Welcome to the SeeMeCNC Community

lordbinky wrote:From what I understood, and it ended up being similar for me, was the tensioner at the top wasn't directly centered over the extrusion. So you're not taking a measurement to either belt, but the midpoint between them. Which would be the equivalent to the center of a rod setup.

Correct

ok.

I still dont get it all, but I won't bother you any more... I'll try to figure this on my own.

tx

I wrote a message and the hateful login screen ate it.... maybe I'll try again...

Ugh, in short in I took the measurement from the nozzle dot on the paper as shown in the video to the inside face of the tower extrusion for each tower, took the average, and subtracted the measurement for each tower from that average, I'd add that value to the current delta radius correction in the EEprom. So if the average was 187.5 and tower X (A) was 187. So in the eeprom Delta Radius A(0) = 0 + .5 = .5, if it was my Y tower which measured 187.9, Delta Radius B(0) = 0 + (-.4) = -.4 . After re-leveling the center point will have moved so the I'd take measurements again. The next time if the difference between the average tower distance and the distance for that tower was say .17 then I would update the EEprom value to be Delta Radius A(0) = .5 + .17 = .67

Also, if took that tower distance average, subtracted the Horizontal Carriage offset (from the center of the screw to the face of the carriage plate), End effector offset, and the distance from the tower to the carriage plate face I measured from for the carriage offset, I would calculate my delta radius to be around ~129 (Horizontal radius in firmware). My real value to be level was 5 (+/- .1) higher than that value though. Couldn't figure out that difference though.

Hopefully that helps. If it just confuses you or makes things worse, then Gene wrote this under my login .

edit: It seems adding in the previous correction is unnecessary. For me, adding in the previous correction led to corrections being like 3.14,3.17,2.69. If I subtracted 2.69 from those values the centering was the same. *shrug*

FWIW, the CAD files have the difference between the center of the pulley and the center of the aluminum as 1.5 mm for those trying to calibrate their machines. I'm sure there is a reason for it, but does anyone know off hand what that is?

Off the top of my head, I would think it'd something with aligning the belt to the back of the carriage plate. That would keep you from having the belt's angle to the carriage change as it's height is changed. Could be complete nonsense too though.

lordbinky wrote:Off the top of my head, I would think it'd something with aligning the belt to the back of the carriage plate. That would keep you from having the belt's angle to the carriage change as it's height is changed. Could be complete nonsense too though.

That works for me!

MSURunner wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrrO0elG ... e=youtu.be

Here's the quick first draft video of the calibration process I went through. I forgot to mention that when using the calibration tool, you want to leave it still attached to the printer bed, do not simply toss it up there as I do in the video for demonstration sake only. Anyhow, it should get someone pretty close without having to do a ton of guess and check, but there is still some print, examine, adjust, print again involved, particularly once you get to the bed level guide.

Around 6:40 when you talk about tower rotation and high/low spots. Are you saying subtract for clockwise and add for counter-clockwise rotation?

Can I just reply, WOW! There has been a LOT of activity on this thread. Thanks for everyone's input - hopefully it will help.

I'm still waiting on a replacement 40watt heating core and need to install that before I can even BEGIN to parse through all this information.

I'll be sure to read through this massive thread (I didn't realize it had grown this big), and report back with my results.
I'm even more motivated to get my rostock calibrated now that the Rostock Max2 was just announced!

cassetti wrote:I'm even more motivated to get my rostock calibrated now that the Rostock Max2 was just announced!

Wait. What? Where?

Hidden on their website...


http://seemecnc.com/collections/3d-prin ... mplete-kit

cope413 wrote:Hidden on their website...


http://seemecnc.com/collections/3d-prin ... mplete-kit

will we still need to move towers in firmware with the v2?

The new base plate uses square holes instead of notches for the towers. The fit is extremely snug and does a very good job of constraining the towers. I seriously doubt there's going to be any rotation issues with the new design.

I'm not kidding about the "snug" part either - they actually squeak from the friction as you set them down in the holes. They've added a #4 screw to the tower supports so the tower will stop when it hits that screw. There's a mate to that on the top as well which virtually guarantees the correct depth of each tower and the correct height of the top of the machine.

g.

geneb wrote:The new base plate uses square holes instead of notches for the towers. The fit is extremely snug and does a very good job of constraining the towers. I seriously doubt there's going to be any rotation issues with the new design.

I'm not kidding about the "snug" part either - they actually squeak from the friction as you set them down in the holes. They've added a #4 screw to the tower supports so the tower will stop when it hits that screw. There's a mate to that on the top as well which virtually guarantees the correct depth of each tower and the correct height of the top of the machine.

I was going to do something similar with aluminum and I'm glad I don't have to. Will they offer a wood-only upgrade kit for us? I'll be the FIRST to buy it!

626Pilot wrote:I dug up some notes I took while I was adjusting the tower rotations. This may help you to figure out my thought process. It's pretty in-depth. The idea is to examine not only the towers, but the arc BETWEEN the towers, because problems often manifest right there.

• For each iteration, I printed out this Onyx bed leveling aid to see where the lines were too fat or too thin: http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:50505" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
• The object was printed without adhesive each time. I wanted the bed totally clean.
• You will notice some tower re-leveling. Ideally this should be done each time you think you're done with a tower, and then you should confirm it with another test print. If only Repetier's Z probe logic wasn't horribly broken
• There is an option for radius delta in the firmware, one for each tower. Leave these at 0 unless you want your parts to climb to one side like a 1980s surfer hairdo. I wasn't able to fix anything at all by adjusting these settings.

Code: Select all

Legend
---------------
 High: ^
Level: =
  Low: v

Example: "X to Y: = ^ ="
Meaning: "Level around X tower, then high between X and Y, then level around Y tower."


Problems
---------------
- Lifts between X and Y towers
- Dips between Y and Z towers
- Lifts between Z and X towers

Base calibration - towers centered, towers at stock angles and radius deltas.

	     X: =
	     Y: =
	     Z: =
	X to Y: = ^ =
	Y to Z: = v =
	Z to X: = ^ =


Focusing on fixing Y-Z arc first, Z-X arc less significant but will watch.

---------------
Changing Y rotation from 330 to 330.5:

	     X: _
	     Y: =
	     Z: ^
	X to Y: = ^ =
	Y to Z: = v ^
	Z to X: ^ v

Looks like the X and Z towers need to be releveled - did that.


---------------
Testing again:

	     X: =
	     Y: =
	     Z: =
	X to Y: =
	Y to Z: = v =
	Z to X: = ^ =

Y-Z and Z-X (both of which are next to Z) are off. However, X to Y (opposite Z) is fine. Therefore, the Z tower probably needs some adjustment.


---------------
Changing Z rotation from 90 to 89.5:

	     X: =
	     Y: =
	     Z: =
	X to Y: =
	Y to Z: =
	Z to X: = ^ = (better than last time though)


---------------
Let's try releveling the towers and changing Z from 89.5 to 89.25: (note: this was lazy... don't change two variables at once)

	     X: =
	     Y: =
	     Z: =
	X to Y: = ^ =
	Y to Z: = ^ =
	Z to X: =

---------------
That made Z-X better at the expense of X-Y and Y-Z, so let's backtrack and try going the other direction to 89.6:

	     X: =
	     Y: =
	     Z: =
	X to Y: = ^ =
	Y to Z: =
	Z to X: = ^ =
	
This produces the least vertical deflection of anything tried so far and is "Good Enough."
In other words, close enough to stick and far enough not to block the nozzle.

Hi Guys!

I finally got caught up and got the hotend rebuilt with a proper size 40watt 20mm Ceramic hotend - dang it heats up FAST!

Anyway, I'm trying to get started now that I understand what I need to do - but one problem - I can't find the Alpha A in the firmware configuration! What file is it in?? I can't seem to find it in the EEprom or the configuration.h file.

I am running an older firmware from about a year ago, but that shouldn't make a difference, I should have those settings somewhere, I just can't seem to find them in the eeprom nor any of my firmware files.

update to .91

bubbasnow wrote:update to .91

Easier said than done. I'd rather not open that can of worms. I've already gotten this far.

My question was - where is the Alpha A, B, and C in the PolygonHell Firmware (Repetier 0.81)

If you value your long-term sanity, just bite the bullet and upgrade to 0.91. That way, you can put the values directly into the EEPROM screen. Otherwise, you will have to recompile/reflash the firmware dozens and dozens of times, which is probably what people in Hell have to do these days.

Ugh, I just noticed my belts are chewed up on 2 of the 3 - bad enough they need replacement. I can tell this is from printing large objects causing the print head to come in contact with the bed far too often over this past year. When will it F!#@ING end?? I'm really getting sick of all these issues. I just want a printer that prints in my own house.

If you value your long-term sanity, just bite the bullet and upgrade to 0.91. That way, you can put the values directly into the EEPROM screen. Otherwise, you will have to recompile/reflash the firmware dozens and dozens of times, which is probably what people in Hell have to do these days.

I probably will after I fix these belts try 0.91. But you're saying there is a way to fix this in the old firmware? Where is it?

Yes I value my sanity, but I am trying to eliminate issues with the calibration, not introduce new ones. I didn't have any other problems with the firmware aside from tower rotation. And I've done the firmware updates enough already that I don't mind doing them - really not hard

The tower rotations are in the firmware somewhere. I don't know if they're in Configuration.h. Either Repetier or Marlin keeps them somewhere else but I don't recall which one.

626Pilot wrote:The tower rotations are in the firmware somewhere. I don't know if they're in Configuration.h. Either Repetier or Marlin keeps them somewhere else but I don't recall which one.

I'm pretty sure it is in the configuration.h file. It's in there on the current ones and so I'd highly doubt they would have moved it in between versions. The values are 90/210/330 by default so you should be able to search those in the configuration.h file and find the appropriate lines...

Hello!

With some calibration I was able to even out my calibration problems.

Now I have:
X: =
Y: =
Z: =
Centre: =
X to Y: = v =
Y to Z: = v =
Z to X: = v =

This means: Everything levelled, except constant dips of around 0.2mm between the towers.

MSURunner wrote on page 2, that changing the carriage offset helped. But in fact is it only used to calculate DELTA_RADIUS.
In other words: It might be easier to add or subtract something of DELTA_RADIUS, then to determine PRINTER_RADIUS, END_EFFECTOR_HORIZONTAL_OFFSET and CARRIAGE_HORIZONTAL_OFFSET.

With DELTA_RADIUS is it possible to adjust the balance between the centre and the outside.

But there is no parameter left, to adjust the balance between positions near the towers and the opposite side.

There is probably the need for a better bed-levling in the software or am I missing something?

Thanks,
MK

PS: Changing the rod length is solving the bed-leveling problem, but then are the real dimensions of the printed parts off..