What's your preferred method for measuring percent shrinkage?

[Alex_vG]

@Olias

What exactly does that graph prove, anyway? To me, it strongly suggests that there is a very wide margin of error with FDM technology. But we already know this, so the chart shows nothing more than what we already know. This is why I affirm what I stated before: doing a quick dimensional test each time one wants to do a precision print will yield far more reliable results than doing a multi-hour test and simply assuming that the factors will not vary with ambient temperature and RH.

I think the author didn’t want to say that everyone should start taking all those measurements. It just proves, that compensating undersized holes with a fixed offset is not useful. so effectively, there currently is no one click way for true hole sizes. Everybody should ignore faulty hole compensation. For now we have to use the iterative trial and error approach for each print.

Instead the slicers should take a more sophisticated approach. (I have stated my opinion above and in other threads a few times, sorry for repeating it ).

If they succeed, users could print e.g. two different holes and measure the sizes. The slicer then would be able to calculate compensation for all other sizes. and not only holes but also open concave shapes.