Not sure whether this is the right place to post this, but since it seems like nearly everyone is using orca slicer, maybe it’s a kind of public service announcement.
Regarding the flow rate tutorial (Calibration · SoftFever/OrcaSlicer Wiki · GitHub), if I follow the directions to the letter, then it means that the slicer always calibrates for the particular layer height that it happens to pick. In my case, since I’m using a 0.6mm nozzle, it picks a 0.3mm layer height every time for the flow rate calibration.
But what if I’m actually planning to use a different layer height, like say 0.12mm, for my next print? I’m not 100% sure, but I’m coming to the conclusion that I should over-ride the slicer’s default pick of 0.3mm layer height and replace it with 0.12mm layer height before slicing and then printing the calibration tiles, because that would be more in-line with the kind of printing that I would actually be doing.
Likewise, I’m beginning to converge on the conclusion that if I change any of the speed limits in the process settings, I may need to re-run the calibration then as well. i.e. flow rate is not a one size fits all proposition, but may vary depending on layer height and/or speed parameters.
Hmmm… I guess scratch that. The calibration doesn’t work right if I set the layer height to 0.12mm. If I do, it’s as though the line width goes wrong: none of the calibration rectangles fills in all the way.
I’m constructing the test tiles by hand, and I can now think of a good reason why the calibration isn’t normally done at a 0.12mm layer height: at 0.12mm layer height, it’s damn hard to tell the different flow rates apart!
I still don’t know whether or not I’m on a fools errand doing this, but I guess I will know after having done it once whether or not I end up with the same flow rate as when the calibration is done at a 0.3mm layer height, or with an auto-calibrated flow-rate for that matter.
Funny you should bring this up. I was just experimenting with flow rate and looked at both speeds and different layer heights just to see if it would make a difference.
Although I can’t find it now, if you look at the derivative works that went into this test, one of the reasons they hardcode 7 layers in the test is to eliminate layer height as a variable. I haven’t gone as far as to compare Gcode so I don’t know how deep the hardcoding goes but the test is 7 layers whether it’s at 0.08 or 0.28. So I suspect there may also be something going on with speed as well.
Like you, I find it hard to discern the differences in the patterns. One helpful YouTube video suggestion that I found is to photograph the samples with a camera. You can see far more details in a zoomed digital photo than you can with the naked eye.
The other trick I learned was to rub the samples with the back of your nail and “feel” the difference in roughness.
And last but not least, if you don’t have one of these jewelers loops, I found it to be indispensable for examining calibration tiles as well as other artifacts. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08RRZ6CFN
Since when is testing the limits of one’s knowledge and understanding a fools errand? If the school of hard knocks has taught me anything, it’s verifying everything for yourself. Don’t trust anything you read until you dissect it and verified your own understanding. Case in point, I received some moisture detector cards. I thought it odd that they remained blue. After months I checked them in a steamed cup and guess what? They were defective.
Remember, there is no shame in testing one’s knowledge and finding out one was wrong. Better to have found out on your own than to have the mistake slip past you.
Thanks for that lucid explanation. That is the first time I’ve heard it explained in a way that makes sense.
If I may ask for two favors. First, would you mind starting a separate post showing your calibration techniques? It sounds similar to something I’ve been toying with, but I still don’t have the confidence that I am on the right track. My technique, while making a positive impact, is clumsy since it involved too much trial and error due to my lack of deep understanding.
I agree with your assessment of the Orca calibration methods and I’ve pretty much abandoned the Orca flow ratio methods in favor of two other methods. The first is to create a cube primitive like you described, and the second is to perform a first layer test and calibrate that, then switch back and forth between the two models until I have a reasonable flow output that looks good for both cases. The first layer test tends to only make a difference when I find I’m getting poor results at finer layer heights.
The second favor I would ask is that you appear to have a deeper understanding of this topic, so if you don’t mind sharing your thoughts on one slicer parameter I have yet to wrap my mind around.
In view of your understanding of flow ratios overall, what use-case would these flow ratios for bridging make a difference that one would notice, and how does it interact with the filament flow ratio? When does one prevail, or do they complement or supplement one another?
I tried to create an internal and external bridge test on my own and for the life of me, I can’t seem to see a detectable difference no matter how much I change the values. Perhaps you have a scenario that illustrates the impact of these settings. Or if anyone reading this knows of a YouTube video that discusses this that would helpful too.
I had to re-read this thread three times. I made no reference to a post. Perhaps you were referring to @NeverDie original message? If not, please use the forum’s quote tool to highlight the text in my message that you are referring to.
OK. Thanks for clarifying. I was starting to think I was losing my mind.
It seems likely that you may have been navigating multiple threads in different tabs. This forum’s software(‘Discourse’) can sometimes lose track of replies, especially if you start drafting a reply in one tab and then navigate to another tab to check something in a different post. If you saw a message saying the post has changed and asking if you want to reload, that’s often the cause. Unfortunately, this can result in the reply being posted in the wrong thread, which can be quite disorienting.
The only workaround I found fix this is to copy the text of your reply, delete the misplaced post, and then paste it into a reply in the correct thread. That’s the only reliable solution I’ve found.
So was it a reply to NeverDie then? He was mentioning some issues in his post and I though someone else posted some explanation to him. Then that post disappeared later.
Ah yes. OK, now that you’ve showed me what you’re looking at I can probably explain. It seems like Nebur made a post in this thread to which I responded. Then he must have removed the post. Within 24 hours removed posts are deleted from the thread.
This is one reason I stopped simply replying to posts and started quoting sections of them before responding. Doing this helps preserve the context of the original post, which—even if it was mine—I might not remember later.
Too often, I’ve noticed people deleting their posts after the fact. I’m not entirely sure why, but in Nebur’s case, his forum history suggests he had some kind of meltdown. He seemed unhappy with this forum, decided to quit, and in the process, deleted all his posts.
In the US, in inner-city street baseball (or cricket elsewhere), there’s often a shortage of bats and balls. Typically, the kid with more discretionary money becomes the favorite because, without their equipment, nobody can play. It’s not uncommon for such a kid to get angry over an umpire’s call, take their bat and ball, and leave—ending the game for everyone. This is the origin of the expression “He took his bat and ball and went home.”
From the limited evidence @Nebur left behind, it seems he did something similar. Upset over something, he decided this community wasn’t worth his contributions. On his way out, he deleted all his posts, effectively “taking his bat and ball and going home.”
