what frame size do you have, what workpiece size do you have, and what size do
you set when you get ready to do your calibration?
After the latest maslow.yaml, I updated to this configuration again. I’ve tried various sizes near these.
the machine uses the frame size that it thinks it has to determine how much belt
to spool out, so if it’s spooling out a huge amount, then it thinks it has a
much larger frame than it has.
Except for the messy spools, the M4 does traverse the 5x5 or 7x7 grids basically as expected. I do believe there could be some math errors in the M4 code that decides to give out way too much slack in the case of a smaller frame. Once of the reasons I want this to get actually tested in the lab.
did you do the calibration with the Z axis all the way down? are the Z offset values correct for your frame?
I’ve calibrated with no bit close to the platform and also with no bit at 1.5" spoil+workpiece and I’ve also done a nearly-zeroed bit above the 1.5" spoil+workpiece. I don’t recall seeing much about correct z-offsets in the setup guide other than to say that generally they don’t need changing(?) and as I’ve noted previously, the UI tooltips are out of date and therefore misleading. I do wonder if the z-offset which DOES change the triangles is correctly accounted for in the software - I haven’t really gotten far enough. However, since the Z JOG UP did far-over-slack the belts, it seems like the software is attempting to compensate for the height, just not very well.
to some extent this is expected, the machine is trying to figure out what the frame size is, when you start calibration, it’s using the frame size you enter until the first few points are measured, then it updates it’s estimate and does the next set of points. That’s why it gets better in each stage of calibration.
Nice, that’s what I’ve figured. However, I think the software is over-doing it at least in the case of a smaller frame, perhaps. Lab tests should be able to confirm or reject this theory.
if things are properly assembled, you are not going to be able to extend belts without the motor powering them out. The gear ratio involved is very high.
I realize my “friction” theory isn’t likely - but this means the software is letting the belts out intentionally.
apply tension won’t spool out any belt unless the belt was wrapped around the spool the wrong way (which could be the case for you based on your explination of way too much belt being spooled out and getting tangled)
“Apply Tension” also attempts to Center/Home the sled, right? So the spooling out of the belts IS happening, probably as part of the jogging-to-home plan. The belts are definitely spooled the correct way around. Many actions are working sensibly, just not enough to get all the way through calibration and a complete cut.
There has been a bug in the release process that has had the reported version being updated after the release is cut rather than before it is cut, so what’s reported is one version earlier than it actually is.
Good to know - worth fixing. And also differentiating between firmware and UI version numbers IF they’re not expected to stay in sync.
As I said above, what size frame do you have, what size workpiece, what size is the calibration grid you are using. Was the Z axis all the way down, have you changed the Z axis offsets (do you need to for your frame).
I believe I’ve answered those above and previously but please let me know if I seem to have misunderstood a question.
you can try using my manual calibration doc in onshape (no account needed) and
enter the results into your maslow.yaml file
I do know how to use onshape, but please tell me about this file - origin of the onshape workspace and the in-model labels seem to be relative to the lower left corner (good), but I guess I’m supposed to edit the Configurations panel which have values I’m not understanding as examples:
I would kinda expect Left and Bottom to be about 0
. Should I divide my widths and heights by 2? But that isn’t really what the example output seems to me doing (it isn’t 4800w x 6000h). Probably I’m being dense.