discuss@lists.openscad.org

OpenSCAD general discussion

View all threads

where is cura bug report site?

GH
Gene Heskett
Wed, Apr 28, 2021 7:26 PM

Greetings all;

I think I have a cura bug.  I have now made 4 of the test for fit
bearings, stairstepping the size of the bb over enough range I should be
seeing the effect in how they fit.  But I am not. Then I noted that my
last openscad .stl was 93686k as delivered to cura.  But despite 2
overwrites, cura still thinks its 91 megs, and I just made the bearing
ball .01mm bigger which should have make the bb's fit a lot sloppier
considering theres 72 of them.

That big an stl takes cura several minutes just to render a screen image
of it, but having it reuse the old, 91 megabyte file that no longer
exists, instead of the new, I can see it in mc, 93686k file, sucks, and
I've now wasted around 4 rendering hours building old code with a
stairstepped bearing size with no effect on the plastic produced. And I
want to report the bug.

Cheers, Gene Heskett

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.

Greetings all; I think I have a cura bug. I have now made 4 of the test for fit bearings, stairstepping the size of the bb over enough range I should be seeing the effect in how they fit. But I am not. Then I noted that my last openscad .stl was 93686k as delivered to cura. But despite 2 overwrites, cura still thinks its 91 megs, and I just made the bearing ball .01mm bigger which should have make the bb's fit a _lot_ sloppier considering theres 72 of them. That big an stl takes cura several minutes just to render a screen image of it, but having it reuse the old, 91 megabyte file that no longer exists, instead of the new, I can see it in mc, 93686k file, sucks, and I've now wasted around 4 rendering hours building old code with a stairstepped bearing size with no effect on the plastic produced. And I want to report the bug. Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
W
Whosawhatsis
Wed, Apr 28, 2021 7:31 PM

https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues
On Apr 28, 2021, 12:27 -0700, Gene Heskett gheskett@shentel.net, wrote:

Greetings all;

I think I have a cura bug. I have now made 4 of the test for fit
bearings, stairstepping the size of the bb over enough range I should be
seeing the effect in how they fit. But I am not. Then I noted that my
last openscad .stl was 93686k as delivered to cura. But despite 2
overwrites, cura still thinks its 91 megs, and I just made the bearing
ball .01mm bigger which should have make the bb's fit a lot sloppier
considering theres 72 of them.

That big an stl takes cura several minutes just to render a screen image
of it, but having it reuse the old, 91 megabyte file that no longer
exists, instead of the new, I can see it in mc, 93686k file, sucks, and
I've now wasted around 4 rendering hours building old code with a
stairstepped bearing size with no effect on the plastic produced. And I
want to report the bug.

Cheers, Gene Heskett

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.


OpenSCAD mailing list
To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org

https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues On Apr 28, 2021, 12:27 -0700, Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net>, wrote: > Greetings all; > > I think I have a cura bug. I have now made 4 of the test for fit > bearings, stairstepping the size of the bb over enough range I should be > seeing the effect in how they fit. But I am not. Then I noted that my > last openscad .stl was 93686k as delivered to cura. But despite 2 > overwrites, cura still thinks its 91 megs, and I just made the bearing > ball .01mm bigger which should have make the bb's fit a _lot_ sloppier > considering theres 72 of them. > > That big an stl takes cura several minutes just to render a screen image > of it, but having it reuse the old, 91 megabyte file that no longer > exists, instead of the new, I can see it in mc, 93686k file, sucks, and > I've now wasted around 4 rendering hours building old code with a > stairstepped bearing size with no effect on the plastic produced. And I > want to report the bug. > > Cheers, Gene Heskett > -- > "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: > soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." > -Ed Howdershelt (Author) > If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. > - Louis D. Brandeis > Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene> > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org
JW
Jan Wieck
Wed, Apr 28, 2021 8:03 PM

On 4/28/21 3:26 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:

Greetings all;

I think I have a cura bug.  I have now made 4 of the test for fit
bearings, stairstepping the size of the bb over enough range I should be
seeing the effect in how they fit.  But I am not. Then I noted that my
last openscad .stl was 93686k as delivered to cura.  But despite 2
overwrites, cura still thinks its 91 megs, and I just made the bearing
ball .01mm bigger which should have make the bb's fit a lot sloppier
considering theres 72 of them.

I'm not a cura user, but could it be that cura considers a meg as 1024k?
If that is so that 91 megs are 93184k.

Regards, Jan

--
Jan Wieck
Postgres User since 1994

On 4/28/21 3:26 PM, Gene Heskett wrote: > Greetings all; > > I think I have a cura bug. I have now made 4 of the test for fit > bearings, stairstepping the size of the bb over enough range I should be > seeing the effect in how they fit. But I am not. Then I noted that my > last openscad .stl was 93686k as delivered to cura. But despite 2 > overwrites, cura still thinks its 91 megs, and I just made the bearing > ball .01mm bigger which should have make the bb's fit a _lot_ sloppier > considering theres 72 of them. I'm not a cura user, but could it be that cura considers a meg as 1024k? If that is so that 91 megs are 93184k. Regards, Jan -- Jan Wieck Postgres User since 1994
RW
Ray West
Thu, Apr 29, 2021 1:37 AM

When you save the revised stl file, give it a different name. If you've
generated it in opnscad, just because you have made the objects
physically larger, does not mean the file will be bigger, it can consist
of the same number of triangles. Depending if you're buying or selling,
a KB can be 1024B or 1000B. My version of cura, shows the standard
windows explorer file window, but if showing more than 8 lines, it
replaces the bottom few lines with a summary of the selected file,
showing size in MB, and if you are not careful, it goes to full screen,
which becomes a real pita to change it back. Absolutely no point in them
trying to be different then the standard file explorer interface.

On 28/04/2021 20:26, Gene Heskett wrote:

Greetings all;

I think I have a cura bug.  I have now made 4 of the test for fit
bearings, stairstepping the size of the bb over enough range I should be
seeing the effect in how they fit.  But I am not. Then I noted that my
last openscad .stl was 93686k as delivered to cura.  But despite 2
overwrites, cura still thinks its 91 megs, and I just made the bearing
ball .01mm bigger which should have make the bb's fit a lot sloppier
considering theres 72 of them.

That big an stl takes cura several minutes just to render a screen image
of it, but having it reuse the old, 91 megabyte file that no longer
exists, instead of the new, I can see it in mc, 93686k file, sucks, and
I've now wasted around 4 rendering hours building old code with a
stairstepped bearing size with no effect on the plastic produced. And I
want to report the bug.

Cheers, Gene Heskett

When you save the revised stl file, give it a different name. If you've generated it in opnscad, just because you have made the objects physically larger, does not mean the file will be bigger, it can consist of the same number of triangles. Depending if you're buying or selling, a KB can be 1024B or 1000B. My version of cura, shows the standard windows explorer file window, but if showing more than 8 lines, it replaces the bottom few lines with a summary of the selected file, showing size in MB, and if you are not careful, it goes to full screen, which becomes a real pita to change it back. Absolutely no point in them trying to be different then the standard file explorer interface. On 28/04/2021 20:26, Gene Heskett wrote: > Greetings all; > > I think I have a cura bug. I have now made 4 of the test for fit > bearings, stairstepping the size of the bb over enough range I should be > seeing the effect in how they fit. But I am not. Then I noted that my > last openscad .stl was 93686k as delivered to cura. But despite 2 > overwrites, cura still thinks its 91 megs, and I just made the bearing > ball .01mm bigger which should have make the bb's fit a _lot_ sloppier > considering theres 72 of them. > > That big an stl takes cura several minutes just to render a screen image > of it, but having it reuse the old, 91 megabyte file that no longer > exists, instead of the new, I can see it in mc, 93686k file, sucks, and > I've now wasted around 4 rendering hours building old code with a > stairstepped bearing size with no effect on the plastic produced. And I > want to report the bug. > > Cheers, Gene Heskett
GH
Gene Heskett
Thu, Apr 29, 2021 2:01 AM

On Wednesday 28 April 2021 21:37:34 Ray West wrote:

When you save the revised stl file, give it a different name. If
you've generated it in opnscad, just because you have made the objects
physically larger, does not mean the file will be bigger, it can
consist of the same number of triangles. Depending if you're buying or
selling, a KB can be 1024B or 1000B. My version of cura, shows the
standard windows explorer file window, but if showing more than 8
lines, it replaces the bottom few lines with a summary of the selected
file, showing size in MB, and if you are not careful, it goes to full
screen, which becomes a real pita to change it back. Absolutely no
point in them trying to be different then the standard file explorer
interface.

I am now deleting that .stl on the cura running machine BEFORE I copy the
new version across the cable to it.  And that seems to be working, the
last printer render showed some improvement in the fit.

So I've got another try warming up, that has a .02mm bigger ball groove.
Even if its still tight, it may be good enough for the girls I go with
by the time its greased.

Thanks Ray.

Cheers, Gene Heskett

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.

On Wednesday 28 April 2021 21:37:34 Ray West wrote: > When you save the revised stl file, give it a different name. If > you've generated it in opnscad, just because you have made the objects > physically larger, does not mean the file will be bigger, it can > consist of the same number of triangles. Depending if you're buying or > selling, a KB can be 1024B or 1000B. My version of cura, shows the > standard windows explorer file window, but if showing more than 8 > lines, it replaces the bottom few lines with a summary of the selected > file, showing size in MB, and if you are not careful, it goes to full > screen, which becomes a real pita to change it back. Absolutely no > point in them trying to be different then the standard file explorer > interface. > I am now deleting that .stl on the cura running machine BEFORE I copy the new version across the cable to it. And that seems to be working, the last printer render showed some improvement in the fit. So I've got another try warming up, that has a .02mm bigger ball groove. Even if its still tight, it may be good enough for the girls I go with by the time its greased. Thanks Ray. Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
D
doug@milmac.com
Thu, Apr 29, 2021 12:17 PM

If you’re stairstepping this 4 times in increments of 0.02mm as you referenced in another message, you have a total increment of 0.08 mm which is literally a hairsbreadth, and you should in fact not expect to see any difference in sizing or fit — even if your printer were capable of producing prints with that level of dimensional accuracy (which it probably isn’t).

Gene Heskett wrote:

Greetings all;

I think I have a cura bug.  I have now made 4 of the test for fit
bearings, stairstepping the size of the bb over enough range I should be
seeing the effect in how they fit.  But I am not.

If you’re stairstepping this 4 times in increments of 0.02mm as you referenced in another message, you have a **total** increment of 0.08 mm which is literally a hairsbreadth, and you should in fact *not* expect to see any difference in sizing or fit — even if your printer were capable of producing prints with that level of dimensional accuracy (which it probably isn’t). Gene Heskett wrote: > Greetings all; > > I think I have a cura bug. I have now made 4 of the test for fit > bearings, stairstepping the size of the bb over enough range I should be > seeing the effect in how they fit. But I am not.