Chroma tower size



  • Avatar
    Adalyn O

    Hey Jermaul, I'll reach out to our CANVAS technical lead for your question. Some of the team is away for the holidays but once they're available I'm sure they'll be able to shed some light on this for you.

    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Jermaul West

    Thank you. Its more chroma support.
    I would like the chroma tower to be smaller like the canvas one.
    They seem to use the same amount of filament. Just that chroma is lager and is taking up more space on the bed

    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Brandon Bloch

    (TL;DR at bottom)

    Hey Jermaul,

    Good question! I'm not sure I have a satisfactory answer but I'll do my best:

    In terms of generating transition sequences, Chroma and CANVAS have very similar goals. However, the approaches they each use are qute different. Let's focus just on transition towers. In roughly this order (it's less linear in practice), transition towers are designed to:

    1. be physically printable
    2. actually transition between the filaments in your extruder
    3. provide somewhere for ping sequences to occur
    4. influence print quality and Palette calibration as little as possible
    5. use the least amount of material possible
    6. use the least physical space possible

    (2), (3), (5), and (6) are fairly self-explanatory, so let's focus on the other two.

    Towers need to be printable and not ruin a print, either by coming off the bed (this is more common when under-extruding) or by significantly influencing extrusion and flow characteristics to the point where calibration goes off (this is more common when over-extruding). Basically, we want to match the settings in the rest of your print, the assumption being that users have dialed their settings in enough to get consistently good results.

    CANVAS makes this trivial, since we're working within the slicer and have all the geometry, extrusion settings, and transition information to generate toolpaths for the tower that "perfectly" match the rest of the print (of course some settings have more specialized handling, like the density of each tower layer, but I think you'll know what I mean).

    Chroma, on the other hand, has none of this information. Instead, it analyzes the entirety of your print and uses some statistical techniques and witchcraft to calculate all of it, so that it can generate as close to an ideal toolpath as possible. This approach works very well and has been refined significantly over Chroma's lifetime to become quite reliable, but it is not foolproof. Nor will it ever be perfect for every user with every conceivable setup.


    The fact that Chroma is working with one hand tied behind its back and one eye closed means it might be slightly off. CANVAS has the information necessary to be much smarter, eliminate the "guesswork" (and the 1% of edge cases where Chroma's approaches don't cut it), and thus create the ideal result every time.

    I hope that helps!


    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.