Difference in G-code formats
Hello,
I have been using PrusaSlicer 2.3 for a year or two now and it worked fine. I decided to update to 2.5 and discovered that my printer (CraftBot Flow IDEX) ir not capable of interpreting the G-code anymore.
The difference it doesn't like is this :
2.3 Output:
;HEIGHT:0.3 G1 Z0.300 F7800.000 G1 E-2.00000 F2400.000
2.5 output:
;HEIGHT:0.3 G1 Z.3 F7800 G1 E-2 F2400
How could I solve this issue?
Thank you!
Best Answer by Neophyl:
You may want to read https://github.com/prusa3d/PrusaSlicer/issues/6996
RE: Difference in G-code formats
You may want to read https://github.com/prusa3d/PrusaSlicer/issues/6996
RE: Difference in G-code formats
You may want to read https://github.com/prusa3d/PrusaSlicer/issues/6996
Geez… I actually made the mistake of reading it and now I wish I could unread it… that whole discussion of whose fault it is or is not only served to increase bring the universe closer to its entropy death. I hope the developers have more important things to focus on — such as the crooked seam lines in 2.5… or--heaven forbid--finally give us a straight line drawing tool for seams and supports.
Formerly known on this forum as @fuchsr -- until all hell broke loose with the forum software...
RE:
If this were my issue, I would be tempted to write a simple script in (insert Your Favorite Programming Language here) and massage the output to conform to what the printer expects.
RE: Difference in G-code formats
The github thread has instructions for doing just that using either the older post processing script method or the newer g-code substitutions that was added to 2.4.x.
In amongst all the back and forth on who's fault it is and who should fix it of course.
RE: Difference in G-code formats
My question would be along the line of what is the official standard?
There's also the established principle of being very explicit about what you emit, and very liberal and forgiving about what you accept.
RE: Difference in G-code formats
From everything that was posted in the thread, Prusa Slicer did change and stop adding the leading zeroes. However according to the specification its allowed to do that as .78 is just as valid as 0.78
The other thing is that of the craftbot printers a different series range can handle the lack of leading zeroes but the Flow range cant. So you have manufacturer firmware that works/doesnt work between their own printers due to them implementing it non consistently.
The Prusa dev's answer was its not their problem, but if the manufacturer wont fix their firmware then you can always use the gcode substitution that is now available as part of PS to add them back in if that's what you want.
RE: Difference in G-code formats
I read the whole thing too, I agree with the standard, and as Neophyl points out prusaslicer at least includes the tools to work with it. There are many such tools in this software. People just have to want to use them.
The Filament Whisperer
RE: Difference in G-code formats
Thanks a lot for the help! I will try out the script approach tomorrow morning.
RE: Difference in G-code formats
Too bad there isn't an option in PS to pipe the output gcode through an external program. (Or is there?)
RE: Difference in G-code formats
Yes JSW there is, that's what the Post Processing scripts section is for. It allows you to call an external program to modify the gcode. Usually this is a python script of some sort but it doesn't have to be.
https://help.prusa3d.com/article/post-processing-scripts_283913
RE: Difference in G-code formats
Thanks, learned something today. I've never had the need to use something like this, but in the case described in this thread, it would make things more transparent. (At least until something else changes.)
Usually this is a python script of some sort but it doesn't have to be.
It works well with perl, this is a simple one of mine if you want an example - sorry about the formatting.
https://forum.prusa3d.com/forum/prusaslicer/manual-multicolor/paged/4/#post-562864
Cheerio,
RE: Difference in G-code formats
Thank you for the help once again. This script fixed my issue Github link