@Joshua thanks. That is what I done and finished calibrating. This is what I got.
Still seems pretty far off or are these normal numbers? I should be expecting to see something closer to 0 in the error category right? Do I need to run it a couple of times to zero it in?
I would check your measurements. I would start with (edit: 6). Also, it looks like10 and 11 are switched (just a guess. I take it back; these look ok.). Overall, I would expect to get something better.
Also, it looks like your initial chain tolerances are not zero. Is that consistent with the calibration that was loaded when the cuts were made?
@Joshua the chain tolerancesare prob because this was the second time I ran it and skipped to redrill holes and the imputes those measurements.
Do I leave all these measurements in and skip thru calibration to redrill holes and then input or should I start from the beginning and go thru the whole process?
The “initial” parameters should be consistent with the parameters that were in the machine when the cuts were made. So, if you rerun the calibration and use old measurements, it is important that you enter the old parameters, too.
@dlang @madgrizzle @Joshua
Why not merge Holey into the main/stock firmware? I think it should be the new default calibration method now that the GUI interface has been implemented.
I agree that it should be merged, but someone needs to do the work to make it
happen. Some of the firmware changes have been merged, but I don’t think all.
In the GC GUI, there are things that should be merged, but there are also bugs
in the holey triangular calibration version that should not be merged (things to
do with handing setting changes, not things related to the calibration pages)
Madgrizzle would then need to make changes to webcontrol to support this
firmware, but there is currently a conflict between a numbered parameter that he
uses for his cameral based calibration and that holey uses for a different
value. Madgrizzle asked for the version number to be changed (+200 to the
version number) so that he could tell the difference between stock, his camera
(+100) and holey (+200) and that has not happened (I may submit a pull request
for that this weekend, I’ve been trying to get around to it for a couple of
months)
David Lang
@dlang If I understand @madgrizzle 's comments from post 380, if Holey was merged into the stock firmware and became 1.27, as an example, there would be no need to change its version and webcontrol wouldn’t have to be changed to accept two custom firmwares.
that is correct, if the holey version becomes an option in the stock firmware,
webcontrol doesn’t need to deal with 3 versions of firmware, just 2.
David Lang
@dlang so where does the decision and action lay to move this forward? Who reviews and approves such merges?
Actually, I have an update. Superman (aka @Joshua) has merged the rest of the main fork current release, into his latest/greatest holey fork repo and I am building a clean virtual environment to do windows testing. My plan is to document the software prerequisites, which are a bit cumbersome for prime-time, and build an installer so people just run setup.exe and they are ready to launch GC. Once that is done, a PR can be made in GitHub to merge the Holey fork into the main firmware.
I believe this is the right way to go for “stock” calibration.
someone (anyone) needs to look at the differences between this code and the main
tree, create one or more patches to implement the features from this code in the
main code and create pull requests for each feature (since this is big enough
that it’s not ideal to just merge everything as one pull request)
once that is done, many people will review the code (and hopefully tested) and
vote on if it should be included
some of this was already done.
David Lang
and then we need to get a release cut.
David Lang
This is mostly done. I have, several times, merged the updates from the main fork into the Holey Calibration fork. There should not be any conflicts.
Virtual environment (clean Win10 Pro) is set up.
All requirements for Holey installed successfully; Holey GC, with latest main branch merged in, is running.
I won’t be able to do code testing till the following weekend. In the meantime, I am going to work on packaging the required downloads into an installer so people can just run an exe to install everything, since it can be cumbersome.
This is really helpful! Thank you.
-Jeff
Any update here?
I’m using NSIS to create a custom installer. I have never used it before. So far I have figured out how to package downloads into one file and create a custom install process. The hard part is now to write scripts that automate the installation of python components via command prompt, which is the bulk of the installation requirements for holey.
There is quite a bit of information online. I am thinking the best option would be to use pip (Python Package Index). Once that is installed, the commands are pretty straight forward, and should be there same for Windows and Linux. For example, the command to install scipy and all dependent packages is something like:
“python -m pip install --user numpy scipy matplotlib ipython jupyter pandas sympy nose”
