Hello AMT_MW, To be honest, I haven't even considered your project that you posted on Printables, and even if I had, you haven't published anything about it here on MakerWord. There was another guy who had posted something similar to yours and marked it as "public domain." Checking your project, you also modify the printer's Gcode to print it. The main issue is that yours, like the other guy's, doesn't work, as the slicer doesn't allow you to print it, rendering the file useless! That being said, it doesn't take a degree to create a 0.2mm high rectangle on Fusion360 😅. I've been using this method privately for a while, but since MakerWord came out, I decided to make it public. I don't think it's plagiarism at all, as the printing process on yours is quite different. Regarding the purge calculation, in your file and the other guy's, the method is the same, as it is in other files on Printables as well. In any case, your file modifies the Gcode, mine doesn't. So I don't understand why you identify it as plagiarism.

If, despite my explanation and considerations regarding the project's development, it still causes you discomfort (even though, to me, it wouldn't make sense since they function in two different ways), I can still modify the project and turn it into a remix of yours. If that's not possible, I can mention you in the description. But, as I mentioned, it doesn't seem like plagiarism to me at all.

The formatting may look awful but I am answering point by point. "To be honest, I haven't even considered your project that you posted on Printables, and even if I had, you haven't published anything about it here on MakerWord." • With the similarities found, I honestly have my doubts. I don't get the point of the platform used for an upload. "There was another guy who had posted something similar to yours and marked it as "public domain." " • What is the argument here? Analogous to mine or in parts literally the same is way different. - But would want to comment on “public domain”: It does not have to translate to “grab it, forget about who made it and run with it”. Example: Peter Farell might have chosen a license without reserving him any rights for his Octo Skull which you published here on Makerworld, but mentioning him while gaining benefits with his design would show good manners. "Checking your project, you also modify the printer's Gcode to print it." • That “also” is the keyword here. It simply is not necessary, the file and pattern is what I included to support the usage of my G-code. "The main issue is that yours, like the other guy's, doesn't work, as the slicer doesn't allow you to print it, rendering the file useless!" • So from your point of view the choice of a slicer is a determining factor?! I did include a simple file and described a certain method, exactly what is to be found in your upload here. Same geometry, same methodology, …, just what I described now slicer ready for Bambu Studio instead of OrcaSlicer and having a different initial offset. "That being said, it doesn't take a degree to create a 0.2mm high rectangle on Fusion360 😅." • Fair enough, even bigger things have been made/invented in parallel all the time. But usually one idea isn’t similar to one specific useful part of the other and at that awfully similar down to a nail. "I've been using this method privately for a while, but since MakerWord came out, I decided to make it public." • Nice, sharing is caring. Otherwise contains no argument. "I don't think it's plagiarism at all, as the printing process on yours is quite different." • At what point is it quite different? - For the calibration print the difference boils down to a different number to be noted as offset, literally everything else for the print is the same just rearranged. "Regarding the purge calculation, in your file and the other guy's, the method is the same, as it is in other files on Printables as well." • Second time you mention some other guy. Since I published my version I have seen a lot of different calibration prints/pattern pop up, I am aware of others that came before me as well. But again, none was that similar. "In any case, your file modifies the Gcode, mine doesn't." • One part of my upload is a modified G-code, another part is the calibration - and that is what your upload here is awfully similar to. "So I don't understand why you identify it as plagiarism." • With the risk of repeating myself: Because of the similarities and you even proudly pointing out in your description that no G-code change is required. - Who do you achieve this advantage over? The single upload that does this, with the same calibration file and methodology for it, that happens to be my upload months ago?! "If, despite my explanation and considerations regarding the project's development, it still causes you discomfort (even though, to me, it wouldn't make sense since they function in two different ways), I can still modify the project and turn it into a remix of yours. If that's not possible, I can mention you in the description. But, as I mentioned, it doesn't seem like plagiarism to me at all." • Yes, it still causes discomfort. Look Thomas, I am upset because your upload is way too similar compared to mine to be the result of pure coincidence. What your, mine and everyone else's upload with the intent to calibrate the flushing volumes actually is, is Bambu Lab’s homework which they still haven’t delivered on and once they do, our stuff is obsolete. If I had found an upload that simply had different/improved files, maybe mentioned where the idea for that upload came from and (if the inspiration indeed came from it) at best gave a link to the further going G-code upgrade, I may have embraced it like I did with other work derived from mine. There is no option to designate it as remix because my original does not allow remixes and for a somewhat related slough of reasons I am not changing that atm. Do as you please, I made my point, Makerworld seems to be not too interested and the only consequence will be people like me thinking twice if they are willing to share in future.

Thank you for the feedback. I'll try to respond, hoping I understood your question correctly. It was designed to affirm more or less color changes based on the current need. For example, if I have to make color changes like from gray to green or from gray to blue, fewer rectangles will be needed compared to the change from black to white or vice versa, just to give an example. This happens, as you say, based on the type of color used. It can be used with any material; you just need to set in the slicer which materials you are using. At the moment, unfortunately, Bambustudio doesn't have the ability to save the purges for color changes in the various possible combinations. I think this is a huge drawback. I am in the same situation as you, as I have a lot of colors available. One method I have thought of is creating an Excel spreadsheet where I have noted all the color changes I have tested so far. When needed, I refer to the corresponding entry on the Excel sheet. I know it's not a very practical method, but it's the only solution I found to remember everything. I hope I answered your question; if not, try phrasing it differently. I'm not a native English speaker, so I might not have fully understood your query.

you've answered it brilliantly, thanks for thay! Unfortunately this means additional bookkeeping to become less wasteful. It is what it is, I'm already super happy with your approach. Much appreciated 👍🏽

I'm glad you liked it. It would be nice to reach as many people as possible because it's a very useful tool, after all. Unfortunately, it hasn't gained the visibility I was hoping for. Let's see in the future if we can share it better.