Slic3r Release 0.9.5/6

New !!!!!!! Slic3r Release 0.9.5/6

Slic3r Release 0.9.5/6


Hardwarekiller

Quote

fixed retraction causing strings between copies

Yep, noticed this last night but didn't have time to verify it was a bug and not a settings issue.

Also, this is probably the quickest I've seen Slic3r push a new version.

I'm sure I must be doing something wrong, but the new versions of Slic3r (I have tried 0.9.4 & 0.9.5) give me this similar message for EVERY part I try to slice -



I'm using my same settings from 0.9.1 and that slices all my objects perfectly.

Any idea what I'm doing wrong? it must be something silly

Help

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2012 02:40PM by richrap.

---

[richrap.blogspot.com]

rich,

I think that error means it's getting a letter when it expects a number in one of the many boxes. See if you can find a box with a letter in it in your settings. If this doesn't work, try rebuilding them from scratch.

FWIW I always create a new config for every new version, since typically settings are added and/or renamed.

Thanks Crispy1, I can't see any obvious issues with the loaded settings, I'll try to make a new config from scratch.

It must be something towards the end of the Slice, as it always performs most of the operations, seems to fail writing the file out.

Cheers,

Rich.

---

[richrap.blogspot.com]

Hi Crispy1 - Thanks again, I had to remake the config file and it's working. But for exactly the same settings V0.9.1 takes 2mins to Slice and gives me Gcode size of 721KB the exact same model using V0.9.5 takes 7mins 20 sec and produces a file 3.527MB.

In Repeater Host the Gcode output looks the same on screen, but something must be doing a LOT more moves in the new file, I don't fancy printing it.

I also tried the 64bit version, that reports as being 0.9.6-Dev.

I shall do some more experimenting...

Very curious...

Thanks Again.

Rich

---

[richrap.blogspot.com]

Glad to hear it worked for you. That's odd about the file sizes. I am also using 0.9.1 as my "last known stable" version, even though 0.7.2b has far superior surface finish.

richrap Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I also tried the 64bit version, that reports as
> being 0.9.6-Dev.

I also downloaded the 64bit version of 0.9.5 and mine also shows 0.9.6-Dev... i wonder if the wrong file was accidentally uploaded