Feedback on calibration and resulting dimensional accuracy

During the last few days I’ve set up my Maslow 4.1 and I would like to give some feedback about my experiences with the calibration and dimensional accuracy. First some details about the setup:

  • firmware 0.88
  • horizontal “frame”, anchor points are bolted to my concrete courtyard.
  • frame size approx. 3000 x 4000
  • calibration size 2000 x 1000
  • calibration grid 9 x 9
  • calibration current 1000
  • Maslow_tlZ: 88.0, Maslow_trZ: 44.0, Maslow_blZ: 22.0, Maslow_brZ: 66.0 (raised anchor points)

Calibration reported frame flex to be

Flex measurement: TLBR: 5.212 TRBL: 0.451

and after waiting foreeeeeever the result seemed promising:

CLBM:[{bl:2437.34,   br:2451.25,   tr:2533.13,   tl:2532.08},{bl:2561.79,   br:2327.43,   tr:2421.18,   tl:2655.04},{bl:2649.55,   br:2424.67,   tr:2325.59,   tl:2567.70},{bl:2555.27,   br:2541.23,   tr:2419.97,   tl:2445.67},{bl:2439.59,   br:2656.82,   tr:2543.99,   tl:2325.41},{bl:2343.79,   br:2568.57,   tr:2631.29,   tl:2421.52},{bl:2526.89,   br:2439.95,   tr:2448.24,   tl:2542.81},{bl:2465.37,   br:2371.66,   tr:2515.63,   tl:2612.31},{bl:2254.23,   br:2575.80,   tr:2719.58,   tl:2424.85},{bl:2319.74,   br:2643.46,   tr:2659.95,   tl:2346.18},{bl:2391.62,   br:2710.92,   tr:2600.22,   tl:2272.35},{bl:2592.67,   br:2512.48,   tr:2382.76,   tl:2476.84},{bl:2808.77,   br:2315.54,   tr:2169.74,   tl:2697.86},{bl:2744.40,   br:2236.50,   tr:2248.81,   tl:2762.05},{bl:2684.42,   br:2162.50,   tr:2325.97,   tl:2824.74},{bl:2610.69,   br:2119.42,   tr:2415.35,   tl:2864.71},{bl:2387.46,   br:2323.62,   tr:2603.28,   tl:2668.39},{bl:2168.27,   br:2547.55,   tr:2805.96,   tl:2474.72},{bl:1956.50,   br:2783.28,   tr:3022.12,   tl:2291.98},{bl:2027.86,   br:2841.12,   tr:2963.45,   tl:2204.88},{bl:2105.30,   br:2899.40,   tr:2904.23,   tl:2121.60},{bl:2185.62,   br:2959.84,   tr:2849.28,   tl:2042.56},{bl:2268.85,   br:3021.24,   tr:2798.85,   tl:1968.28},{bl:2442.81,   br:2814.77,   tr:2572.35,   tl:2170.61},{bl:2635.74,   br:2612.54,   tr:2347.41,   tl:2384.64},{bl:2845.18,   br:2419.24,   tr:2128.06,   tl:2613.59},{bl:3069.30,   br:2237.23,   tr:1916.28,   tl:2852.74},{bl:3003.60,   br:2149.73,   tr:2003.05,   tl:2906.70},{bl:2944.28,   br:2066.08,   tr:2084.14,   tl:2962.86},{bl:2889.19,   br:1986.75,   tr:2166.77,   tl:3021.97},{bl:2838.50,   br:1912.28,   tr:2249.81,   tl:3081.63},{bl:2711.63,   br:1889.77,   tr:2396.63,   tl:3093.92},{bl:2485.33,   br:2091.34,   tr:2560.95,   tl:2900.56},{bl:2264.21,   br:2307.17,   tr:2738.15,   tl:2711.22},{bl:2049.77,   br:2531.08,   tr:2927.54,   tl:2532.41},{bl:1844.27,   br:2762.36,   tr:3127.86,   tl:2366.54},{bl:1651.14,   br:3001.37,   tr:3338.62,   tl:2216.51},{bl:1742.04,   br:3046.60,   tr:3271.69,   tl:2115.53},{bl:1836.70,   br:3099.82,   tr:3206.06,   tl:2015.83},{bl:1932.78,   br:3155.65,   tr:3144.01,   tl:1919.08},{bl:2030.93,   br:3215.22,   tr:3085.81,   tl:1825.82},{bl:2129.81,   br:3277.75,   tr:3031.64,   tl:1736.53},{bl:2230.97,   br:3343.00,   tr:2981.73,   tl:1651.86},{bl:2373.07,   br:3142.83,   tr:2754.80,   tl:1843.10},{bl:2531.19,   br:2944.81,   tr:2529.01,   tl:2047.00},{bl:2704.15,   br:2755.25,   tr:2308.22,   tl:2260.45},{bl:2888.43,   br:2576.05,   tr:2094.02,   tl:2482.00},{bl:3085.22,   br:2409.46,   tr:1888.66,   tl:2709.53},{bl:3290.13,   br:2258.31,   tr:1695.31,   tl:2942.57},{bl:3227.41,   br:2157.75,   tr:1778.13,   tl:2994.25},{bl:3161.92,   br:2058.50,   tr:1868.35,   tl:3047.02},{bl:3100.07,   br:1962.20,   tr:1962.21,   tl:3104.99},{bl:3042.10,   br:1869.30,   tr:2059.23,   tl:3164.75},{bl:2988.26,   br:1780.33,   tr:2157.32,   tl:3230.21},{bl:2938.76,   br:1695.92,   tr:2255.86,   tl:3295.67},{bl:2899.69,   br:1600.73,   tr:2360.72,   tl:3380.73},{bl:2669.98,   br:1794.07,   tr:2499.14,   tl:3193.61},{bl:2440.60,   br:2005.06,   tr:2651.56,   tl:3003.45},{bl:2215.66,   br:2222.66,   tr:2821.13,   tl:2822.63},{bl:1996.75,   br:2446.80,   tr:2999.71,   tl:2653.09},{bl:1785.95,   br:2675.96,   tr:3189.13,   tl:2497.08},{bl:1586.68,   br:2909.31,   tr:3386.28,   tl:2357.32},{bl:1403.71,   br:3146.85,   tr:3591.39,   tl:2236.87},{bl:1494.11,   br:3190.14,   tr:3531.31,   tl:2127.38},{bl:1591.87,   br:3235.42,   tr:3465.59,   tl:2017.16},{bl:1692.78,   br:3286.06,   tr:3403.15,   tl:1908.77},{bl:1796.66,   br:3341.44,   tr:3344.22,   tl:1802.54},{bl:1903.18,   br:3400.08,   tr:3289.01,   tl:1698.84},{bl:2012.09,   br:3462.20,   tr:3237.68,   tl:1598.19},{bl:2122.41,   br:3526.45,   tr:3190.42,   tl:1501.24},{bl:2233.96,   br:3594.78,   tr:3147.42,   tl:1408.67},{bl:2350.52,   br:3399.55,   tr:2915.18,   tl:1587.55},{bl:2486.49,   br:3201.62,   tr:2682.50,   tl:1786.60},{bl:2640.30,   br:3011.44,   tr:2453.26,   tl:1996.92},{bl:2808.37,   br:2830.58,   tr:2228.44,   tl:2216.14},{bl:2987.69,   br:2660.93,   tr:2009.62,   tl:2439.81},{bl:3177.19,   br:2504.79,   tr:1798.96,   tl:2668.75},{bl:3374.99,   br:2364.82,   tr:1599.60,   tl:2901.34},{bl:3579.55,   br:2244.04,   tr:1416.47,   tl:3138.21},{bl:3518.41,   br:2134.63,   tr:1506.66,   tl:3182.02},{bl:3452.68,   br:2024.49,   tr:1603.82,   tl:3228.89},{bl:3390.32,   br:1916.20,   tr:1704.67,   tl:3279.22},{bl:3331.46,   br:1810.06,   tr:1808.68,   tl:3333.60},{bl:3276.34,   br:1706.47,   tr:1915.69,   tl:3392.56},{bl:3225.10,   br:1605.93,   tr:2023.22,   tl:3453.90},{bl:3177.97,   br:1509.07,   tr:2133.92,   tl:3518.80},{bl:3135.12,   br:1416.61,   tr:2243.71,   tl:3586.13},{bl:2215.63,   br:2222.86,   tr:2820.00,   tl:2822.91},{bl:2477.87,   br:2492.51,   tr:2497.09,   tl:2490.64},]

Fitness: 0.7405550534180874
Maslow_tlX: -12.2
Maslow_tlY: 3024.6
Maslow_trX: 3940.1
Maslow_trY: 3037.4
Maslow_blX: 0.0
Maslow_blY: 0.0
Maslow_brX: 3947.9
Maslow_brY: 0.0

I was even more encouraged by the fact that the 7x7 subgrid results were very similar, so the result seemed solid:

CLBM:[{bl:2437.34,   br:2451.25,   tr:2533.13,   tl:2532.08},{bl:2561.79,   br:2327.43,   tr:2421.18,   tl:2655.04},{bl:2649.55,   br:2424.67,   tr:2325.59,   tl:2567.70},{bl:2555.27,   br:2541.23,   tr:2419.97,   tl:2445.67},{bl:2439.59,   br:2656.82,   tr:2543.99,   tl:2325.41},{bl:2343.79,   br:2568.57,   tr:2631.29,   tl:2421.52},{bl:2526.89,   br:2439.95,   tr:2448.24,   tl:2542.81},{bl:2465.37,   br:2371.66,   tr:2515.63,   tl:2612.31},{bl:2254.23,   br:2575.80,   tr:2719.58,   tl:2424.85},{bl:2319.74,   br:2643.46,   tr:2659.95,   tl:2346.18},{bl:2391.62,   br:2710.92,   tr:2600.22,   tl:2272.35},{bl:2592.67,   br:2512.48,   tr:2382.76,   tl:2476.84},{bl:2808.77,   br:2315.54,   tr:2169.74,   tl:2697.86},{bl:2744.40,   br:2236.50,   tr:2248.81,   tl:2762.05},{bl:2684.42,   br:2162.50,   tr:2325.97,   tl:2824.74},{bl:2610.69,   br:2119.42,   tr:2415.35,   tl:2864.71},{bl:2387.46,   br:2323.62,   tr:2603.28,   tl:2668.39},{bl:2168.27,   br:2547.55,   tr:2805.96,   tl:2474.72},{bl:1956.50,   br:2783.28,   tr:3022.12,   tl:2291.98},{bl:2027.86,   br:2841.12,   tr:2963.45,   tl:2204.88},{bl:2105.30,   br:2899.40,   tr:2904.23,   tl:2121.60},{bl:2185.62,   br:2959.84,   tr:2849.28,   tl:2042.56},{bl:2268.85,   br:3021.24,   tr:2798.85,   tl:1968.28},{bl:2442.81,   br:2814.77,   tr:2572.35,   tl:2170.61},{bl:2635.74,   br:2612.54,   tr:2347.41,   tl:2384.64},{bl:2845.18,   br:2419.24,   tr:2128.06,   tl:2613.59},{bl:3069.30,   br:2237.23,   tr:1916.28,   tl:2852.74},{bl:3003.60,   br:2149.73,   tr:2003.05,   tl:2906.70},{bl:2944.28,   br:2066.08,   tr:2084.14,   tl:2962.86},{bl:2889.19,   br:1986.75,   tr:2166.77,   tl:3021.97},{bl:2838.50,   br:1912.28,   tr:2249.81,   tl:3081.63},{bl:2711.63,   br:1889.77,   tr:2396.63,   tl:3093.92},{bl:2485.33,   br:2091.34,   tr:2560.95,   tl:2900.56},{bl:2264.21,   br:2307.17,   tr:2738.15,   tl:2711.22},{bl:2049.77,   br:2531.08,   tr:2927.54,   tl:2532.41},{bl:1844.27,   br:2762.36,   tr:3127.86,   tl:2366.54},{bl:1651.14,   br:3001.37,   tr:3338.62,   tl:2216.51},{bl:1742.04,   br:3046.60,   tr:3271.69,   tl:2115.53},{bl:1836.70,   br:3099.82,   tr:3206.06,   tl:2015.83},{bl:1932.78,   br:3155.65,   tr:3144.01,   tl:1919.08},{bl:2030.93,   br:3215.22,   tr:3085.81,   tl:1825.82},{bl:2129.81,   br:3277.75,   tr:3031.64,   tl:1736.53},{bl:2230.97,   br:3343.00,   tr:2981.73,   tl:1651.86},{bl:2373.07,   br:3142.83,   tr:2754.80,   tl:1843.10},{bl:2531.19,   br:2944.81,   tr:2529.01,   tl:2047.00},{bl:2704.15,   br:2755.25,   tr:2308.22,   tl:2260.45},{bl:2888.43,   br:2576.05,   tr:2094.02,   tl:2482.00},{bl:3085.22,   br:2409.46,   tr:1888.66,   tl:2709.53},{bl:3290.13,   br:2258.31,   tr:1695.31,   tl:2942.57},{bl:3227.41,   br:2157.75,   tr:1778.13,   tl:2994.25},{bl:3161.92,   br:2058.50,   tr:1868.35,   tl:3047.02},{bl:3100.07,   br:1962.20,   tr:1962.21,   tl:3104.99},{bl:3042.10,   br:1869.30,   tr:2059.23,   tl:3164.75},{bl:2988.26,   br:1780.33,   tr:2157.32,   tl:3230.21},{bl:2938.76,   br:1695.92,   tr:2255.86,   tl:3295.67},]

Fitness: 0.9801819943116118
Maslow_tlX: -12.2
Maslow_tlY: 3024.6
Maslow_trX: 3939.6
Maslow_trY: 3037.4
Maslow_blX: 0.0
Maslow_blY: 0.0
Maslow_brX: 3947.9
Maslow_brY: 0.0

Then reality struck: I made a test cut. The piece was centered in the frame, nominal size 1150 x 862 mm, and it came out 1155 x 855. Ugh.

So I took a tape measure, measured all distances between the anchor points and put them into a CAD program to obtain the (x,y) coordinates. After entering the lengths of the four sides of the frame and one diagonal, the CAD program reported the second diagonal to be exactly what I had measured. The (x,y) coordinates of my frame are

Maslow_tlX: -14.41
Maslow_tlY: 3049.97
Maslow_trX: 3930.59
Maslow_trY: 3058.0
Maslow_blX: 0.0
Maslow_blY: 0.0
Maslow_brX: 3935.0
Maslow_brY: 0.0

That is rather different from the results of the calibration run and the relative difference of the frame height and width approximately match the relative errors of my test piece.

Out of curiosity I’ve then played around with the calibration simulation (GitHub - BarbourSmith/Calibration-Simulation) with the following modifications:

  • set initialWidth and initialHeight to my actual frame size (approximately)
  • set my Z offsets (function projectMeasurement)
  • scale bl and br in addition to tl and tr (in scaleMeasurements)
  • don’t randomize the initial guess in function computeGuess
  • use initialWidth and initialHeight for initialGuess

The closest match to my tape measure results was using scaleMeasurements(measurements, 1.001):

Calibration values:
Fitness: 0.760609436790009
Maslow_tlX: -8.7
Maslow_tlY: 3046.6
Maslow_trX: 3931.7
Maslow_trY: 3054.4
Maslow_blX: 0.0
Maslow_blY: 0.0
Maslow_brX: 3936.5
Maslow_brY: 0.0

I decided to ignore these numbers and to use my tape measure results in the maslow.yaml file. To test this setup, I drilled a 9x9 grid of 1/8" diameter holes with a total size of 2000mm x 1000mm, i.e. the size of my calibration attempt. The biggest issue I found is a backlash error; the tension of the “trailing” belts (e.g. the two left belts if the machine moves to the right) seems rather low. I drilled the rows alternating from left to right and right to left. When I put a straight edge to a column of holes, I can see that adjacent rows have an x-offset of about 1mm relative to each other (see image below). Other than that, the rows and columns are straight (one row has a sag of about 1.5mm over the length of 2m, and interestingly it’s not one of the outer rows, all other rows are very straight), square to each other and correctly spaced (<= 1mm error over the full lengths of all rows and columns). Much nicer than what I had expected!

2 Likes

That is excellent feedback!

It’s interesting that you are able to get better results by plugging in the numbers by hand. I wouldn’t expect that, so it’s valuable information.

This sounds to me like something that we would see if the calibration were not precise. Generally if the calibration is good we would expect all four belts to be tight, so it’s interesting to see better dimensional accuracy with worse belt tension

The belts aren’t super loose. Just looser than what I remember from when I was using the results of the calibration procedure. Maybe I can come up with a way of quantifying that. Or can I somewhere see the motor currents during jogging?

1 Like

Thank you for this post, I trimmed some of it to make a good summary that people
can more easily refer to later

This shows how critical the calibration is. I really like the ideal of it being
self calibrating, but it’s clear that there is a lot of room for improvement
still

hendrik wrote:

  • firmware 0.88
  • horizontal “frame”, anchor points are bolted to my concrete courtyard.
  • frame size approx. 3000 x 4000
  • calibration size 2000 x 1000
  • calibration grid 9 x 9
  • calibration current 1000
  • Maslow_tlZ: 88.0, Maslow_trZ: 44.0, Maslow_blZ: 22.0, Maslow_brZ: 66.0 (raised anchor points)

Calibration reported frame flex to be
Flex measurement: TLBR: 5.212 TRBL: 0.451

that’s an interesting difference in flex in the two directions, it may be worth
investigating

Fitness: 0.9801819943116118
Maslow_tlX: -12.2
Maslow_tlY: 3024.6
Maslow_trX: 3939.6
Maslow_trY: 3037.4
Maslow_blX: 0.0
Maslow_blY: 0.0
Maslow_brX: 3947.9
Maslow_brY: 0.0

Then reality struck: I made a test cut. The piece was centered in the frame,
nominal size 1150 x 862 mm, and it came out 1155 x 855. Ugh.

So I took a tape measure, measured all distances between the anchor points and
put them into a CAD program to obtain the (x,y) coordinates. After entering
the lengths of the four sides of the frame and one diagonal, the CAD program
reported the second diagonal to be exactly what I had measured. The (x,y)
coordinates of my frame are

Maslow_tlX: -14.41
Maslow_tlY: 3049.97
Maslow_trX: 3930.59
Maslow_trY: 3058.0
Maslow_blX: 0.0
Maslow_blY: 0.0
Maslow_brX: 3935.0
Maslow_brY: 0.0

so, the calibration put the top anchors 3951.8 mm apart and the manual
measurement put them 3945 mm apart (6.8mm difference). On the original maslow,
you could have an Y error of 2x the anchor point error in the top center. The
maslow 4 is a bit harder to figure out the error on due to the additional belts.

I decided to ignore these numbers and to use my tape measure results in the
maslow.yaml file.

To test this setup, I drilled a 9x9 grid of 1/8" diameter

Other than that, the rows and columns are straight (one row has a sag of
about 1.5mm over the length of 2m, and interestingly it’s not one of the outer
rows, all other rows are very straight), square to each other and correctly
spaced (<= 1mm error over the full lengths of all rows and columns). Much
nicer than what I had expected!

re: the ‘backlash’ that you saw, could you run a test (no cutting needed) and
see if the problem you have is the posts flexing as it moves in different
directions?

David Lang

1 Like

Ah, good reminder! I wanted to comment on that, too, but then my brain was faster than my fingers and I forgot. Here we go:

  • I was surprised about that difference, too, so I started about 5 calibration runs (no fun, because it requires to restart, retract all, extend all …) and never saw that behavior again. On all of these runs Maslow reported values in the 3-5 mm range for both directions.
  • Since that’s much more than I expected from my anchors, I put a dial indicator next to one of the anchor points and measured the displacement. Using a calibration current of 1200 the displacement during the frame flex measurement is less than 0.1mm.
  • The displacement from “completely loose” to “max tension during frame flex measurement” is less than 0.25mm.
  • This measurement was done on the TL anchor. Reported frame flex for this measurement was TLBR 5.585. And no, the anchor on the other side doesn’t move, either.

So I’m not sure what the frame flex measurement actually measures. Maybe belt stretch. Maybe Maslow deformation. Maybe there are other errors. It’s certainly not frame flex in my case.

Given the fact that I see less than 0.25mm displacement from “no tension” to “pull really hard”, I doubt that this explains the backlash.

2 Likes

Lemme try rephrasing that:
A. frame flex
B. Belt stretch
C. Maslow deformation
D. Other errors
E. All of the above!

1 Like

Of course. But I don’t know what the biggest contributing factor is. I’ve got a few ideas how to estimate belt stretch, though.

1 Like

Nice testing setup.

1 Like

hendrik wrote:

Given the fact that I see less than 0.25mm displacement from “no tension” to “pull really hard”, I doubt that this explains the backlash.

sorry I wasn’t clear, I was referring to the maslow sled and the posts on it
flexing (tilting the router), not the anchors.

David Lang

1 Like

Ah, I see. It has rained over night, so there are puddles on my “frame”. Weather permitting I will try to measure that on the weekend.

1 Like

Quick measurements before it got dark, using the maslow.yaml based on my manual frame measurement. I only jogged left/right (x-axis).

  • Deflection in x-direction measured at the side of the PCB cover (i.e. the top of the router): Approximately 0.5-0.7mm difference between jogging to the left and jogging to the right. Repeatability of this measurement isn’t too great, but the numbers are always in this ballpark.
  • Deflection in z-direction measured at the top of one of the linear bearings: Approximately 0.15mm difference between jogging to the left and jogging to the right.
  • Backlash in x-direction measured between the spoilboard and the sled: Approximately 1.3mm difference in x when approaching the position from the left or the right. Using the maslow.yaml file with the results from the automatic calibration I still measured 1.0-1.1mm despite a noticeably higher and uniformer belt tension (not shown in the video).

I plan to do some more measurements, also on belt tension, but sunset forced me to stop for today.

2 Likes

hendrik wrote:

Quick measurements before it got dark, using the maslow.yaml based on my manual frame measurement. I only jogged left/right (x-axis).

  • Deflection in x-direction measured at the side of the PCB cover (i.e. the
    top of the router): Approximately 0.5-0.7mm difference between jogging to the
    left and jogging to the right. Repeatability of this measurement isn’t too
    great, but the numbers are always in this ballpark.
  • Deflection in z-direction measured at the top of one of the linear bearings:
    Approximately 0.15mm difference between jogging to the left and jogging to the
    right.
  • Backlash in x-direction measured between the spoilboard and the sled:
    Approximately 1.3mm difference in x when approaching the position from the
    left or the right. Using the maslow.yaml file with the results from the
    automatic calibration I still measured 1.0-1.1mm despite a noticeably higher
    and uniformer belt tension (not shown in the video).

I plan to do some more measurements, also on belt tension, but sunset forced me to stop for today.

fantastic. When you do your next measurements, can you check if the towers/rods
are moving or if this is all in the inner part?

I would have expected movement in line with the towers to have far less flex
than movement crosswise to the towers (up and down vs side to side)

If the router is tilting, that would directly translate into the sled moving
less. The hard part is tracking down where the flex is.

My thinking of the testing order

  1. Are the towers flexing
  2. is the tower not capturing the top of the rod solidly allowing it to move in
    relation to the tower
  3. is the rod flexing

unless the top and bottom clamps aren’t holding the router well, I do not think
that the router is tipping in relation to the rods, but it’s worth checking

making the sled slipperier would probably help this, but this was without
cutting and the cutting forces would make this worse.

David Lang

That’s on my mental list, but mounting the dial indicator on the sled isn’t trivial. I’ll see what I can do.

1 Like

hendrik wrote:

That’s on my mental list, but mounting the dial indicator on the sled isn’t trivial. I’ll see what I can do.

I was wondering how you did that :slight_smile:

There are holes on the sled that you could attach a chunk of iron to to give
your magnet something to grip.

David Lang

1 Like

I also had better luck entering the anchor point locations by hand and tape measure.

1 Like

@N8DGR8 , so to enter anchor point locations/distances by hand, do we just input them in the settings screen, save, and then skip calibration?

I am able to auto-calibrate with acceptable results cutting after calibration. Got 6 huge 2’x3’ shelves cut out of 3/4 inch ply. But there was about 1/8-1/4" slop difference between the pieces, so it would be nice to know how to manually calibrate and see if there’s a measurable difference for me.

1 Like

Running into the same problem, documented here: X and Y off by 1%

1 Like

I started the calibration, but it never really got anywhere before it failed. I ended up hand editing the maslow.yaml file.

tl = top left (X,Y) coordinates.
tr = top right (X,Y) coordinates.
bl = bottom left (X,Y) coordinates.
br = bottom right (X,y) coordinates.

Maslow_tlX: 2.300000
Maslow_tlY: 3963.000000
Maslow_trX: 3963.000000
Maslow_trY: 3963.000000
Maslow_blX: 0.000000
Maslow_blY: 0.000000
Maslow_brX: 3963.000000
Maslow_brY: 0.000000

As far as slop, 1/4" seems like a lot. 1/8" seems reasonable. It seems to do best with curves vs straight lines. Cutting rates, bit size, bit type (up, down, cross), and cutting depth all make a difference. There is an art to it, that I am far from perfecting.

I don’t think manual calibration will help with slop/consistency. It would help more if your pieces are not cutting square, or you are getting position errors when you cut.

1 Like

Nate wrote:

I don’t think manual calibration will help with slop/consistency. It would
help more if your pieces are not cutting square, or you are getting position
errors when you cut.

If the distances between the anchors do not match what the machine thinks they
are, the belt lengths it calculates are needed will be wrong. If the belts are
not right in all directions, that will hurt slop…

David Lang