i found disc 3 and 4 are wrong. I dont understand enough of the programming to suggest any correction,  Disc 0, 1, 2, are perfect. i havent been able to test 5 or 6. anyone else agree?

Can you elaborate what you mean by the discs are wrong? I've successfully replicated a key and opened a 9 disc lock with it so the bitting in my instance must have been correct.

Probably better than the comments here would be to open an issue on the GitHub at https://github.com/nvx/protec-3d-printing/issues with more info (screenshots of the model, pictures of an original key if you have one, and openscad config you're using to generate the model would be ideal)

The first person is correct:
- A 3 cut currently looks more like a 2 (except a 2 should have a bit of material removed on the "shorter" side as well, but the model does not).
- A 4 cut currently looks more like a 3.
- a 2 cut is currently completely off and looks more like a 4 (except a 4 should have a bit of material removed from the "shorter" side as well, but the model does not). 

@Mis-Tral it's probably worth opening an issue at https://github.com/nvx/protec-3d-printing as it's easier to discuss there. I'd be curious to see pictures of what you're seeing vs what you're expecting.

I just loaded up a model with a bunch of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 cuts, 2 is cut on the outermost radius so looks nothing like 3 but does look like a 1 but mirrored (which is expected), while 3 on the other hand looks like 5 except mirrored (also expected), and a 4 looks like a 1 and 2 cut combined except on the middle radius which is also right.

I'm not sure if we've got a different understanding of what the cuts are (I believe my cut numbering matches Abloy nomenclature), if there's a bug that I'm not seeing, or if there's a bug that's happening for you that isn't occurring for me (OpenSCAD version differences perhaps?). Either way some screenshots of what you're seeing vs what you're expecting would go a long way to get to the bottom of this. 

@Mis-Tral If you look at the Toool Abloy Part III pdf (linked in the GitHub) page 5 fig 11 shows couple of sketches of a Protec key with bitting 06142310523 - that was one of the test keys I used when developing the model, and from my eye the model outputted  by protec.scad matches the drawing.

The printed key pictured in the photos of the project was a copy of the metal key in the same photo, and the printed key was able to open that lock. If note  that key includes every cut at least once, so if any of the cuts were wrong (at least when I generated that model) I'd have expected that to fail to open the lock.

This makes me think the issue is either the script isn't running properly in your environment (ie, the model you get when you run it doesn't match what I get when I run it) - which maybe is a version compatibility issue or the like. Or we've got a difference in understanding of bitting codes. 

Is this generic ad spam? Looking at it I can't see any reason it would have better precision than other FDM printers, which means this would almost certainly not be printable on such a printer.

Strength means nothing if it doesn't work.

Been watching a lot of pentest videos lately, plus the Lock Picking Lawyer and Bosnian Bill, of course. This stuff fascinates me! I love the idea that you can "compose" a key parametrically - pretty cool.

Yeah I'm a big fan of both of those guys too! Awesome content.