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

    Drive 3 is slower as drive 2 at homing in Z [Solved]

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved
    General Discussion
    5
    41
    4.0k
    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.
    • thweundefined
      thwe
      last edited by thwe

      Hello,

      Unfortunately I have to open again a thread with a problem and ask for help:

      After correcting the M574 command in the config.g (see thread) I have a puzzling behavior of the U axis (Drive 3) when homing Z -> Drive 3 runs slower than Drive 2 but only at homing in Z

      Here is a video that illustrates the behavior: video on youtube

      and here my config.g
      0_1542559236968_config.g

      and the homez.g
      0_1542559266412_homez.g

      as well as the macro, which produces the movements in the film
      0_1542559353801_X-TEST.g

      Why runs drive 3 slower than drive 2 during z-homing?

      Thomas

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

        The only thing I have spotted that isn't right is that you are not setting the U axis limits in your M208 commands.

        If it's still a problem after you have corrected that, please send the following commands without parameters, and check that the values are as expected, i.e. the same value for both U and Z. If necessary, send M584 P4 first.

        M92
        M906
        M913
        M350
        M208
        M574
        M201
        M203
        M566

        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

        thweundefined 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • samlogan87undefined
          samlogan87
          last edited by

          Forgive me if I am wrong as I am still a bit new around here @dc42 do you need to in the z axis part of each of the parameters also have a semicolon for the other axis that are being tied to it? He has done it for the driver assignment, but no other one.

          ie:

          M203 X12000 Y12000 Z4500:4500 U4500 E1200 ; Set maximum speeds (mm/min)

          Instead of:

          M203 X12000 Y12000 Z4500 U4500 E1200 ; Set maximum speeds (mm/min)

          Kindly Regards
          Sam

          Custom Core-XY

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

            No, you don't need to provide multiple Z values in any of the usual M commands when you have multiple Z motors, only in the M584 command to tell the firmware which drivers you are using.

            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
            • samlogan87undefined
              samlogan87
              last edited by

              Thanks for that @dc42 that is good to know

              Custom Core-XY

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • thweundefined
                thwe @dc42
                last edited by

                @dc42
                new M208 in config.g

                M208 X-2.50 Y-26.75 Z0.00 U0.00 S1 ; Set axis S1 = minimum
                M208 X302.50 Y326.75 Z290.00 U290.00 S0 ; Set axis S0 = maximum

                After newstart or reboot the first Z homing is OK -> both drivers run evenly, but all other z-homing calls produce the error again.

                For all sent M commands as stated above, there was an exact match of the values of Z + U
                I put on my extra good glasses ๐Ÿ˜‰ - there was no difference

                Thomas

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

                  remove the u move from the homing script

                  since you told the duet that you have 2 z axis you do not need to specify a separate move for the second axis.

                  thweundefined 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • thweundefined
                    thwe @Veti
                    last edited by

                    @veti
                    That can not be the solution. After a reboot or a restart (for example after an emergency stop) the homing works correctly - but only once!

                    In addition, each axis moves individually after the "M584 Z2 U3 P4", so it must also be moved per G1 command per axis - in my opinion.

                    Thomas

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • thweundefined
                      thwe
                      last edited by

                      It raises the question of the meaning of why I want to do the homing again.

                      Certainly it is normally not necessary, but it is strange, right?

                      Thomas

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

                        @thwe Strange indeed. It seems like one of the Z motors isn't retaining it's mapping after the first homing. A couple of suggestions to try.

                        1. At the start and end of your home Z file, explicitly assign all axes to the configuration you have in config.g. So at the start of homeZ, put M584 X0 Y1 Z2:3 U3 E4 P3. Then remap the drives by using M584 X0 Y1 Z2 U3 E4 P4. Carry out the rest of the homing, then at the end of home Z, re-enter the original drive mapping in full - i.e. M584 X0 Y1 Z2:3 U3 E4 P3.

                        2. Try initially assigning U to a different but unused axis like say 5. So in config.g use M584 X0 Y1 Z2:3 U5 E4 P3. Then in homez do M585 Z2 U3 before homing Z and U, then put the mapping back to Z2:3 U5.

                        I've no real idea if either of these will fix the issue but worth a try?

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

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

                          for my dual z mapping i have not mapped u at all i just have the two entries for Z

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

                            @veti said in Drive 3 is slower as drive 2 at homing in Z:

                            for my dual z mapping i have not mapped u at all i just have the two entries for Z

                            I think what the OP wants to do is home each screw independently for some sort of bed levelling. He has two end stops on Z. So to do that, you have to create another axis - U in this case. So for "normal" printing, both drives work together in sync so they are both mapped to Z. But to home each one independently, the drives have to be temporarily mapped, one to Z and the other to U. It's similar to what I do on my CoreXYUV.

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

                            thweundefined Vetiundefined 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • thweundefined
                              thwe @deckingman
                              last edited by

                              @deckingman said in [Drive 3 is slower as drive 2 at homing in Z]:

                              I think what the OP wants to do is home each screw independently for some sort of bed levellingโ€ฆ

                              That's exactly what I want

                              Thanks for your suggestions - i will test it later

                              Thomas

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

                                @deckingman

                                The individual Bed leveling with multiple Z motors does not require a U axis either
                                see
                                https://duet3d.dozuki.com/Wiki/Bed_levelling_using_multiple_independent_Z_motors

                                i have it set up for 2 motors and it does not require a U axis

                                deckingmanundefined thweundefined 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • deckingmanundefined
                                  deckingman @Veti
                                  last edited by deckingman

                                  @veti Yes I know one can use M671 to do bed levelling, but that's not what the OP is doing. I'm trying to help him with his specific problem.

                                  Edit AFAIK, the OP isn't using a bed probe and G32 - just two separate end stop switches. At least, that's how his homez seems to be configured.

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

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

                                    @deckingman

                                    he has got a z probe configured.
                                    But why would you level the bed against two endstops at their max rather than the z probe?

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

                                      @veti said in Drive 3 is slower as drive 2 at homing in Z:
                                      @deckingman

                                      ................. But why would you level the bed against two endstops at their max rather than the z probe?

                                      Dunno. I'm not the OP.

                                      Personally, I don't you use any form of bed levelling or flatness compensation - I built a bed that's flat, level and stays that way. So in this thread I could be saying that the OP should do that too, rather than rely on software/firmware compensation. But that's not what the OP wants to hear. Everyone has their own preferred way of doing things. So rather than say "don't do it that way, do it this way (like I do)", I think it's more helpful to try and assist the OP with his particular choice.

                                      And just because the OP happens to have a Z probe too, someone else who doesn't have a Z probe might stumble upon this thread at some time in the future. So if we can fix this issue, it will be helpful to others too.

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

                                      thweundefined 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • thweundefined
                                        thwe @Veti
                                        last edited by

                                        @veti : thanks for the interesting link, I'll take a closer look.

                                        I wanted to do the same (or at least similar) with the two limit switches for Z + U, the "bed leveling using multiple independent motors with" M671 is very interesting!

                                        Thomas

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • thweundefined
                                          thwe @deckingman
                                          last edited by

                                          @deckingman : Thank you for the open and respectful view!

                                          My idea comes from mechanical engineering, where usually no direct motor driven axis (not room axis) are operating without limit switch.

                                          That this is not absolutely necessary, I realize - but, is our hobby absolutely necessary ๐Ÿ˜‰

                                          Thomas

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

                                            @thwe I had assumed that the reason you wanted to home to Z max, was that you have a CoreXY and also wanted to be able to resume after power failure. For this, the axes have to be re-homed and as there is a print already on the bed, one can't home to Z min.

                                            So there are reasons why you or someone else might might want to home to Z max using multiple switches. That's why I thought it important to try and resolve your issue rather than simply suggest alternative ways of homing which involve homing to Z min with a probe.

                                            Speaking as a mechanical engineer myself, I prefer to use mechanical solutions that don't rely on electronics to compensate for what are essentially fundamental mechanical problems. But I appreciate that others may not have the resources, time, or skills needed to do that.

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

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