Ok, added firmware retracts and slowed the numbering down to first layer speed. They are looking cleaner for me now without having to bump flow

@CCS86
Hey guys.

• The first layer can look a bit overextruded partly because it uses your starting PA (often 0).
• The infill/perimeter overlap should be 25% but I will verify that is working properly
• The doubled-up infill line is a bug I just fixed today actually, will be pushing that up soon
• The extra overlap for the number tab is on purpose, but even with that extra overlap I'm seeing people with the tab not sticking, hah. It was meant to help it be more likely to stick for folks whose squish isn't quite enough. Ideally it would slice it all as one object rather than two rectangles overlapping, but coding is hard, so just two rectangles for now, heh.
• I'll also check the extrusion rates for first layer vs other layers

@CCS86 Also just to be clear, I don't mean to hand wave your issues here, just comparing with others

• I think the overlap is too much in places as you said, that spot included, so I may reduce that.
  • Maybe it should also just print the first layer at your current PA, and not set PA until second layer+? Might also help
• I am wondering if the overextrusion would be less with 120% first layer width, maybe the default of 140% is just a bit aggressive.
• I have pushed a fix for the doubling-up infill line, at least I think so, can you please see if it's still occurring for you?
• I think I see a flow issue with the first layer of the pattern itself (not the perims/anchor/tab), working on that bit. Thanks for spotting that. Not 100% sure yet, though, so I'll update here soon

@mrehorstdmd Ok just pushed a bunch of fixes, all clear
@CCS86 I fixed the flow and overlap issues. The tab seems to print a lot better now. Give it a whirl.

@oliof I don't quite follow the logic behind having a different unretract length. Is that a common thing? Always seemed... bodgy to me. I don't print with large nozzles very often, though, so maybe that's part of it. PA is supposed to help with what you mentioned (needing extra pressure to start), or is that not typically enough?

I think at a certain point it becomes too many settings & too much clutter - it actually had firmware retract and I removed it (and a few other things) to make it leaner. Software retract works for everyone.

Once it starts becoming a wall of settings, it starts to become really overwhelming for new folks.

It's meant to be a quick test with only the features necessary to get it printed, not a full web based slicer with all the same features as your desktop one, y'know?

Hell, I've even thought about getting rid of the Z hop settings and just baking in the 0.1mm z-hop.

@Exerqtor Generally I try external speed first, and if it's not fast enough to show differences, I will fall back to internal speed.

@oliof Sorry, meant to tag @CrazyCreator there!

@oliof Sorry, meant to tag @CrazyCreator there!

@oliof The tool will set your PA using M572 at each increment, and then set it back to the start value at the end. If you have your PA set before running the tool, it will override it.

See Saving Your Value once you settle on a value.

@Robthide37 Sorry just saw this.
I would prefer to keep it on my site but you are welcome to link to it

@Exerqtor Generally I try external speed first, and if it's not fast enough to show differences, I will fall back to internal speed.

@CCS86 nozzle strikes yes, stringing no

@CCS86 Interesting idea, but I don't think it's necessary, the part goes straight into the trash afterwards, a bit of stringing doesn't matter as long as its prints and is readable

@mrehorstdmd Currently the numbers are a static size, so the illegible blobs doesn't surprise me. I would need to figure out how to make them scale, I think.
Maybe I will disable numbering for >0.8mm nozzles for now.
Was hoping it would surprise me, but I'm not surprised
The retraction is an interesting idea. You could theoretically do that in a macro - in Klipper, at least, but I believe RRF3 macros aren't too far removed

@mrehorstdmd The blobbing gets worse at higher speeds or lower accels, 50mm/s may just be a bit harder to read - though I imagine flow rate is a limitation here

This was with a 1mm nozzle? I'm also curious if the numbering printed okay, if you had that enabled. The preview freaks out a bit at such line widths since it renders the extrusions as cylinders instead of flattened ones.

My best real world results have been to pick the higher value a little before gapping, inversely to the usual recommendation of erring lower.

Looking at your results, it's certainly subtle. I'd hazard to guess around 0.055-0.06.

@Exerqtor PETG by chance? If so I've found it to need around double that of ABS/PLA. Abnormally high also can point to a sneaky partial clogs, even though it's still printing

Ok, added firmware retracts and slowed the numbering down to first layer speed. They are looking cleaner for me now without having to bump flow