Bed mesh compensation not applied to all the tools

Phaedrux

@sebkritikel said in Bed mesh compensation not applied to all the tools:

Just conjecture, but G10 and the taper command couldn't possibly be causing this right? I see no reason for that to be the case...
G10 P3 X-0.5 Y36.7 Z-35.26 ; T3

I recognize Z-35.26 is necessary.
@sylvain could you try commenting out M376 H15?

Worth a shot.

Also, are you sure you've got G29 S1 enabled somewhere else now? Should be in the slicer start gcode or start.g at least.

duetlover

Commenting M376 solved the issue !

Thanks !

sebkritikel

@sylvain said in Bed mesh compensation not applied to all the tools:

Commenting M376 solved the issue !

Thanks !

Very interesting! @Phaedrux if this is truly the cause, I wouldn't say this is expected behavior correct? Expected behavior would be G10 tool offsets having no impacts on mesh taper?

Phaedrux

@sebkritikel I'll check with DC42 as I really have no idea.

sebkritikel

@Phaedrux said in Bed mesh compensation not applied to all the tools:

@sebkritikel I'll check with DC42 as I really have no idea.

For what its worth, I just tested it on my machine and can confirm G10 Z offsets will interact with with taper values set via M376, similar to what slyvain is seeing.

Duet2 Wifi+Duex5
3.2-beta2 (2020-10-05b2)

Set M376 H15
With T0, with no offsets in G10, moved over built plate at Z=6mm. Could see ballscrews moving for compensation

Put an artificial offset on T1 (IDEX) of G10 P1 Y.22 U.00 5 Z-20

Selected T1, bed moved down to account for Z-20 offset. Still read 6mm.

Moved T1 over build plate - no ballscrew/stepper movement for bed compensation.

Homed all axes, reset T1 offsets to G10 P1 Y.22 U.00 5 Z.3

Moved T1 over build plate (at Z=6mm), could see ballscrews/stepper moving for compensation.

duetlover

Happy to have contribute to find a bug

sebkritikel

@sebkritikel said in Bed mesh compensation not applied to all the tools:

@Phaedrux said in Bed mesh compensation not applied to all the tools:

@sebkritikel I'll check with DC42 as I really have no idea.

For what its worth, I just tested it on my machine and can confirm G10 Z offsets will interact with with taper values set via M376, similar to what slyvain is seeing.

Duet2 Wifi+Duex5
3.2-beta2 (2020-10-05b2)

Set M376 H15
With T0, with no offsets in G10, moved over built plate at Z=6mm. Could see ballscrews moving for compensation

Put an artificial offset on T1 (IDEX) of G10 P1 Y.22 U.00 5 Z-20

Selected T1, bed moved down to account for Z-20 offset. Still read 6mm.

Moved T1 over build plate - no ballscrew/stepper movement for bed compensation.

Homed all axes, reset T1 offsets to G10 P1 Y.22 U.00 5 Z.3

Moved T1 over build plate (at Z=6mm), could see ballscrews/stepper moving for compensation.

@dc42 this comment should summarize the thread, while tested on an IDEX machine, should be easy to verify on a toolchanger.

dcw259

I've had the same problem with mesh bed compensation and tapering.
Tool offsets were around 6.5mm for T0 and T1 and 3mm for T2 and T3

With M376 H5 (taper off until 5mm) I barely noticed any z adjustments on T2 and T3 and absolutely none on the first two tools.

To confirm, I tried M376 H15 and can see z moving cleanly on all tools.

As it seems, tools offsets is not a part of the calculation behind M376

Hardware: Duet3 MB6HC + 2x Duet 3 EXP3HC
Firmware: MB RRF3.1.1 + EXP RRF3.1.0

dc42

@sylvain @sebkritikel @dcw259, I confirm that mesh compensation taper does not work properly when the tool has a Z offset.

I can squeeze a fix into RRF 3.2 stable, but the fix needs to be tested first. Are any of you running RRF 3.2RC2 and would be open to running an internal build that includes a proposed fix?

sebkritikel

@dc42 said in Bed mesh compensation not applied to all the tools:

@sylvain @sebkritikel @dcw259, I confirm that mesh compensation taper does not work properly when the tool has a Z offset.

I can squeeze a fix into RRF 3.2 stable, but the fix needs to be tested first. Are any of you running RRF 3.2RC2 and would be open to running an internal build that includes a proposed fix?

I am currently running 3.2-beta3.2, but I can upgrade through RRF 3.2RC2 and/or upgrade to an internal build to test the fix.

dc42

@sebkritikel, if you are running 3.2beta3.2 then I recommend you upgrade to 3.2-RC2 anyway.