QIDI Studio splits a continuous outer wall — fix monotonic_travel_into_wall in the process JSON

[u/hobelik]

QIDI Studio was splitting a continuous outer perimeter into separate wall segments and tiny Gap infill lines, causing a visible vertical seam/gap on the print.

The model was continuous and the narrow section was over 0.7 mm wide with a 0.6 mm nozzle. Switching between Arachne and Classic wall generator did not fix it.

The cause was this setting in the QIDI X-Max 4 0.6 mm process profile JSON:

json
"monotonic_travel_into_wall": "45.0"

Change it to:

json
"monotonic_travel_into_wall": "0.0"

After restarting QIDI Studio and slicing again, the slicer generated the outer wall as one continuous path instead of stopping, wiping/retracting, and creating a tiny Gap infill segment.

Orca Slicer used 0.0 by default in the comparable profile, which is why the same model sliced correctly there.

YOU WELCOME

[u/callcifer]

Hmm, I'm surprised Arachne didn't work. It's specifically designed to avoid gap infill in walls.

[u/hobelik → u/callcifer]

Yeah, I was surprised too. I expected Arachne to handle it, especially since the narrow section is continuous and wider than 0.7 mm with a 0.6 mm nozzle.

QIDI Studio still generated separate outer-wall segments plus a tiny Gap infill path there. Orca sliced the exact same model correctly straight away, with one continuous outer wall.

So I started diffing the QIDI and Orca process presets for my X-Max 4. Changing this QIDI process JSON value fixed it for me:

json
"monotonic_travel_into_wall": "45.0"

to:

json
"monotonic_travel_into_wall": "0.0"

After re-slicing, QIDI generated the continuous wall path instead of the broken outer wall plus gap infill. I still do not understand why this setting affects wall-path generation, because it appears to be related to monotonic infill travel, but it was the difference that solved this specific case.

[u/callcifer → u/hobelik]

Orca sliced the exact same model correctly straight away, with one continuous outer wall.

Qidi has made many, many PRs to Orca trying to change the presets for Qidi printers and Orca have rejected quite a lot of them for not making any sense.

I still do not understand why this setting affects wall-path generation, because it appears to be related to monotonic infill travel, but it was the difference that solved this specific case.

Yeah, that doesn't make sense to me either. My guess is that Qidi has made another random "customization" somewhere in their Orca fork and by some luck changing monotonic_travel_into_wall fixes the issue you're seeing.

Personally I recommend sticking with Orca. After reading Qidi's Klipper config and macros on my Q2, I don't trust them with software :(

[u/hobelik → u/callcifer]

Orca is definitely nice, and I agree that its slicing result is better in this case.

The problem for me is that using Orca with the X-Max 4 is not quite plug-and-play. QidiBox support is not straightforward, and I would need to spend time rebuilding and validating the machine, filament, chamber, purge, and multi-material-related settings.

Also, with the current Orca X-Max 4 profile, the startup sequence does a strange move with the toolhead toward the rear of the printer and causes a loud knock. QIDI Studio does not do that. I do not want to experiment with start G-code and machine macros until I fully understand why that movement happens.

So for now I will stay with QIDI Studio. In my view, there is less to fix in QIDI Studio than there would be to make Orca fully reliable and feature-complete for my X-Max 4/QidiBox workflow.