Automatically Assign Tags to Files Based on 3MF Metadata#224

It would be amazing if, when uploading a file, the analysis step could parse 3mf metadata to obtain information on what tags should be added. Currently the gcode analysis step is checking for Nozzle and filament type which is great, but…

I have custom tags setup for Bambu build plates (Textured or Smooth) and it is quite repetitive to tag all my models (even with the new multi-select feature for print farms). Currently, many of my models are created from the BambuStudio CLI which allows for custom metadata tagging.

I propose a metadata key of “SimplyPrintTags” with a CSV value.

Inside the 3mf file we have the “3D” folder which has a 3dmodel.model file, which is simply XML. Using the following example(s):

<metadata name="SimplyPrintTags">BedTextured</metadata>
<metadata name="SimplyPrintTags">BedTextured,PrinterOnline</metadata>

When the file is uploaded, the custom tag BedTextured would automatically be applied. Or in the second case, two custom tags of BedTextured and PrinterOnline, would be applied.

Bonus points if newly encountered tags could be automatically created.

Funny thing; just a few minutes before your suggestion, we were discussing adding a “Bed type” section to tagging. So it’d be nozzle size, material, bed type, custom tags. Possibly nozzle type as well.

I do like the idea of being able to do these low-level “integrations”. We’ve thought about it for Gcode comments too, so you can enter it in the head of your file, but adding it to the model file could be an option too (though Gcode would be more universal, and not so Bambu-specific).

Cool suggestion!

The great thing is the metadata tags in 3mf are a part of the spec so everyone that uses 3mf (hopefully the industry moves this way because it’s a great format!) can make use of custom metadata. Though I agree, being able to have that functionality via gcode comments would also be good so its more accessible.

I’m glad the team is thinking about stuff like this.

I somewhat agree. Having worked (and currently being shoulder-deep too) with the BBL 3MF format, it’s not 100% thought out… A lot of weird mixes between JSON and XML, ID’s that exist in one file, but doesn’t correlate with similar data about the same object in another file, and using a 3D model format, but removing the actual 3D model, replacing it with the bare minimum XML so that it’s still considered a 3MF - just an empty one… :S

Their core idea is good, for sure; it’s compressed, they give us a lot of data - albeit, quite fractured and a bit hard to piece together… - and it’s a good way to store project files.

But Prusa is doing .bgcode, Ultimaker have been doing ZIP-printable files, with their “upf” files “before it was cool” (likely where Bambu got the idea).

A standard would be great - not personally sure it’s gonna be Bambu - but if it is, we have great support for it, so I we wouldn’t particularly mind, of course!

For now, the one thing all printers have in common, is the .gcode file - so I think that’s what we’re gonna support first, possibly with additional support for BGcode headers and one of the BBL metadata files too.

Not to discourage your suggestion at all - we love discussions like this, and hadn’t personally thought of being able to give SimplyPrint-specific information to the file for the use-case you mention - so, keep it coming! 💪