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

    Progress on Path Smoothing / Lookahead?

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved
    Firmware wishlist
    7
    25
    1.5k
    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.
    • MJLewundefined
      MJLew @CCS86
      last edited by

      @CCS86 I disagree too, but it is with you I disagree. With modern computers there is no substantial penalty for things that used to be computationally demanding.

      If the RepRap firmware uses segments of 1.2mm for an arc of diameter 20mm then the formula for segment lengths is faulty! I have a routine for changing arcs to G1 sequences that I made to accommodate my then new PrusaMK4 which ignored the Z parameter of G2 and G3 commands (now fixed). I found good results for a wide range of radii with the formula of 6*(r+1)^1.5 where r is the radius in mm. That formula gives a segment length of just under 0.3mm for a 20mm diameter. It is easily modified if that is too large.

      I'll look at the thread that you linked.

      CCS86undefined 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • CCS86undefined
        CCS86 @MJLew
        last edited by

        @MJLew said in Progress on Path Smoothing / Lookahead?:

        @CCS86 I disagree too, but it is with you I disagree. With modern computers there is no substantial penalty for things that used to be computationally demanding.

        If the RepRap firmware uses segments of 1.2mm for an arc of diameter 20mm then the formula for segment lengths is faulty! I have a routine for changing arcs to G1 sequences that I made to accommodate my then new PrusaMK4 which ignored the Z parameter of G2 and G3 commands (now fixed). I found good results for a wide range of radii with the formula of 6*(r+1)^1.5 where r is the radius in mm. That formula gives a segment length of just under 0.3mm for a 20mm diameter. It is easily modified if that is too large.

        I'll look at the thread that you linked.

        Disagree all you want but proper arc fitting can take a long time, even with powerful modern computers. That is a penalty to the user.

        I run a high tech CNC manufacturing facility. I have half million dollar machines that chew through linearly segmented code and produce super smooth motion. Arc filtering everything is not the answer on the highest end CNC machining, and it for sure is not the answer for 3D printers.

        MJLewundefined 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • MJLewundefined
          MJLew @CCS86
          last edited by

          @CCS86 Well, all I can say is that the latest PrusaSlicer has arc fitting and it seems to slice as fast with it active as it does without on my Mac M1.

          CCS86undefined 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • CCS86undefined
            CCS86 @MJLew
            last edited by

            @MJLew said in Progress on Path Smoothing / Lookahead?:

            @CCS86 Well, all I can say is that the latest PrusaSlicer has arc fitting and it seems to slice as fast with it active as it does without on my Mac M1.

            Have you looked at the code?

            It's easy to go fast when you don't actually fit arcs.

            d0d9e2eb-d416-40df-940b-c5bb182417f1-image.png

            Plus, even when successfully fitting arcs, they inject some variability into the wall surface. You can see something similar if you make the slicing resolution more coarse.

            MJLewundefined droftartsundefined 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • MJLewundefined
              MJLew
              last edited by

              Yes, I did look at the code.Screen Shot 2023-12-01 at 3.21.33 pm.png

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • MJLewundefined
                MJLew @CCS86
                last edited by

                @CCS86 We do not need to argue about this. Fitting arcs will take longer than not fitting arcs, but there are some (many, probably) use-cases and examples where the time difference is trivial. Your experience is vast and your opinion is valid, but it is quite likely that I also have relevant experience.

                CCS86undefined 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • CCS86undefined
                  CCS86 @MJLew
                  last edited by

                  @MJLew said in Progress on Path Smoothing / Lookahead?:

                  @CCS86 We do not need to argue about this. Fitting arcs will take longer than not fitting arcs, but there are some (many, probably) use-cases and examples where the time difference is trivial. Your experience is vast and your opinion is valid, but it is quite likely that I also have relevant experience.

                  It's called a discussion, not an argument. That's the whole purpose of this forum.

                  If you have relevant experience that leads you to a different conclusion, let's hear it. Just saying that you "likely... Have relevant experience" isn't very compelling.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • droftartsundefined
                    droftarts administrators @CCS86
                    last edited by

                    @CCS86 That's weird, because it is definitely producing arcs for me:

                    32681a12-4e7d-40bf-bac3-b20fc91371f3-image.png

                    Ian

                    Bed-slinger - Mini5+ WiFi/1LC | RRP Fisher v1 - D2 WiFi | Polargraph - D2 WiFi | TronXY X5S - 6HC/Roto | CNC router - 6HC | Tractus3D T1250 - D2 Eth

                    CCS86undefined 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • CCS86undefined
                      CCS86 @droftarts
                      last edited by CCS86

                      This post is deleted!
                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • CCS86undefined
                        CCS86
                        last edited by CCS86

                        I put my g-code resolution back to the default value and it started generating arcs. It only does it on external perimeters though. So artifacts from linear segmented inner walls can still print through.

                        But again, for the sake of our discussion, until RRF allows true arc support, the quality with G2/G3 is worse than without.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • CCS86undefined
                          CCS86
                          last edited by

                          @dc42 is this just not going to be explored?

                          Phaedruxundefined 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • Phaedruxundefined
                            Phaedrux Moderator @CCS86
                            last edited by

                            @CCS86 I think the main focus right now is getting 3.5 out the door.

                            Z-Bot CoreXY Build | Thingiverse Profile

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                            • First post
                              Last post
                            Unless otherwise noted, all forum content is licensed under CC-BY-SA