@jay_s_uk I have 4 tools on the tool expansion board. where am I supposed to plug in the scanning probe?
Posts made by gnydick
-
RE: 1LC with scanning probe?
-
1LC with scanning probe?
So, it looks like the scanning probe can't readily be used with the 1LC, is that correct?
-
RE: mesh compensation too aggressive?
@fcwilt I think you're asking me if I home my Z axis at the same place every time. Yes.
What I always do is home, then tram, and then use the printer. I don't home again after that. Maybe I should.
-
RE: mesh compensation too aggressive?
@gloomyandy I'll try it and let you know.
-
RE: mesh compensation too aggressive?
@fcwilt I'm not following what you mean about the z=0.
How are you confirming it's following it exactly, considering the source code and documentation show the first layer is subject to taper, making it impossible to follow the map exactly.
-
RE: Bug report: object cancellation causes ugly things to happen
@oliof the latter, since when you emit the code, it will immediately do the skip.
-
Bug report: object cancellation causes ugly things to happen
I have 3.5-rc2 with tool distribution board and tool boards on Core XY
When I cancel an object with M486 C, the XY motors make a horrible GAAAAHHNKKKKKK sound and the gantry is flung a short distance.
It makes that sound every time it skips an object.
The position is lost as steps are obviously messed up.
Then, after homing and resuming, the same thing happens with every skipped object.
-
RE: mesh compensation too aggressive?
@fcwilt yes, it smooshes too much in some areas, and I have a great bed.
But the point is, it is literally impossible to get a perfect first layer if it's not following the contour.
-
RE: mesh compensation too aggressive?
@gloomyandy whether or not the board can tell if it's the first layer or not is not my problem. It makes no sense not to track the exact measured offset for the first layer. That way you get the cleanest possible first layer.
Hi, would you like to save $0.50 on that $5.00 sandwich today? Ok, please pay me $4.75.
That is effectively what is happening. And although the documentation, in the fine details, does indicate that that is happening. It's wrong. You should be able to understand the documentation for this feature in one sentence.
It shouldn't be so complicated that the user has to calculate their own heatmap to offset for the taper adjustment on the first layer.
-
RE: mesh compensation too aggressive?
@gloomyandy I'm not expecting anything. I didn't know where the code was for the taper control, so I haven't made any assessment. I just wanted to know what the coded behavior is so I can see if it matches what happens to me.
It looks as though, at least based on this small snippet, taper is applied at all layers until the taper end-height is reached.
If that's the case, why would you apply taper to the first layer? Shouldn't the first layer mesh-compensation offset be exactly what was measured by the probe?
-
RE: Material vs mechanics? Extruder over-acceleration
@deckingman I'm going to close this post and start a new one, I think I've mischaracterized some things and would like a fresh start on the convo
-
RE: mesh compensation too aggressive?
first layer height: .2mm
I set the taper amount based on this guidance
RepRapFirmware does not adjust the extrusion factor to account for the layer height varying when tapered bed compensation is used. Therefore it is recommended that the taper height be set to at least 20x the maximum error in the height map, so that the maximum amount of the resulting over- or under- extrusion is limited to 5%.
-
mesh compensation too aggressive?
First, let me preface this by describing my setup.
I have a 4-tool tool-changer based the E3D kit. I use a USB microscope facing up to measure the offsets between the z probe and the tool heads.
When I print, all 4 colors are perfectly aligned, so I'm going to assume that my process is not flawed.
My problem comes when using mesh compensation. The heat map is simply just not followed 100%. It seems to behave as though it is only moving a percentage of the z-offset needed.
I have very low deviations, so the compensation taper is set very low. I'm theorizing that the very first layer has taper applied and therefor is not adjusting entirely.
I am running 3.5.0-rc2 now, but this has been happening for as long as I can remember (years).
Can this be checked in the source to see if it is indeed a bug?
-
RE: Material vs mechanics? Extruder over-acceleration
@deckingman That's true, but if it were directionally induced, the spacing wouldn't be continuously shrinking. That was my point.
I'm also tracking the actual printing speeds from the web gui and they are no different between using E1000 and E3000 acceleration. The prints come out at identical times. Only the surface quality changes.
-
RE: Material vs mechanics? Extruder over-acceleration
@deckingman it happens on curved sections as well. I think it's really the extruder. You can see the diminishing spacing between the ripples. Each photo is more magnified than the previous.
The ghosting doesn't coincide with the direction changes.
-
Material vs mechanics? Extruder over-acceleration
When I print, I can easily get corner ghosting, and I've been able to track it down to the acceleration setting of the extruder.
If I reduce the extruder's acceleration to the point that it is just fast enough to keep up with the print, everything is smooth and beautiful.
Anything above that and the ghosting comes back.
Seems reasonable behavior to me.
Does this seem to be other's experience?
-
RE: Duet3D announces new tool board at FormNext
@edsped I've found even for one tool head, I'd trade the cost for the convenience of not having to run 19 conductors for each tool.
- heater: 2
- thermistor: 2
- fan: 3
- fan: 4
- stepper: 4
- filament sensor/(un)load trigger button: 4
-
RE: What's the correct way to determine if there is a job active?
Thanks. Crazy that there isn't a blessed way to do it.