@Ak:

Only one question (right now): Is there any reason to get the whole kit built hooked up to the MSKBase first… or should I skip all that and just hook up the Duet directly? I ask because I haven't actually purchased the DuetEthernet yet. If I'll save a bunch of time going that route directly (straight to Duet), the I may as well order now so it's all ready to go at the same time…

No good reason that I could think of, aside from using it to verify that none of the parts are faulty.

What you could do in advance is modifying or swapping the connectors for compatibility with the Duet. I went the "modify" route and used side cutters and a precision knife to peel off plastic fins off the motor connectors and elsewhere where they would cause the white plastic back wall on the Duet board connectors to bend. I also replaced or split some Dupont connectors (e.g. BLTouch 1x3pin and 1x2pin to 3x1pin and 2x1pin). Be sure to at least check the wiring, as some of my kit's Dupont connectors had pretty awful crimping applied…

Be extra-attentive with the SSR (enclosed in the big black box on top, together with the PSU), and remember to generate your own PID for the hotend (and preferably the heated bed, although I skipped tuning that and just used OP's values which seem to work for me).

EDIT: You probably know, but just in case... Remember that the frame is grounded via the screwed connection to the aforementioned black aluminum case containing the PSU and SSR, so if you ever decide to relocate the PSU you have to remember to pull your own wiring from the PSU's protective earth connectors to the frame and check with a multimeter that the separate parts of the whole structure are grounded, with the most important part of course being the aluminum around and beneath the mains-powered heated bed. Checking that these parts are properly grounded is smart even if you modify nothing. I would go as far as making certain that the PSU's protective earth is in fact connected to proper pin on the back of the enclosure where the power cord is connected, and use a power cord that definitely isn't defective.

Since the magnetic rods allow for easy attaching/detaching of the effector, it would be nice if instead of connecting the wiring from the effector directly to the controller you could bundle them all together using a single connector (with properly specced wire gauges etc.) and connect that to a breakout board with the separate connectors for different components. This would make swapping extruders faster. The breakout board could ride the effector, and offer extra pins. Any problems with such implementation, aside from additional impedance/reflection introduced by non-galvanic connections?

@dc42:

Already implemented in 1.19. See https://duet3d.com/wiki/G-code#M586:_Configure_network_protocols for how to enable it.

Apologies… and thanks!

P.s. Maybe the list in the first post should be updated to reflect features already implemented (telnet support is in the first bullet)?

Any hope of getting telnet server anytime soon?

I intend to enclose my printer with walls (possibly polycarbonate) in order to contain heat better so that I can control the ambient temperature.

How well does the Delta Smart Effector tolerate heat?

Discussed here: https://www.duet3d.com/forum/thread.php?id=1668

I can only say that my endstops appear to be doing their thing, but I've had my suspicions regarding their "reaction time." I've actually been meaning to check the alignment of the sensor and the tap on carriage, as the endstop switches didn't seem that accurately assembled.

Been trying to think this through and thought I'd check here before pulling the plug.

I just put in an order for the Delta Smart Effector with all the goodies, including the rods. However I'm not certain the rods are long enough for my machine, specs of which are:

Height: 1000mm
Diagonal rod length: 397mm
Printable area: D 340mm
Delta radius initially set to, and converged by Delta Auto Calibration close to: 157mm

Tower-to-tower distance (between centers) is 400mm.

Additionally, I'm currently using wheeled carriages which I intend to replace with linear rails at some point. The thing is, the carriages' rod connection points extend away from, and thus the rod ends are a some 20-30mm (IIRC) distance from the exterior of the towers, which are slotted for the wheel carriages. So if I'm somehow going to install linear rails on these towers, the delta radius is likely to change on top of the rod length. So my first question is; Anyone know if there exist some kind of jigs for installing the rails on the extrusions?

(All dimensions are approximate.)

I've read about the "80% rule" (diagonal length from tower-to-tower distance) but I doubt it's of any value. I've also read the recommended minimum angle between the rods and bed should be about 20° at any given position, but I'm having difficulty approximating the delta radius before knowing the specific dimensional changes introduced by the new carriages (I don't currently see how I could mount the magnetic rods' carriage adapters on my current carriages). My second question is; Taking all this into consideration, is 360mm rod length likely enough or should I go to Haydn for some custom length?

My order is currently on halt until I can at least make an informed decision on whether to include the rods or not. I don't really want to lose too much printable area.

Any insights greatly appreciated…

I was also considering purchasing S3D due to vast amounts of hype surrounding it. There was a YouTuber giving it a lot of praise, then I read the comments and found out he was actually sponsored by S3D…

I'm not arguing that the thing doesn't slice well, but I have gotten the impression that the time they consider too valuable to be be used to respond to customer inquiries, they instead might invest in marketing (viral, guerrilla, sponsorships that at least once seemed rather opaque). I also recall someone saying (take it with a grain of salt) that they tried to get refunded on S3D but was ignored for weeks, after which he worked the refund through his bank. Personally, I have strong resentment for both ignoring customers (potential or established) and sleazy marketing tactics - I'm fine with viral and a bit of guerrilla, and transparent sponsorships, but not with what gives a strong stench of astroturfing. The supposed lax pace of updates and overlooking of bug fixing and feature requests also rings an alarm.

All that said, it would be nice if someone could make an objective up-to-date comparison of the most powerful slicers out there, because as much as I care about principles and all that, my number one priority is getting good prints. I have only used Slic3r and Cura, and while I've understood that many would disagree with me on this point, Cura seemed to create more sensible paths than Slic3r. I had to go back to Slic3r due to severely limited configuration in Cura. I wonder to what extent the path generation in Slic3r is hardcoded and to what extent the user can affect it, and if some of the insane decisions Slic3r makes could be re-programmed or alleviated. I would also like to see detailed, in-depth data and analysis on practical differences in tendencies between the different slicers in generating paths. Is S3D actually more intelligent, and can anyone show me exactly how? If so, is Slic3r likely to catch up, or are there half a dozen Paul Erdõs'es and John von Neumanns programming algorithms for S3D?

My searches on the subject mostly returned threads packed full of non-information, saturated with S3D hype written by people who in the same breath give a strong impression that they haven't really immersed themselves in the technology they're using, and when the recommendations consist mostly of superlatives, emotion and vague handwaving instead of technical analysis, its worth as data is close enough to nil to be completely ignored.

I was also experiencing this (IIUC) and the culprit was an uneven heat spread on the bed. I had the bed temperature set to 73°C for the first layer and 55°C for the rest. At around the fourth layer corners would begin to curl up. I felt the temperature at different points on the bed with my fingers and found out that there were stark contrasts in temperature between points only 2cm apart.

A workaround for me was to heat the bed to 90°C, and start printing when it cooled down to about 80°C. I figured this would help the bed area further from the center to contain heat better and thus prevent larger temperature differences per distance from occurring. During printing of the first layer of a larger print the temperature would set to 73°C. After repeating the routine before each print, three 1.5h print jobs completed neatly with good bed adhesion and no detaching.

Are you looking into the possibility to make room for mount holes for two hotends, or would that pose a problem for proximity sensing or (I reckon) other parts of the circuit? Any known or imaginable hacks to allow for such a setup? Thanks.