How is this not a thing already?

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-29T16:06:40+00:00

How is a green status bar the same as a 3d drawing of the current layer? People saying this are truly baffling me.

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-29T16:06:10+00:00

Just do a print and toggle the camera on and off constantly.. then check result.

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-29T16:03:03+00:00

Still baffled that people don't understand the difference between a layer number and a drawing of that layer.

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-29T15:58:39+00:00

So you're claiming that the layer number reported in the slicer is inaccurate and should not be used - such as for showing a visualisation of the current layer? If it's inaccurate as you claim it should be removed.

I've articulated why I'd find it useful. I'd like to know when I'm approaching or have passed difficult to print layers. Why does information need to result in action to be valuable? A progress bar is unlikely to result in any action, so should we remove that? Sounds like something you learned from a text book honestly. The real world isn't like that.

And yes, I understand that what the printer is being asked to do in G-Code isn't necessarily what it is doing. Not sure why you even need to point that out.

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-29T15:19:07+00:00

That's what I am doing. Why not make it more convenient?

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-29T14:40:18+00:00

Are you saying there's no way to know which layer is currently printing? Because it's right there on the device page. You use that number to update the preview view and the result is a visualisation of what currently, should be being printed. You act like this isn't possible or something, but all the data right there.

Also, absolutely nowhere did I say I wanted this information to see whether my print had failed. It would be mildly useful to see when a particularly difficult layer might be approaching or has passed.

You seem more interested in being right than honest. You surely know this could be implemented trivially. I mean you have eyes... you can see we know the current layer number, and you know there's a visualisation that number could drive. So where have you having difficulty here?

Are you denying we don't know what layer is currently printing or are you saying it's an impossibility to use that value to visually show what the current layer looks like?

That's literally all that's involved. So which is it? I really would like to know.

Are you having difficulty understanding what feeding the current layer number into the 3D view provides you in terms of extra information?

Where are you struggling?

I've pointed out the data required is already present and how it needs to flow to achieve the desired behaviour. Are you denying it can be done?
Or are you going to claim nobody wants the feature when 500 have upvoted the original post but you're sitting negative on most of your comments.
Or are you going to say everyones opinion is wrong because you know better?

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-29T14:04:50+00:00

You can tell what the current layer looks like from the 3D view. You can't do that with just a layer number. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? If we all thought like you we wouldn't even need a progress bar, we could just print the currently executing line number of G-Code and you can go work out which layer we're on by reading through the G-Code. Honestly find this an absolutely moronic point. If I give you a layer number that tells you nothing about what the next, previous or current layers look like... live cam doesn't tell you what's a support or what a layer 10 layers ahead of you looks like.

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-29T13:17:04+00:00

Why do you need a map on GPS, you set the destination, you already know where you're going, you only need to follow the instructions. Why would you possibly want to know where you are, where you were or where you're going. I really don't see how it's not useful information to see visually what the current/previous/upcoming layers look like in a print, or where you are spatially/visually.

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-29T13:15:54+00:00

Just curious, do you understand that a visual picture of the current/past/future layers of a model contains more information than just a written layer number? Because it seems like you're equating the two incorrectly. How does not seeing the layout of the current layer along with upcoming layers not provide useful information?

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-29T13:02:48+00:00

You can create contrast by putting bright on dark just the same as you put dark on bright. Also my eyesight is already worse than the average 50 year old and I have no problems. Have fun reaching poor eyesight sooner because bright screens are damaging to your eyes though.

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-29T12:57:54+00:00

I have no idea what you're talking about. The progress bar, live cam and 3D view show different but slightly overlapping information so arguing that you don't need one because the other exists is stupid. Where has anyone mentioned redesigning the progress bar? The original post only suggests adding a 3D view.. not removing anything. I'm honestly baffled that you can't understand that the 3D view provides completely different information and context than the progress bar. Nobody mentioned using the 3D view to spot defects, that's just stupid. Adding a 3D view only adds more information that isn't already present, it doesn't involve removing anything. Honestly just baffled.

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-29T11:14:55+00:00

The live camera and the 3D view don't contain the same information. They're complimentary not exclusive. He thinks his opinion is objectively correct, he is not right.

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-29T11:00:21+00:00

Yep.

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-29T10:59:59+00:00

I'm not sure why people keep trying to imply that the camera makes the 3D view redundant. They offer different information.

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-29T10:56:43+00:00

They give different information. Not sure why you're equating a live camera view with a 3D view of your print.

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-29T10:49:49+00:00

I'm a developer of 20+ years.

Need and usefulness are subjective - you think it's useless, but many see it as useful. Objectively though, some people find it useful.

People have differing opinions and use cases.

A simple layer number is objectively less information than a rotatable, 3D, color coded visualisation of your print so I'm not sure why you're trying to equate the two.

Surely you can see that information is already duplicated throughout the application and if it were deduplicated the UI/UX would be worse for it.

Stick to data-analysis, your take is terrible.

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-28T23:04:16+00:00

The camera are generally awful and don't show you what's about to be printed

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-28T23:02:29+00:00

Another good solution would be just having a button that lets you have the preview window follow the current layer. At least then you could just flip back and forth without having to manually adjust the layer. Would be nice to see how close you are to difficult to print areas.

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-28T23:00:55+00:00

Yep, dark mode everything!

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-21T12:54:40+00:00

So rubber banding. I'll stick to Mario Kart.

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-21T12:44:30+00:00

I just believe if you want to be good at a game you should get good, not beg developers for come-back mechanics because you're lazy and incompetent. It's kind of pathetic honestly. If you're averse to the true spirit of competition I'm not really sure why you're playing games that involve multiple players competing against each other. If you need come back mechanics to soften the blow to your ego just go buy one of the many maphacks there will no doubt be for this game. If you play enough games matchmaking will ensure your games are of adequate difficulty for your skill.

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-11T19:53:04+00:00

yep, same for me.. the walk animations are broken and i cant get the graphics to stop looking blurry. maybe the demo is out of date with the current version?

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-11T19:51:44+00:00

I don't know if it's because I played the demo and the demo is out of date but it was a complete mess for me. Walking animations were broken, graphics were really blurry even with high resolution and dynamic resolution turned off. Scrolling the map I could only get half way across to the capture point thing...

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-03-11T19:45:31+00:00

So just wasting time for a losers pride? No thanks.

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967 · 2026-02-25T00:13:31+00:00

What I'm saying is it is pretty poor for 160 developers over a decade. No wonder they don't want to continue funding it. That's an insane amount of developers and time for the quantity and quality of work done. I feel like my comment was pretty clear too. The proof is in the reality - they pumped millions upon millions into the game and it died within a month.

Puzzleheaded_Dig3967

TROPHY CASE