Why cant Auto Calibrate actually calibrate End Stop positions?
-
@fcwilt I once started with a Delta and I must confess this was a mistake some years ago, because as beginner it is better to start simpler. It has it's strengths, I am sure, e.g. for speed, but it's better to have some expertise already. My opinion.
I then had a Prusa, and although it was immediately defective (heating of bed), I still had some initial successes.
-
I started with a delta too (-; but now I build even weirder machines that are harder to tame.
<>RatRig V-Minion Fly Super5Pro RRF<> V-Core 3.1 IDEX k*****r <> RatRig V-Minion SKR 2 Marlin<>
-
.. so deltas are a gateway drug?!
I think bad hardware and firmware have given deltas a bad rep, fix the hardware and give a god rep (rap firmware) and you'll be amazed.
My friend got a kossel mini eons ago, struggled with inductive probes and calibration, never worked right and collected dust for years. Last week(?) we spent 2 hours wiring in a Duet 2 Maestro and squaring up the frame, and less than an hour to configure and (auto)calibrate using manual probe / paper method to eliminate effector tilt. My friend was in awe by the simplicity of the Duet and RRF compared to RAMPS and Marlin, not to mention the near silent printing.
My experience is similar, but I got it working until the non v-slot profiles wrecked the v-wheels and its sitting in a box pending new carriages to be made for new v-slots..
-
@oliof said in Why cant Auto Calibrate actually calibrate End Stop positions?:
I started with a delta too (-; but now I build even weirder machines that are harder to tame.
Yes you do and they are fascinating. The kind of project I love to watch someone else dive into.
Frederick
-
@JoergS5 said in Why cant Auto Calibrate actually calibrate End Stop positions?:
@fcwilt I once started with a Delta and I must confess this was a mistake some years ago, because as beginner it is better to start simpler. It has it's strengths, I am sure, e.g. for speed, but it's better to have some expertise already. My opinion.
I got mine to work but they were mini-d's with a limited build diameter and they took a lot of work to get everything just so.
Then I built my first non-d, the FT-5. Once I saw how much easier it was to get first rate results and a large build area I was a convert.
Then I equipped it with a Nimble and I didn't see that d's had anything more to offer for the kinds of things I print.
My MarkForged style printer has even less moving mass than the FT-5. For some reason the MF style just appeals to me.
Frederick
-
Aside from Resin SLA printers, my entire history with 3D printing is delta's (5years?). I guess Ill go easy mode on the next big build and try out Railcore type design. Ive had no real problems with smaller delta's but the Predators huge build volume (and dubious end stops) have proven problematic from day 1. So much potential though.
On this problem I've made yet another IR Probe mount, super slim and just 1mm gap between the mount itself and the hotends (which are in silicone socks). The IR probe is another 3mm further out.. this is realistically as close as its going to get. I'll test it later when more filament gets delivered!
-
After moving the IR Sensor closer (again) to the middle I did indeed get much much better results.
Makes be wonder.. do the Nozzle(s) have to actually be in the middle?
I could really stretch the design and put the IR Probe in the middle (which is as close to eliminating effector tilt as it gets) and offset the nozzles, by maybe 3mm.Thoughts?
-
@Kodachrome said in Why cant Auto Calibrate actually calibrate End Stop positions?:
I could really stretch the design and put the IR Probe in the middle (which is as close to eliminating effector tilt as it gets) and offset the nozzles, by maybe 3mm.
the kinematics probably have to think it is, applying tool offsets would probably let you move it but at the end of the day its the distance between the nozzle and the sensor that causes tilt to affect the calibration.
use the nozzle as a sensor with a smart effector or piezeo sensor (or other solutions to probe with the nozzle) to rule out the tilt (or just true up the mechanics if at all possible)
-
Nozzles, not nozzle, so cant use the Smart Effector (as per my other thread, thanks for the response there too, appreciate it).
On the piezo sensor, not sure how to physically integrate on a E3D Chimera .I did have JohnSL FSR's setup too, to compare. Definately gave different results, but cant say for certain it was more accurate. I think FSRs are not a great solution for this size of bed.
Its maybe not as pressing as before, Im printing my 5th sensor holder now, seeing how close I can get before the PETG takes heat damage. Printing is gone way up in quality. I also changed the crap Optical sensors to the old SeeMeCNC mechanical switch endstops. -
So to update my own experiments, I made an easily attachable mount (magnets) for the IR probe and mounted it directly below the nozzles. Its dead on centered but the results from Auto Calibration are kinda the same at 6 Factor and useless at 8. Rear right of the bed is about 0.25 too high and front left is -0.15.
Deviation is ~0.110 .
So far:
- changed effector platform from metal to custom PETG one
- changed all Endstops from inaccurate optical ones to tried and trusted mechanical endtop switches (from SeeMeCNC)
- moved IR probe close to center, about 10mm off nozzles
- then moved IR probe directly below nozzle (G31 X0 Y0 Z35)
Literally none of these changes make any actual difference. The same error positions occur all the time? What else am I missing?
-
To add:
- stripped the Whambam bed off, back to bare clean aluminium plate.
- added 3 more bolt down washers to snag the aluminium plate into the frame even tighter
Got the deviation in Auto Cal down to "0.043" but...
Literally none of these changes make any actual difference. The same problem positions (rear left vs front right of bed) occur all the time? What else am I missing?
