My MPCNC made in China

New Home Forum Mostly Printed CNC – MPCNC Your Builds – MPCNC My MPCNC made in China

This topic contains 342 replies, has 40 voices, and was last updated by  Ryan 3 weeks, 3 days ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 271 through 300 (of 343 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #55840

    Ryan
    Keymaster

    I like the corners. I have a new set of end stop brackets you might like. Not 100% sure how they would work with your limit switches but I’m sure you can edit them. I will try and put them up in a few days.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #55914

    I’ve made a test fit of my first sample of corners yesterday.

    It works brilliantly, I’m very happy with that. Well, that was no rocket science so that was kinda expected XD

    The new tube attachment system: it is super tough, you can really torque up those two screws and it just grips the tube like crazy. I was unable to move the tube no matter what force applied, pretty impressive.

    Test fit on my machine: I had to redrill a few holes since I made a small mistake during the design, but no big deal. I think it looks a bit bulky and objectively not great, but it doesn’t matter very much to me.

    Comparison with its father: if it looks bulky, that’s because it is!

    Well I’m super happy with this first design, it feels a lot stronger than the previous corners I had. I cannot move or twist any of the tubes, no matter how much force I applied (and believe me, I tried a lot!). You can put a lot of torque on this setup, I know because I snapped two bolts during tightening tests (4mm diameter bolts, to give you an idea of the kind of force the plastic can bear).

    Next step will be to try and make those look a bit better, then print 4 of them. I’ll also probably redesign the foot later, but I don’t really need those on my table actually, they are more decorative than actually useful.

    #55936

    Ryan
    Keymaster

    Dang you snapped some 4mm screws!! Heck yeah. Gotta see what you have up your sleeve for the belts. I want to switch up my corners a bit to accommodate the dual end stop adjustments a little differently.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #55946

    Gotta see what you have up your sleeve for the belts. I want to switch up my corners a bit to accommodate the dual end stop adjustments a little differently.

    Well my solution for the belts is pretty simple, just one little part to print, plus 3 screws and one nut. 2 screws to guide the belt tensioner, and one other to adjust the tension. It simply pushes on one of the two guiding screws while being kept in place by the nut. Should probably work fine.

    The endstops can be set in place using the unused holes for the belt tensioners, you would just need to add a little bracket. Some would be on top of the tubes, others would be under it.

    #56210

    Hello guys,

    I designed and printed new versions of my corners this weekend… and I’ve decided that, while I’m at it, I should just redo everything, just to see how far I can push the MPCNC design.

    I have a few goals in mind:

    -Improve the overall rigidity, by linking the tubes more firmly

    -Improve the serviceability, by using captive nuts wherever possible.

    -Redesign the whole Z axis system to improve its strenght

    So, first thing: printed some stuff:

    Then test fitted everything on the machine:


    A close up of the belt tensioning system: I’m super happy with how it turned out, it is quite convenient and now the belts car be tightened enough to act like guitar strings, which could be convenient if you forgot your guitar. I’ll need to experiment to find out what tension would be the best, tighter is not always better.

    And this is how the machine looks like so far. I’ve only done 2 of the 4 corners right now, but the rest should be done tomorrow. I’m pretty happy with how it looks, I think it is not too ugly.

    Now, I’m going further with the design process with the motor mounts and rollers. In my opinion, most of the squareness issues might be due to how the motor mounts are attached to the axis tubes. with the original mounts it is a bit tricky to get a sufficient amount of torque to the screws, so in the end the tube is always able to move a few degrees.

    So, I’ve designed two new parts, using lots of fasteners to be able to clamp the tube with a lot of force, hopefully reducing dramatically this play. I think it is a bit bigger than it really needs too, so I’m losing a bit of working surface, but I would like to see if a somewhat “overkill” setup would make any real improvement over the original build, so I’ve chosen to push this a bit further than I originally intended.

    Anyways, here is how it should look like soon:



    Now I’ll have to tackle the hard part: the carriage… I’m still not entirely decided yet about how I should do it. I’m still hesitating between building a fixed Z carriage with a moving table, or beefing up the current design by adding one or 2 more tubes… Any suggestion is welcomed, if you have a good idea of design to propose then don’t hesitate, I could give it a try!

    See you soon with new updates, hopefully!

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #56251

    Ryan
    Keymaster

    Improve the serviceability, by using captive nuts wherever possible.

    I have been trying to redesign without this in mind, seems to be 4 sizes of nuts common around the world. So If anything design for the largest one and make sure a tool can get in there for the smaller ones. You’ll see any of my new parts are only captive on one or two vertex for this reason.

     

    the belts car be tightened enough to act like guitar strings, which could be convenient if you forgot your guitar. I’ll need to experiment to find out what tension would be the best, tighter is not always better.

    6-7lbs…to much and you can actually damage the belt (tear the fibers and make it far more rubbery) and stall the stepper.

     

    most of the squareness issues might be due to how the motor mounts are attached to the axis tubes. with the original mounts it is a bit tricky to get a sufficient amount of torque to the screws, so in the end the tube is always able to move a few degrees.

    I do my best to leave these loose. The center is the key to the madness, it controls the angle of the rails. Building a crooked gantry and trying to force is square with the rollers will give you bowed tubes. So my view is leave the ends “floating” and get the center built right.

     

    Anyways, here is how it should look like soon

    If you are going to make the rollers that large you should make them asymetrical or you are really eating into your build area. Making it stronger just to have to extend the rails (the weak link in the build) is kinda backwards.

     

    Love what you do keep it up. These are just my understandings of the system.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #56252

    Ryan
    Keymaster

    The way I was taught to design is exaggerate the holly hell out of everything and some issue become clear. Here is a thought exercise.

    For example a car seat belt.

    A wider belt seems like the safest idea, so how about 2 feet wide?

    Negatives, comfort, cost, aesthetics, weight of all the jumbo sized components (minor but still a factor in a car), the pillars and attach points would also need to be huge compounding the issue.

    Positives, more surface area is safer for our fragile bodies.

    This leads to; well all those negatives really call for the smaller the belt the better….Right? Negatives, a piece steel wire would be just as strong but damage the passenger. Positives, all the inverse of the above negatives.

    The verdict; at what size do the two balance?

     

    So now think about the MPCNC, make every single part out of Titanium…with 8″ carbon fiber tubes skinned in titanium, vs making it with 1/8″ wooden dowels.

    My suggestion is start fresh. You have never had a barebones stock build in a reasonable size. I think starting there might help you out. Or a new geometry for the size you need, might be a better option? you are kind trying to shoehorn my design to with a extreme Z, which is the exact opposite of the geometry strengths (which are extreme any X and Y lengths).

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #56343

    So, I just installed all the new corners, tightened everything and set the belt tension appropriately (yes, I know that too much tension for the belts is definitely not a good thing, my point earlier was just to say that the little system I design was robust enought to handle a lot of force without cracking).

    Well, I’m very surprized about the difference it actually makes in terms of strenght. I used to be able to feel the CNC chassis slightly bending and moving while moving the CNC around the workshop. Now it just feels rock solid.

    Also, the improvement in rigidity is quite obvious regarding squareness. Now when I move one roller manually, the other roller follows almost instantly. I’ve not taken measurements yet, but I estimate that the play is less than 1 or 2 degree, way less than whatever it was before. I guess the new roller design will help even more with this so I’m pretty impatient to see.

    I’ve also re tightened the Z axis quite a bit and not there is no play in it whatsoever. I don’t know why some of the screws were untightened (they were all using locknuts…), but now it is definitely better.

    I only get about one millimeter of deflexion while the Z axis is fully deployed using a bit of force to push the nozzle, it feels just way better than before, I had quite a lot of slack.

    Anyways, I’ll make a test print this evening to see if this improvement in rigidity actually translates to better printing results, but I’m quite confident.

    Why am I not starting fresh?

    Because I like the MPCNC design, it works just fine and it is cheap. I just think that a few things might be made better, at least regarding my particular “needs”.

    Because I’m not that good at 3D design. Remember I just started learn this thing last year and I’ve only switched from tinkercad to onshape a few months ago. So basically, I still suck.

    Because actually trying new stuff might bring more and more knowledge about this particular machine, so it might be useful for the community, at least I hope so.

    It has been proven already that the original design works pretty damn amazing. I just try to see if some of the limits can be pushed. The main limit I want to push is printing speed with a big nozzle. CNC works just fine the way it is, I’ve got no complaint about it. But when printing at high speeds, rigidity seems to actually matter quite a bit, because wobbling introduces artifacts and corners are not so great.

    Anyway, I’ll print a few parts this evening and we’ll see if this mod actually made any difference.

    #56347

    Ryan
    Keymaster

    Because I’m not that good at 3D design. Remember I just started learn this thing last year and I’ve only switched from tinkercad to onshape a few months ago. So basically, I still suck.

    I do not think anyone in there right mind would agree with this statement. You have a very solid grasp of 3D design.

     

    #56353

    … Double post, sorry…

    #56360

    I have been trying to redesign without this in mind, seems to be 4 sizes of nuts common around the world. So If anything design for the largest one and make sure a tool can get in there for the smaller ones. You’ll see any of my new parts are only captive on one or two vertex for this reason.

    I understand your point. Making a worlwide doable machine must be a nightmare… I don’t have to consider this issue since I don’t intend to mass produce anything, but I totally get it.

    That would be nice if you could come up with a nice solution for that though, since it is sometimes hard to lock things firmly in place on the MPCNC, especially the screws on the corner parts and on the rollers.

    6-7lbs…to much and you can actually damage the belt (tear the fibers and make it far more rubbery) and stall the stepper.

    Hehe, sure. My point was just to say that the belt tensionners are solid enough, despite their tiny size. I was worried about that before I tested them. Plus I like guitars.

    I do my best to leave these loose. The center is the key to the madness, it controls the angle of the rails. Building a crooked gantry and trying to force is square with the rollers will give you bowed tubes. So my view is leave the ends “floating” and get the center built right.

    I get your point, but actually, if those are not tightened it introduces a small amount of backlash in all the axis. I’m not worried at all about my tubes since they are extremely rigid (that is, in my opinion, the strong link in my particular machine, because the deflection in those is almost negligible). But I get your idea, and you might have a point. I’ll test and tell you if this actually makes a difference to tighten those hard.

    If you are going to make the rollers that large you should make them asymetrical or you are really eating into your build area. Making it stronger just to have to extend the rails (the weak link in the build) is kinda backwards.

    Good point about making them asymmetrical. I’ll keep that in mind for a future version, since I already started printing those things. I won’t extend my machine anyways, I think the build surface will still be large enough,  even with a few centimeters lost.

    Love what you do keep it up. These are just my understandings of the system.

    Thanks, I really appreciate your inputs, it helps a lot!
    ..
    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #56447

    So, I’ve made the first tests yesterday evening, here is a little feedback:

    Sorry, I forgot to take pics this time, but there were actually nothing really special to see.

    I’ve learned something very valuable with these tests: my slicer sucks. I printed 3 things, with various speed settings.

    -Thing one: slow speed, slow acceleration,

    -Thing 2: constantly increasing speed and acceleration

    -Thing 3: full high speed and high acceleration (except for the 3 first layers)

    Well, what is particularly interesting is that the results were exactly the same, no matter the speed or acceleration. They weren’t good, but they were surprisingly consistent, with the very same defects at the very same places for the very same reasons. What is very interesting is the speeds that I was able to achieve. 2900 mm/s2 of accelerations on X and Y axis without step loss (step losses started occurring about 3500mm/s2)!

    About the speed themselves, I’m not sure since I was adjusting on the fly with the knob, but my standard speed was 60mm/s at 100% speed but I managed to run it a 270% speed without step loss, with contistent and repetable layer quality. That seemed to me almost as fast as the delta, really insane and a bit scary to watch! Super, super fast.

    Of course, I plan to be a little more conservative while printing actually useful stuff, but this shows how much rigidity matters when you want to go up in printing speeds. I was totally unable to reach even half of that kind of speeds and accelerations before, the quality would be just too horrible (I tried before, ended up bad).

    The overal printing quality was very good for most of the parts, but the little details turn out bad and there is a little of Z wobbling that I can’t really explain (it doesn’t seem to care about speed). The slicer is now the most limiting factor regarding printing quality, so I’ll try to find ways to improve my settings. I also had a few things not running perfectly smooth, but that was to be expected since I’ve just took apart the machine.

    I’m not sure my machine actually needs to be more rigid than it is right now for 3D printing, so I’ll first make a few more tests and install the bed leveling sensors.

    #56579

    Good news everyone,

    I finally have what I can call a “decent print” out of the MPCNC. Not that the previous ones were absolutely horrible, but in order to be used they needed a lot of reworking, and they didn’t look great.

    This time, I think I’ve found the sweet spot. I’ve printed a bracket for the electronic box of the MPCNC and it turned out just amazing… I’ll just let the pictures speak for themselves:

    There is still a few things to be tweaked up:

    -The infill and the top/bottom layers, obviously

    -The retractions and prime

    -Add a part cooling fan

    But other than these little issues, I think I finally have a working setup.

    Now the next steps is to make it as reliable as possible and to add the bed probe sensor system, because the only real issue with this machine so far is to get the first layer right.

    I printed this using relatively conservative settings:

    -40mm/s for the external perimeter

    -80mm/s for the internal perimeter

    -90mm/s for the infill

    -120mm/s for travels

    The accelerations varies from 300 to 1000 depending of the type of movement. It is nothing close to what this machine can do, I’ll crank up the speeds later. The print time was 1:45. This would have taken 9:20 with the delta. I think it can be done in less than one hour with no major quality issues.

    I’ve taken a small video of the machine doing its job, just for you guys:

     

    In the end, the print is perfectly usable right out of the printer, 4-5 time quicker than whatever would be possible with the delta. Huge win!

    I’m super happy with this, it is actually better than what I was expecting to get! Keep in mind that this is with this giant 50cm long Z axis!

    #56588

    Good news everyone,

    I finally have what I can call a “decent print” out of the MPCNC. Not that the previous ones were absolutely horrible, but in order to be used they needed a lot of reworking, and they didn’t look great.

    This time, I think I’ve found the sweet spot. I’ve printed a bracket for the electronic box of the MPCNC and it turned out just amazing… I’ll just let the pictures speak for themselves:

    There is still a few things to be tweaked up:

    -The infill and the top/bottom layers, obviously

    -The retractions and prime

    -Add a part cooling fan

    But other than these little issues, I think I finally have a working setup.

    Now the next steps is to make it as reliable as possible and to add the bed probe sensor system, because the only real issue with this machine so far is to get the first layer right.

    I printed this using relatively conservative settings:

    -40mm/s for the external perimeter

    -80mm/s for the internal perimeter

    -90mm/s for the infill

    -120mm/s for travels

    The accelerations varies from 300 to 1000 depending of the type of movement. It is nothing close to what this machine can do, I’ll crank up the speeds later. The print time was 1:45. This would have taken 9:20 with the delta. I think it can be done in less than one hour with no major quality issues.

    I’ve taken a small video of the machine doing its job, just for you guys:

     

    In the end, the print is perfectly usable right out of the printer, 4-5 time quicker than whatever would be possible with the delta. Huge win!

    I’m super happy with this, it is actually better than what I was expecting to get! Keep in mind that this is with this giant 50cm long Z axis!

    #56598

    Ryan
    Keymaster

    I printed this using relatively conservative settings: -40mm/s for the external perimeter -80mm/s for the internal perimeter -90mm/s for the infill -120mm/s for travels

    😯

    #56599

    Kevin Lopez
    Participant

    Impressive work once again Dui 😀 As someone that produces with their MPCNC on a daily basis, I am always looking to cut part times. I would actually say for whatever reason my MPCNC is not THAT rigid. Unless I flex the gantry with my hands on someone else’s build, I have no comparison. But if I look closely while cutting, I do see that I get some flex here and there. Not enough to cause any serious issues. It is very hard to tell exactly where our flex comes from. In my opinion it is a little bit of everything.

    Your prints look fantastic! I am also a fan of bigger prints with a big nozzle. They just come out much more solid. I couldn’t print that fast because the mk8 just couldn’t pump the heat out fast enough. Even at “250c” with PLA, I was getting somewhat cold results.

     

     

     

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #56601

    Impressive work once again Dui 😀 As someone that produces with their MPCNC on a daily basis, I am always looking to cut part times. I would actually say for whatever reason my MPCNC is not THAT rigid. Unless I flex the gantry with my hands on someone else’s build, I have no comparison. But if I look closely while cutting, I do see that I get some flex here and there. Not enough to cause any serious issues. It is very hard to tell exactly where our flex comes from. In my opinion it is a little bit of everything.

    Your prints look fantastic! I am also a fan of bigger prints with a big nozzle. They just come out much more solid. I couldn’t print that fast because the mk8 just couldn’t pump the heat out fast enough. Even at “250c” with PLA, I was getting somewhat cold results.

    Thanks 🙂

    I think you need a better extruder, like the volcano. The reason it works fine is because the hot block is vertical not horizontal, which leaves quite a bit more time for the plastic to melt. You also want the beefiest extruder motor you can afford, with a fair amount of current. I never tried those mk8 style extruder systems, they seems fine but then you have a huge load on the bottom of the axis. I prefer to use a bowden system, this way I can put the extruder motor in a more convenient place.

    BTW, am I the only one to not be able to see the smileys on this forum? They are just displayed as an empty square.

    #56615

    Barry
    Participant

    BTW, am I the only one to not be able to see the smileys on this forum? They are just displayed as an empty square.

    It’s a unicode thing.  Either your browser isn’t displaying them properly, or Windows isn’t displaying them properly.  It’s also kind of a bitch to fix.

    #56626

    Ryan
    Keymaster

     

    What about gif’s?

    #56832

    Yeah, I can see GIFs. Never mind, it’s not really a big problem 🙂

     

    I made a few more tests this weekend.

    Turns out that I counldn’t find out the solution to my retract/prime issue on Cura. So I turned out again to the good old Kisslicer…. and it turned out to work just fine. So I guess I won’t use Cura again and stick to Kisslicer, except for some very specific printing needs. There are less options in Kisslicer, but the slicing logic is just way better. Cura sometimes feels so stupid in the way it arranges travels, it’s sometimes quite a bit annoying. BTW, if anyone has a really good slicer to recommend, I’ll be willing to give it a try.

    So, I’ve printed a little bracket system to hold my electronic box. I think it looks pretty nice, and it is actually quite tough. The parts are perfectly usable and look more and more decent the more I experiment with slicer settings. So far it has been very reliable, I haven’t had a single issue once passed the first layer.




     

    #56839

    Ryan
    Keymaster

    That arm is awesome, I have tons of conduit laying around and that looks like a good use of the small bits. Just like my TV mount, but smaller.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #56943

    Hop, the new corners are finished now:

    Just need to print a few more feets and it should be done. Then I can finally tackle the bed autoleveling part.

    #56950

    Ryan
    Keymaster

    The new feet I made have 3 screws to let you anchor the far corner to keep it square, then you can clamp the tube and set the other two. They have slotted screw holes as well to let you make adjustments to square and clamping tension. With 4 screws center set you can either tension the clamp or set the screws but not both. If you get a free minute to edit those you might want to get the slots in there it makes a huge difference to squaring, ease of use. I also switched to a thicker wall to increase rigidity and lower the stress on the plastic. I know they look cheesy but they are a big improvement. I am a function over form guy.

    Yours do look pretty dang beefy though, I am sure they get the job done.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #56953

    The new feet I made have 3 screws to let you anchor the far corner to keep it square, then you can clamp the tube and set the other two. They have slotted screw holes as well to let you make adjustments to square and clamping tension. With 4 screws center set you can either tension the clamp or set the screws but not both. If you get a free minute to edit those you might want to get the slots in there it makes a huge difference to squaring, ease of use. I also switched to a thicker wall to increase rigidity and lower the stress on the plastic. I know they look cheesy but they are a big improvement. I am a function over form guy.

    Yours do look pretty dang beefy though, I am sure they get the job done.

    Yes, you are absolutely right, I thought about this issue during design.

    On my particular machine I don’t really need to get these really squared, because the wood chassis is actually doing all the work for me (unfortunately it is not totally square because it was hard to hand drill those holes perfectly square given the tools I have, but that’s an other issue…). IMO, the way to assemble those feet should be to clamp them first to the tube, then adjust squareness and then only screw them to the table once you get the squareness right. I wouldn’t really rely on the corners parts to check squareness since you would have a bit of a hard time to perfectly align them respectively to each other after they’re being clamped anyways.

    I was thinking of a different approach originally, which was to not make the corners feet a square, but more like a slight trapezoid. This way, after finding the correct angle through a bit of trial and error, they would have ended up perfectly square after being tightened. But it sounded like a bit of a hassle to design, so I went the easy way. I guess your way is quite easy and convenient too, but I think only one slot is really necessary, the other 3 wouldn’t move much after tightening.

    I haven’t seen your new design yet, is there a thread I missed somewhere in the forum? I think I understand what you’re talking about but I’d like to make sure.

    Also, regarding strength, I printed those with 4 perimeters and a bit more infill (30% or so)

    #56954

    Ryan
    Keymaster

    That is why it took me so dam long to remake such a simple part. I was stuck in that same thinking. With these new feet, you can loosen the screws a bit, like half a turn, and adjust every single one at least 1/8″ in all directions. I seriously have never had such a perfectly square build as the last two easily within a half a mm and that is as good as I can measure. Those oversized slots make it ridiculously easy.

     

    New foot.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #57197

    Hi Guys,

    I finally managed to make the bed autoleveling work. Unfortunately, two brave Arduino Mega died in the process, may they rest in peace (I had a short somewhere in the middle of one of my limit switches cable, had a hard time to figure it out).

    So it’s been quite a few busy days. I had to print brackets, wire everything, then I tried modifying Marlin to activate the bed autoleveling. I still had the old RC7 version, which didn’t really worked well. So at some point I decided to switch to the RC8 and after a bit of tweaking it finally worked.

    So, the one million dollar question: is bed autoleveling actually useful? Simple answer : HELL YEAH!

    I’ve used the bilinear autolevel and activated a few extra features to try to make it as precise as possible. Well guys, comparing with and without autolevel is just as easy as comparing day and night. It is just that obvious. I think those pictures speak for themselves:


    The two parts on the left were the typical results I was having before I had the autolevel. The part on the right was done with the bed autoleveling activated. I should precise that, despite the apparences, the poor results I had were not due to me setting incorrect first layer Z offsets for those prints, it was mostly due to the bed surface not being flat.

    Now for a very hard test: print a thin walled stuff accross a very large surface. Basically, if this could pass then I can safely assume that almost anything will pass. So I drew a 50cm square, with a thinckness of 2mm and 1 mm depending on which side, containing a 25cm square and a 10cm circle. Well here is the result:

    Got it perfectly at first try. The first layer was absolutely perfect accross all the bed. Huge, huge win here. The first layer was really by far the biggest issue on my machine.

    So now I “just” have to find again the correct settings for the rest of the print (I’ve lost my good configs since I jumped to RC8), and it should be all right. Plan is to get this printer as reliable as my delta. On the Delta I just launch any job with the SD card and move on doing other stuff, I don’t even have to look at the first layer, I just know it will work perfectly. I’ll be happy once I’ll get the MPCNC to work the same.

    One question: I’ve downloaded the last version of RC8 on the forum. But I sometimes get the error: “Heating failed printer stopped”. Anyone knows why? My thermistor and heating cartridge are working fine and the temps are extremely stable, so I’m not sure what could cause this.

    #57202

    Ryan
    Keymaster

    You should really get into my beta builds and do your settings from there. They have been working on auto leveling for like 6 months and finally seemed to have finished it recently. I have it updated to 2 or 3 days ago.

    #57206

    You should really get into my beta builds and do your settings from there. They have been working on auto leveling for like 6 months and finally seemed to have finished it recently. I have it updated to 2 or 3 days ago.

    Well, too bad for me I’m just hearing about that once I’ve finished XD

    Do you know how I could be informed of such beta stuff next time?

    Is this beta doing anything different from what I’ve achieved ? My autoleveling seems to work pretty well, but I’m willing to change if there is any benefit to do so.

    #57207

    Ryan
    Keymaster

    I have the beta linked on the firmware page. The changes happen almost everyday 5 or more at a time. You have to check in on the main marlin branch if you really want to see what is going on. I have started to pay more attention and update when I think something might be good for us. I have not updated the standard builds, I am waiting for 1.1.9/1.2 or Marlin 2 RC to be pegged.

    The biggest differences for us have been our dual endstops, better working LCD, accel & jerk. For you the autolevel has been revamped relentlessly for months.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #57208

    Jeffeb3
    Participant

    The heater error is because something isn’t warning up as fast as it thinks it should. I remember seeing a comment that it started out too strict. It’s configurable in the configuration.h and since you’ve got a large printer, it’s not surprising it’s taking longer.

    While you’re at it, check out babystepping. You can configure it to work with the z offset and it lets you change it in very small increments on the fly. I just adjust it during the skirt if it gets a little off.

    Those prints look great though. Good job.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
Viewing 30 posts - 271 through 300 (of 343 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.