https://maslowcnc.github.io/Layout-Simulator/
Thank you so much @bar for the Layout Simulator, I am debating building a frame on a size restricted wall but was unsure how big the actual cutting zone would be and this simulator gave me a much better idea of how the belts would be affected by my anchor placement.
I’m curious though what do the colour codes mean exactly, can the yellow/orange zone still be cut but less reliably or only areas that are completely green are available?
Basically you are correct. It’s not that you can’t cut in the yellow or orange zones, it’s just that it might be a little less accurate. It will still work, it’s just not ideal conditions
Do you think slowing down the speed of cuts in these areas may improve accuracy or since it is just at the limits of certain tolerances wouldn’t make enough of a difference? or is that something I should test and share
Basically you are correct. It¢s not that you can¢t cut in the yellow or orange zones, it¢s just that it might be a little less accurate. It will still work, it¢s just not ideal conditions
when this is doing the arm/frame collision, is it only checking adjacent arms,
or does it check opposite arms (which is the bigger problem than the adjacent
ones)
Do you think slowing down the speed of cuts in these areas may improve
accuracy or since it is just at the limits of certain tolerances wouldn’t make
enough of a difference? or is that something I should test and share
it depends on the cause of the problem. If the issue is tension, slowing down
can help. But if the issue is the arms hitting the frame, the problem is that
the distance from the bit to the anchor is shorter than the machine thinks it
is, so you will lose accuracy no matter what the speed.
at small angles between the arm and the belt, the difference in length is small,
but as the angles get larger, the error gets larger rapidly. see the error bands
at http://lang.hm/maslow/maslow4_frame.html
if the belt + arm is supposed to be 1m long
angle effective length
1 999.98
2 999.921
3 999.822
4 999.684
5 999.507
6 999.29
7 999.034
8 998.738
9 998.403
10 998.029
Both I believe, it is looking at the minimum and maximum angle between each arm and it’s neighbors
you need to also look at the angle between top left/bottom right and top
right/bottom left if those angles get < ~130 degrees, the arms are hitting.
the angle that they have with each other (even with sled rotation) are what
cause the rounded corners in my frame calculator. They turn out to hit the
uprights much more than the side angles.
I’m checking for the minimum (20 degrees) and maximum (130) degrees between each pair of arms and then scaling the color of the canvas at that point by how large the angle is. I think that there ends up being a lot of area where it’s touching, but because it’s a very small deflection the color doesn’t change much
I’m checking for the minimum (20 degrees) and maximum (130) degrees between
each pair of arms and then scaling the color of the canvas at that point by
how large the angle is. I think that there ends up being a lot of area where
it’s touching, but because it’s a very small deflection the color doesn’t
change much
right, but you are not checking for the 130 degree minimum angle between
opposite belts.
as you pull towards the top right corner, the top left and bottom right arms
will hit the frame. no arms to adjacent anchors will have any problem in that
situation.
would it help if I did a diagram showing this?
that’s the reason my plots of good look like footballs
you are far more likely to have a sharp arm to belt angle in the corners than
you are on any of the sides.
That is a great catch, I’ll add that to the simulator
Edit: It’s been added, thank you for catching that! You are totally correct that it’s a more significant source of error than the adjacent arms which I didn’t realize
