So, the new version of  is out...

(Whosawhatsis) #1

So, the new version of #Cura is out…

And there doesn’t appear to be any way to configure it for use with anything other than one of Ultimaker’s stock models…

So unless I’m missing something, it looks like the new Cura is dropping support for the rest of the community, and the outstanding bugs in the old versions won’t be fixed (at least not without a community fork)…

Sounds like an opportunity for alternatives like #MatterControl to pick up some users…

(Tyler Harney) #2

I’ve been meaning to try out Matter Control for a couple months now.

(Matthias Lewen-Rieger) #3

I’ve read on some thread that you’re supposed to create a new json configuration file for other printers (in “\resources\settings”).
I copied and modified an ultimaker2 config and it seems to work well enough.

Not really userfriendly right now, but I guess it will be easy enough to share those json files, or maybe they’ll add some more standard ones later on.

(Nils Hitze) #4

@Daid_Braam ?

(Jarek Szczepański) #5

as @Matthias_Lewen-Riege said. Copy json, change your settings and you’re ready to slice :slight_smile: later you can add your own 3D background like I did -

(Peter Hertel) #6

I highly doubt this is what they intend, so put down the flaming pitchforks. :wink: Cura is widely used and ultimaker would have no interest in fewer users…

(Mauro Manco) #7

Matthias, is a workaround…but if next step are encrypt configuration file?
no good way…any more news?

(william foster) #8

i noticed that this morning, total bummer.

(Jarek Szczepański) #9

@Mauro_Manco don’t be silly - it’s just a new, completely rewritten version of Cura & there is no just few config files. you can add them by yourself - no big deal. Where is your hacker spirit? :slight_smile:

(Mauro Manco) #10

@Jarek_Szczepanski ok for hacker spirit (this no really my issue ) but currently no big deal but if future add a encrypted Json file? i don’t want Ultimaker make same steps of other company…but other face of medal i see Cura is surely overused from other 3d printer company…I think need find middle point for save all.

(Tomáš Vít) #11

After new Cura installation the old one is still there. #solution until next version without functionality cuts.

(Matthias Lewen-Rieger) #12

@Mauro_Manco As I understand it, it’s not a workaround but intended to be used this way. They just made cura highly modular, so it’s even easier to implement new functionalities, if you really want to.

I don’t know why they didn’t add other configurations directly, but I guess we’ll see in the future :slight_smile:

(Stephane BUISSON) #13

I would love to have a “make it stand plugin for Cura”.
Any coder/developer up to that challenge ???

(Alberto Valero Gomez) #14

Point is that they have even removed the “custom” option. This seems intentional to me. They could just have added them to the JSON, or at least tell the contributors they could pull request before making release. But development has been closed source. At BQ we are making a pull request of our machines, but they will not be available until the next release. This means we cannot advice Cura to our customers for the moment… which as far as I am concerned means Cura is not anymore a slicing program for the community… I guess Slic3r should be our recommendation from now on.

(Camerin hahn) #15

This was discussed by @Daid_Braam ​ on some thread. They will be adding it back. But for now don’t update.

(Karan Chaphekar) #16

You can modify json file.

(Daid Braam) #17

Simply a focus issue. We decided to focus on our machines (which provide us with income, remember that I like to eat as well) on this release.

The lack of a “custom printer” option is simply a new code architecture thing. Definitions of printers has become slightly more complex, but also slightly more capable because of that. Before, the Ultimaker2 support had lots of hacks all in the code. Now this is handled fine in the json file.

Extra machine definitions are placed as json file here:
While it puts a bit more effort initially for other people to produce this file, it does mean the overall quality of these files should go up. Especially with the dependencies, where you can have a single base machine and multiple small differences based of that one.

Why we didn’t add all the older contributed printers? Time&quality. It would take time to check what we need to import exactly, and we have no idea how good those profiles are. We’re stressed out as it is, this was a major undertaking the last 6 months, as all the GUI code has been re-written and quite some engine code has been touched up. Also trained 3 new people on everything that is Cura, as well as the finer points of 3D printing.

Previous versions are (and always will be) available from the Cura page. Or from these locations:

we did open the source months ago, when we started the beta testing stage. Evidence:
it’s a “workaround” proposed by us. And once you have a file like that it’s easy to integrate it into the next release as well. Talk about encryption is not only silly, it’s idiotic if you look at the fact that’s still 100% open source code.

One of the new people working on Cura came from the Krita open-source project, was selected for his great GUI programming capabilities, and his trust and focus on OpenSource development.
Github account:
Krita work:
(he even looks like an OpenSource developer: )

Right now, the truth is, I’ve been developing and giving away Cura for years. And we’ve been getting little back for it in terms of contributions. There are different ways to react on this, one would be to close off the wall and say “fuck you all” (kinda what Makerbot did). But we didn’t, instead, we looked at our code, and our code was crap, hard to contribute on, hard to customize or add on. So instead, we make this new code, which is build for a large part on plugins. Giving room for customization, and contributions, or custom packed versions. So on one hand, this new version is a bit of a shock for you guys as the custom printer option is gone. On the other side, it is a version that’s much more open to customization. (For example, just to name a random thing, better Octoprint integration)
So don’t see this as a path to screwing you all, see this as a fresher new start. Yes, the beginning of this road is bumpy, sorry. But sometimes hard things need to be done.

We did however, focused on ourselves first. I’ve always done this. (And this isn’t the first time people are mad at me for changes :stuck_out_tongue: ) The current RepRap and other printer support is just the result of 3 years of collecting small contributions in the form of extra printer profiles and a few modifications needed from my side.

(Also, the current release does not 100% support our current product range, as dual-extrusion printing isn’t supported yet in this release)

(And finally, 3.5 years I spend building Cura for everyone. 3.5 years you trusted me. Trust me now will ya?)

(Daid Braam) #18

(G+ decided to eat some names for lunch)
@Alberto_Valero_Gomez we did open the source months ago, when we started the beta testing stage. Evidence:
@Mauro_Manco it’s a “workaround” proposed by us. And once you have a file like that it’s easy to integrate it into the next release as well. Talk about encryption is not only silly, it’s idiotic if you look at the fact that’s still 100% open source code.

(Alberto Valero Gomez) #19

@Daid_Braam ​ you are right. My fault, I was still checking former Cura repo

(Mauro Manco) #20

@Daid_Braam is only negative and my extreme negative point of view…onlt ffor reflect if Ultimaker decided to change something inside.
Thanks too much for clarification.
Personaly, I don’t want Ultimaker change current collaborative strategy, but understand some other company need support Cura better too!! thanks again!