G29 failing height map has a substantial Z offset
-
@engikeneer
That's when g29 worked.. Now I getting "Warning: the height map has a substantial Z offset. Suggest use Z-probe to establish Z=0 datum, then re-probe the mesh." -
@harlock328 said in G29 failing height map has a substantial Z offset:
@engikeneer
That's when g29 worked.. Now I getting "Warning: the height map has a substantial Z offset. Suggest use Z-probe to establish Z=0 datum, then re-probe the mesh."In your M557 specify 9 points using P3:3 and be sure the middle point is the same point as used setting the Z=0 datum which appears to be 150,150.
See if that doesn't get rid of the message.
Frederick
Printers: a E3D MS/TC setup and a RatRig Hybrid. Using Duet 3 hardware running 3.4.6
-
@harlock328 even if you get that warning, it should still have been successful and created a heightmap (it just has a Z-offset). Can you show us the heightmap with 30mm spacing?
-
I would try deleting the heightmap.csv file entirely.
Then run G28 to home and G29 to probe the bed. Don't do G32 yet. That should produce a heightmap and there should be no warning about an offset. If that works correctly, then try G28, G32, G28 Z, and then G29 and that should also produce a heightmap with no offset.
-
@Phaedrux
Did you steps; confirm no heatmap seen. ran g28 than g29; same error. Heatmap looks the same
image url) -
@fcwilt
This is my M557 X45:282 Y46:254 P2:2 S240 S240; what should it look like for 150,150 (I just starting to lean rrf; from marlin and not expert in that either) -
@harlock328 said in G29 failing height map has a substantial Z offset:
@fcwilt
This is my M557 X45:282 Y46:254 P2:2 S240 S240; what should it look like for 150,150 (I just starting to lean rrf; from marlin and not expert in that either)For starters you use either Paa:bb or Saa:bb, not both.
Now you can use just Paa or Saa and it treats it as Paa:aa or Saa:aa, so I just use the aa:bb form.
As to testing with 9 points to be sure that the middle point is the same as 150,150 I think that this would work
M557 X50:250 Y50:250 S100:100
because 50 + 100 = 150 and 150 + 100 = 250.
I don't know what your probe X and Y offsets are, so remember to take them into account when moving the probe to 150,150 when using G30.
Frederick
Printers: a E3D MS/TC setup and a RatRig Hybrid. Using Duet 3 hardware running 3.4.6
-
The files you are editing are in the /system folder, right?
Please send M98 P"config.g" and post the results.
If you got to the general tab in DWC, what version does it report as?
-
@Phaedrux
I put changes in config.user.g config.g says Do NOT make changes here and to modify config.userBoard: Duet WiFi 1.02 or later + DueX5
Firmware: RepRapFirmware for Duet 2 WiFi/Ethernet 2.05.1 (2020-02-09b1)
Duet WiFi Server Version: 1.23 -
I realize that, please send M98 P"config.g" in the gcode console and post the results.
For the DWC version please check under machine specific.
-
@Phaedrux
Talking about Duet Web Control? If so Duet Web Control 2.0.7 -
Yes thanks. Just trying to confirm that your version of DWC is compatible with your firmware version.
Running M98 P"config.g" will execute your config file and any other called macros and will echo any error messages to the gcode console that might otherwise get missed during the bootup process due to timing. I want to know if it's throwing any errors.
-
-
@harlock328 said in G29 failing height map has a substantial Z offset:
I put changes in config.user.g config.g says Do NOT make changes here and to modify config.user
I think you will find that you are better off combining those two into just config.g.
And keep related things together.
Frederick
-
Well this may be part of the problem.
Error: Bad command: M208 S1 Z-5 :set minimum Z travel
You can delete that command from the config files. It gets overwritten a few lines down anyway, so it doesn't have the intended effect anyway.
Still no smoking gun on why there is an offset.
The only thing that might be causing issues is the split M558 commands with some values spread all over the place, but that bug was in RRF3 and not RRF2.
At this point I would suggest backing up your config files and then creating a fresh basic config using the web configurator and testing with that. If that works correctly then we know the error is somewhere in the added complexity of your current config.
If this is a config provided by the railcore users, you may want to try checking with their discord chat to see what they think.
-
@Phaedrux said in G29 failing height map has a substantial Z offset:
Well this may be part of the problem....
In my experience the Z offset message occurs when all the points of the height map have a Z value significantly different from the Z value as determined by G30.
In this case he has probed the corners but has not included a point at or very near the point used with G30.
Which is why I suggested using a 9 points (3 by 3) such that the 5th point is at the same location as the "G30" point.
Frederick
-
@fcwilt
This worked!!!
Used M557 X45:282 Y46:254 P3:3
Ran G29; no error and below is heatmap
I like to thank everyone that was helping me.
-
@harlock328 said in G29 failing height map has a substantial Z offset:
@fcwilt
This worked!!!
Used M557 X45:282 Y46:254 P3:3Glad to here the problem has been found.
JOOC why are you using those X and Y values as apposed to round numbers, something like X50:280 Y50:260?
Thanks.
In any case now you can up the P parameters to place the points closer together, perhaps P20:20.
Frederick
-
@fcwilt
Magnet bed; numbers I found for others using 713 mag bed to avoid the mags when probing for railcore II. -
@harlock328 said in G29 failing height map has a substantial Z offset:
@fcwilt
Magnet bed; numbers I found for others using 713 mag bed to avoid the mags when probing for railcore II.Understood. I use the BuildTak FlexPlate system and it wrecked havoc with my 12mm inductive sensor at certain points.
If you had problems because of the magnets you may find that when you change to using P20:20 or similar they will crop up again.
Let us know.
Thanks.
Frederick
