out_tiny_gaps Are no longer used with the new Arachne engine. That these settings were still set in the blocks_base definition is an indication that the current profiles weren't actually tested with the new Arachne engine. Please consider doing some actual quality tests with these profiles on your printers. This is for the benefit of your users experience. Contributes to CURA-10101
Contributes to CURA-10101
Contributes to CURA-10101
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Still multiple issues and failing Unit Tests so I can't press merge :-(
To help you guys out a bit I made a PR against your fork. See BlocksTechnology#1
If you agree with these suggested changes feel free to merge it on your fork, this should also update this PR.
I will convert this PR to a WIP PR. You can convert it back once it is ready to be reviewed again.
@braga-dev and @jgrilo-blocks Do you guys need additional help with this PR? Or is merging my PR on your fork enough? BlocksTechnology#1 It would be nice if we can add your printers in Cura 5.3.0 |
hello @jellespijker sorry for the delay. We just fixed the last issue so its all probably fine. We already tested these print profiles in Cura 5 and they are working fine so there won't be a problem. For future updates, its going to be easier/faster than the first ones right? |
Don't worry. The main delay was originally on our side. We are finally catching up. Yes, updates and new printers should now be processed way faster due to our improved workflow. I will take a look at the fixes first thing o Monday. Good to hear that they have been tested on Cura 5.x. If all goes well, these printers should be available in Cura 5.3 |
just mark it ready for review when you're finished so we know that we can review it. |
Hello @jellespijker perfect. Great to hear that. I don't have write access so I can't make it ready for review. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM;
Two minor fixes which I will quickly fix myself when I merge it.
Congrats guys, your printers should be available in Cura 5.3
"retraction_hop_enabled": { "value": "False" }, | ||
"retraction_prime_speed": | ||
{ | ||
"deafult_value": 20, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"deafult_value": 20, | |
"default_value": 20, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I will change these myself after I merge them
}, | ||
"retraction_speed": | ||
{ | ||
"deafult_value": 40, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"deafult_value": 40, | |
"default_value": 40, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I will change these myself after I merge them
Applied changes where necesarry
Hello @jellespijker ! Thank you very much! Can't wait. |
First definitions of Blocks machines for Ultimaker Cura