Official Neptune 4 profiles seems to be incorrect

[maxpare79]

Why did they issue an official Neptune 4 profile with totally messed up speeds? All the speeds and accelerationsare way too slow for the machine capacity, so what was actually done when they created this profile? Only a bed size? I just wonder if this profile can be trusted and was it tested?

[S3D-Jason]

What speeds did you want to print at? We've seen quite a few recent printers that claimed to be able to print a bit faster than reality, so we tend to use conservative speeds for some profiles. Thankfully, the software was setup so that you can adjust all of your speeds with a single change in the process settings (everything is based off of the "Default Printing Speed", so that's the only input you need to change to speed everything up).

And yes, I know the profile has been tested and is already in use by many other S3D customers. However, we constantly update profiles over time, so if you're wanting to see a specific change for the future, certainly let us know!

[WF55]

Why did they issue an official Neptune 4 profile with totally messed up speeds? All the speeds and accelerationsare way too slow for the machine capacity, so what was actually done when they created this profile? Only a bed size? I just wonder if this profile can be trusted and was it tested?

I can just agree with it. The published Neptune4 profile is a joke. No possibilities of the new printer were taken into account.
The output of "thumbnail images" still doesn't work, although this has already been mentioned several times in the forum.

[S3D-Jason]

See above. The stock profile uses conservative speeds, but you can adjust it to whatever you want with a single setting.

Curious, what speeds have you been using that are so different?

[WF55]

See above. The stock profile uses conservative speeds, but you can adjust it to whatever you want with a single setting.

Curious, what speeds have you been using that are so different?

I had already asked about this elsewhere. I print at 150 mm/s. Simply changing the “Default Printing Speed” is not enough. For example, no good support structures will then be printed.

I believe that the "Neptune4 profile" was never tested by you on a real printer.

Unfortunately you didn't answer the question about problem with the "thumbnail images". The problem has been known for a long time.

[S3D-Jason]

We don't release a profile until it has been tested. So yes, the Neptune 4 profile was definitely tested and I know for a fact that we have many other customers using it successfully.

Looking at your photos, it definitely seems like there is something else more significantly wrong than just speed settings. Can you post the 2 gcode files that you printed for those tests?

[WF55]

Looking at your photos, it definitely seems like there is something else more significantly wrong than just speed settings. Can you post the 2 gcode files that you printed for those tests?

We have already discussed the problem here: viewtopic.php?t=23213
I had already increased the printing temperature by around 10 K before.
I helped myself by increasing the "infill extrusion width" to 130%. I had to reduce all other speeds to the values for a normal printer at 60 mm/s.

Another disadvantage is that you can not simply change the "Speeds" to "Percentage" or "Absolute", as is the case with the "Layer Units".
That's pretty much how it works. But I don't know if this is all right and optimal. But that's what I expect from a professionally created profile. Nobody buys a printer that can print up to 500 mm/s in order to print at 50 ... 60 mm/s, as the "Elegoo Neptune4 profile" provides. The people at S3D can't expect me to have to use other software to get the data for S3d. I simply don't have the detailed knowledge, especially since the terms are not standardized. As a precaution, I don't try higher speeds above 150 ... 175 mm/s with S3D.

By the way there is always no answer regarding the "thumbnail images". As you wrote, the profile has been tested.

[S3D-Jason]

Ah, I see. So the photo you posted above is from the print you had done where the 2 software were printing at very different speeds?

In that case, I think it might be best to wait and hear from the OP to see what his experience has been. You can continue discussing your issue in the thread you already created since we've already provided a few suggestions there.