RRF 2.03 pressure advance causes 20% overextrusion
-
@bot What's the difference between that and the n8_precision_minus_infill_support branch?
-
That release is the n8_precision_minus_infill_support branch.
I copied and pasted the description from a previous release hastily, so it might have said the wrong thing.
The previous releases work fine, too, but this one enables better support placement (PS ignores some "thin" support regions which prevents some support from appearing) and also prevents the solid infill from "auto-adjusting" the width by ~1 micron, which was annoying in some cases but not important to "fix."
There are other releases there, too.
The two main things I think you'll like are the resolution change, and the decimal precision changes. Fixes extrusion rate problems.
Edit: Also, you might need some .DLLs from MS Visual Studio redistributable. Let me know if/which ones you need I can send them too.
-
@bot ah ok.
It is complaining about vcruntime140_1.dll, but I've already installed the visual c++ 2015 redistributable... -
@jschall Yup, that's the one. See this post: https://forum.duet3d.com/post/170901
I uploaded the .dll for someone previously, but it's named as .stl. just rename it .dll and put it in the prusaslicer folder or wherever.
I also just updated the release to include that .dll. I hope that doesn't break a EULA. oh well.
-
@bot
Got it running. Doesn't work in VirtualBox anyway because no opengl 2.0+ support. So, I ran it in WINE and it works fine. Extrusion amount looks about right. -
@jschall said in RRF 2.03 pressure advance causes 20% overextrusion:
@bot I tried to build PrusaSlicer before and gave up because of ridiculously huge numbers of dependencies on cutting edge versions of everything.
They have "noob guide" now. It's basically how it should be built, not really for noobs, but for anyone with a little bit of sanity left. I'm wondering why they even bother with having a guide; the steps can be semi-easily compressed into a batch file. Maybe they take pride in memorizing random things...
-
Good to see "Detect thin walls" still sucks just as much as ever.
-
Haha. Yeah. There's lots of "fun" things going on in PrusaSlicer. There definitely needs to be a huge refactoring, IMO. Many features need to be removed, or re-considered in the context of other newer features.
-
@jschall said in RRF 2.03 pressure advance causes 20% overextrusion:
Good to see "Detect thin walls" still sucks just as much as ever.
Still better than Cura.
-
@Phaedrux Really? Cura seems to do way way better than PrusaSlicer when slicing things with thin walls. Also it has support for coasting which is super important on my ender3 v2s that don't frigging work with linear advance...
I just hate Cura's interface. Hard to be worse.
-
Superslicer has something like coasting iirc
-
@jschall I find Cura falls apart faster than super Slicer on thin walls. In Cura you're forced to use 2 walls. The master build of Cura has the option of trying to replace one of those wall passes with a travel move, but it rarely seems to work well. At least the gap fill in Slic3r has a lot more leeway with regards to wall thickness. It's true that on the really thin side the walls just don't get extruded at all, but it seems to be a lot more forgiving. Cura will print the thin walls but it's usually well over extruded.
-
@jschall
have you watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W5pPm0lZDE? it mentions the problems with the titans. -
@Phaedrux Cura has something called "compensate flow" and I think it reduces the flow on one of the two walls so that the total extrusion volume is correct for the wall thickness.
-
@jschall Yes that's the setting I'm thinking of. Doesn't it seem silly to replace a one of the walls with a travel move though? It's still taking the time to move around the entire perimeter it's just not extruding anything. Not very elegant.
For best results it also wants you to use outer wall first, which means overhangs suffer in addition to the extra ooze from the empty travel moves.
-
Yeah totally agree.
Bowden is fking stupid. The whole premise of bowden is to REMOVE a motor that needs to output LESS THAN 1W OF MECHANICAL POWER in order to SAVE MASS on something that weighs in at like 500 grams. Hey, here's an idea: how about instead of that, we stop using half-pound 1970s-era stepper motors?
-
@Phaedrux said in RRF 2.03 pressure advance causes 20% overextrusion:
Doesn't it seem silly to replace a one of the walls with a travel move though? It's still taking the time to move around the entire perimeter it's just not extruding anything.
Not really, because the only case where it isn't extruding anything is the case where the wall thickness is exactly equal to the line thickness. But yeah, could be optimized.
What slicer does the absolute best with thin walls? I bought Simplify3D and was horribly disappointed. Cura so far seems to do the best job overall.
-
I'd say super slicer does a reasonable job. It seems to have the option to connect the thin wall to the other adjacent perimeters whereas prusa slicer treats the thin wall section as a separate extrusion path entirely.
-
@jschall said in RRF 2.03 pressure advance causes 20% overextrusion:
Yeah totally agree.
Bowden is fking stupid. The whole premise of bowden is to REMOVE a motor that needs to output LESS THAN 1W OF MECHANICAL POWER in order to SAVE MASS on something that weighs in at like 500 grams. Hey, here's an idea: how about instead of that, we stop using half-pound 1970s-era stepper motors?
Here's a servo that outputs more torque than the geared titan extruder. It costs a whopping $10 - which is cheaper than the stepper. It weighs 58g vs 280g for the stepper. It includes the gears, which add not-insignificant mass as well. I'm not trying to say you can buy that servo and stick it on an extruder and it will work unmodified - it won't. I'm pointing out from a first principles point of view that you can cut out 80% of the mass of the extruder, without bowden, and it doesn't have to be expensive.
-
@jschall said in RRF 2.03 pressure advance causes 20% overextrusion:
Yeah totally agree.
Bowden is fking stupid. The whole premise of bowden is to REMOVE a motor that needs to output LESS THAN 1W OF MECHANICAL POWER in order to SAVE MASS on something that weighs in at like 500 grams. Hey, here's an idea: how about instead of that, we stop using half-pound 1970s-era stepper motors?
One could argue that the limiting factor on how fast one can print an object is how fast one can melt and extrude the filament. So if carriage mass isn't a limiting factor, then why reduce it? In fact I have demonstrated this by printing at up to 300mm/ sec with a moving carriage mass of around 2Kgs driven by modest NEMA 17s. I'll make a other contentious statement that adding mass reduces the resonant frequency - I don't get ringing -ever. So I'd say, if you physically have room to go direct drive, go for it and forget the mass. Unfortunately, it isn't physically possible to connect 6 extruders to a mixing hot end, so in my case, I mount then on a separate gantry above the hot end and use short Bowden tubes.
