New experimental firmware 1.19beta10

[DjDemonD]

Fixed thank you. I did have deployprobe and retractprobe macros.

However since we all know few if anyone reads the release notes, maybe that one could be in the original post above since it will affect almost everyone. Just saying realpolitik and all that.

[fcwilt]

So if I understand this the probe (if implemented) will deploy/retract with each G30 command?

If that is correct what is the purpose.

Thanks.

Frederick

[dc42]

@fcwilt:

So if I understand this the probe (if implemented) will deploy/retract with each G30 command?

If that is correct what is the purpose.

Thanks.

Frederick

It will only deploy and retract if it is not already deployed. So the behaviour is unchanged if you have M401 near the start of bed.g and M402 near the end.

[minim]

@DjDemonD:

Fixed thank you. I did have deployprobe and retractprobe macros.

However since we all know few if anyone reads the release notes, maybe that one could be in the original post above since it will affect almost everyone. Just saying realpolitik and all that.

I'd agreed for a stable release but I think most people beta testing actually reads the release notes. I do.

[fcwilt]

@dc42:

It will only deploy and retract if it is not already deployed. So the behaviour is unchanged if you have M401 near the start of bed.g and M402 near the end.

OK understood.

Under what circumstances would you want the probe to be deployed/retracted with each G30/G29 command?

Thanks for the reply.

Frederick

[Jackal]

@fcwilt:

@dc42:

It will only deploy and retract if it is not already deployed. So the behaviour is unchanged if you have M401 near the start of bed.g and M402 near the end.

OK understood.

Under what circumstances would you want the probe to be deployed/retracted with each G30/G29 command?

Thanks for the reply.

Frederick

I believe it is to avoid the probe not being deployed when executing G30/G29 as a single command
If you are doing bed compensation with multiple G30, you should use M401 M402

[Jackal]

Just installed beta 10, seems to be having a problem when showing the heightmap.
After calibration, the heightmap overlay appears, but it's empty
If I choose Show Mesh Grid Heightmap under Auto Delta Calibration the browser won't response and needs to restart.
Now sure if it's the problem with RRF or DWC 1.17+1.

edit: it seems to print normally, will look into it later and provide the config and bed files for investigation

[dc42]

@Jackal:

Just installed beta 10, seems to be having a problem when showing the heightmap.
After calibration, the heightmap overlay appears, but it's empty
If I choose Show Mesh Grid Heightmap under Auto Delta Calibration the browser won't response and needs to restart.
Now sure if it's the problem with RRF or DWC 1.17+1.

edit: it seems to print normally, will look into it later and provide the config and bed files for investigation

No need to look into it. I forgot to warn chrishamm about the change to the height map file to support different X and Y spacings. We'll have to wait for him to do a DWC 1.17+2 release.

[dc42]

@Jackal:

@fcwilt:

Under what circumstances would you want the probe to be deployed/retracted with each G30/G29 command?

Thanks for the reply.

Frederick

I believe it is to avoid the probe not being deployed when executing G30/G29 as a single command
If you are doing bed compensation with multiple G30, you should use M401 M402

That's right. Several people complained that G29 didn't deploy the probe automatically.

[Jackal]

Thanks David for the quick response

[dc42]

I have just released DuetEthernetFirmware1.19beta10+1. The primary reason for this release is that on some Duet Ethernet boards, it was not possible to flash new firmware using the web interface or M997 when a recent 1.19beta firmware version was installed. AFAIK this only affected the Duet Ethernet, so I have not released new binaries for the other Duets.

[DjDemonD]

Lesson learned.

@minim:

@DjDemonD:

Fixed thank you. I did have deployprobe and retractprobe macros.

However since we all know few if anyone reads the release notes, maybe that one could be in the original post above since it will affect almost everyone. Just saying realpolitik and all that.

I'd agreed for a stable release but I think most people beta testing actually reads the release notes. I do.

[fcwilt]

@Jackal:

I believe it is to avoid the probe not being deployed when executing G30/G29 as a single command
If you are doing bed compensation with multiple G30, you should use M401 M402

Thanks to you and dc42 for the replies.

Frederick

[Jackal]

I just tried tuning the heaters, my E3D V6 with 30W heater got this result:
Heater 3 model: gain 454.8, time constant 203.3, dead time 5.0, max PWM 1.00, mode: PID
Computed PID parameters for setpoint change: P15.9, I0.078, D55.9
Computed PID parameters for load change: P15.9, I1.103, D55.9

pre-beta 10 result:
M307 H3 A465.8 C207.5 D7.0 S1.00 B0

However it failed to tune my heat bed on first run:
Auto tune of heater 0 failed due to bad curve fit (G=59.2, tc=65.8, td=0.0)

one second run it got
Heater 0 model: gain 53.4, time constant 52.2, dead time 1.0, max PWM 1.00, mode: PID
Computed PID parameters for setpoint change: P177.6, I3.406, D122.1
Computed PID parameters for load change: P177.6, I58.798, D122.1

The 2 blue peaks are from the heat bed PID tuning, look similar to me
The yellow peak is the heater after new PID tuning, look AMAZING

[lars]

@dc42:

Lars, thanks for trying the leadscrew adjustment. To help me diagnose this, please do the following:

1. Create a copy of bed.g as a macro. In that macro, replace S3 on the last G30 command by S-1.

2. First run the macro, then G31. Repeat until the corrections are out of range. Post the output.

I take it you mean G32 not G31…

20:40:32 M98 P0:/macros/4 - Leveling Check Probe
Bed probe heights: -0.663 -0.068 -0.086, mean -0.272, deviation from mean 0.276
20:39:49 G32
Error: some computed corrections exceed configured limit of 0.50mm: -0.010 0.012 0.836
20:37:26 M98 P0:/macros/4 - Leveling Check Probe
Bed probe heights: -0.665 -0.068 -0.088, mean -0.273, deviation from mean 0.277
20:36:37 G32
Leadscrew adjustments made: -0.229 0.135 0.409, points used 3, deviation before 0.197 after 0.000
20:35:37 M98 P0:/macros/4 - Leveling Check Probe
Bed probe heights: -0.287 0.152 0.078, mean -0.019, deviation from mean 0.192
 

Front left lead screw (-60,-10) is connected to Z (drive 2)
Front right lead screw (560,-10) is connected to Y (drive 1)
Back centre lead screw (250,560) is connected to X (Drive 0)

Macro "4 - Leveling Check Probe":

T0
M401
G30 P0 X40 Y40 Z-99999      ; probe near a leadscrew
G30 P1 X250 Y460 Z-99999    ; probe near a leadscrew
G30 P2 X460 Y40 Z-99999 S-1  ; probe near a leadscrew and calibrate 3 motors
M402
G90
G1 X250 Y250
T-1
 
```bed.g

T0
M401
G30 P0 X40 Y40 Z-99999 ; probe near a leadscrew
G30 P1 X250 Y460 Z-99999 ; probe near a leadscrew
G30 P2 X460 Y40 Z-99999 S3 ; probe near a leadscrew and calibrate 3 motors
M402
G90
G1 X250 Y250
T-1

M584 Y5 X7 U8 V6 E3:4 Z0:1:2 ; Set up steppers for x, y, u, v, z and e, use P4 once it works to hide V
M671 X250:560:-60 Y560:-10:-10 S0.5 ; Set up lead screw positions for bed leveling

[dc42]

Thanks Lars, that gives me something to look at. You are probing close to leadscrews 2,0,1 in that order, so we would expect the corrections to be close to the height errors for points 1,2,0 in that order. They are:

Height errors in order 1,2,0: 0.152 0.078 -0.287
Adjustments: -0.229 0.135 0.409

So the corrections look way out. I'll check and simulate the maths.

Which variety of Duet do you have?

[lars]

@dc42:

Thanks Lars, that gives me something to look at. You are probing close to leadscrews 2,0,1 in that order, so we would expect the corrections to be close to the height errors for points 1,2,0 in that order. They are:

Height errors in order 1,2,0: 0.152 0.078 -0.287
Adjustments: -0.229 0.135 0.409

So the corrections look way out. I'll check and simulate the maths.

Which variety of Duet do you have?

Duet WiFi 1.0 + DueX5

@dc42:

Hi lars, is the speed problem still present in beta10? Please respond in the thread on beta10 if is is.

I do believe I know what caused the speed problem. In cura (2.6.2) there is a setting of max Z speed in mm/s. This was for some unknown reason set to 5mm/s for extruder 2. This translates a M203 Z5 (not at the start of the print but after first switch to t1) but should have been generated to M203 Z300 as on the duet the M203 command max federate is in mm/min.

If you stop the print you still got this federate when starting a new print. It might need to drop 10mm in Z with a max speed of 5mm/min at the start of the print… This should be easily solved by setting this parameter to 0 in cura, it will then not issue any M203 …

Would it make sense to revert max speed (and other configuration settings) to the original configuration after printing from file is done/stopped?

[Yonkiman]

I think I found a bug in 1.19beta10 with my delta.

config.g contains:

M665 L265.000 R109.801 H289.779 B105.0 X-0.308 Y-0.499 Z0.000
M666 X0.281 Y-0.325 Z0.045 A0.00 B0.00

After a reboot, [c]M665[/c] returns the above parameters, but [c]M666[/c] returns:

Endstop adjustments X0.00 Y0.00 Z0.00, tilt X0.00% Y0.00%
```and the bed height is incorrect when I try to print. Manually entering [c]M666 X0.281 Y-0.325 Z0.045 A0.00 B0.00[/c] after a reboot sets it correctly and the bed height is corrected when I go to print.
 
Which reminds me… I'm curious what "good" numbers for endstop correction, tilt, and tower position correction are. I'd like some idea where my printer is on the range between perfect and "you really ought to fix that"...

[dc42]

Do you have a config-override.g file, and a M501 command near the end of config.g?

Those numbers look good to me.

[dc42]

Lars, I found the problem: I missed a minus sign when transposing a formula from Maxima to the source code. So in the 3 leadscrews case it was computing the second leadscrew correction with the wrong sign.

Please try 1.19beta10+2 which I have just released.