Split "XY Size Compensation" into two settings: one for interior perimeters/holes and one for exterior perimeters

[doomsed]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
It is frustrating that when I need to fine tune hole sizing, the current X-Y compensation setting also changes the overall part dimensions. This is often not desirable. There are many reasons that convex and concave paths can behave differently (model export faceting, printer XY resolution, material viscosity, radius of curvature, print speed, etc)

Describe the solution you'd like
Split "XY Size Compensation" into two settings:

• "XY Size Compensation for interior perimeters"
• "XY Size Compensation for exterior perimeters"

Describe how it would work
All perimeter boundaries are necessarily closed loops.
If the part/print-side of the boundary is inside the closed loop, use the exterior XY Size Compensation setting.
If the part/print-side of the boundary is outside the closed loop, use the interior XY Size Compensation setting.

Describe alternatives you've considered

• The least desirable alternative is to bake the compensation into the design. This is not as friendly when exporting models that may be used on different printers/slicers, but sometimes it is necessary for personal use. It is even more cumbersome when using a model of someone else's design.
• Another alternative could be to have a separate XY Size Compensation setting for features smaller than a user set threshold (similar to Small Perimeter Speed). This addresses issues with overall part size but still captures small "pins" and "towers" alongside "holes" for compensation.
• The dream XY Compensation feature would be separate settings for Concave vs Convex perimeter sections (possibly triggering or scaling with radius of curvature) irrespective of whether they are interior or exterior to the part. This way curves can be inflated/deflated independently from linear paths, but that may be more cumbersome to implement.

Additional context
Raise3D ideaMaker Implements this as "XY Size Compensation For Holes" and "XY Size Compensation For Contours" (see image)

[neophyl]

Please search for existing issues before opening duplicates. This has been requested many times already.
for example #4561
all the way back to #515 in 2017

its in both Super slicer - here is a request to port it back to PS
#4561

and also in Orca (which took it from SuperSlicer) and here is one requesting back porting it from that.
#12701

[bryn51]

Please search for existing issues before opening duplicates. This has been requested many times already. for example #4561 all the way back to #515 in 2017

Yes, that is true, but never once has there been a positive response from development team of someone willing to address the issue of inaccurate hole diameters in the final printed product. Surely its time someone bit the bullet and actually tackled the problem. Its been an issue for years !! So far as I can see alll that happens is that someone like the OP of this thread puts up the issue (again) and is always told there are various other retired reports that also cited the issue as a repeat. Thats because it never gets addressed. So darn it : Address the issue directly and put it on the development list !!

To be clear, I do not care if some other slicers (Orca, Super slicer, Bambu et al) also have the same problem. That's not a valid excuse to not addressing it in Prusa Slicer.

The fact is that when accurate holes sizing is a requirement, it can be a laborious task to either:
a) drill the holes AFTER printing using an accurate drill size. This might work for common integer drill sizes, but the fractional drills are hard/expensive to buy and when you have a large quantity of products, its laborious to have to drill out every hole. All this affects productivity, particularly in production runs.
b) make a test print, assess the resultant hole diameters as best possible using calipers, then take the source model into (say) Fusion, then convert the model to brep, then upsize all the hole diameters by the measured amount of inaccuracy, in the process make certain to properly align the hole center. This can be more efficient on a production run, but not everyone has the right licence of Fusion to convert meshes to brep, and the skill in using it is not common.
I note that the issue affects different sized holes to a differing degree.
c) just ignore the issue and use a screw to make the hole fit by forcing it. Some customers will not accept this solution. Not every Prusa owner is a prusa schill and willing to accept whatever they provide and accept the status quo. Folks not able to make their own 3d print come to those who do and just want a print of acceptable quality of accurate dimensions - not tolerant of excuses.

So, with the goal to always improve the Prusa Printers against the competition, it would be nice if Prusa Slicer could be applied to automatically deal with both circular and oval holes in any orientation and make the diameter(s) come out the same size as the original model. It would also be nice if the development team would cease patronising users of the software and fob them off with excuses or just plain refusal to spend the time needed to fix the issue.
Given that Prusa Slicer (measurement tool) already knows the diameter of circular holes, this seems not too much to ask. Some allowance needs to be made for (i) extrusion width and (ii) interpolation of the polygon representation of circles in an STL mesh of variable resolution. (and perhaps other factors noted by the OP of this thread.