@dc42 This is an update to an old topic. I have waited very, very long to get the multiplexer chips on breakout boards. So, yeah, a delay.
But, just want to report that i have success with multiplexing only enable pin. External drivers are daisychained for step and dir and En is muxed.
Mux is controlled with 100-103 GPIOs.
And it works! Such a cool little thing this mux modules.
Hi all.
I have rewired everything. That was it. I had 105% belief in Duet that it’s not faulty. I do hope it fixed the issue for good and i think i know exact reason: me not puting everithing on a mount and due to using breakout boards not being fixed and cables constantly moved all over during “makeover”, it left those little hairs doing nasty business to thermistor cable (and maybe other places).
Everything looked ok for a freshly assembled proto-mod of chinese base machine, yet it is/was everything but a nice and tidy thing. The box is printing 
As i redid the crimping, & replaced AC power switch, all is fine. I didn’t suspect the breakup board of vga cables to printheads early on..
How does it come to a state, when you can make testing, heating, moving etc, but it fails to operate on gcode?
And coincidentaly, couldnt it be a sort of check-up test?
i edited/deleted because i thought you won't get it 
i'll call my coding brain friend and will share if anything comes out of this.
Thank you for a very constructive debate.
@Phaedrux as promissed, the pictures of a build in progress
https://ibb.co/9qDPTWn
https://ibb.co/CsGbTPb
https://ibb.co/6b5DQxL
It got pretty compact.
Needs a lot of work still to get the flat round cabling routed to both sides of X gantries from the bottom, then flat cables from there to each head, make breakout boards on toolheads for ribbon cables etc.
But all in all. There is progress
RESOLVED
For anyone, that might experience such headache and stumbles upon this:
one maps the axes, not the motors to the tools. and you count the axes, not specify motors...
@droftarts i did not understand what you meant that first time. Now i get it.
Thank you.
@dc42 & @Phaedrux : issue has been resolved. One maps the axes not the motors. I get it now.
@gringo you set the tool 0, tool 1 and tool 2. Tool 2 is having components from tool 0 and 1.
You set the origin to bed center.
And you only set one piece in your slicer. The machine will print it with both heads.
Should you print mirrored, you’ll just control that in the slicer.
What kind of printer are you using? If it’s i3 design, and running Duet, i have such and have a repository to share for you to build on. I use Tenlog D3 base, design evolved but IDEX stuff is still there in shared map.
There also is an S3d profile..
Anyhow, if people here don’t mind, repo si here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14S6cTYI0-bUS4PPHw44QKlxj1BM217J-
And facebook group with a bunch of people is here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/237163797566846/
@wdenker i don’t think that is how it works... unless you want to do parallel printing, but that adds a whole new level of complexity to the slicer side, daisychaining control boards via SBC, probably syncing Z, or go with Autodesk project Escher kind of way... complicated stuff..
As current setups go, you do mirror or duplication, and while it looks individual, it really isn’t. Without a user error, they will not collide.
If you’d like to just add redundancy and eliminate the potential user slicing error, you could put an extra endstop (preferently optical) on one of the gantries and before they collide, they stop.
@kru96 when selecting T2 you are selecting ditto tool (t0 is left probably, t1 is right and T2 is both...)
They move each on aproximate center of their bedhalves because in Tool definition you are setting the offsets and that positions them accordingly.
The bed center is in the middle of the bed for ditto/mirror mode to function.
I monitor and control my machines via remote desktop/teamviewer and have a browser tab for each machine… not sure what else would you need honestly. cheap “security” ip camera for video feed that’s linked to smartphone app so other than not being there physically either looking across the office to machines or at the videofeed on the screen is, for me, almost the same thing.
You do want well performing and tuned machines and fixed IPs set in router.
IMO you would like to have SSRs for bed tho because one print will be done at like midnight and the other at 3am and third at 5am… can’t imagine waking up to turn those heaters off.
@dc42 is there a rough timeline when this parallel printing ability will become a reality or ready for testing for us mortals?
@kru96 when selecting T2 you are selecting ditto tool (t0 is left probably, t1 is right and T2 is both...)
They move each on aproximate center of their bedhalves because in Tool definition you are setting the offsets and that positions them accordingly.
The bed center is in the middle of the bed for ditto/mirror mode to function.
@deckingman hello. Since we’re on records, first things first: Big fan of your work!
But regarding my little Quad; i do have a IQEX i3 build already for a year now and learned it’s quirks. I popped an extra IDEX gantry on Z towers (dual independent) and made heightadjustable mounts. Works more than great. Slicing is easy once you know what slicer does and what firmware does. Won’t teach you that, you know more than i do i guess...
independant tools make it very efficient and friendly. Even if I only have 4 materials loaded and print with whatever. But my current IQEX a bedslinger... while speed is limited, it is not the crucial issue. Yes, it is an issue but not that big. 80-90mm/s for production prints is just fine for a machine worth sub 1k printing quadruples... it will stay with me in the future no doubt... I primarily aim for more efficient formfactor & to be able to enclose it for nylons, PC and similar for functional parts (up to 90c buildchamber, no more), have freedom of Y offsets between paired toolsets and to just make a new machine. This last point is more or less main intrigue. And since i am building it my own, I’ll make it a challenge
@dc42 i love you. People should tell you this more often.
Ok, i can go and spend my cents and empty all my socks. When ready, i will nag for guidance to set the matrix correctly if i don’t figure it out myself.
What kind of sad way would be having only one Y? With motors being cheap, need for racking prevention and speed/torque high, i was thinking of going 4 Y motors on each corner split into two axes for each dual x gantry so i can mirror both Ys and all Xs. This way, each of dual X gantry can also home and square itself on homing, no need for some rods linking both sides avoiding motors etc. Building this as a platform to build on and work with for a while, so no shortcuts.
I at last finnished rough design of my new quad machine using stacked dual markforged kinematics. Well, the hard part i did - the XY plane with rails, idlers, motors, frame, toolmounts... Z is easy now i guess.
Now embarking on ordering parts to build an XY plane prototype and do some milling.
As said, plan is “just” to stack dual markforged (layout similar to great Muldex design by John Mulac) and making it a bit more compact.
So this brings X U V W and dual Y (Y and A). And tripple Z (BCD... are these even needed?) when finnished..
BUT
Before i shell out bunch of cash for a prototype XY stage, i am now looking at M669... is quad markforged even possible? I fear i got too ambitious and got spoled by “no limits” philosophy using Duet & RRF. I hope i am wrong.
99,9% sure i have to go with Duet3 just because a whole lot of movement will be going on there with very intricate stuff in multiplication. Along with number of stepper driver requirements...
So will i be able to set the firmware for this quad markforged? Or is Dual Markforged as good as it gets?
Worst case, i see there is an option to swap motor mapping on toolswaps and just run the machine as two independant dual makforged sets but that is less than desired or ideal due to having to load practically half the config on toolswaps..
@dc42 thank you for fast response. I am looking for 13th and 14th (or even 15th and 16th) stepper driver so not existing expandability options within duet2+duex5. So not exactly what i asked but I'll settle for this kind answer.
Duet 3 mini with expansion would give 7 stepper drivers each, so 14 needed, but i do have to read up if this would also have 8 channels of PWMs for fans, five heaters + at least 1 PWM for bltouch/probe and stuff that is needed to drive one proper IQEX...
I'll have to read up but ain't thrilled on going anything mini. It's just the ordinary "go duet3" way then OR doing an addon PCB for multiplexing.. Ourighty then.
Hello,
is there a way of having an option to use "spare" thermcouple SPIO pins on Duet2 or Duex5 or both... for step, dir, enable ? I know it is doable, since one member of my FB group has such thing configured with modified RRF v2..
Thing is, with rapid popularization of IDEX machines, the inevitable progress leads to IQEX. I have such a machine, but simple i3 style. 11 stepper drivers is all i need with it. Going further, evoluting to box design, 2 extra steppers are needed (dual Y and tripple Z opposed to one Y and dual Z in i3 design) while stacking dual markforged kinematics... Having two or even four extra ports for steppers would enable heaps of progress and tinkering.
Currently my workaround is demultiplexing steppers as there is always need for more... but honestly, demultiplexing isn't the most ideal; relying on additional modules, wiring, demultiplexer itself, much more complicated and slow toolchanging, addtionaly required simple "closed loop" addons like s42b with custom firmware to have a factored steps for each module and forcing enable while module is not selected with mux... just overcomplicated.
While we could just use those pins and have extra external stepper pins available on board(s). Or at least Duex5 since we are all drooling for accelerometers...
Also, it would position duet even further ahead of alternatives...
Thank you for your consideration.
@Phaedrux i see you find this interesting.
Here are the two videos of how this goes and progresses;
Now, i just have to wait for couple of additional breakout boards for stepsticks. But proof of concept is done.
@dc42 This is an update to an old topic. I have waited very, very long to get the multiplexer chips on breakout boards. So, yeah, a delay.
But, just want to report that i have success with multiplexing only enable pin. External drivers are daisychained for step and dir and En is muxed.
Mux is controlled with 100-103 GPIOs.
And it works! Such a cool little thing this mux modules.