Did you check the machine parameters?
Look at C:\Program Files\Snapmaker Luban\resources\app\resources\CuraEngine\Config\snapmaker.def.json
, or the equivalent location if you’re not on Windows.
The machine parameters used for time estimation are as follows:
"machine_max_acceleration_x": {
"default_value": 1000
},
"machine_max_acceleration_y": {
"default_value": 1000
},
"machine_max_acceleration_z": {
"default_value": 1000
},
"machine_max_acceleration_e": {
"default_value": 1000
},
"machine_acceleration": {
"default_value": 1000
},
Verify you’ve configured Cura to use the same parameters. The default max acceleration in my instance of Cura is 3000mm/s/s, faster than the 1000 in the Luban configuration, and as such will shave time off the estimated print time.
Note this is purely academic and will not affect actual print times.
Since Luban uses an embedded Cura instance, located in .\resources\app\resources\CuraEngine
, there are no differences in the gcode because the only difference is in the machine maximum acceleration template. This does not explain why you would be experiencing a quality difference printing 2 identical files.
However, the presence of a 10 degree print temperature difference between the two files will explain quality difference. Additionally, the lack of a heated bed set temperature is not trivial, and will also result in quality differences.
The comments time estimate lines are not executed and do not affect the output. If you’d like to test this simply delete all lines in the gcode file starting with the semicolon comment character. The resulting files will be identical except for the discrepancies I listed.
I did a diff after removing non-executed comment lines and here is the result:
The only differences are as follows, with snapmaker generated gcode on the right:
Note one of the final lines of the snapmaker gcode:
G1 Z125 E-1 F{speed_travel} ;move Z up a bit and retract filament even more
is an invalid gcode command.