I agree, so far you are spot on 
It was up until this morning. I just separated the offsets into an X offset and a Y offset so that we have the option to make them different.
I think so. I think that the accuracy is generally better in the area where the calibration has been run so (just as a hypothetical) if we were to run the calibration exclusively on the left side of the frame and then exclusively cut things on the right side of the frame the accuracy would be worse…I think. That is entirely a hunch based on no real data.
This is exactly the kind of thing that I’m excited to start testing once we have more machines out in the world and more folks willing to try experimenting.
They can be in any locations. Each one has its own X and Y coordinates. We get to pick the frame of reference so we’ve declared that the bottom left is always (0,0) and the bottom right is (?,0) because that simplifies the math.
Ah I should have kept reading, you already figured it out
The X,Y reference frame is defined by those two points but it’s arbitrary, we can define it any way that we want, that was just a simple option. I generally go for roughly parallel to that line, but I don’t usually measure or anything.
When you tell the machine to cut a straight line 600mm in the X direction, it will be parallel to that line.
Yes, absolutely.
I haven’t experimented with wildly non-rectangular frames, but I think that as long as the initial guesses for the anchor point locations are reasonably good, the calibration process should work for any shape. Rectangles are just easy to measure and common.
No, it’s a number inversely proportional to the average error in the measurements so a perfect calibration would result in an infinite score. Ultimately I’d like to get it up into the 2-3 range which is totally possible I think. It’s more of a sanity check than anything else. It lets us know if something has gone really wrong.
Not really. It tells us how well the numbers that we put into the system fit to computing anchor points, but it’s easy to artificially increase the number by sampling fewer points close together since those are likely to have less difference between them. This is also probably indicative of something else being missing from the calculation like belt stretch.
These are FANTASTIC questions. It sounds to me like you have a good core understanding of the system.