I'm not sure if anyone is still interested in updates on this, but a lot of testing has taken place, as well as numerous design revisions. All inspections were performed with a new Keyence LM. All brands used in testing were "high end" or otherwise among the most popular in the community (I'm not sure how I feel about including specific names compared to measurements taken). Key updates:

1. We have dialed in our machining process to hold a +/-0.001mm tolerance. The EDM machined nozzle is objectively higher precision than anything I can find on the market. The latest .80 nozzle measures at 0.801mm. The +/-0.001mm is consistent and achievable regardless of major ID nominal size (IE, a .40mm nozzle will come out to ~.401mm). Nothing I measured across all popular brands came close.

2. The machining process is very conducive to getting roundness right. The EDM machined nozzle is objectively rounder than everything I tested (across 6 nozzle brands). The EDM machined nozzles hold a roundness of 0.010mm, with the typical roundness across all tested brands being ~0.019mm.

3. The machining process results in a surface finish more consistent than anything else we dissected. This is typical for EDM machining vs. traditional cutting. Because we have some control over how matte or gloss the finish is, and the subjective nature of the effect this has on parts, I won't share much more until I have good pictures.

Overall, I'm very pleased with how things are turning out, though I was hoping for improvements in other areas, too. I think there is value in knowing you're .40 nozzle is as close to .40 as possible, for obvious slicing benefits and repeatability when swapping nozzles. The most precise nozzles I inspected were e3d's, averaging 0.394mm, with most brands measuring ~0.38mm, and the worst (and among the most expensive!) as low as 0.36mm. It definitely seems to me knowing your exact orifice size is just as valuable as knowing your exact filament diameter.

Where I go from here... Unsure. Are there any tests users would like to see performed? Specific prints? If this is allowed, I'd even love to get feedback on overall perception -- assuming things were priced similarly, what would make current options more appealing than this?

As some of you may remember, I had previously worked on a "square" orifice nozzle for general experimentation. Further information and reading can be found here:
https://forum.duet3d.com/topic/20300/square-nozzle-orifice/8

This nozzle has since been sent off for load testing to another forum user. Unfortunately, I did not feel much additional empirical testing was required to confirm that simply adding a square orifice to traditional nozzle geometry wouldn't change much in the way of print quality (though the extrudate was actually square, which was a nice result).

Up next: a nozzle designed with geometry scaled from a traditional extrusion die. The first photo is simply a CAD cross section of the overall design. The next photo is an actual cross section of our first attempt. The manufacturing method is EDM using electrodes cut on a high speed graphite mill. Tolerances are within 0.0005" using these methods. Additionally, surface finish is "perfect", at least perfectly consistent. Machine settings can manipulate how fine or course the finish is, as well as different grades of graphite (we use angstrofine, so most changes here will occur at the machine).

As you can see, right as the major ID begins, the path is a bit wider. This is due to electrode erosion, and the next sample will run additional electrodes to ensure the entire orifice is brought to size. Put simply, the inconsistency is not a manufacturing limitation, but rather having not validated the manufacturing process.

The theory is that this will assist in a) more consistent extrusion width b) less drool, and c) possibly an improved surface finish. Taking things a step further, if there are positive results samples will be vacuum hardened, and ultimately produced from Tungsten Carbide. One of the really great things about EDM, is it does not care about material hardness.

This is in active development, and I will be sure to share updates and progress. I expect the next photos to be actual print comparisons, and the next cross section to be completely straight/uniform. I expect to have to-spec sample by this Friday.

As an aside, the design concept was largely targeted toward pellet extrusion. Initial tests will be done with standard FDM extrusion setups, but high-detail pellet extrusion is the end goal.

I'd love to hear any opinions on this, including other possibilities given the manufacturing methods available.

Finally, an update. After finding some machine time, we were able to complete the first nozzle. We inspected the orifice with a Keyence IM inspection system, and compared it to 5 leading brands who also make nozzles (to get an idea of how close to nominal we realistically need to be). We wound up at 0.410mm, which is almost exactly as close to nominal as the best commercially available nozzles inspected. We will definitely make more, as electrode sizing is why we aren't as close to .400 as I'd like. Realistically, +/- .001mm should be achievable. However, testing can finally commence. As an aside, the most "premium" (re. expensive) nozzles inspected were the worst, dipping down as low as .35mm ID.

Attached is a photo of the electrodes used, and inspection of the EDM machined nozzle. Testing is next, then I will cut more cross sections to share. These should be much, much cleaner on the inside than what is in OP.

First, apologies for the lack of updates. I started doing testing today, and have reached out to various content creators hoping for some assistance with this side of things. Time to do testing has just not been on my side.

Today I did some very simple vase mode prints to check two things:

1. potential change in surface finish
2. ability to take objective measurements of layer width

The prints were done on an E3D toolchanger, using a Hemera extruder and Copper V6 block. Both prints were done with the exact same hardware, only the nozzle being different. I used a hardened steel E3D V6 nozzle as the control. The material was the same spool of Prusament PLA, fed closed loop from a material dryer.

First impression: the ADV nozzle produces a significantly more matte finish. Though "improvement" is completely subjective, it objectively hides layer lines more than the gloss, especially in person. The photo posted was spliced together as both parts were taken under identical lighting conditions.

The next step is to use our IM to take measurements of wall thickness and layer width, to determine if there is any significant difference in extrusion consistency (visually, I'm not expecting much difference).

Anecdotally, the ADV nozzle oozes considerably less than the V6. The next steps will be various retraction prints, sans retraction, to evaluate stringing/oozing.

Finally, I had some mushrooming at the bottom of the V6 print. This is obviously not a fault of the nozzle.

I'm not expecting too much enthusiasm over the initial results, but I'm happy so far and am very excited to get to the retraction tests. My first reaction is that will be the area most improved.

ADV left, E3D right

Disclaimer: A sample size of 1 is not enough to draw distinct conclusions. Everything I am sharing are simply preliminary results and I will do many prints/inspections before making any clear statements of capability.

Based on user CCS86's suggestion, we performed another straightness test with more data points:

Slight reduction, but ~12% "straighter". Eventually we will do more thorough inspections on this. I was considering using our extrusion measurement systems to test it not on a print, but in line (like a normal plastic extruder).

Next up are simple stringing tests, pictured here:

ADV Left, V6 Right

These prints were done on the same hardware, with same the same Gcode file. Both prints were done with no retraction. Prusament PLA, 200*, 15mm/s print, 180mm/s travel.

Clearly, the ADV oozes considerably less, almost none at all. I do notice "fuzz" on the edges, and what appears to be occasional heat dissipation issues from the ADV nozzle. I suspect this is due to the end taper geometry not being correct for a V6 0.4 orifice nozzle (as mentioned by another user earlier in the thread). The next step is to EDM or surface grind this taper to the correct geometry to eliminate this as a variable. Nozzle taper comparison below:

I very much welcome feedback!

Like many before me, I've had thoughts that a square nozzle could potentially result in improved print quality. The idea being that if it's always pointed "forward" you may reduce visibility of layer striations, or that perhaps the increase in surface area will improve part strength.

Attached is my first attempt at a square nozzle. This is EDM finished out of an E3D "experimental" blank. The square is 0.40mm across and held to extremely tight tolerances (+/-0.0025mm).

I have only had time to do a couple of test prints, so not much to share visually at the moment. My first impression is that the improved orifice surface finish (cross sections to come) makes a real difference in print quality. Additionally, I could go all the way to .40mm layer heights while retaining good part quality.

Hopefully before next week I will have some good side by side comparisons to share. Though this post may be a bit premature given the lack of testing, I'm definitely curious to hear people's thoughts on the subject.

Next up are EDM/WEDM finished round orifices, star, flower, and triangle shapes, as well as consistent ID paths (IE, .40mm from end to end, no large lead-in ID).

@jens55 No worries, I'd rather people be skeptical and ask questions. After all, until testing occurs I am certainly not taking the position that this will make those improvements.

The long major ID is actually designed with respect to extrusion die "standards"; in this case length is 10x the nominal orifice size. I'm hoping this will result in a more consistent extrusion; think about the consistency you want with filament diameter -- I want to achieve something similar with the extrudate from the nozzle. Hopefully this will result in overall more consistent printing, in particular your perimeters on Z.

As for cost, though I admit we are considering commercial possibilities, we are primarily interested in making the best equipment we can. That means real, tangible performance improvement, tooling-grade repeatability (high hardness/tight tolerance), and ancillary services to ensure a lifetime of use if desired, in this case thermal cleaning.

I hope it does not seem like I'm soliciting here; at any point commercial viability is on the table different channels are planned for promotion. With that out of the way, there is no reason we could not hit a price point competitive with current "high end" nozzles on the market ($60-$100) after tooling up. This has just become the best place I've found online to share developments.

@bot Yes, we should be able to make a .20mm orifice nozzle the same way. The issue we will run into is deflection while cutting the electrode, but through some trial and error should be able to get consistent results.

@Adam-V3D Thank you. I'm optimistic we will see improved thermal properties as there will be more material left on the nozzle itself to retain heat. This nozzle is began as an E3d V6 solid blank; exact same over all dimensions.

I would love to hear feedback from anyone with a more robust background in thermodynamics.

@adam-v3d said in Advanced nozzle design:

@plasticfactory Increased thermal mass will improve temperature stability over time, but i don' think there were problems with that on standard nozzles, certainly won't be any worse. Your CAD clearly differs quite a lot to the real thing at the tip as nozzles have wide flat ends which aids in keeping the tip warm.
the conductivity is not changing.
I think the main change in taking down the diameter of the flow sooner in the path so you have less distance to melt the filament before demanding it to change form. If you just install it straight into a normal v6 you might end up with issues. This is why volcano and super volcano exist, it just increases the surface area to volume ratio to get more energy to the filament per unit of time.
The advantage you do have is that in the thin area you have significantly changed the surface area to volume ratio. You'll be able to control the temperature better, and will have greater chance of getting consistent temperature right to the core of the filament, but you may be too late in the flow path for that to make a difference.
Laminar flow may well produce a better extrude from the nozzle, but the higher mixing of turbulent flow makes it better for heat transfer. I think nozzle flow is quite laminar already though, apart from where the filament contracts into the orifice.
one think I did read in a paper a while back was a suggestion that a large amount of heat transfer into the material actually occurs at the point where the orifice starts, the turbulent flow there and increased pressure cause it. I don't recall the full conclusion of the paper but the smooth change may not necessarily be better.

I really appreciate this response. I agree it's not much of a problem currently, so I'm hoping that this will maintain things, if not negligibly improve them (clearly I'm overly optimistic in general, lol). To explain, the angle used for the tip on the model is clearly not what we are using for blanks. It needs to be updated. The angle, and thus landing area for the flat, is still up for experimentation. I imagine the next step if we see improvements with the extrudate will be to experiment with the tip area.

Again, thank you for the thorough response. It gives me a lot to think about, in particular pull testing. I think layer bonding strength testing will absolutely be required here as a preliminary.

@oliof I have actually used the Maxiwatt pretty extensively. I love the concept, but consistently had issues with it maintaining temperature (260-300*C) and eventually had to move on. It sounds like my unit may have been faulty -- do you think it would be worth trying another? What temperatures are you running with yours?

As an aside, and I may regret posting too much here, but you may find this interesting. It's a nozzle/heater block combo (and 3d printed!). It will use the same flow path as the nozzle above. Now, before anyone says a word I know this may be very impractical in practice. But, I want to see how it performs!

@jens55 I welcome any and all thoughts, fresh perspective helps tremendously! Everything you said are valid concerns -- it's simply not the same process, and we may see no improvement. But, if the amount coming through the orifice is more consistent, I am confident it will improve the print (even if only by some negligibly but measurable amount). It definitely felt like using conventional standards would be a good baseline -- design can always be tweaked based off this is a foundation. And if my optimism bears no fruit... I will let everyone know.

Quick update -- had some improvement on the last samples, but in doing so identified areas for further improvement. We are breaking the electrode up into 2 pieces and sampling again early next week. I'm optimistic this will be one worth sharing!

EDIT: rather than bumping this thread further I'll use this as an update. Currently, our EDM department is backlogged after receiving a wave of production demand. We have electrodes cut, but no EDM machining will take place for ~3 weeks. To anyone particularly intrigued by this project, do not worry -- it is line one for our AM prototype development.

Prepped for the HSM:

@CCS86 Actually, yes! I was inspired by this IMM product:
https://procdn.blob.core.windows.net/pages/nozzles-caddie-wrench.pdf

... but was frustrated to see someone did exactly this with the Bozzle (https://www.fabreeko.com/products/bozzle-0-5mm-full-tungsten-carbide-nozzle-by-rentable-socks).

I am confident it could be done with even better geometry/finish (I have cross sectioned and tested the Bozzle along with the other popular nozzle brands), but higher flow has been toward the bottom of my list. I will definitely consider focusing on that next as it seems the community is very driven by faster/higher flow these days.

I'm not sure if anyone is still interested in updates on this, but a lot of testing has taken place, as well as numerous design revisions. All inspections were performed with a new Keyence LM. All brands used in testing were "high end" or otherwise among the most popular in the community (I'm not sure how I feel about including specific names compared to measurements taken). Key updates:

1. We have dialed in our machining process to hold a +/-0.001mm tolerance. The EDM machined nozzle is objectively higher precision than anything I can find on the market. The latest .80 nozzle measures at 0.801mm. The +/-0.001mm is consistent and achievable regardless of major ID nominal size (IE, a .40mm nozzle will come out to ~.401mm). Nothing I measured across all popular brands came close.

2. The machining process is very conducive to getting roundness right. The EDM machined nozzle is objectively rounder than everything I tested (across 6 nozzle brands). The EDM machined nozzles hold a roundness of 0.010mm, with the typical roundness across all tested brands being ~0.019mm.

3. The machining process results in a surface finish more consistent than anything else we dissected. This is typical for EDM machining vs. traditional cutting. Because we have some control over how matte or gloss the finish is, and the subjective nature of the effect this has on parts, I won't share much more until I have good pictures.

Overall, I'm very pleased with how things are turning out, though I was hoping for improvements in other areas, too. I think there is value in knowing you're .40 nozzle is as close to .40 as possible, for obvious slicing benefits and repeatability when swapping nozzles. The most precise nozzles I inspected were e3d's, averaging 0.394mm, with most brands measuring ~0.38mm, and the worst (and among the most expensive!) as low as 0.36mm. It definitely seems to me knowing your exact orifice size is just as valuable as knowing your exact filament diameter.

Where I go from here... Unsure. Are there any tests users would like to see performed? Specific prints? If this is allowed, I'd even love to get feedback on overall perception -- assuming things were priced similarly, what would make current options more appealing than this?

@darth-scoob I made the same observation. I assume this is a sort of "ironing" effect due to the larger flat at the end of the nozzle. I definitely think the larger taper causes heat dissipation issues and plan to get the taper to the standard geometry as soon as possible. As for the toolchanger, I like it a lot. There are many things I would/have changed about it, but that's the beauty of open source 3d printing products.

@mrdui That will be one of the final tests I perform. High speed printing is lowest on the list of what I'm interested in here, but obviously want to know how it compares. Who knows, I may be surprised. Assuming I see reduced throughput, I've considered adding features like this:
https://procdn.blob.core.windows.net/pages/nozzles-caddie-wrench.pdf

I am unsure how patents would affect similar features on a 3d printing nozzle as I simply haven't gotten that far.

Overall, I assume there is more pressure loss in the ADV nozzle vs. V6. Whether it significant or can't be compensated via software, I am unsure at this time. I am also hopeful the improved geometry and reduction in sharp angles help to mitigate such an issue. Plastic really dislikes sharp angles.

Just for posterity, the primary areas I'm looking to improve are a) overall consistency in extrudate, b) improved surface finish, and c) reduced drool/stringing. On C, PLA is the material I am least interested in, but as it is the defacto 3d printing standard I decided to start with it. The nozzle is being developed with higher temp/viscosity and engineering grade polymers in mind. I'm very optimistic about doing Nylon test prints.

EDIT: One other thought, and correct me if I'm off base -- I assume standard nozzles have such a short orifice length due to machining limitations. After all, that's a very small tool and deflection would become an issue if making it much longer. I highly doubt the current "standard" orifice lengths are necessarily optimized.

Disclaimer: A sample size of 1 is not enough to draw distinct conclusions. Everything I am sharing are simply preliminary results and I will do many prints/inspections before making any clear statements of capability.

Based on user CCS86's suggestion, we performed another straightness test with more data points:

Slight reduction, but ~12% "straighter". Eventually we will do more thorough inspections on this. I was considering using our extrusion measurement systems to test it not on a print, but in line (like a normal plastic extruder).

Next up are simple stringing tests, pictured here:

ADV Left, V6 Right

These prints were done on the same hardware, with same the same Gcode file. Both prints were done with no retraction. Prusament PLA, 200*, 15mm/s print, 180mm/s travel.

Clearly, the ADV oozes considerably less, almost none at all. I do notice "fuzz" on the edges, and what appears to be occasional heat dissipation issues from the ADV nozzle. I suspect this is due to the end taper geometry not being correct for a V6 0.4 orifice nozzle (as mentioned by another user earlier in the thread). The next step is to EDM or surface grind this taper to the correct geometry to eliminate this as a variable. Nozzle taper comparison below:

I very much welcome feedback!

@ccs86 Yeah, I definitely see that -- good eye. I probably got too excited with the last post, but the other images, coupled with this, are promising. I will refrain from making conclusions until we get a proper inspection next week.

@plasticfactory Last quick update before Monday. From our QE: "the ADV nozzle is more consistent with layer width, but I will do more inspections Monday and generate a proper report".

I will of course share said report, with data, here. This will include how the inspection was conducted. But that was a nice message to cap off the week.

EDIT: This probably doesn't mean much right now as it was a "first guess" way to check this, but here is the image I was provided:

Top is ADV, bottom V6

This is an overall straightness measurement. So it doesn't account for the exact deviation from each layer line, but would indicate that overall it is less "wavy" (ie, more consistent extrusion width).

I'm open to suggestions on what types of measurements to take, or prints to use to take said measurements.

EDIT 2: I was also sent some inspections comparing actual individual layer lines. I will share those images and preliminary findings shortly. Similar conclusion -- ADV is more consistent. Is it an appreciable improvement? Maybe not, but it appears to be an improvement. I hope to have real conclusions by the middle of next week (but if you have kept up with this thread, it could be in 2023...)

First, apologies for the lack of updates. I started doing testing today, and have reached out to various content creators hoping for some assistance with this side of things. Time to do testing has just not been on my side.

Today I did some very simple vase mode prints to check two things:

1. potential change in surface finish
2. ability to take objective measurements of layer width

The prints were done on an E3D toolchanger, using a Hemera extruder and Copper V6 block. Both prints were done with the exact same hardware, only the nozzle being different. I used a hardened steel E3D V6 nozzle as the control. The material was the same spool of Prusament PLA, fed closed loop from a material dryer.

First impression: the ADV nozzle produces a significantly more matte finish. Though "improvement" is completely subjective, it objectively hides layer lines more than the gloss, especially in person. The photo posted was spliced together as both parts were taken under identical lighting conditions.

The next step is to use our IM to take measurements of wall thickness and layer width, to determine if there is any significant difference in extrusion consistency (visually, I'm not expecting much difference).

Anecdotally, the ADV nozzle oozes considerably less than the V6. The next steps will be various retraction prints, sans retraction, to evaluate stringing/oozing.

Finally, I had some mushrooming at the bottom of the V6 print. This is obviously not a fault of the nozzle.

I'm not expecting too much enthusiasm over the initial results, but I'm happy so far and am very excited to get to the retraction tests. My first reaction is that will be the area most improved.

ADV left, E3D right

@plasticfactory I figured it out... The build volume dimensions were reversed in my slicer (X where Y should be). I have absolutely no idea when or why I did it. I will leave this post up out of shame.

@plasticfactory Attached is what I feel is the relevant section of my slicer profile, and config. Happy to share anything else that would be helpful.

; General preferences
M111 S0 						; Debugging off
G21 							; Work in millimetres
G90 							; Send absolute coordinates...
M83 							; ...but relative extruder moves
M555 P2 						; Set firmware compatibility to look like Marlin

; Network
M550 p"toolchanger" 					; Set machine name
M552 s1
M586 P0 S1 						; Enable HTTP
M586 P1 S0 						; Disable FTP
M586 P2 S0 						; Disable Telnet

M667 S1 						; Select CoreXY mode	

; Endstops
M574 X1 S3
M574 Y1 S3 						; Set X / Y endstop stall detection
M574 Z0 P"nil"                               ; No Z endstop @used by DC42 using G30 homing
M558 P8 C"zstop" H5 F120 T3000 A5 S0.01
G31 P200 X0 Y0 Z0	 				; Set Z probe trigger value, offset and trigger height
M557 X10:290 Y20:180 S40 				; Define mesh grid

; Drive direction
M569 P0 S0 						; Drive 0 X
M569 P1 S0 						; Drive 1 Y
M569 P2 S1 						; Drive 2 Z
M569 P3 S0 						; Drive 3 E0
M569 P4 S0 						; Drive 4 E1
M569 P5 S1 						; Drive 5 E2
M569 P6 S1 						; Drive 6 E3
M569 P7 S0 						; Drive 7 COUPLER
M569 P8 S0 						; Drive 8 UNUSED
M569 P9 S0 						; Drive 9 UNUSED

M584 X0 Y1 Z2 C7 E9:8:5:6 				; Apply custom drive mapping
M208 X-35:328.5 Y-49:243 Z0:300 C0:500 S0 		; Set axis maxima & minima
M350 E16:8:16:8 C8 I0 					; Configure microstepping without interpolation
M350 X16 Y16 Z16 I1					; Configure microstepping with interpolation
M92 X100 Y100 Z1600 C100 E409:167:401:409		; Set steps per mm
M566 X600 Y600 Z10 C2 E2:2:3600:2				; Set maximum instantaneous speed changes (mm/min)
M203 X35000 Y35000 Z1800 C5000 E5000:5000:5000:5000	; Set maximum speeds (mm/min)
M201 X6000 Y6000 Z400 C400 E2500:2500:6000:2500		; Set accelerations (mm/s^2)
M906 X2000 Y2000 Z1330 C400 E1680:1680:1680:1680 I30 	; Set motor currents (mA) and motor idle factor in percent
M84 S120 												; Set idle timeout

;Stall Detection
M915 C S5 F0 H200 R4700					; Coupler

;Stall Detection
M915 X Y S5 F0 H400 R4700				; X / Y Axes

; Heaters
M308 S0 P"bedtemp" Y"thermistor" A"bed"
M950 H0 C"bedheat" T0
M140 H0    
M143 H0 S225 	

;M308 S1 P"spi.cs2" Y"rtd-max31865" A"Tool 0"
M308 S1 P"e0temp" Y"thermistor" T500000 B4723 C1.196220e-7 A"Tool 0"
M950 H1 C"e0heat" T1 
;M307 H1 A711.7 C216.9 D4.5 S1.00 V21.7 B0
M307 H1 A760.7 C256.8 D3.8 S1.00 V21.6 B0
M143 H1 S450 		

M308 S2 P"e1temp" Y"pt1000" A"Tool 1"
M950 H2 C"e1heat" T2 
M307 H2 A1065.0 C356.6 D6.0 S1.00 V21.5 B0
M143 H2 S450 

M308 S3 P"e2temp" Y"pt1000" A"Tool 2"
M950 H3 C"duex.e2heat" T3 
M307 H3 A1064.2 C242.3 D6.3 S1.00 V21.4 B0
M143 H3 S400 						

; Fans
M950 F0 C"duex.fan3"
M950 F1 C"duex.fan5"
M950 F2 C"duex.fan4"
M950 F3 C"duex.fan6"

M106 P0 S0
M106 P1 S0
M106 P2 S0
M106 P3 S255

; Tools
M563 P0 S"T0" D0 H1 F0 					; Define tool 0 
G10 P0 X0 Y0 Z0  					; Reset tool 0 axis offsets
G10 P0 R220 S260					; Reset initial tool 0 active and standby temperatures to 0C

M563 P1 S"T1" D1 H2 F1 					; Define tool 1 
G10 P1 X0 Y0 Z0  					; Reset tool 2 axis offsets
G10 P1 R220 S260					; Reset initial tool 2 active and standby temperatures to 0C

M563 P2 S"T2" D2 H3 F2 					; Define tool 2 
G10 P2 X0 Y0 Z0  					; Reset tool 2 axis offsets
G10 P2 R220 S260					; Reset initial tool 2 active and standby temperatures to 0C


M593 F50						; cancel ringing at 50Hz (https://forum.e3d-online.com/threads/accelerometer-and-resonance-measurements-of-the-motion-system.3445/)
;M376 H15						; bed compensation taper

;tool offsets
G10 P0 X21 Y43 Z-5.65					; T0
G10 P1 X23.7 Y43.8 Z-7.50					; T1
G10 P2 X22 Y43.5 Z-5.15	; T2
;G10 P3 X21 Y43 Z-14.95					; T3

;M572 D0 S0.2 						; pressure advance T0
;M572 D1 S0.2 						; pressure advance T1
M572 D2 S0.05 						; pressure advance T2
;M572 D3 S0.2 						; pressure advance T3

Hello, I have another odd problem. Using me E3d Toolchanger, I started a print and rather than it printing center on the bed, as configured in my slicer (Simplify 3d), it starts in the corner and actually crashes the tool.

What setting should I look at to fix this? I have changed absolutely nothing -- simply turned it on for another print and this is what I got.

Checking the config shows that my offsets are correct, other variables such as bed size are correct. I don't see anything out of the ordinary in the slicer, but kinda suspect its something there.

Any help?