New Firmware for A350: Why changed dialog?

Snapmaker 2.0
1

When I’ve send a gcode file from PC to A350, then I had to confirm the transfer and then I could start printing. That’s the way it should be !!!
Now - there is a big step to “user unfriendly” dialog.

  1. I send the file to A350
  2. I have to accept a message “Got it”. (nice - but senseless)
  3. Now I have to disconnect the A350 from communication.
  4. Now I have to select Start
    5 Now I have to select the transfered file. (date is not adapted to my local settings in Germany)
  5. Now I have the print dialog.

In the former version there were only step 1 and step 6.

Snapmaker:
Why do you changed the simple dialog to that complex way ?
Why to disconnect ?
Please bring ack thew “old dialog”.

K.D.

2

I have experienced the same change in behavior. Is there an option to minimize screen interaction?

3

Same issue here, now its more complicated, before tooks only 2 steps to start the printing , now are like 5
The disconnection makes no sense , if the printer can’t be connected when its working , well… i prefer an automatically disconnection when starts to print than disconnecting it myself mannually

4

I don’t know what you’re talking about. I just send it to the printer, click accept, then click start. shrug

5

@jenjenkatkat @mwpeters @Federico_dv @ramaker

For Firmware 1.12.0, this is a transition phase to the Rotary Module. The workflow of transferring file via Wi-Fi will be improved in next version of Snapmaker Firmware.

Edwin

6

There’s a reason I still use 1.9. Most stable tbh. Though I’ll be forced to update it when my rotary module gets here.

2 Likes
7

New version of Firmware will be release in late April.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Edwin

8

Will you be contemporaneously releasing source code as required by the open source licenses of code you’re using, or will you continue remain out of compliance with them?

9

I’m not completely familiar with the type of license they use for Luban, but being as it started out as a Closed Source (capitalising these on purpose for easier understanding) software, i’d imagine that they started out with a full CopyRight license. If it started out as an Open Source then I believe they would have been required to have a “CopyLeft” license which does require them to release the code with any update under the same original license when it was first released. I do not know if that applies here though as it started out as Closed Source and i’m not familiar with compliancy for this specific situation and i’m not sure that them changing it to Open Source would require them to change the original license as well so that’s actually murky water.

Disclaimer: I am by no means a lawyer, I have just been participating in countless Open Source projects and programming since I was young and as such had to familiarize myself with licenses when I started my own project for Open Source.

11

The license status of Luban is independent of the license status of the controller code. The controller is based on Marlin, which is a GPL license, and so Snapmaker is required to publish source code for the controller firmware. The most recent firmware does not have published source code.

12

Disregard, I misunderstood your comment.