Hi Bar, I loaded the 0.84.2, ran a config and cut out a couple of large squares, with just under a metre sides. The belts remained taught during the run and the squares are accurate.
My setup is reversed to the normal as I am using a 240 V router and the cord is pointed up, so I have reversed the control board so I don’t have a conflict with power cords trying to enter on the same side. I have also raised the support anchors so each belt has approx. the same slope and changed the Z values to suit.
The only problem I had was when the M4 overhung the table and tilted, but this can be fixed by providing a support at the same height as the material the M4 is cutting. (Nothing to do with this version of firmware).
Overall I am impressed. The belts remained tight at all times, and the cut is accurate.
Ian Abbott wrote:
The only problem I had was when the M4 overhung the table and tilted, but this can be fixed by providing a support at the same height as the material the M4 is cutting. (Nothing to do with this version of firmware).
Yes, this is a problem, on the earlier Maslow we referred to this as adding a
skirt to the frame.
Overall I am impressed. The belts remained tight at all times, and the cut is accurate.
fantastic to hear!!
David Lang
what fitness score did you get?
David Lang
Hi
Since I made the stool saddle, I had to put the M4 aside in May (with whatever version that was). I figured I needed to update and I would jump right in with 0,84,2 to see all improvement!
I like the updated UI
Calibration was easy, (0,54 fitness) I have the feeling that there is more tension on the belts now (from my May experience, I may be wrong)
I decided to check how was the precision so I did this grid and took some measurement over cardboard.
Center square 28 x 28 is very good only short 1/16 on the verticals
Center circle spot on
Side circles pretty good
Wide rectangle 68 x 20
-1/8 on the top long side
-3/16 on the bottom long side
height is good everywhere except far right +1/8
I’m keeping this picture for future test!
My system is an
M4 on a old vertical 4 x 8 Frame from M2, anchor at Z0 with waste board (Anchors are 9.5’w x 6’h apart…not ideal)
I’m pretty happy with what I see. You are doing a good job!
Syl wrote:
My system is an
M4 on a old vertical 4 x 8 Frame from M2, anchor at Z0 with waste board (Anchors are 9.5’w x 6’h apart…not ideal)
yeah, this looks like it’s way too short for the height
http://lang.hm/maslow/maslow4_frame.html
this is ~2895x1830mm which only allows about 800mm (32") of clear cutting space
in the middle reducing the width to around 8’ would probably give you better
cutting area.
Also, the default calibration is soemthing like 1800x1000, so you are doing the
calibration outside of the good area. shrinking the calibration grid so that it
stays in the green area may help improve things more (when you go to calibrate,
there is an advanced option to set this grid size and the number of points)
David Lang
Thanks for the frame chart, I will definitely play with it when I change for an M4 appropriate frame!
You are right, I calibrated with the default 2000 x 1000. Next time I will change it to be in the green area.
Thanks for the input!
Initially it was 5.1, then I did it again and it dropped to 4.86, Don’t know why.
Maslow-serial (39).log (22.2 KB)
I got really excited, but you meant 0.51 and 0.48. I wish we were getting
numbers >1 
Well, I’ll have to be satisfied that this step just improves the belt tightness
not that it would affect your calibration, but your frame does seem excessivly
wide for your height
David Lang
Yes, Sorry about that, it’s been a long day and I have been trying a few things to try and get a better Fitness measure. Initial result was .51 a couple of days ago, then I ran it again this morning and had to reset the Maslow_Acceptable_Calibration_Threshold to 0.450000 to get it to pass. I will continue trying to work out what has changed. I set the height to 900 to see if it improved anything, it didn’t.
Just upgraded to JSTs and 0.84.2 firmware, calibration came in with a fitness of 0.50 and the belts were much tighter when jogging. Haven’t cut anything yet. One odd thing I noticed is when jogging, often the belts will relax and the machine will dip a few mil. Not sure if this has any impact on cutting — hopefully cutting a cabinet upper this week and we’ll see.
Here’s a video of the slouch, watch carefully at the very end when it stops.
Hi there, i have the same frame. And read it would be max cutting space of 800 mm.
How big must my frame be for a maslow4 for cutting boards of 2440 mm x 1220 mm?
I’m thinking to make an steel frame, so that i know wich material i have to purchase.
LJ-FIXIT wrote:
Hi there, i have the same frame. And read it would be max cutting space of 800 mm.
How big must my frame be for a maslow4 for cutting boards of 2440 mm x 1220 mm?
I¢m thinking to make an steel frame, so that i know wich material i have to purchase.
we don’t have a perfect answer for this. I created this tool to show where the
good cutting area is for any frame
http://lang.hm/maslow/maslow4_frame.html
but the edge of the green area is not “you can’t move outside of this”, but
rather the point where the arms stop rotating correctly, going slightly outside
this is unlikely to be noticable, but it’s a non-linear error, so it gets worse
rapidly as you move further out.
In part it depends on how precise you need everything to be. If you are making
theater setpieces, or yard decorations, you don’t need to be as accurate as if
you are making parts that slot into each other.
David Lang
I’ve seen a similar thing happen. For me, it only seems to happen in one region (bottom right close to the edge of spoil, so a more extreme area in general). I’m on a horizontal mount, and it caused the M4 to dip suddenly left, then straighten back out. I wasn’t making a cut when the dip happened, but jogging to a cut, so it didn’t screw anything up for me.
This dip is caused by the feedback control system powering down and relaxing at the end of the move. It shouldn’t happen while cutting because the system never turns off until the end of the cut
Thanks for the info, I can relax a little bit more now on the next cut 
Done a couple of test cuts with 84.2. Precision seems much better and belts are consistently tight while cutting (which the was not the case before loading this version). Still have not been able to get better than 0.49 configuration, but the cuts appear to be accurate and consistent.
Hello!
I think I upgraded to version 0.85 today. Not sure - the info from the top right corner burger menu shows 0.84 as version number.
Serial monitor says index is version 0.85
I tried to calibrate and it took like for ever, in this stage:
Fitness: 3.047… in 4400
counted up til
Fitness: 3.047… in 35000
thats when i lost patience and quit the calibration.
is that behaviour ok/normal? not mine…
maslows ; )
If you went through the firmware update process, then you should have the latest firmware. There’s a github issue that has been identified recently that (until fixed) is showing up in the info panels as a version lower than it really is.
I’ve had that happen before. I’m not sure what triggers it to happen, but, if you let it keep running, it should finish up the calculations and calibration sooner or later. As long as it is still performing some calculations, I would let it run. I would be more worried if it stopped updating numbers and didn’t give you a prompt that the calibration completed.
what size calibration grid did you use, and how many points? That is a ridiculously high calibration score, so I’m guessing that something is going on (too few points?) causing the optimization algorithm to keep finding additional gain.
Calibration Grid (work area) is 1200mm x 1000mm9x9 points