CoreXY<abc> ? Tips desired.

deckingman

@YesterdaysCoffee said in CoreXY<abc> ? Tips desired.:

............Simply put, this means two extruders on seperate gantries printing one object. ........

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Is it two extruders printing different sections of one object, or is two extruders printing separate objects?

dc42

@YesterdaysCoffee yes you can use standard RRF to drive a dual gantry printer using Core kinematics. Simplest is probably to duplicate a CoreXY mechanism for the second gantry and call the axes U and V. In the definition of the tool on the second gantry you can map X to U and Y to V.

RRF 3.5 supports simultaneous printing of both gantries, however this concept has unfortunately been patented so you should not use this facility for any commercial purpose.

YesterdaysCoffee

This post is deleted!

YesterdaysCoffee

@deckingman Sure, I tried to keep it clear and missed that bit. The first part, single object each extruder printing seperate parts of the object.
Or:
Printing ABS on tool0 and HIPPS on tool1, filament and support.

YesterdaysCoffee

@dc42 Good-thanks, now the "in the weeds" question. Does each extruder/gantry need to be level and on the same plane as the other? Or can each have it's own z-offset and QGL/bed tilt?
I'm unaware of any DIY projects allowing manual adjustment of gantry level and/or nozzle height.

deckingman

@YesterdaysCoffee said in CoreXY<abc> ? Tips desired.:

@deckingman Sure, I tried to keep it clear and missed that bit. The first part, single object each extruder printing seperate parts of the object.
Or:
Printing ABS on tool0 and HIPPS on tool1, filament and support.

That becomes a bit more complicated. If the object isn't symmetrical then essentially you'll be printing two different objects which happen to touch in places. So you can't use duplicate or mirror printing. Instead, you'll need to print too different gcode streams concurrently. Not sure where the firmware is on that - I think it might still be a bit experimental but no doubt DC or one of the other mods will clarify. How are you planning on slicing the object? Split it into two different stl files or what?

YesterdaysCoffee

@deckingman With Simplify3D, you can assign which tool is used for support. My IDEX printer can do that - main filament on tool0 with support in tool1.
Otherwise you'd be correct if I wanted two colors. Each color has it's own stl.
Unfortunately my IDEX, at one time a very nice printer, is showing it's technological age.

deckingman

@YesterdaysCoffee Yes, most slicers will alow you to select different tools for different colours or features. But all they do is insert a Tn command at the appropriate point in the gcode file. So you'll still only have one gcode stream and only be able to use one tool at a time. To print using two different tools concurrently, is a completely different proposition.

YesterdaysCoffee

@deckingman Yes, not easy, anyone can do easy. S3D can send scripts for certain events:

pre and post layer change
pre and post tool change
and others probably not relevant.

I'd like to avoid using those scripts in favor of creating a macro.
Would it be possible to create a macro riding over the firmware to translate "switch to Tool1" into:
-Park current tool;
-use steppers U/V <I'm guessing here>;
-change or adjust to z-Offset difference;
-change bed tilt <this assumes it will be near impossible to get both gantries on same plane> ;
-use tool1;
-wipe new current tool;
-go.
-->I'm sure I have semantics wrong, nevertheless..
Where's a good place to look for a reference on doing that?

-Thanks again.
mac

deckingman

@YesterdaysCoffee The tool change macros would be the way to go (tpre, tpost, and tfree).

But can you clarify something for me because I may have misunderstood what it is you are trying to do. Do you want to switch between tools as the print progresses in the manner of a tool changer or IDEX (which is relatively straight forward) or do you want to use both tools concurrently (i.e. at the same time) with each tool printing a different section of the model?. My understanding was that you wanted to do the latter which avoids tool changes but which is entirely different.