Topics created by singhm29

@fcwilt Hey thank you very much for your feedback as well I went ahead and tried what you advised above and it worked very well! Makes alot of sense to use that approach to keep things simple and I am now happy to report all points are probed and it gets quite close to the edge on each side still.

I used @jay_s_uk tip on changing my probe point to X35 and that also fixed my ramming of my X endstop when executing G32.

Thank you for the help, looks like probing is figured out for now!

@phaedrux

I wasn't too sure if it was the gantry or the bed so I tried correcting both.

Here was my bed level before doing any changes to the physical bed.
29a932e6-7d75-452d-b2ff-d78d87b9f857-image.png

Here it was after I loosened the bed corners so that the springs were all completely loose and then I moved the gantry to rest on the steppers at the bottom of the Z axis (equalizing the Z gantry tilt from left to right and back to front). From here again I set the Z probe offset which changed from 2.5 to 3.1mm. Here is what I got from that
e154ef0c-974d-4bb6-b968-a08e12dde664-image.png

Not particularly promising...so being humble I decided to give another go at bed leveling manually. Here is the result from that 3dfb185b-0687-45f1-9f7e-da333b3f6267-image.png

Now to give some context I am not new to bed leveling manually as I have been printing since 2015 but here what was really baffling.

I turned off G29, G32 and G29 S1 from my start gcode printed for a round and the first layer came out well.

I turned on G29 and G32 and lo and behold with no physical changes to the bed I now had this
969467e5-1ed4-4980-960b-a2f02dcc4ecb-image.png

Thinking it was possibly the presence of G29 followed by G29 S1 I turned it back on to see if that would cause an issue. Again the new bed level came out great.
a3911065-92a1-4739-91b2-aa9cbc834871-image.png

So I am back to a good looking bed but I have no idea how it was fixed. I'm hoping this will stick and wont be doing any physical changes. Lets see how long this lasts! Open to any thoughts but either way appreciate walking me through the possible issues.

It looks like you need to relevel your bed as there is a tilt going down to the back.

Yes that portion of the wiki was added a little while ago when someone else was asking about the Palette. And they did get it working at the time. However, I'm not sure what may have changed to the Palette or Octoprint software in the mean time.

I think user @MartinNYHC got it working recently though.

https://forum.duet3d.com/topic/21022/duet-rrf-mosaic-palette-and-octoprint?_=1612197410142

@DIY-O-Sphere said in Help setting probing limits:

M557

That sounds perfect! Thank you for pointing me in the right direction

@singhm29 said in Duet 3 Inverted,pull-up, inverted + pull up?:

@Danal Ah that makes alot of sense so just depending on what side of that molex header you connect to your using either ioX.in or ioX.out. Thanks for clarifying.

I will also be adding a BLtouch to my printer so the additional snapshot really helps, is it safe to assume you didn't declare a Z endstop as you're using the BLtouch as a probe and endstop?

Correct.

Am I correct in thinking that this is how I should lay my molex connector up assuming I replicate exactly what you have?

io4.3.3V is wired to red V+ wire of the Bltouch
io4.in is wired to the white signal wire of the Bltouch (select pullup in config) io4.gnd is wired to black gnd wire of the Bltouch
io4.gnd is wired to brown gnd wire of the Bltouch (can I piggy back this with the black wire onto gnd or should I be routing this to a separate ground?)
io4.out is wired to yellow PWM wire of the Bltouch (select pull in config)

Yes, and the grounds on the BLt are the same. Connect either or both.

@singhm29 said in Duet 3 standard stepper motor wiring to thick wiring:

This is what worries me from doing that:

"The 4 wire motor and OUT1, OUT2 and OUT3 are JST VH series connectors. They require a minimum of 22AWG wire (20AWG or 0.5mm2 recommended. Most NEMA17 size stepper motor wire will will not be thick enough."

From the duet wiring recommendations https://duet3d.dozuki.com/Wiki/Duet_3_Mainboard_6HC_Wiring_Diagram

When converting my tool changer to Duet3, I doubled the stripped part of the stepper motor wire back on itself to bulk that up, and I put a short piece of heatshrink sleeving over the insulation to bulk up the insulation. I then used a PA21 tool to crimp them. I've had no issues with bad connections.

I have added this to the wiring recommendations that you linked to.

@dc42 ...Slow start to the week for me. Thanks!

It's hard for me to say without a visual representation of the bed map (which for Marlin I think you need Octoprint and plugin to get), however I think that map is fairly smooth with the exception of that +0.319 figure at the middle right. I suggest you look into why that one is so different from the others. The one below it is rather high too.

@themelle Thanks for that visual wondering though if there is a better way to determine the max height if I know all the other factors. As in where does the cone begin?

Try turning off the Zhop (retraction vertical lift). I don´t why, but this did the same issues for me as you have. Also, try disabling "force retraction between layers" and enable "only retract when crossing open spaces"

@phaedrux said in Delta running a duet maestro wants to sound like a train?:

@singhm29 said in Delta running a duet maestro wants to sound like a train?:

FIRMWARE_VERSION: 2.02RC5

Probably a good idea to update to 2.04RC1
https://github.com/dc42/RepRapFirmware/releases
https://github.com/dc42/RepRapFirmware/blob/dev/WHATS_NEW.md

Yeah, I'd recommend that as well. Currently running on my large-ish delta:

0_1563751259242_c1386f6a-edaa-4263-b531-ad9eb55e67eb-image.png

Which is 23.5 hours into a job, somewhere between 15 to 20 to go... and printing flawlessly and quietly.

0_1563751320788_6d976ee1-a09e-4fd8-af88-252ba9c0e628-image.png

I have not tried to push or tune up speeds yet... and this is an experimental print in that it was sliced in Slic3r Prusa Edition.

0_1563751723250_ade4818a-ca94-4a67-bed6-ae7c3bfff47a-image.png

Anyway, the point being that I highly recommend 2.04RC1 on a Delta.

If there are no missed steps, then no higher current is needed. I use 24V 750mA for my towers, also 0.9 deg steppers.

On travel moves, when there is no z-hop some contact may be normal between the part and the nozzle.

I myself use Cura with machine settings plugin (from store ...free) set the machine settings => firmware retraction to ON, set the retraction amount to something minimal in cura, like 0.01mm (otherwise it does not send firmware retract commands either) and set my zhop and retraction amount with the firmware itself.

These seem like sufficiently narrow deviations to me (see below). I run a 600mm (24") delta and what I settled on is to do a calibration, an M500, and a mesh every so often (particularly if I work on the printer), and do a calibration only in the start G-Code of every print.

I use a single value for L. Not right or wrong, just what I do. I also NEVER run the number factors in a calibration that can change L; my experience with that makes me shy away from it.

I run a bed.g generated from:

bed.g file for RepRapFirmware, generated by Escher3D calculator ; 16 points, 8 factors, probing radius: 280, probe offset (0, 0)

And config.g (or override) entries of:

M558 P5 R0.4 H5 F500 T18000 ; P5=Effector. R0.4 = Recovery time after each probe. H5 = Height from which to probe. F500 = Feedrate mm/min T18000 = rapid between probes, mm/min G31 P100 X0 Y0 Z-0.1 ; Set Z probe trigger value, offset and trigger height M557 R300 S75 ; Define mesh grid ; config-override.g file generated in response to M500 at 2019-01-18 16:32 ; This is a system-generated file - do not edit ; Delta parameters M665 L720.280 R328.965 H626.773 B304.0 X-0.173 Y0.125 Z0.000 M666 X1.176 Y-1.179 Z0.003 A-0.50 B0.11

Resulting in a height map of:

RepRapFirmware height map file v2 generated at 2019-05-25 13:51, mean error -0.065, deviation 0.040 xmin,xmax,ymin,ymax,radius,xspacing,yspacing,xnum,ynum -225.00,225.10,-225.00,225.10,300.00,75.00,75.00,7,7 0, -0.080, -0.135, -0.070, -0.046, 0.026, 0 -0.066, -0.065, -0.074, -0.062, -0.075, -0.074, 0.034 -0.103, -0.073, -0.106, -0.090, -0.094, -0.041, -0.052 -0.044, -0.065, -0.040, -0.089, -0.085, -0.090, -0.059 -0.105, -0.066, -0.075, -0.081, -0.086, -0.059, -0.120 -0.145, -0.058, -0.013, -0.038, -0.067, -0.081, -0.131 0, -0.102, -0.005, 0.011, 0.022, -0.024, 0

You can see that with my large-ish bed, I'm satisfied with final deviations in the .04 range. You are getting things about half that. Looks good to me.

P.S. Looks like five months since I bothered to do an M500 after a calibration (since I do one every time) and about a month since I did a mesh.

@singhm29 said in Thermal runaway not active by default?:

No problem! The issue however is that I get a reading of 2000 instead of fault and no error in DWC making me wonder what I've done wrong in the setup to have the safeguards disabled

If you are getting readings of 2000, the heater will go into the fault state as soon as you try to heat it up. It will not go into the fault state or report any other error as long as you leave it turned off.

When just checking the e-steps the machine can be cold. M302 can be used to allow cold extrusion ( https://duet3d.dozuki.com/Wiki/Gcode#Section_M302_Allow_cold_extrudes ). You will have to disable the interlock that prevents extrusion if the hotend temp is less than 170C. I run the e steps check slow, F60. F90 should work fine too.

For the extrusion correction tests these need to be done through the nozzle at the working temperature. Search the forums. I do it manually, but I think someone has made a macro to ease the process.

When giving the thinner extrusion widths a go it will be very interesting to see if the poor finish is fixed completely, if it still occurs when the print speed is increased to reach the same problematic flow rate, or there is no change.

I'd probably check thinner widths first to see if that eases the main issues, but still check the e steps and non linear extrusion.

Are you using standard extruder control or volumetric extruder control where the filament diameter is specified in the g-code?

Edit: I should point out that I have an interest in improving machine to machine consistancy and a longer term interest in investigating both fine and thick nozzles. I've not worked with the volcano yet, just been held up on machine build and consistancy issues at the moment!

it also depends on what you mean by not particularly fast.
the maestro supports stealthchop2 which can make your printer nearly silent at low speeds.

Arms that I placed an order for will be 450mm and I will be using the smart effector. Bed size is 370mm with a build volume of 455mm. I'm altering an Anycubic Predator and while I would love to model it in Fusion I imagine it would take a great deal longer for me to figure that out than the few days I have to change my order 🙂 Any chance that info is sufficient in figuring out if it would be problematic?

Thanks for your thoughts!

Thanks for the insights!