Having problems with calibration using Polyterra pla. Ive tried running lidar but just makes the print quality worse.
Heres some things i’ve tried
Calibrate PA and Flow using Bambu studio( lidar tells me .017 PA and .97 flow)
Calibrate PA and Flow manually using Orca Slicer (hard to choose since theres so many gaps for PA, flow I think 1.03 but seems high)
dried filament for 12 hours
upped tempature 10° on the nozzle to 230° from default 220°
Have used both Polyterra and Generic filament Profiles
Used gold textured and smooth plate for printing and calibrating
Nothing blocking or clogged
ptfe not getting snagged because no other filaments have this issue
Bambus wiki says not to change line width and I spent a lot of hours trying that on my a1 that had tbis same problem so im not interested in messing with those settings as it doesnt make it better
The main problem is gapping in first and top layers. I know my bed isnt the problem because none of sunlu or overture rolls are having this issue.
I have included the latest PA test using studio with a pattern test using a range of 0.01-0.03 and steps of 0.001. Theres a lot of gaps just in this test alone. Also the latest flow rate test using orcas new YOLO test. Cant remember what flow rate the print was printed at but heres an example of what the issue is.
The photos you showed were not from Orca Slicer. Where did you get them from? Did you ensure that the Gcode was modified for each chiclet to ensure an independent flow rate?
From first glance, one can see one thing right away: this appears to be an external STL model devoid of Gcode modifications to modify flow rate, which likely means the flow rate was the same for each biscuit, making the effort meaningless. How can you tell? The biscuit patterns are identical, and they should show stark differences based on the flow rate. Additionally, they are rounded and have the wrong aspect ratio which is why I can say they are not generated from the Orca slicer calibration tools which automatew Gcode modifications for the flow rate calculation. Orca also only produces 9 chiclets. If you thought you were using a calibration tool that you downloaded from a website, you probably weren’t—you’ve more likely just printed 11 pieces of plastic with identical flow rates.
Note the example photo below of an Orca max flow rate test, showing the extreme difference between the 15 and 0 values. Your model doesn’t have that variation, they’re all identical and there should be a noticeable difference for the calibration tool to be of any use.
However, the real proof would be to check the slicer’s flow menu for a color gradient, which would indicate different flow rates. If your model didn’t display this gradient with the “Flow” indicator turned on, then that shows that the flow rate was the same for the entire print.
If you’re not already using it, I’d recommend downloading Orca and using the baked-in calibration tools. Here’s one of the better tutorials that goes over best practices. The YouTuber has two other calibration videos also worth watching that add more details. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CVq6DycUOE
@Olias , I think the differences are there, they are just very minor, because the range is only -0.05 to +0.05. While your photo is 0 vs 0.15
I would also have chosen +0.03 from that test. I find it surprising, that Lidar gives such a different result. I typically trust the Lidar more than myself.
Which plate did you use? Is it the structured PEI and was that selected in the slicer?
The P1 does not have LIDAR. To be honest, even if it did, I’m not sure I would trust it. While it’s meant to improve ease of use, it seems to introduce more potential problems when it malfunctions. Bambu’s own site mentions numerous caveats about when LIDAR works, and I’ve seen several complaints here about its reliability. Additionally, I’ve found that Bambu’s factory default filament profiles aren’t always accurate, which makes me question the thoroughness of their testing overall.
As I’ve mentioned before, I prefer to rely on my own measurements rather than default settings, because I’ve often found discrepancies between what’s expected and the actual print results.
I know that after release, the Lidar was almost useless. That is when many complaints arose. BBL has continuously improved it and by now it is really excellent. I think the initial bad reputation still sticks on to it although the issues have all been solved. Many probably tried once at the beginning and then never again, but they still spread their bad impression now.
I have calibrated many spools manually, with the tools in Orca. Later, I tried Lidar calibration and for many spools it came to exactly the same values. when it came to different values, those actually improved print quality. Based on that, I really trust the Lidar more than my manual calibrations.
It also can officially be used with the textured plate since a few months, which wasn’t possible for a long time.
