dud VS Cura

I've used DVC in the past and generally liked its approach. That said, I wholeheartedly agree that it's clunky. It does a lot of things implicitly, which can make it hard to reason about. It was also extremely slow for medium-sized dataset (low 10s of GBs).

In response, I created a command-line tool that addresses these issues[0]. To reduce the comparison to an analogy: Dud : DVC :: Flask : Django.

[0]: https://github.com/kevin-hanselman/dud

There is also https://github.com/kevin-hanselman/dud

I very much agree with you about DVC's feature creep. The other issue I have with it is speed. DVC has left me scratching my head at its sluggishness many times. Because of these factors, I've been working on an alternative that focuses on simplicity and speed[0]. My tool is often five to ten times faster than DVC[1]. I'd love to hear what you think.

[0]: https://github.com/kevin-hanselman/dud

[1]: https://kevin-hanselman.github.io/dud/benchmarks/

I don't know about replacing Make with Docker, but I use the two together to good effect. One of my favorite hacks is adding a 'docker-%' rule in my Makefile to run make commands in a Docker image[1]. It's a bit mind-bending, and there's a few gotchas, but it works surprisingly well for simple rules.

[1]: https://github.com/kevin-hanselman/dud/blob/e98de8fcdf7ad564...

Thanks for sharing your experience. It's non-trivial and surprising behavior like this that drove me to build a custom system[0] myself. When I started researching version control tools for large files, I remember feeling like git-annex and Git LFS were awkwardly bolted onto Git; Git simply wasn't designed for large files. Then I found DVC[1], and its approach rang true for me. However, after using DVC for a year or so, I grew tired of DVC's many puzzling behaviors (most of which are outlined in the README at [0]). In the end, I built the tool I wanted for the job -- one that is exceptionally simple and fast.

[0]: https://github.com/kevin-hanselman/dud

Are you using Cura?

EDIT2: Turns out one of my problems was dodgy End code in Cura [5.4.0] Questionable end gcode in some default profiles for Anycubic printers · Issue #16621 · Ultimaker/Cura (github.com)

Full release notes and new Cura downloads can be found here https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/releases/tag/5.5.0

So I'm using beta version of Cura (5.5.0) with V3 SE profile from https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/pull/16796 and I just figured out that Creality print is way faster than Cura. As far as I can see, settings are almost identical; print speed is set to 180mm/s in both programs. I'm using stock PLA profile in Creality print and eSun pla+ profile in Cura - same temperature, infill, walls and fan settings.

github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues for a bug report including Windows version.

In this case, Cura is an open source project, so the most straightforward way of submitting a feature request would be by creating an Issue in the code repository, where you can explain your idea along with why it’s important to you, who else you think it could be valuable to, and what you want both minimally and ideally.

If you're using the Startup Optimizer plugin, try disabling it temporarily - it can occasionally interfere with the list of available printers. Should that not help you could manually re-insert the profile by copying this JSON into the appropriate directory (eg C:\Program Files\UltiMaker Cura 5.4.0\share\cura\resource\definitions).

This reminds me of this known issue we mentioned in the changelog: Support Brim is missing if the Buildplate Adhesion is set to None. We are tracking reports here.

Yes..there's some sort of bug in 5.3..5.2 is ok, the developers are working on a patch for the new version: https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/14811