You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Slic3r's object labelling feature works well with 'Octoprint-Cancelobject'. However, one small improvement would improve usability.
Slic3r currently gives objects a unique label in the gcode file. For multiple instances of a single object, the label could be something like 'test.stl id:0 copy n', where n is the copy number, starting from 0. Slic3r identifies multiple instances differently, with an instance number starting from 1.
Would it be possible to use the same numbering system for both purposes? I ask because the method for selecting the object to cancel in OctoPrint can be inaccurate, and a way to double-check the object number to be cancelled against the Slic3r job would help avoid mistakes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
it certainly makes sense. It requires a bit of gymnastics though, as the slicing back-end currently is not aware of possible instances, which are out of the print bed, therefore not printed. But it should be possible with some effort.
I guess an instance/object name would need to be passed to the slicer backend along with the shape data. Instances off the print area wouldn't matter since they don't need to be named, sliced, or cancelled.
Version
1.42.0-beta2+win64-full
Operating system type + version
Windows 10
Behavior
Slic3r's object labelling feature works well with 'Octoprint-Cancelobject'. However, one small improvement would improve usability.
Slic3r currently gives objects a unique label in the gcode file. For multiple instances of a single object, the label could be something like 'test.stl id:0 copy n', where n is the copy number, starting from 0. Slic3r identifies multiple instances differently, with an instance number starting from 1.
Would it be possible to use the same numbering system for both purposes? I ask because the method for selecting the object to cancel in OctoPrint can be inaccurate, and a way to double-check the object number to be cancelled against the Slic3r job would help avoid mistakes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: