2.03RC5 leveling issue

[SPAX]

@veti coz I print with 0.1 layer step
If I set 0.2, first layer (with 0.1 layer step) very poor and don't catch on bed....

[Veti]

no you adjust the offset of your probe in the M558 command not with M208

[SPAX]

Still not work!

G32
Calibrated 7 factors using 16 points, deviation before 9.727 after 0.077

G32
Calibrated 7 factors using 16 points, deviation before 0.436 after 0.055

G32
Calibrated 7 factors using 16 points, deviation before 7.144 after 0.063

G32
Calibrated 7 factors using 16 points, deviation before 6.261 after 0.092

G32
Calibrated 7 factors using 16 points, deviation before 11.004 after 0.046

G32
Calibrated 7 factors using 16 points, deviation before 15.613 after 0.078

[dc42]

I suspect you are getting inconsistent results from probing. Try replacing S7 on your final G30 command by S-1 so that it prints the errors without making corrections. Then run G32 several times and see how consistent the results are.

Also, we don't normally advise using 7-factor calibration unless the height map is a particular shape. 6-factor usually gives better results.

[SPAX]

@dc42

02:39:01G32
G32 bed probe heights: -2.687 -2.702 -2.807 -2.825 -2.948 -3.058 -2.749 -2.889 -3.022 -2.864 -3.056 -2.895 -2.875 -2.700 -2.974 -3.005, mean -2.879, deviation from mean 0.122

02:36:56G32
G32 bed probe heights: -2.693 -2.696 -2.826 -2.850 -2.954 -3.071 -2.761 -2.895 -3.022 -2.858 -3.056 -2.913 -2.882 -2.706 -2.968 -3.005, mean -2.885, deviation from mean 0.121

[dc42]

Those results show differences of around 0.02mm which isn't ideal, but not too bad. Try S6 instead of S7.

[SPAX]

@dc42
Did s6.
Now G32 repeats little good....
G32
Calibrated 6 factors using 16 points, deviation before 0.132 after 0.106

But before on 2.02 was be after 0.03-0.08(maybe because I did matte on my glass today)

Thank you. I will try to print something tomorrow....

[SPAX]

@dc42
Now better, but not ideal (((

Calibrated 6 factors using 16 points, deviation before 0.450 after 0.109
Calibrated 6 factors using 16 points, deviation before 0.260 after 0.174
Calibrated 6 factors using 16 points, deviation before 0.207 after 0.156
Calibrated 6 factors using 16 points, deviation before 0.346 after 0.113
Why this happening?
First layer poor....some place the nozzle touching the bed some plase have pit...
If I run G29 the nozzle starting print like on wave... and first layer much more poor .

[dc42]

@spax, what type of Z probe do you have on your delta printer?

After run G32 a few times, if you then run G29, what does the height map look like?

[SPAX]

@dc42, I use your IR probe.
22:32:26G29
109 points probed, min error -0.158, max error 0.575, mean 0.214, deviation 0.150
Height map saved to file heightmap.csv
22:26:15G32
Calibrated 6 factors using 16 points, deviation before 0.178 after 0.100
22:25:04G32
Calibrated 6 factors using 16 points, deviation before 0.239 after 0.095
22:23:55G32
Calibrated 6 factors using 16 points, deviation before 0.371 after 0.126

[SPAX]

I have 6mm aluminium plate + 0.5 heatsink pad + 4mm glass (back side painted in black).

[SPAX]

@dc42 any thoughts?

[Phaedrux]

Can you rerun the G29 heightmap with a piece of plain paper covering the bed surface? The idea being to eliminate any inconsistencies in the IR probe reading the surface.

[dc42]

Also please post a screen shot with the height map rotated so that we are looking along the X axis.

[SPAX]

@dc42 @Phaedrux

19:36:16G29
97 points probed, min error -0.587, max error 1.307, mean 0.383, deviation 0.415
Height map saved to file heightmap.csv

19:28:00M500

19:27:48G32
Calibrated 6 factors using 16 points, deviation before 0.254 after 0.091

19:26:43M500

19:26:37G32
Calibrated 6 factors using 16 points, deviation before 0.132 after 0.111

19:25:31M500

19:25:01G32
Calibrated 6 factors using 16 points, deviation before 0.209 after 0.080

19:23:54M500

19:23:44G32
Calibrated 6 factors using 16 points, deviation before 0.379 after 0.108

[dc42]

That height map looks terrible, as if you are probing off the edge of the bed or something like that.

[SPAX]

@dc42 Coz idea with paper is bad idea) Paper of sheet not 100% flat...

[garyd9]

@spax said in 2.03RC5 leveling issue:

@dc42 Coz idea with paper is bad idea) Paper of sheet not 100% flat...

That height map has high points "0.25mm of more" and low points "-0.25 or less." A sheet of paper isn't going to deviate in thickness by over 0.5mm!

[SPAX]

@garyd9 @dc42
that also because paper sheet was be not on all bed surface...I have bed dia 40cm, paper A4

[dc42]

Time to get a bigger sheet of paper?