Can you share your entire print profile in some way along with the model? I would like to try it on my own machine.
Im starting to suspect this might be QC failures of some kind, perhaps extruder motor related.
@JJ_Golmon I can’t thank you enough for all of your work on this. I’m new to 3D printing and only just learned that ironing is a a thing lol. I found your post looking for ironing settings to smooth out a Star Wars themed light switch plate after the stock settings were meh. Your methodology is how I operate and your detailed trouble shooting helped me understand just how complex this feature can be. While my OCD side covets the glass finish, my print will be painted which will hide most of the imperfections. It looks like the best results you found were Temp 220, 55mm/s, 15% with 15mm spacing. Is that correct or was the high quality print profile you linked to any better? Have you had any better luck with a different setting?
Also… If it’s helpful, I’d happily test print for you using your settings on my X2D. It would give you a separate machine to see if the problem is consistent on multiple machines ruling out a possible anomaly on your machine. There may be variables that make that impractical like PLA brand / prep, set up, environment, etc. but I thought I’d throw it out there.
Thankyou for this!
I’ve been trying everything, wasting loads of filament and time trying to improve ironing.
The parts I produce need to have good ironing. I’m not sure what to do, I directly chose the X2D for manufacturing small parts from engineering grade filaments, using dissimilar material support, as many of us did. I’ve wasted days on this problem.
At least I now know, it’s not me.
My X2D needs 35mm/s and 35% flow for a decent ironing with BBL PLA Basic.
I tried it yesterday and don’t worked for me
Thanks for the idea
After burning through a full 1kg spool on this, I think I’ve finally isolated what’s actually going on, and it’s more precise than my original post.
What I did:
- Full filament recalibration: PA in auto, flow via jimcorner’s MakerWorld model, PA fine-tuned via pattern (step 0.001). Result: flow 1.01, PA 0.03.
- Top surface optimization (based on advice from other threads/groups suggesting a good top surface can make ironing unnecessary): tested line width, flow, and strength settings on a 35×35×2mm square, always in dry black PLA Basic (shows defects best). Landed on: 0.32mm line width, 1.005 flow, 30mm/s top surface speed, 125mm/s solid infill speed, 6 top shell layers, monotonic pattern. Confirmed on my usual test model too — solid result.
- Tested on a large 15cm isosceles right triangle: correct, but noticeably less smooth than the small test square — lines still perceptible.
- New ironing calibration plates: speed swept 15→135mm/s (step 10), flow 15→30% (step 5). Surprisingly, the best results were at HIGH speed, not low as commonly recommended.
- Refined around the high-speed zone on the small square (starting from 135mm/s / 30%): tested speed, flow, line spacing, ironing angle. Best result: 135mm/s / 30% / 0.17mm spacing.
- Validated on real geometry:
- Isosceles triangle (15cm): perfect — smooth, glossy, no dust/debris catching between lines
- Rectangle with holes: shadow lines appear specifically around the holes’ tangent points
- Flat piece with a multicolor logo: ironing works great on one “column” then fails completely on the next — while the same piece without ironing (just my optimized top surface) comes out flawless
- Rectangular container with 4 filleted corners (simple geometry): ironing is excellent, clear improvement over no-ironing
The pattern that emerges: ironing is excellent and reproducible on SIMPLE geometry (no matter the size), but breaks down specifically on COMPLEX geometry — holes, color changes, multiple transitions. This is different from what I originally thought (small vs large surface) — it’s really about toolpath complexity, not surface area.
My current theory: this smells like a firmware-level issue in how the toolpath/flow control handles transitions and segment breaks, not a parameter problem. A perfect result on a simple shape at the exact same settings that fail on a complex one is hard to explain with “wrong parameters.”
Support has now reproduced the core issue on their end (tested on a P2S with my file), which is progress, though they’re framing it as an inherent FDM limitation for now. I’ve pushed back and asked about the simple-vs-complex distinction specifically.
Anyone else seeing this same pattern — great ironing on simple shapes, breaking down on anything with holes/color changes/complex transitions? Would be very useful to know if this is X2D-specific or shows up on P2S/H2D too.
I supose each machine has his own tolerances. My A1 Mini works perfectly with 25/15.