Doubled object labels using SuperSlicer?

WarriorMe

When using SuperSlicer in "RepRapFirmware" flavor and enabling "Label Objects", both comment-format Object Labels and M486 object labels are generated:

; printing object 1x1 V Block.stl id:0 copy 2
M486 S2

This causes an extra set of empty objects to be generated in the object model.

I'm unsure, is this is intended behavior for the firmware, or should it handle this kind of of labeling?

Should i report this as a bug on the SuperSlicer Github?

The object list at the start of the gcode looks like this:

; object:{"name":"1x1 V Block","id":"1x1 V Block.stl id:0 copy 0","object_center":[131.250000,178.750000,0.000000],"boundingbox_center":[131.250000,178.750000,12.400000],"boundingbox_size":[41.500000,41.500000,24.799999]}
; object:{"name":"1x1 V Block","id":"1x1 V Block.stl id:0 copy 1","object_center":[131.250000,131.250000,0.000000],"boundingbox_center":[131.250000,131.250000,12.400000],"boundingbox_size":[41.500000,41.500000,24.799999]}
; object:{"name":"1x1 V Block","id":"1x1 V Block.stl id:0 copy 2","object_center":[178.750000,155.000001,0.000000],"boundingbox_center":[178.750000,155.000001,12.400000],"boundingbox_size":[41.500000,41.500000,24.799999]}
; Total objects to print: 3
M486 T3
; plater:{"center":[155.000000,155.000000,0.000000],"boundingbox_center":[155.000000,155.000000,12.400000],"boundingbox_size":[89.000000,89.000000,24.799999]}

In the object model i have three empty, but named objects as well as three unnamed object with associated gcode...

PS: Using SuperSlicer 2.4.58.5 and RepRap Firmware 3.4.2rc1

Phaedrux

@WarriorMe said in Doubled object labels using SuperSlicer?:

RepRap Firmware 3.4.2rc1

Test on 3.4.5 stable first.

dc42

@WarriorMe can you turn off M486 labelling in SuperSlicer?

WarriorMe

@dc42 Currently "Label Objects" turns either both on or both off.
It doesn't generate M486 if i set the flavor to klipper, so it seems this is on purpose.

If i manually remove the M486 labels everything works as intended.

Am i correct in assuming the slicer should only generate either comment-style labels OR M486 labels, not both?

In that case I'd like to report this to the SuperSlicer dev, but should i ask them to only generate M486, or to only generate comment-style lables... which are generally the preferred method in RRF?

dc42

@WarriorMe to suppress the duplicate labels in RRF we would need to try to work out whether a M486 refers to the same object that has just been labelled by a comment; and vice versa. Alternatively we could provide a special version of M486 that instructs RRF to ignore all remaining M486 command sin the file.

Regarding which form of labelling we prefer, either comments or M486 commands that include the object names provide all the information that RRF needs. If the M486 commands generated by SuperSlicer do not include the object names, then comments would be preferred.

PrusaSlicer appears to generate comments but not M486 commands when the Label Objects box is checked, at least when there is just a single object in the print.