callcc @ callcc @lemmy.world

Posts

13

Comments

251

Joined

2 yr. ago

These bastards!

This is hilarious. Thank you Lemmy!!

Can only second this

Do yourself a favor and learn FreeCAD!

FreeCAD is really good nowadays. You need a bit of time to get into it but then it comes with everything needed also for complex multi-part assemblies.

You're both right!

You're welcome!

That's interesting. I've never noticed issues either but then again I usually keep the spools in sealed abgs with silica

https://lemmy.world/post/9437528

Coult be AI generating the message. Just kidding

Actually, it's part of the vulva closing process.

It's worth a look but I really suspect PA to be the culprit here. The differences between the layers are probably explained by the feed rate after or before the turn due to different path planning.

Most probably PA. You should try adjusting it while printing using some g-code console. This way you get immediate feedback. What they often don't tell you is that pressure advance is not something you can calibrate once and forget, it's dependent on material, temperature, nozzle diameter and also a lot on feed rate and extrusion rate.

The need for PA and precise tuning is more pronounced the higher changes in extrusion rate you have eg, you print very fast or with wide or high layers.

Just play around with it a bit and I'm sure that you'll find a better value after some layers.

There are even macros that try to remove the feed rate dependency by effectively replacing every g-code that adjusts feed-rate by a combination of the original g-code pre-ceded by an adjustment of PA. I haven't tried them out yet though.

What's weird is the differences of the effect between the layers. Is the every layer the same or is the path different for different layers? Maybe post some images of the inside of the model.

Thx, will use

Remeber, the more boxes you have, the more advanced you are as an admin! Once you do his job for money, the challenge is the exact opposite. The less parts you have, the better. The more vanilla they are, the better.

Not sure I really understand the issue here. Is it about installing or modifying parts of existing config files? I try to use config.d facilities as much as possible for this problem.

Not sure I understand your criticism. Debs definitely help compared to how I was doing things before. Adding some form of parameters (eg. the hostname used by some web application) to the package is necessary and I'd rather have in the form of debconf than having to edit a config after installation.

Do you have an alternative?

What about using standard shell or bash? I know they are not easy to use correctly, but at least they won't break every few years.

Makes sense. I imagine the push model of Ansible had a lot to do with the speed issues? I can imagine how a solid .deb would be much more performant.

It's part of the problem, but the other part is that you have to re-do the package building all the time. Alternatively you fiddle with tags and only run part of your roles (which is a hassle anyways because ansible does not really have good abstractions that help encapsulation).

Professional sysadmin here who has been trying to create ansible roles and playbooks to re-create all his VMs.

I have spent a lot of time "packaging" custom web applications (and other stuff) for ubuntu systems and building complex configurations for a system of interacting hosts. Once I had finished writing a role to deploy or update one of those applications, I often found it very hard to use them for maintenance. The biggest problem being that I couldn't remember how to invoke the roles or playbooks to get my desired outcome and what state my systems were in. Another problem with ansible for my usecase is it's slowness. Installing a rather complex package might take minutes on one host.

All in all, I found that I had been doing things the wrong way. Off course, it's nice having all the procedures documented somehow, but if you don't remember what state your machines are in and what tags and roles to apply, it wont be of practical help in your day to day work. My workload is maintaing a bunch of VMs with mostly different sets of packages and config installed, so ansible doesn't play out it strengths of being able to execute things on multiple machines in parallel.

I'm now switching over to a model where I only use ansible to manage installation and configuration tying machines together and where I use debian packaging for, well, packaging. Although it's pretty tough to get into, once you have taken the first hurdles, things fall into place easily. You can do so many things with debian packaging, including installation of custom systemd service units, depend on other packages, distribute customized config files, install custom management scripts. There is even a way to ask questions during installation in an interactive and non interactive way (debconf). Since you target your package for a specific OS and version, you can rely on files being in their usual places (FHS), which makes configuration easy. The nice thing about this model is that I can now use the tools I've been using since ages, to install, update, uninstall, inspect and configure things. On top of that, I could easily distribute our weird to install software to third parties now instead of relying on a broken and long installation procedure.

Sometimes we should just stop reinventing the wheel and just try to understand what previous generations have built (.deb, sql, unix, etc). Sure, the old ways are bad in many ways but they often get the work done.

This being said, I'm happy for people to work on things like nix, guix, ansible etc. They are just not the right tool for my set of skills and problems.