Inverted Delta kinematics

JoergS5

I delete this post, I first misunderstood the question and the answer didn't fit.

benjamin.forest

Thanks a lot for you answer, I think I haven't explained myself properly.
When I speak of Z axis, I'm speaking of the Z axis of the Tool coordinate system, not the Z_AXIS actuator / motor. It is a little confusing, because Z_AXIS in ReprapFirmware can sometimes refer to Actuator, and sometimes refer to Z coordinate.

So to present things differently :

I have a normal LineAr Delta. Only my head is fix, and my bedplate is moving.
I want that normal G1 X Y Z => X, Y, Z movements, realworld makes the bed plate to go down. That is, a normal G1 Z5 command makes the bed plate move down 5mm.

So my idea was to create a Kinematics, derived from Linear Delta, where the Z coordinate is inverted. That should lead to the desired behaviour.

Unluckyly for me, I didn't manage to have expected results just by modifing a LinearDelta Kinematics.
When changing The Z corrdinate a the top level I found in source, ie in DoStraightMove function, I manage to have the expected behavior. But I must have missed something, since I shouldn't have to modify this function to get a new model working.

So I am wondering what I could be missing in code ?

All the best,

JoergS5

@benjamin-forest I doubt I understood. The bedplate is connected like the hotend is connected at a normal delta, but the arms coming from the bottom?

In my understanding you want the delta turned 180 degree top down and bed and hotend exchanged? This should work without any modification imho. Because there no difference of a nozzle to print on the bed and the bed moving to touch the nozzle and for the kinematics it's irrelevant in which direction it prints.

G1 Z5 would means the nozzle shall be 5 mm more away from the bed, and this is the case in your example, bed moving down.

If my understanding is still wrong, then sorry...

benjamin.forest

Thanks, My fault. The Printer is not inverted. You can see it in action here : https://youtu.be/gORqC7tfNXI?t=22 . The bed is at the place of the hotend and moving, the hotend is fixed, above the bed.

JoergS5

@benjamin-forest I suddenly want an espresso, I don't know why

Now I understand you. I would try it the same like you did. Please tell how you changed the code in detail (which lines from and to).

benjamin.forest

Great !

More or less working version (unsatisfying) :

This is not viable, because one cannot change machine type anymore after this modification.

File RepRapFirmware/src/GCodes/GCodes.cpp:1836~1860 :
Code added :

 if(axis == Z_AXIS)
{
	moveArg = -moveArg;
}

Some context :


else if (gb.MachineState().axesRelative)
			{
				if(axis == Z_AXIS)
				{
					moveArg = -moveArg;
				}
				currentUserPosition[axis] += moveArg * (1.0 - moveFractionToSkip);
			}
			else if (gb.MachineState().g53Active)
			{
				currentUserPosition[axis] = moveArg + GetCurrentToolOffset(axis);	// g53 ignores tool offsets as well as workplace coordinates
			}
			else if (gb.MachineState().runningSystemMacro)
			{
				currentUserPosition[axis] = moveArg;								// don't apply workplace offsets to commands in system macros
			}
			else
			{
				if(axis == Z_AXIS)
				{
					moveArg = -moveArg;
				}
				currentUserPosition[axis] = moveArg + GetWorkplaceOffset(axis);
			}
		}

Not working version:

in a new InvertedLinearDelta class, derived from LinearDeltaKinematics :

bool InvertedDeltaKinematics::CartesianToMotorSteps(const float machinePos[], const float stepsPerMm[], size_t numVisibleAxes, size_t numTotalAxes, int32_t motorPos[], bool isCoordinated) const noexcept
{
	float invertedMachinePos[MaxAxes];
	for (size_t axis = 0; axis < numVisibleAxes; ++axis)
	{
		invertedMachinePos[axis] = machinePos[axis];
	}
	invertedMachinePos[Z_AXIS] = -machinePos[Z_AXIS];
	bool r = LinearDeltaKinematics::CartesianToMotorSteps(invertedMachinePos, stepsPerMm, numVisibleAxes, numTotalAxes, motorPos, isCoordinated);

//	if (reprap.Debug(moduleMove))
//	{
//		debugPrintf("CartesianToMotorSteps :");
//		for (size_t i = 0; i < numVisibleAxes; ++i)
//		{
//			debugPrintf(" %.2f / %d", invertedMachinePos[i], motorPos[i]);
//		}
//		debugPrintf("\n");
//	}
	return r;
}

void InvertedDeltaKinematics::MotorStepsToCartesian(const int32_t motorPos[], const float stepsPerMm[], size_t numVisibleAxes, size_t numTotalAxes, float machinePos[]) const noexcept
{
	LinearDeltaKinematics::MotorStepsToCartesian(motorPos, stepsPerMm, numVisibleAxes, numTotalAxes, machinePos);
	machinePos[Z_AXIS] = -machinePos[Z_AXIS];
	if (reprap.Debug(moduleMove))
	{
		debugPrintf("MotorStepsToCartesian :");
		for (size_t i = 0; i < numVisibleAxes; ++i)
		{
			debugPrintf(" %.2f / %d", machinePos[i], motorPos[i]);
		}
		debugPrintf("\n");
	}
}

Note : in both cases, some tweaks with limits had to be made. I don't put them here because I think they are out of scope.

JoergS5

@benjamin-forest said in Inverted Delta kinematics:

invertedMachinePos[Z_AXIS] = -machinePos[Z_AXIS]; bool r = LinearDeltaKinematics::CartesianToMotorSteps(machinePos, stepsPerMm, numVisibleAxes, numTotalAxes, motorPos, isCoordinated); // if (reprap.Debug(moduleMove))

in this lines is missing to set machinePos[z] to the new value.
You calculated inverted..., but don't use it.
machinePos[Z_AXIS] = - machinePos[Z_AXIS];
before calling the method.

benjamin.forest

Yes sorry I actually did, it's an error in modified code I sent. I modified it accordingly. I'm in the middle of testing, so my code evolves. invertedMachinePos is needed because machinePos is const

JoergS5

@benjamin-forest I would have tried it similar like you did. To solve, calculation of some values and verify the results are necessary imho.

I would change kinematics, not the Gode file.

benjamin.forest

Agreed. But there seems to be a trick in segmentation that uses Z value without passing by kinematics, maybe to gain some time ? Since Z is just a simple constant translation on all axes ?

For example file DDA.cpp and DDARing.cpp are still quite obscure to me and use move buffer. Specifically InitStandardMove seems suspect to me :), but I can't exaplin really why at the moment.

JoergS5

@benjamin-forest segmentation with trick should be with interpolations, but this should work when you just invert values. I know no other tricks, but i did not analyze all delta code.

benjamin.forest

bool DriveMovement::PrepareDeltaAxis(const DDA& dda, const PrepParams& params) noexcept Does seem to intervene as well, but I don't know how or when ...

JoergS5

@benjamin-forest you're right, eg
// Calculate how many steps we need to move up before reversing
seems to depend on direction. There may be other places.

benjamin.forest

Yes, but I didn't found the way direction is actually calculated

JoergS5

@benjamin-forest I fear I cannot help you much, after I understood your problem. But maybe someone other can help you now, knowing the information from our discussion.

If I have an idea, I'll tell you. Until then: good luck!!

Best would be to have a configuration parameter for linear Delta for your case, handling the algorithm accordingly.

benjamin.forest

Thank you very much for taking the time to understand my problem, it's always a good thing to explain things, and helps my self understanding of what I've done !

All the best,
and until my next post

JoergS5

@benjamin-forest good luck, see you!

JoergS5

@benjamin-forest I had a new idea:

if you reverse the three steppers (M569 P0 S1 => S0, and S0 to S1), it should print like expected, but probably mirrored in xy direction.

The inversion of xy could be solved by changing the stepper order probably, like discussed in
https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?178,636057#:~:text=The mirrored printing normally means,Z tower is back centre.

benjamin.forest

Thanks, that's a good Idea. I made this by error when I started trying. The problem is that if it works well for Z, when moving along X/Y the model is no longer valid, since motors are moving in the wrong direction. This lead to the motion being parabolic and is not usable ... Unless maybe I change my model accordingly ? I'll investigate if no other solution is possible.

JoergS5

@benjamin-forest if you find the mathematic formulae, it could be better to add a new kinematic, because the delta has several code in the firmware, so to overlook one is a big probability. If you install a new kinematic, there is no such danger and you have full control over the movement. I would not inherit from lineardelta, but from kinematic then.
You could start with the delta code using a new kinematic, to be sure there is no specific code in Move etc.

When I developed the robotic kinematic, I installed the forward and inverse kinematic in windows with mingw and calculated the cartesian coordinate from iterated stepper positions and then back inverse, then comparing, with millions of iterations. This could be a method for you too to validate the code.