Does Bambu recommend customers to use OrcaSlicer? Does OrcaSlicer instantly adopt new updates from Bambu when they release slicer updates? The obvious answer is no. Bambu Lab needs to implement the compensation into firmware or give us the options in the slicer like OrcaSlicer does. How is that me saying my other printers are better than the X1C?
I simply want to use BambuSlicer with my Bambu printer without having to make so many manual adjustments and OR test prints to get proper measurements.
I said I use OrcaSlicer to use the shrinkage compensation on my other printers during the test which yields more accurate results than my X1C does using BambuStudio. I also said my X1C produces pretty nice prints while my CoreXY does not produce as beautiful prints as the X1C. Pretty clear that I do not think my other printers are superior to my X1C⌠In fact, I think my other printers are garbage compared to the X1C which is why this is even more frustrating.
Bottom line is the printer is only as good as the slicer is, so Bambu needs to give us better slicer options or find an automated solution on the firmware side where it will adjust for us.
They have added a compensation command, but itâs an experimental gcode command and it doesnât have an exact Marlin counterpart like some of their other commands do. So there is no documentation and we have no reference as to its usage.
M1005 for skew compensation and M290 for XY compensation.
The problem is, filament shrinkage is very material-specific, so it doesnât really make sense to exist as a gcode command because the printer canât store more than one compensation factor to EEPROM. It should be in the slicer period.
It should be a calibration feature in the slicer, it should be an automatic calibration for X1C, and it should make use of the sensors in the printer however they need to make that happen. That is just my opinion though, so maybe itâs just me who feels this way.
Youâre not the only one. I agree that it should be done automatically, but Iâve felt that way since Fall 2022. With BL working on a new printer, Iâm afraid the best chance we have of that happening is via community developed calibration sequences. Limited RAM to work with on the X1 is one of the main obstacles there
Iâm running out of patience with all the other issues I have experienced with these machines⌠I am getting to the point where I am ready to move on from the X1C, and just get a P1P where my expectations are much lower and I just accept it for what it is.
^^^This. 100% agree. Some amount of deviation from topic is normal, but once it goes too far it needs to split off. @PEZ3D Please start a different thread to address your particular grievances.
Have you tried turning off arc fitting to see if that helps the hole size issue? Arc fitting applies some tolerances which may be the reason for the hole issue.
On the shrinkage calibration thread @Alex_vG suggests a solution to the hole problem that requires calibration from just two different hole measurements:
Not sure whether it is a solution already worked out or whether it is an idea in need of further development.
Thanks for bringing us up to date with your the tip! FYI, it also seems to work well even on my garolite build plateâI just identify it as an engineering build plate and turn off the firmwareâs confirmation feature. Iâve switched to auto mode for both âflow dynamicsâ and âflow rate.â It can do the âflow rateâ in one pass, instead of the two for manual, so itâs a time saver as well. It produced a value that was within 1% of what I did manually, which is so close that it might even be better. By definition even second pass manual mode has 1% granularity, though I suppose you could try interpolating by eye to achieve a slightly better outcomeâwhich is probably a good idea that I hadnât even considered until now, now that Iâm reflecting on it.
After Your comment and @NeverDie comment decided to re-try the Lidar Autocalibration today
using PLA and Hi-temp plate. Yes it has improved, but still not sure that will use auto over manual for the K
Auto Flow - was bang on 0.99manual 0.99auto . will check a few mor filaments before start using it
Dynamics(K) - 0.028manual 0.024auto - actual measured manual is 0.027 but with 0.028 get a bit better result still around 5-10% error. much better than before and more usable.
Also printed small test square with a hole inside. Much better compare to 1+ year ago when the K was not stored inside and had to be run every time, still the manual tunning print was a bit better but improvement is obvious . Apart from the corners the top surface look changes when you have holes. it shows if K is well tuned or off. More consistent look between the long extrusions and short extrusions connected to the holes more obvious with fast speeds
A bit off topic of the shrinkage accuracy , but with perfect flow and K and temp the relative tolerances are bellow 0.05mm.
