@GrodanBIf your right tool is at zero then the sensor is relative to that:G31 T1 P500 X-63.2 Y7.0 Z2.53
From your picture it looks like the IR LED is bend (but I'm not sure, it could be just the odd angle of the photo)
By "adjusting the angle of the IR sensor board" I meant through the 2 screws at the top which are connected to the carriage. If you look at the plastic under the screws there might be some depressions from the screws in which case you can't change the angle anymore so the part needs to be reprinted.
Yes, fixed the IR sensor...
So the 90 degree is not in Y but in Z then...?
And 0,0 is different for each tool when looking from the sensors point of view...
T1G1 X0 Y0 Z3
Set the right tool at 0,0
T0G1 X0 Y0 Z3
Set the left at the same place...
Therefore my confusion...When I use T1 the compensation is not relative that tool... but place in between...
Today I have leveled (mechanically) the bed so that the same spacer was used between the print head and the bed corners, that should mean that the bed is parallell to the print head... But this is the duet view of that...
Same result as always... check the base relative the bottom. Same distans left and right...
Re adjusted the sensor so that it is parallell i Y with the bed... 90 as square as I can get it in Z.
OHH... Just had a thought... Could i be that I have to much of the left side so that the sensor is so close to the edge that it see the edge of the bed and therefor makes the left side lower...
First test: Put a tape so that I shield the sensor from the light that is from the left.... No change... just as "bad". Second test: Move the outer limits of the test 25mm in on the bed... No change... just as "bad". But now it seem buggy...
Last edited by GrodanB (18 March 2017 17:40)
Is there a bug in mesh leveling?
I use this after homing all axis:
M557 X50:300 Y25:175 S25
And the mesh leveling start @ X == 113 not 50.Testing the lates 1.18beta3 with the new web interface 1.15b2.
But looking at the first point is seem to think it is @50,25...Picture taken during mesh leveling changing Y position... this is X113 according to the display but the result file seem to think this is X50...
Here is my latest marco for meshleveling:T0 ; select first hot endG91 ; Relative coordinatesG1 Z4 F6000 ; Lower bed to avoid hotend dragging in bed.G1 X-350 Y-240 F3000 S1 ; move up to 240mm in the -X and -Y directions until the homing switches are triggeredG1 X6 Y6 F600 ; move slowly 6mm in +X and +Y directionsG1 X-10 Y-10 S1 ; move up to 10mm in the -X and -Y directions until the homing switches are triggeredG90 ; Absoulte coordinatesG1 X150 Y100 F3000 ; Go to middle and probe the Z axis...G30 ; Home Z-axisM557 X50:300 Y25:175 S25 ; Bed level from X26Y12 to X299Y188 in 16mm increments 16x11 points (176)G29 S0 ; Auto Bed Level and create reportM374 ; Save calibration gridG1 X70 Y200 F3000 ; Dock after bedlevel. Move first in front of docking notchG1 X70 Y235 F3000 ; Dock after bedlevelM500
Now testing mesh level with 1.18beta2 and see if it does the same thing...
Last edited by GrodanB (18 March 2017 17:56)
It's because you have a large Z probe offset in the X direction. The grid points are where the probe is, not where the head is.
Duet WiFi hardware designer and firmware engineerhttp://www.escher3d.comhttps://miscsolutions.wordpress.com
Ahh ok so I should remove this when probing? (nice, always like to find that it is my fault... makes the fix easier...)
or use T1 when mesh leveling...
Will test... setting to T1 seems much better....
Will use the Beta3 after this... if that is "recommended" (I'll use the beta2 otherwise.)
Thanks for the good work... One day I hope to understand this...
Last edited by GrodanB (18 March 2017 19:23)
Last thought before I give up...
Looking at this there seem to be a constant that is NEVER removed regardless how much I try(X0,Y0) is the closest corner (when controlling tools))
One end is pressed too hard against the nozzels and the other is pressed to little. ALWAYS. Same side also.
This is the one constant thing I have. When it is at its best this is how it gets...
Looking at the height map:RepRapFirmware height map file v1 generated at 2017-02-18 21:41, mean error -0.13, deviation 0.10xmin,xmax,ymin,ymax,radius,spacing,xnum,ynum50.00,300.00,25.00,175.00,-1.00,25.00,11,7 -0.385, -0.383, -0.290, -0.342, -0.288, -0.253, -0.247, -0.195, -0.200, -0.280, -0.263 -0.317, -0.263, -0.233, -0.120, -0.098, -0.088, -0.108, -0.130, -0.178, -0.240, -0.175 -0.245, -0.175, -0.160, -0.132, -0.135, -0.053, -0.080, -0.085, -0.043, -0.080, -0.035 -0.217, -0.178, -0.152, -0.070, -0.033, 0.000, 0.013, -0.020, -0.035, 0.037, -0.027 -0.168, -0.150, -0.110, -0.003, 0.003, 0.043, -0.003, 0.030, -0.037, -0.003, -0.040 -0.172, -0.175, -0.090, -0.108, -0.172, -0.045, -0.020, -0.057, -0.045, -0.043, 0.010 -0.273, -0.247, -0.205, -0.155, -0.158, -0.130, -0.085, -0.112, -0.145, -0.135, -0.105
The side that has to much "compensation" is -0.385 and the side that has to little is -0.263. (assuming that the 0,0 point is the upper left...)
Now I do not print in the extreme parts of the bed... I print in the middle. And there it is more flat. BUT looking at the print (this is an old shown before but see little point in making the same picture today). It seems that the compensation is strange... the one that is close is not at all pressed (supposed to be 70% layer height) and the one that is far from the nozzle is pressed hard...
This makes me wonder if my printer has the same coordinates for X and Y when it comes to the Probe and tools...? Can I control that, or more precise can I have made a set-up mistake that causes the duet to switch on or more axis?
Because it makes little difference what I do... I always get the same result... (that is somehow good... consistency)
Last edited by GrodanB (18 March 2017 21:28)
hmm... swapped the X axis... MUCH better... Now it more or less look like I need to print slower and press the first layer into the bed more...
This is very strange.
Unless there is a bug in the leveling.
RepRapFirmware height map file v1 generated at 2017-02-18 21:41, mean error -0.13, deviation 0.10xmin,xmax,ymin,ymax,radius,spacing,xnum,ynum50.00,300.00,25.00,175.00,-1.00,25.00,11,7-0.263, -0.280, -0.200, -0.195, -0.247, -0.253, -0.288, -0.342, -0.290, -0.383, -0.385-0.175, -0.240, -0.178, -0.130, -0.108, -0.088, -0.098, -0.120, -0.233, -0.263, -0.317-0.035, -0.080, -0.043, -0.085, -0.080, -0.053, -0.135, -0.132, -0.160, -0.175, -0.245-0.027, 0.037, -0.035, -0.020, 0.013, 0.000, -0.033, -0.070, -0.152, -0.178, -0.217-0.040, -0.003, -0.037, 0.030, -0.003, 0.043, 0.003, -0.003, -0.110, -0.150, -0.168 0.010, -0.043, -0.045, -0.057, -0.020, -0.045, -0.172, -0.108, -0.090, -0.175, -0.172-0.105, -0.135, -0.145, -0.112, -0.085, -0.130, -0.158, -0.155, -0.205, -0.247, -0.273
Last edited by GrodanB (18 March 2017 22:43)
Please explain what you mean by "swapped the X axis"? What type of Z probe are you using?
I mirrored the measurements in x axis.
Look at the table in the post above yours latest post and the one above that. The difference is not in the numbers but in how they are applied. I look at the print and I suspect that I should mirror Y also.
Will test that later today.
Assuming four measurement point in total:
So I think that table(Xmin, Ymin) should be applied to bed(Xmax, Ymax).
So far I tested table(Xmin, Ymin) applied to bed(Xmax, Ymin). With much better results.
Last edited by GrodanB (19 March 2017 08:50)
Hmm... that doesn't tie in with my testing. I test bed compensation by putting a second bed plate (e.g. glass sheet) on top of part of the bed. Then I probe. Then I apply bed compensation. When I move the head in the XY plane, I expect it to ride up over the additional plate - which it does.
Therefore my question:Can I cause this in the set-up file? (ie. is this possible to be my fault?)
Is the test plate you use leaning towards one corner?
Otherwise you have a hard time knowing if this is occurring.
Just preparing to test the latest mirror X and Y map: -0.105, -0.135, -0.145, -0.112, -0.085, -0.130, -0.158, -0.155, -0.205, -0.247, -0.273 0.010, -0.043, -0.045, -0.057, -0.020, -0.045, -0.172, -0.108, -0.090, -0.175, -0.172 -0.040, -0.003, -0.037, 0.030, -0.003, 0.043, 0.003, -0.003, -0.110, -0.150, -0.168 -0.027, 0.037, -0.035, -0.020, 0.013, 0.000, -0.033, -0.070, -0.152, -0.178, -0.217 -0.035, -0.080, -0.043, -0.085, -0.080, -0.053, -0.135, -0.132, -0.160, -0.175, -0.245 -0.175, -0.240, -0.178, -0.130, -0.108, -0.088, -0.098, -0.120, -0.233, -0.263, -0.317 -0.263, -0.280, -0.200, -0.195, -0.247, -0.253, -0.288, -0.342, -0.290, -0.383, -0.385
Is there a way of getting the firmware to display the height map that is in use? both in numeric form and in graphical? so I can verify that the map I constructed in libreoffice CALC is the one in use?
This testing is sketchy at best... But than again this is the best result I have had in since I started with duet... (just mirroring the X have not started with the map above)
Tested mirroring both, and just Y... X seems like the one that is best to swap... Need to re-slice at lower speed and possible hotter bed...
Last edited by GrodanB (19 March 2017 10:59)
@GrodanB> So the 90 degree is not in Y but in Z then...?It's an axle which can rotate in X but also offsets the sensor 50mm to the right. It moves it nearer to the hotend since I have no hotend installed in the left slot of my carriage.
> Is there a way of getting the firmware to display the height map that is in use?For that I made this simualtion branch so I can test it on a PC. But you need Visual Studio 2015 (free express version) to run it:https://github.com/ChristophPech/RepRap … e/tree/sim
I ran two of your examples through it at 2mm resolution. The easiest way to visualize is opening it in Excel and insert the 3D-Surface chart of the whole table with default settings.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-DBgm … sp=sharinghttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-DBgm … sp=sharing(filename dates are references to the comment's times)
Thanks will check as soon as I get home.
Made a first layer yesterday and I raised one corner 1/8 of a turn and now the first layer is even with mirrored X axis compensation.
But using ABS and that suck big time when it comes to ABS not adhering to the bed... Most stick but one or more of the small squares will always fail...
I never tried ABS but for PLA and PETG I am using 90°C bed temperature otherwise it doesn't stick well without printing the first layer slower and squish it down.
I dislike squishing the first layer because it gives the print elephant feet also without serious slowdown stuff gets ripped off.
But at 90-100°C (surface temp on the bigbox is ~10° lower than the thermistor reports) the filament sticks well to the bed even at higher speeds and also if the nozzle is way to far from the bed. I could move the nozzle several mm above the bed, the first layer would still stick.
Do not like it either but this evil works with ABS. E3D edge there was no need.
Since I started using the mirror version I must say that the fist layer has never looked this good.