Duet3D Logo Duet3D
    • Tags
    • Documentation
    • Order
    • Register
    • Login

    Microstepping (interpolation)

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved
    General Discussion
    8
    16
    2.4k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • PeterAundefined
      PeterA
      last edited by

      Hi guys, just wondering if there is an actual benefit going from the x16 to x32 or x64? Obviously it would seem more is better so I want to try but anyone here that has done it and can comment on any improvements in their prints??

      deckingmanundefined A Former User? 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • deckingmanundefined
        deckingman @PeterA
        last edited by

        @PeterA More is not necessarily better as high microstepping can put excessive load on the CPU which could result in missed steps. Microstepping does nothing to improve positional accuracy - it just makes the machine run quieter. The one exception to that is if you use a mixing hot end where one or more filaments might be fed at single digit percentages of the whole. This can lead to extremely small moves which might be less than 1 microstep at 16x. But the jury is still out on whether a single 64 or 128x microstep would actually translate to any physical movement of an extruder. The general consensus is that 16x with interpolation is best (the driver chip does the interpolation rather than the CPU).

        Ian
        https://somei3deas.wordpress.com/
        https://www.youtube.com/@deckingman

        PeterAundefined matt3oundefined 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 2
        • PeterAundefined
          PeterA @deckingman
          last edited by

          @deckingman Much appreciated. Looks like i will stick to the 16. 👍

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
          • matt3oundefined
            matt3o @deckingman
            last edited by

            @deckingman I see a lot of people using 128 microsteps (with interpolation) on XY in corexy. I don't know if it's because some extensive testing or it's just psychological 🙂

            I guess it's all down to how good the driver is at interpolating...

            deckingmanundefined 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • deckingmanundefined
              deckingman @matt3o
              last edited by

              @matt3o said in Microstepping (interpolation):

              @deckingman I see a lot of people using 128 microsteps (with interpolation) on XY in corexy. I don't know if it's because some extensive testing or it's just psychological 🙂

              I guess it's all down to how good the driver is at interpolating...

              As a general rule, 16x micro stepping with a 20 tooth pulley will give 80 steps per mm for X and Y on a CoreXY. So in theory, that's a resolution of 1/80th mm per micro-step. There are many reasons why producing something by squirting molten filament out of a nozzle will lead to size variances much greater than that. Also, the positional accuracy of a stepper motor is generally +_ 5% of a full step. That doesn't change with micro-stepping. Whether one divides a full step into 16 smaller steps or 128 smaller steps the positional accuracy will still be +_5% of a FULL step. So if 16x micro-stepping isn't the limiting factor, why increase it when all it will do is potentially over load the CPU which will either limit the maximum print speed, or lead to hiccups and missed steps?

              I think it's just a "more must be better" syndrome without a full understanding of the implications. Just like most people think that a super lightweight hot end will be better than moderately heavy hot end, even though the higher mass of the heavier hot end is not the limiting factor on how fast one can print.

              Ian
              https://somei3deas.wordpress.com/
              https://www.youtube.com/@deckingman

              dc42undefined 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • dc42undefined
                dc42 administrators @deckingman
                last edited by

                As @deckingman says, we recommend using x16 microstepping with interpolation enabled; except that in some situations (particularly un-geared extruders with low steps/mm), increasing extruder microstepping improves print quality.

                Duet WiFi hardware designer and firmware engineer
                Please do not ask me for Duet support via PM or email, use the forum
                http://www.escher3d.com, https://miscsolutions.wordpress.com

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • PeterAundefined
                  PeterA
                  last edited by

                  Thanks for the feed back. Very helpful

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • owlfabundefined
                    owlfab
                    last edited by owlfab

                    Noise is the biggest thing for me.

                    Would you guys expect much of a noise difference between 16x with interpolation and 256x assuming the CPU can keep up? I'm on a Duet2 running 0.9 degree steppers and rapid movements get limited when I go to 256x. For whatever it's worth, I feel like the Prusa mk3 machines are quieter than mine for rapids, but I realize there are a lot of other variables as well.

                    deckingmanundefined matt3oundefined Vetiundefined 3 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • deckingmanundefined
                      deckingman @owlfab
                      last edited by deckingman

                      @owlfab said in Microstepping (interpolation):

                      .................... Would you guys expect much of a noise difference between 16x with interpolation and 256x assuming the CPU can keep up? .....................

                      No. Because 16X micro-steps interpolated (by the driver chip) into 16 smaller steps each = 16x16 = 256. So what gets sent to the motor is the same in either case.

                      Ian
                      https://somei3deas.wordpress.com/
                      https://www.youtube.com/@deckingman

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                      • matt3oundefined
                        matt3o @owlfab
                        last edited by

                        @owlfab you may try enabling stealthChop but with my motors it doesn't make much of a difference

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • Vetiundefined
                          Veti @owlfab
                          last edited by

                          @owlfab said in Microstepping (interpolation):

                          I feel like the Prusa mk3 machines are quieter than mine for rapids

                          duet 2 does not have stealthchop. the prusa does. that makes a lot of difference for the noise.

                          matt3oundefined 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • matt3oundefined
                            matt3o @Veti
                            last edited by

                            @Veti ah right duet2... sorry, missed that. Not that on the duet3 I hear any difference, but could be my moons motors

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • A Former User?
                              A Former User @PeterA
                              last edited by A Former User

                              @PeterA

                              keep in mind that the more microsteps you introduce the more you divide your overall-torque into smaller incremental-torque. So basically this certainly gives you resolution but only maybe gives you accuracy. Of course if money is no objective to you, you can increase the microstepping endlessly and just buy a "stronger" stepper to have your "old" incremental-torque matched even with more microsteps 🙂 Calculation-formulas for that are provided e.g. here https://www.faulhaber.com/fileadmin/user_upload_global/support/MC_Support/Motors/AppNotes/Faulhaber_AN015_EN.pdf

                              ctilley79undefined 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • ctilley79undefined
                                ctilley79 @A Former User
                                last edited by

                                @LB said in Microstepping (interpolation):

                                @PeterA

                                keep in mind that the more microsteps you introduce the more you divide your overall-torque into smaller incremental-torque. So basically this certainly gives you resolution but only maybe gives you accuracy. Of course if money is no objective to you, you can increase the microstepping endlessly and just buy a "stronger" stepper to have your "old" incremental-torque matched even with more microsteps 🙂 Calculation-formulas for that are provided e.g. here https://www.faulhaber.com/fileadmin/user_upload_global/support/MC_Support/Motors/AppNotes/Faulhaber_AN015_EN.pdf

                                Isn't this a little misleading if you're in interpolation mode? The driver is essentially running at 256x. The microprocessor is only generating 16x of them, but the driver is dividing those out into 256, so essentially the torque will be the same, the only difference is the computational load on the microprocessor increases on higher step rates right?

                                A Former User? 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                • dc42undefined
                                  dc42 administrators
                                  last edited by

                                  Microstep interpolation doesn't increase resolution or accuracy, because the MCU still commands the driver to 1/16 microstep positions; but it does make the motors quieter.

                                  Duet WiFi hardware designer and firmware engineer
                                  Please do not ask me for Duet support via PM or email, use the forum
                                  http://www.escher3d.com, https://miscsolutions.wordpress.com

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • A Former User?
                                    A Former User @ctilley79
                                    last edited by A Former User

                                    @ctilley79

                                    It is totally misleading 😉 Because in reality there is also: Friction, acceleration, jerk, driver-behaviour etc. pp. so the paper from faulhaber only gives you a hint of a ballpark where you end up if you use 1/16th microsteps as "possible-stop-positions" (versus the "interpolation/microply to 256" which is basically "smoothness" as dc42 pointed out, so basically quiteness but the stepper can not "stop"/"hold" on those positions. Basically as I understand it, the "interpolation"/"microplyer" is only that you set your voltage and ampere not in one step to the next 1/16 step, but go there via "quasi-sinusoidal" micro-interpolation LookUpTable for Voltage/Ampere so that it doesn´t shake that much)

                                    I would roughly calc with the values in the paper and keep a safe 10-25% distance to it, because of all the other effects not yet in the whole-calculation

                                    I usually use as little "possible-stop-position" hard-microsteps but of course use always the interpolation/microplyer microsteps for smoothnes - less workload for the cpu for the step-calculation, because the interpolation happens in the driver-chip. Also there are theories that it might be beneficial for accuracy if you use only full-&halfsteps as possible-stop-steps. Of course then your kinematics has to be adjusted to that

                                    Hey - please share your thoughts, experiments and conclusions, might be of help for all of us 😉 we wouldn´t be here if there isn´t anything we wanna learn

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • First post
                                      Last post
                                    Unless otherwise noted, all forum content is licensed under CC-BY-SA