That's another reason why they're kinda dead now. Closeted apps they have to maintain just to keep that garden walled, and it was a cost they decided they also didn't want to spend.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

I tried them with a few different cameras. They sucked. They wouldn't reliably connect to Wi-Fi, and they didn't reliably upload images.

[–] Kowowow@lemmy.ca 5 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Too bad it should be the simplest way to add wifi file transfer to a 3d printer

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

If you're interested and can get your hands on some kind of SBC (like a raspberry pi) Klipper has been amazing for my printer. You can also use pretty much any computer but it'll be much less efficient energy wise.

[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

I'd rather just have an ethernet port on the damn printer. You shouldn't have to cludge together basic network device functionality on devices that expensive

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 2 points 7 hours ago

It's better to just install klipper on a pi or other SBC

[–] wizzor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 7 hours ago

At least my 3d printer was so inexpensive it's silly.

I'm pretty happy that the engineering team that built it doesn't need to worry about networking code and maintaining a networked device. Jappy that an open source community does it instead.