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

    My Experience with Relative extrusion (Problem and Solution)

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved
    General Discussion
    12
    25
    7.9k
    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.
    • DeltaConundefined
      DeltaCon @sigxcpu
      last edited by

      @sigxcpu said in My Experience with Relative extrusion (Problem and Solution):

      You are now here and you want to go there (absolute). How can you go from here to there if you don't compute the steps between here and there which means relative?

      I don't think (firmware-technically) it makes a big difference whether you go from 0 to 10 (relative) or from 123456780 to 123456790 (absolute). Both ways the steps are calculated, aren't they?

      If you think trial and error is dangerous, try routine. That's even more so!

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

        In fact there is some code to keep track of pending extrusion, i.e. the amount of extrusion that remains to be done after the amount of it that corresponds to a whole number of microsteps has been done. But I'll check whether that code is working as intended.

        When using an extruder with low steps/mm such as @MegaAndy is using, higher microstepping is advisable anyway, to help combat the poor extruder resolution. Upgrading the motor to 0.9deg would be even better, if you can find a 0.9deg motor with sufficient torque.

        RRF converts absolute extrusion commands to relative extrusion. In the very early days of 3D printing, there was some point in using absolute extrusion, to avoid this kind of problem. But now there are several variable modifiers (extrusion factor, mix ratio, pressure advance, nonlinear extrusion) that mean a simplistic approach of converting E values to an absolute number of steps no longer works.

        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

        DeltaConundefined 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • DeltaConundefined
          DeltaCon @dc42
          last edited by

          @dc42 said in My Experience with Relative extrusion (Problem and Solution):

          RRF converts absolute extrusion commands to relative extrusion

          @sigxcpu I guess I should have kept my keyboard quiet... 😉

          If you think trial and error is dangerous, try routine. That's even more so!

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

            Just to add that absolute values are still relative. It's just that absolute values are relative to when the extruder was last zeroed (usually at the start of a print), whereas relative values are relative to the last move. In order for the firmware to instruct the extruder to move nnn millimetres of filament, it must subtract the absolute value for the previous move from the absolute value for the current move to calculate what "nnn" is, and therefore it becomes a relative (to the previous move) value - which is what I meant when I said "if you think about it".

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

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • brunofportoundefined
              brunofporto
              last edited by

              Thank you!!!!! this explains a lot of issues I am having with small layers highly detailed prints failing horribly!!!!!!!!

              MU current steps/mm for extrusion is around 90 (16x interpolated) I'll change to 256 microstpes and give it a try 😄

              MegaAndyundefined 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
              • MegaAndyundefined
                MegaAndy @brunofporto
                last edited by

                @brunofporto

                Great, good luck! This is exactly why I wanted to get this solution online so it may help others

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

                  I can confirm that the code was not working as intended. I have implemented a provisional fix, and subject to testing that will be included in the 2.02 firmware release.

                  Meanwhile, I suggest choosing extruder microstepping so that the number of microsteps/mm is in the 400 to 1000 range.

                  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

                  MegaAndyundefined botundefined 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 2
                  • MegaAndyundefined
                    MegaAndy @dc42
                    last edited by

                    @dc42
                    Thanks for the info,

                    Nice to hear my theory was correct and that this post has helped fix a software issue !

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • botundefined
                      bot @dc42
                      last edited by

                      @dc42 said in My Experience with Relative extrusion (Problem and Solution):

                      I can confirm that the code was not working as intended. I have implemented a provisional fix, and subject to testing that will be included in the 2.02 firmware release.

                      Meanwhile, I suggest choosing extruder microstepping so that the number of microsteps/mm is in the 400 to 1000 range.

                      Can you elaborate on what behaviour was intended, what was actually happening, and how the behaviour will be now that it's fixed?

                      Thanks!

                      *not actually a robot

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • Iamturbo1978undefined
                        Iamturbo1978
                        last edited by

                        @MegaAndy, Thank you for bringing this up, I have been trying for months to remove an issue with blobbing(or zitz). I've tried everything I could think of, and I tried everything others suggested. But I could not get rid of my problem. Then I changed my microstepping from 16 to 128, and the problem went almost away. I still have to do some tuning, but so far I am liking the results.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                        • DeltaConundefined
                          DeltaCon
                          last edited by

                          I read on the https://reprap.org/wiki/Duet the following: "Microstepping is locked to 1/16. Board throughput is always sufficient to handle it, including on 0.9° steppers.". So, I guess upping microsteps is not possible for "us" who are using 0.6 and 0.85 boards. Changing to 0.9 degree stepper could work, but I understand that they have less torque. So changing to a geared extruder might be advisable?

                          If you think trial and error is dangerous, try routine. That's even more so!

                          wilrikerundefined 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • wilrikerundefined
                            wilriker @DeltaCon
                            last edited by wilriker

                            @deltacon The question is: how much torque do you need? Torque primarily has an influence on maximum acceleration. And even then it might surprise you how few of a torque is required for certain accelerations.

                            You could use my Maximum Acceleration Calculator to find out.

                            P.S.: On the other hand 0.9° steppers have higher back EMF so you would probably get lower maximum speed.

                            Manuel
                            Duet 3 6HC (v0.6) with RPi 4B on a custom Cartesian
                            with probably always latest firmware/DWC (incl. betas or self-compiled)
                            My Tool Collection

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • fundixundefined
                              fundix @MegaAndy
                              last edited by

                              @MegaAndy thank you! This is great idea! Today I will test it.

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