In calibrating my Ender 5 to run Klipper as well as it can, I’ve made some rookie 101 errors; some real boners.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:“none”,“data-size”:“custom”,“height”:“442”,“width”:“201”,“data-attachmentid”:12787}[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:“none”,“data-size”:“custom”,“height”:“440”,“width”:“200”,“data-attachmentid”:12788}[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:“none”,“data-size”:“custom”,“height”:“439”,“width”:“200”,“data-attachmentid”:12789}[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:“none”,“data-size”:“custom”,“height”:“438”,“width”:“199”,“data-attachmentid”:12790}[/ATTACH]
The images above show 3 versions of the Klipper Input Shaper calibration model, insides and outsides.
The top of the images shows the model printed with my normal Cura settings for PETG. WRONG! This model is design specifically to be printed with a line width that’s 75% of the nozzle diameter. So, for a 0.4mm nozzle it would be a line width of 0.3mm. My normal Cural profile uses a line width of 0.12mm or 0.16mm. You can see the results are, uh, not so good shall we say. The odd thing is that I used exactly the same settings and printed the model in the carbon fiber black PETG I’ve talked about before, and it printed perfectly! Gotta luv that filament – so forgiving.
The middle of the images shows the model printed after I realized my stupidity over the line width. But despite the line width being 0.3mm, there was an odd difference in sheen from the bottom to the top. I scratched my head for a while and then clicked on that annoying little red number circle at the bottom of the Cura window. Sure enough, it told me I had a bunch of Post Processing scripts active. These were scripts I used to change to nozzle temp when I printed a temperature tower. Duh, stupid mistake #2.
The bottom of the images shows the model printed correctly: 0.3mm line width; no scripts active. Looks just a tad better, wouldn’t you say?
Bottom line? Pay attention to the details, and Read The Fine Manual.
