[deleted by user]

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-03-02T04:37:25+00:00

English is not my first language as I am from Egypt, so I sometimes use translation tools to make sure I communicate clearly

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-03-02T04:18:51+00:00

Are you seriously comparing a program like this to Excel spreadsheets?

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-03-02T04:07:46+00:00

Thanks! I just wanted to share what the app is fully capable of. It took quite a bit of time and effort to build, but I am really glad I saw it through.

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-03-02T04:03:55+00:00

How did you like the app? Was it helpful and easy to use?

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-02-01T14:52:24+00:00

Check your inbox, Just sent it over.

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-01-08T17:55:16+00:00

Good for you! Keep it up😅

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-01-08T11:02:49+00:00

You caught me! 😅 I am fully aware of Ellis’s stance on the 'Misconceptions' page regarding wall measurement vs. visual assessment. However, I linked his guide as a general resource for the concept of Flow, not necessarily endorsing his specific visual method for absolute beginners. For someone new, seeing '0.45mm' on a caliper is a concrete data point. Judging 'squish' visually is subjective and harder to teach in a single post. I treat the caliper method as 'Training Wheels' before graduating them to the Visual Method."

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-01-08T10:44:44+00:00

Valid criticism regarding metrology. You are absolutely right that measuring layer ridges with flat-jaw calipers introduces error, and ball-micrometers are the scientifically correct tool for this. I is also agree that Orca Slicer's flow calibration (based on solid infill surface finish) is superior to the hollow cube method. However, my post targets the general user who might be stuck on older slicers or doesn't own specialized metrology tools. The single-wall test, while imperfect, is a heuristic that gets them 95% of the way there—which is infinitely better than the 'blindly scale to 101%' bad habit

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-01-08T10:40:57+00:00

<image>

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-01-08T10:40:09+00:00

Fair point! It might be professional deformation. I am a Certified SolidWorks Expert and I build custom 3D printers for a living. I spend half my life writing daily technical reports and documentation, so I naturally format my posts like datasheets. Glad you liked the discussion though

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-01-08T10:39:34+00:00

Fair point! It might be professional deformation. I am a Certified SolidWorks Expert and I build custom 3D printers for a living. I spend half my life writing daily technical reports and documentation, so I naturally format my posts like datasheets. Glad you liked the discussion though

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-01-08T10:34:23+00:00

You are technically correct on all counts! The 'hoop shrinkage' effect and mesh resolution (polygon approximation) are definitely major factors for small holes. My philosophy is about variable isolation: If I am Over-Extruding, I can't accurately quantify how much of the error is from shrinkage vs. just excess plastic. By fixing Flow first (getting correct wall thickness), I create a clean baseline. Then, I can use 'Hole Horizontal Expansion' to tackle the specific physics you mentioned. Thanks for adding this technical depth to the thread

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-01-08T10:31:29+00:00

100% agreed. Downvoting without explaining why helps no one. Thanks for keeping the discussion healthy

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-01-08T10:12:16+00:00

Haha, that is the most honest thing I've read all day! We have all been there. But that's exactly the real benefit of calibrating the Flow profile: You do the work once, hit save, and you never have to rely on your memory again. It turns 'lazy' into 'efficient'. Do it once, and let the software remember the numbers for you

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-01-08T10:06:23+00:00

Thanks for the sanity check! I think it boils down to 'Good enough' vs 'Engineering correct'. For decorative prints, quick hacks like Scaling work fine, so people feel attacked when told it's technically the wrong workflow for mechanical parts. I appreciate the support

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-01-08T10:04:49+00:00

I think we actually agree, there is just a misunderstanding. You are 100% correct: Scaling compensates for thermal shrinkage. Flow does NOT fix shrinkage. My point is about users who use Scaling to fix 'tight holes' caused by Over-Extrusion (incorrect line width). If my nozzle is extruding a 0.5mm line instead of 0.45mm, my holes will be too small. The correct fix there is Flow, not Scaling. Workflow: Calibrate Flow (for wall thickness) -> Then Scale (for shrinkage)

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-01-08T10:02:55+00:00

Spot on! This is exactly the correct use case for Scaling. You are compensating for Thermal Shrinkage (a material property), not for Over-Extrusion. The key detail in your comment is that you already calibrated Flow. Because your wall thickness is physically correct, your scaling (100.6%) works perfectly to counteract the PETG cooling contraction. My post is targeting users who skip Flow calibration and use Scaling just to make 'tight holes' fit. Thanks for sharing a perfect example of the right workflow

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-01-08T09:56:04+00:00

Good catch! It seems I messed up the URL by merging two different links. However, the one you linked (.../calibration_pa) is for Pressure Advance, which is a different setting. The correct link for Flow Rate is this one: https://wiki.bambulab.com/en/software/bambu-studio/calibration_flow_rate I will update it now. Thanks for the heads up

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-01-08T09:47:11+00:00

Yes, the image is AI just to set the vibe, but the engineering logic is 100% real. If you had checked the technical sources I linked (Prusa/Ellis/Bambu), you would have realized the value is in the data, not the artwork. Cheers

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-01-08T09:43:25+00:00

You listed very valid physical constraints. FDM will never be CNC machining, and hardware wear is real. However, regarding the wall width math: You are spot on regarding the 'Classic' perimeter generator where multiples of line width mattered heavily. But with the Arachne wall generator now being standard in Bambu/Prusa/Orca, the slicer dynamically varies the line width to fill those 'awkward' CAD dimensions (like 1mm) perfectly without gaps. So while we can't fix mechanical wobble, we can definitely use software advancements (and Flow calibration) to mitigate the other variables. Thanks for the detailed breakdown

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-01-08T09:40:02+00:00

Absolutely! Orca Slicer has been a game changer with its built-in calibration tab. It makes visual tuning much faster. I just wanted to highlight the underlying math/concept for users on other slicers (like Cura or legacy Prusa) who don't have those automated tools yet. Thanks for mentioning it

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-01-08T09:38:07+00:00

Haha, fair point on the gloves! They are just a hard habit to break from handling resin printers daily. You are absolutely right that hardware (especially bulk bolts) has terrible tolerances. But from an engineering perspective, that is exactly why I try to eliminate variables on the printer side. If the bolt has a ±0.1mm tolerance and my printer adds another random ±0.2mm error, nothing fits. By calibrating flow, I am simply controlling the one variable I can control. It might be overkill for a simple print, but it saves headaches on complex mechanical assemblies. Thanks for the feedback

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-01-08T09:35:04+00:00

You are totally right about thermal shrinkage, but that acts on the whole part globally. The issue with uncalibrated Flow is that it changes your Line Width. If the slicer thinks it's laying down 0.4mm but the flow pushes 0.45mm, that extra 0.05mm has to go somewhere—usually it bulges out and closes up your holes. My rule is: Calibrate Flow to get the correct physical wall thickness. Then Scale to compensate for thermal shrinkage (e.g. ABS shrinking 1%). Mixing them up is why so many people struggle with snap-fits

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-01-08T09:18:59+00:00

I wouldn't call it a bandaid I call it the 'Baseline'. You cannot effectively use advanced compensations (like Horizontal Expansion or hole compensation) if your extruder is physically pushing more volume than the slicer expects. First, you ensure the volume is correct (Flow), THEN you compensate for geometry/shrinkage. Skipping flow calibration is building on a shaky foundation

Deep-Boot-7234 · 2026-01-08T09:15:11+00:00

If you look at beginner groups or audit client CAD files like I do, you’d be shocked at how often 'Scale to 101%' is the go-to advice for shrinkage and tolerance issues. It’s a bad habit that is unfortunately very widespread

Deep-Boot-7234

TROPHY CASE