RE: VFA Artifacts on X+Y Straight Edges
'While the 3D printing community has identified several potential sources for VFAs, including motor resonance and belt mechanics, our deep analysis of the affected community printers pointed overwhelmingly toward improper belt tension on the CORE One.'
Again - read between the lines. He didn't say the community was wrong about motor resonance and belt mechanics. He's simply saying that the printers they've had back had improper belt tension.
RE: VFA Artifacts on X+Y Straight Edges
Well I just printed up the core one VFA test print… and I compared it to a prior one that I did and it’s definitely a little bit better. There is absolutely one speed range that utterly sucks… otherwise it’s definitely better.
I used the “balanced” .20mm layering in a .4 mm HF nozzle.
I suppose real question does the G code supersede any of the features they put in the beta version of the slicer?
If you've just used old gcode. it's not going to use any of the new features/profiles recently added in the beta....Gcode is already sliced.
The slicer makes the gcode.So no surprise you haven't seen any changes.
What did make me chuckle is reddit is full of posts about how the new settings/profile have solved VFAs, most of the attached pictures are either matte or filled filaments 😂
I think what Josef said about looking for them with VFA tests is right, all 3d printers (especially Core XY) will show them, its just physics...the task is reducing them to an acceptable level. So maybe the VFA tests are always going to show them to some level or another.
Real world tests are what its all about, so maybe printing that gridfinity bin that @baztm linked to earlier would be a fairer test...plus it means not wasting hours/filament on stuff that's ultimately going to end up the bin.
no, in my case I took the 3MF and re-sliced it… I noted that the G codes for increasing the speed stayed in the overall project but otherwise it got sliced by the new slicer. My comment was more related to wondering, if aside from speed changes the original creator of the VFA test for core one had done anything else other than change speeds. Honestly, there are very clear bands where it is obvious that the printer doesn’t like that speed with respect to VFA. I will say that it’s better than the last one I ran base purely on G code, as opposed to sliced by myself. However, to quantify that would take some extra work on my part.
RE: VFA Artifacts on X+Y Straight Edges
I agree that the other major change, to the ringing-type artefacts, should hopefully apply to all printers, including my 1.5mm setup.
Not only that, but the intelligent slowing down of the cooling time affects all profiles and creates even surfaces.
The speeds are easy for you to adjust. But if you mostly print in structural profiles anyway, it fits.
The important thing is the result. And if it turns out that I'm happy with the improvements, I'll leave it that way.
If I had converted to 1.5, I wouldn't go to the trouble of rebuilding.
As long as there are no other recognizable disadvantages.
RE:
'While the 3D printing community has identified several potential sources for VFAs, including motor resonance and belt mechanics, our deep analysis of the affected community printers pointed overwhelmingly toward improper belt tension on the CORE One.'
Again - read between the lines. He didn't say the community was wrong about motor resonance and belt mechanics. He's simply saying that the printers they've had back had improper belt tension.
I'll say the same to you mate, that's exactly what he's inferring imo...he's just being diplomatic about it.
RE: VFA Artifacts on X+Y Straight Edges
I honestly don't know if re-slicing the 3mf in the beta with the new profile/settings enabled overrides the speed changes made by the creator of the test mate.
Well I just printed up the core one VFA test print… and I compared it to a prior one that I did and it’s definitely a little bit better. There is absolutely one speed range that utterly sucks… otherwise it’s definitely better.
I used the “balanced” .20mm layering in a .4 mm HF nozzle.
I suppose real question does the G code supersede any of the features they put in the beta version of the slicer?
If you've just used old gcode. it's not going to use any of the new features/profiles recently added in the beta....Gcode is already sliced.
The slicer makes the gcode.So no surprise you haven't seen any changes.
What did make me chuckle is reddit is full of posts about how the new settings/profile have solved VFAs, most of the attached pictures are either matte or filled filaments 😂
I think what Josef said about looking for them with VFA tests is right, all 3d printers (especially Core XY) will show them, its just physics...the task is reducing them to an acceptable level. So maybe the VFA tests are always going to show them to some level or another.
Real world tests are what its all about, so maybe printing that gridfinity bin that @baztm linked to earlier would be a fairer test...plus it means not wasting hours/filament on stuff that's ultimately going to end up the bin.
no, in my case I took the 3MF and re-sliced it… I noted that the G codes for increasing the speed stayed in the overall project but otherwise it got sliced by the new slicer. My comment was more related to wondering, if aside from speed changes the original creator of the VFA test for core one had done anything else other than change speeds. Honestly, there are very clear bands where it is obvious that the printer doesn’t like that speed with respect to VFA. I will say that it’s better than the last one I ran base purely on G code, as opposed to sliced by myself. However, to quantify that would take some extra work on my part.
RE: VFA Artifacts on X+Y Straight Edges
I'll say the same to you mate, that's exactly what he's inferring imo...he's just being diplomatic about it.
Haha - ok, I'm happy to agree to disagree. He can imply all he likes, but if he wanted to say that those things don't have an effect, he could have said so specifically. He didn't. He wanted you to believe that belt tuning is all you need, without going on record to say that motor resonance and belt mechanics don't have an effect.
RE: VFA Artifacts on X+Y Straight Edges
I'll say the same to you mate, that's exactly what he's inferring imo...he's just being diplomatic about it.
Haha - ok, I'm happy to agree to disagree. He can imply all he likes, but if he wanted to say that those things don't have an effect, he could have said so specifically. He didn't. He wanted you to believe that belt tuning is all you need, without going on record to say that motor resonance and belt mechanics don't have an effect.
to be fair… A lot of problems I’ve seen have been related to people building the machines incorrectly (possibly helped by The sometimes very difficult to understand instructions).
however it’s also pretty clear that even with a flawlessly working printer, you get VFA!
RE: VFA Artifacts on X+Y Straight Edges
People should stop using the VFA test tower. I found it was not representative of what I was seeing on real prints. Stick to real models and slicing
RE: VFA Artifacts on X+Y Straight Edges
Yeah i did some test pieces and the results are that well correlating with the VFA tower.
Just for fun i did Input shaper, phase stepping and new 2.9.3 slicer to see if there would be any diffference compared to how it was before, just put together by me, printed some test cubes with a shiny filament in speed and structural (no balanced for the non high flow nozzle 🙁 ) and there were definitely visible VFAs there. Though my printer has always had pretty mild VFAs compared to others in the VFA tower. Will test some more realistic pieces and see how it does. Contrary to the prusa post i found my printer very insensitive to belt tension levels, sloppy or tight to spec gave me the same results pretty much.
RE: VFA Artifacts on X+Y Straight Edges
People should stop using the VFA test tower. I found it was not representative of what I was seeing on real prints. Stick to real models and slicing
The VFA test is only useful to determine the best areas for speed.
Or to evaluate the effects of hardware changes.
On the subject of what Josef may or may not have said. Ultimately, only he knows. We tend to interpret what corresponds to our own opinion.
Ultimately, if what comes out is good, he is right.
But maybe it could be even better?
The future will tell.
RE: VFA Artifacts on X+Y Straight Edges
Yeah i did some test pieces and the results are that well correlating with the VFA tower.
Just for fun i did Input shaper, phase stepping and new 2.9.3 slicer to see if there would be any diffference compared to how it was before, just put together by me, printed some test cubes with a shiny filament in speed and structural (no balanced for the non high flow nozzle 🙁 ) and there were definitely visible VFAs there. Though my printer has always had pretty mild VFAs compared to others in the VFA tower. Will test some more realistic pieces and see how it does. Contrary to the prusa post i found my printer very insensitive to belt tension levels, sloppy or tight to spec gave me the same results pretty much.
Its supposed to say "not well correlating" in regards to the VFA tower, it looked quite different in actual prints, including how the pattern looked like.
RE:
Let's just see how confident (stubborn?) Prusa is in their software fixes when they release their next new printer. I maintain that they would be silly to use GT2 belts. From discussions here already, it seems that many agree that VFAs will still be present. What this means is that if they stick with GT2 belts for future printers and continue to have worse VFA's than Bambu, Qidi, and everyone else who changed spec to GT1.5 belts, it won't be good for them.
There very well may be specific build plate size/belt run correlations for where the various belt pitches resonate better/worse. Prusa has a different build plate size than most others, and it could be that the resonances of a GT2 belt are just a bit more reinforced due to the specific X and Y idler-idler distances on this printer at specific speeds. I can guarantee you that there are core one's at Prusa HQ that are testing GT1.5 belts, and if the results indicated no improvement it would have been stated clearly in these VFA posts.
-J
RE: VFA Artifacts on X+Y Straight Edges
People should stop using the VFA test tower. I found it was not representative of what I was seeing on real prints. Stick to real models and slicing
I really did it purely to see if the updated slicer using the 3M F file would actually any sort of different results.
I will say that the new slicer when slicing a real job actually screwed up the top layer on the print job… So I’m not entirely sure the new slicer is ready for prime time