Here's a test print to make sure your 3D printer is calibrated and in good condition

Originally published at:


But what about Benchy? :frowning:


I’ve just had a thought…now bare with me here… I’m sure somebody has already thought this… even probably asked this… but… What if you could print out a 3D printer with the 3D printer…?


I’ll see myself out.

I know this is a joke, but isn’t this the eventual goal of things like the RepRap? At least early on, they were talking about how many parts could be printed on the machines to build a second one.

And I know that at least one of the newer mainstream printer kits has some really crappy parts to start off with and comes with the files to print the better parts to upgrade it to be more accurate / advanced.

I don’t have one of these yet, so I really don’t know But it seems like that was the entire through early on.


Oh, look, someone mashed together all of the common printer calibration tests into one model.

Let’s consider why this is a bad idea.

  1. Using individual tests to tune specific behaviors allows a smaller model to be used which allows faster itteration on testing. I.E. the test/tune loop is shorter.
  2. Parameters effecting one section of this model don’t have much influence on others, so there is little benefit to combinging individual models.
  3. Cooling and other behaviors of printers can be directional, so the bridging way work well when done in the Y direction, but be poor in the X, so you need to run that tuning step with different orientations of the model. If you have a combined model meant to have a fixed X/Y orientation, you can’t test that. If you rotate such a model, you lose any validity of the other orientation dependent subtests–for example the inset ringing test only makes sense if it is run in the X or Y axis. Rotating that 45 degrees renders it useless. That wastes time and plastic.

Okay, enough posting, I need to get back to tuning a printer.


“MC Escher is my favorite MC!”
-Weird Al Yankovic, White and Nerdy

1 Like

There are plenty of these test objects on Thingiverse already.

I’ve personally used the last one a few times because it’s small and tells me what I need to know.


Are consumer-level 3D printers well past the point where something like this can be readily produced? I’ve used some at the local Makerspace, but they have trained people who presumably know what they’re doing to keep everything maintained.

I recall this particular lament at Slate, but it’s four years old now and things probably have changed.

There are already a ton of models available which cover all of these tests in one. They’ve been around for years. Struggling to see what this brings to the table which makes it linkworthy.

1 Like

This isn’t a 3D printer test.

That’s the DEVO tribute fountain, Grace Park, Akron, OH.

1 Like

My benchmarking is pretty simple.

Print a 2cm cube. Did it actually come out cubic? Is it two centimeters in each dimension?

Then I print a benchy. Does the roof and windows bridge? Do the overhangs look decent?

There are lots of people who seem to only use their printers for tweaking settings and printing calibration objects. I am not one of those.

1 Like

I like the idea that as I walk into my local 3D printer, one of these will be sitting on a shelf with a marker board stating something like “printed … 3… days ago”. As a form of guarantee that they keep a tab on themselves.

Without guidance on which of the ~100 printer settings to change, and in which direction, this ends up being more of an illustration of “Things this printer will not do.”

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.