Druckzeit U1 vs. P1S

Hello,

I have the P1S and the U1. For a project, I will be printing a few aluminum profile parts.

For the first test, I printed a 40x40 profile with 100mm length on both printers.

The P1S took 2 hours 12 minutes, and the U1 took 3 hours 9 minutes, even though all values for speeds, accelerations, retraction, and filament are identical.

The actual print time on the P1S was accurate to the minute. The U1 took over an hour longer.

Does anyone have an idea what could be causing this? The movements also appear smoother on the P1S compared to the U1.

I have attached the profile as an STL.

mi_40x40l_i8.stl (330.6 KB)

There is a new firmware for the U1 that I think addresses the issue, have you downloaded it yet? If not, perhaps update and then run tests again? I’m curious loool.

Whats about the layer height? Cannot Imagine that the u1 needs nearly twice with same settings.

I have checked all settings multiple times. I also restarted Snapmaker Orca several times and selected the 0.2 Standard print profile. I adjusted the few settings that differ from the Bambu Studio 0.2mm Standard. Both filament maximum volumetric speeds were set to 21. There was no influence from the minimum layer duration. The machine speed settings did not differ. Acceleration and feed rates had identical values.

The P1S produces a noticeably more dynamic first layer. I ran this part simultaneously on both printers.

I received this message about the firmware update yesterday. However, the slicer already displays this time difference.

If you still have issues, you can also contact technical support.

You can submit a ticket at the same time in case the technical staff or fellow users in the forum don’t respond promptly.

In my analysis of the different print times, I first noticed that Bambu Studio defaults to using G2/G3 arc movements, while Snapmaker Orca, by default, breaks curves exclusively into G1 segments.

Although Snapmaker Orca does offer the option “Print as Arc”, which generates G2/G3 movements, this option is disabled by default. After enabling it, I observed a noticeable time advantage, yet the print time still does not approach that of Bambu Studio.

I therefore investigated further, as reproducible differences in print times occurred between Bambu Studio and Snapmaker Orca, despite identical speeds and comparable print parameters. The difference does not appear random but rather stems from the way G-code is generated.

Notably, the affected part consists almost entirely of continuous radii. For such geometries, print time depends less on the set speed and more on how the slicer breaks these radii into motion segments.

When comparing the generated G-code, I observed that the G-code produced by Bambu Studio contains significantly fewer lines (≈ 370,000 lines), while the G-code generated by Snapmaker Orca for the same part comprises over 1,000,000 lines.
This significantly increased number of segments forces the motion planner to constantly re-accelerate and decelerate on highly segmented paths, substantially reducing the effective average speed—despite identical F-values.

As a control test, I constructed the same profile using only straight segments, without any radii. In this case, the print times of Bambu Studio and Snapmaker Orca were very close, sometimes nearly identical.

I also suspect that G2/G3 arcs are internally broken down into G1 segments by Klipper, since even after enabling the “Print as Arc” option, although a clear time gain is measurable, the segment count and print time remain significantly higher than Bambu Studio’s level. This suggests that the advantage arises less from continuous arcs and more from a more favorable, planner-friendly segmentation within the firmware.

I would be interested to know whether others have made similar observations or can provide deeper insights into Klipper’s behavior when G2/G3 commands are enabled.

I’ve passed it to the embedded team—thanks for the suggestion!! If you notice anything else, feel free to keep posting on the forum!!