Any idea if we should account for the extra height that the 3D printed corner anchors add when calibrating? Looks like 3-4mm. Also, would it change the calibration if there’s material on the frame? Was thinking about how the software was just updated to account for the angle of the belts, and thought this might effect the calibration.
Just ran calibration with the 5/8" sheet I’m going to cut but curious if these two factors change anything. Understand that some people might not need super tight tolerances, but I’m building cabinets at the moment and want the Maslow as accurate as I can get it!
In theory it matters, but it’s too be determined by how much. If it’s a .001mm difference it’s probably not a dominant source of error. We need to do more testing on that, but it’s really hard to test for precisely
Would the calibration fitness score be consistent enough to judge an improvement? Considering adjusting my Z values for the anchors and work piece then recalibrating to see if I get a bump. Curious what normal variation exists when recalibrating, @bar?
Kinda like 3D printing, it’s definitely worth the time to run a bed leveling calibration before each print. Takes a little more time, but less so than f-ing up a bunch of prints and starting over.
Would the calibration fitness score be consistent enough to judge an
improvement?
The calibration fitness score is just an estimate of how accurate the anchor
locations are (based on the differences in where the calculations for each point
would put them)
If the Z offsets don’t account for your workpiece thickness (i.e. you calibrated
without a workpiece, but with correct Z offsets) then your belts will be just a
little shorter than the machine thinks they are, which will cause them to
stretch just a bit, which will throw things off a bit (as longer belts will
stretch more than shorter belts)
but we have no studies showing what the results will be.
