BLUF: where did all the filament profiles go that are loaded to the .4 nozzle when switching to .6?
Situation: I am getting constant print failures trying to use PETG-CF including but not limited to, jams, clogs, stringing, excessive bed adhesion. I just this morning realized that PETG-CF has a measurable amount of temperature different for the print nozzle. This profile should be consistent with all nozzle sizes.
Background: I’m running a stock K2 Pro, switched to a .06 nozzle in order to attempt to combat nozzle clog with PETG-CF filament. Brand new extruder drive and nozzle.
Assessment: There are no print profiles for PETG-CF under the .6 nozzle profile.
Recommendation: Updating the filament profile to accept the generic filament settings as is in the .4 nozzle settings.
This does not look like an accident. It looks like Creality made a deliberate choice to ship hardware faster than they were willing to support it with finished software, validated slicer profiles, and clean material/nozzle handling.
PETG-CF with a 0.6 mm nozzle is not some obscure edge case. It is one of the most predictable use cases for a carbon-filled filament. If Creality sells the machine, supports the nozzle, promotes engineering materials, and ships their own fork of Orca Slicer, then missing PETG-CF profiles under the 0.6 mm nozzle profile is not a small oversight. It is a product support failure.
This is Creality’s chabuduo approach in full view: close enough to sell, incomplete enough to frustrate, and sloppy enough that the customer ends up doing unpaid QA.
The slicer should not behave like a scavenger hunt. Profiles should not vanish because the nozzle profile changed. If Creality has not validated PETG-CF for the 0.6 mm nozzle, they should say that clearly. If they have validated it, the profile should be there. What they are doing instead is worse: they leave users stuck in the gap between marketing claims and half-maintained software.
Their fork of Orca Slicer is the bigger issue. Creality took mature open-source slicer work, wrapped it in their own branding, then failed to maintain the boring but necessary parts: complete filament presets, nozzle-specific profiles, profile inheritance, material compatibility, and clear warnings when a combination is unsupported. That is not innovation. That is packaging someone else’s work and neglecting the finishing work customers actually need.
And no, users should not have to manually copy 0.4 mm PETG-CF settings into a 0.6 mm nozzle setup and hope for the best. A 0.6 mm nozzle changes flow behavior, line width, pressure advance, retraction, cooling, and speed limits. Creality knows this. They simply did not do the work.
This is not a user error. This is not a learning-curve issue. This is Creality shipping a half-finished ecosystem and letting customers discover the holes one failed print at a time.
I agree from the stance of a sustems development. It sucks that i had to spend multiple failed prints to realize how to make a patch for something that should so obviously have been stock.
Creality does seem to only really dial in the .4 profiles - I found that issue when I tried to use a .6 on my Ender5Max. It would be nice to see them improve the .6 and .8 profiles (and .2 for some machines)