Do “more modern and polished UIs” make up for the loss of extensibility via plugins? Octoprint has bazillion of them, and I would take killer and productive ones like spool manager over subjectively better look
Comment on Modernizing an Ender 3
dack@lemmy.world 9 months agoI highly recommend switching to fluidd or mainsail. They don’t require any more CPU power than octoprint (possibly a bit less, actually). They are more modern and polished interfaces than octoprint.
u_tamtam@programming.dev 9 months ago
dack@lemmy.world 9 months ago
The architecture is a bit different than octoprint. Fluidd and mainsail are purely client side UI’s, while Moonraker provides the server side API for them to connect to. So any additional server side functionality would need to integrate with Moonraker - not Fluidd/Mainsail.
A lot of functionality that is plugin based in octoprint is core to Moonraker and fluidd/mainsail. Things like cameras, mesh bed tools, gcode viewer, UI layout customization, power device control, etc are all included.
Spool manager is not something I’ve personally needed or used, but this would probably be a good option: github.com/Donkie/Spoolman
u_tamtam@programming.dev 9 months ago
Yeah, that’s what strikes me about Moonraker and its UIs: they seem more rigid and limiting than octoprint and its plugins ecosystem (I can spin one up in mere minutes to do pretty much anything), but those who love fluidd and mainsail them love them very much. I’d like to have someone explain to me why Moonraker is getting the lion share of the nerdier side of the community, it feels like I’m missing something obvious :)
morbidcactus@lemmy.ca 9 months ago
Second this, I run mainsail for my voron and octoprint for my prusa, mainsail is just way nicer of an interface Imo, especially on mobile.