Teaser for today - can you guess the answer?
-
@deckingman found it (assuming my DM was correct) as I scrolled down the homeall
-
@deckingman #MeToo
There were some gcodes I'm not familiar with and had to read up -
@deckingman #methree ah yes, saw it pretty quickly once you’d posted the homeall.g.
Ian
-
In case anyone is still scratching their head, if one restores the motor current to zero instead of 100% ( M913 X0 Y0 instead of M913 X100 Y100 ), then any following G1 move will result in no physical movement of the motors. But the firmware doesn't "know" this and so reports the motor positions as being their latest commanded position -in this case 0,0 which is the centre of the bed although the print head remained in the left rear corner.
In my defence, the reason it took my about 10 minutes to find my error was that I changed the printer origin at the same time as I started to change my homing files from a CoreXYUV machine to a simple CoreXY. So "origin" was at the forefront of my limited mental capacity. That's my feeble excuse and I'm sticking to it.
-
@deckingman would that then constitute as a bug
-
@SJI said in Teaser for today - can you guess the answer?:
@deckingman would that then constitute as a bug
Only in the sense that the firmware isn't idiot proof - but then what is? I suppose one could make the case that the firmware shouldn't allow users to set zero motor current - maybe default to a pre-determined minimum. But who decides what that minimum should be and is there a minimum that would suit every machine? - probably not. There are other commands that would give zero motor current (e.g. M906) and yet more that would likely result in no motor movement when a G1 is sent, such as zero maximum speed (M203), zero acceleration (M201) etc. And one could also make a similar case for things like fans where setting the maximum speed to zero (M106 Pn X0) would result in the fan not turning when commanded to do so. So I'd say that once you start looking at making things idiot proof whilst allowing users to make changes to their configurations, you end up going down an infinitely deep and infinitely complex rabbit hole.
-
@deckingman IMHO M913 X0 should flag the axis as not homed, just like M84 X (disable motors) does.
But the examples you gave wouldn't risk loosing position. They only disable motion, like M92 X0. -
@o_lampe said in Teaser for today - can you guess the answer?:
@deckingman IMHO M913 X0 should flag the axis as not homed, just like M84 X (disable motors) does...............................
What about M913 X1? It's unlikely that 1% motor current would be sufficient to drive a motor (depending on a number of factors) so should that also flag any axes as not homed? If so then what about 2% current, or 3 or 4? You'd also need to apply the same criteria to M906 and probably M917. I think you can see where I'm going with this but I have more important things to think about right now.
-
@SJI no, its open loop control after all.
-
This post is deleted!
