Hi everyone
I updated my Maslow Hardware to v.4.1 and istalled the firmware version 1.12.
It’s now very accurate, compared to the maslow v4.
But there is one thing that would be great in the next firmware version.
At the moment, the x and y scale factor can only be set with accuracy of 0.001 it would be great to have a scalingfactor accuracy of 0.0001 so that it is posibble to compensate errors in of 0.5mm.
Thanks
Interesting!
Can you download your maslow.yaml file and see what value is stored in it? My bet is that we’re actually storing and using the full precision but just displaying there digits to keep the UI looking cleaner.
hi everyone,
if I could have something to say on this topic. I set these scales by a few % according to the manual movement, so that my machine moves at 1mm per 1m exactly. Even at 2m it is about 1-1.5mm of movement in the entire range of 2.5m x1.25m of working area.
what worried me was that I had the parts cut with a small 3.125mm milling cutter, everything was done well in krabzcam the tool paths and the parts with dimensions of 35x535mm cut me 40x540mm
I checked the G code in krabz again and the diameter of the milling cutter was entered correctly.
on a part with dimensions of 735mm it gave me 740 for the length.
what could I look for?
JURA23 wrote:
what could I look for?
The bottom line is that almost all the time, if the machine isn’t cutting
accurately, it’s a problem with the anchor locations.
Other than anchor locations,t he only other cause we know of for inaccuracy is
belt stretch, the way to minimize that is to make the bottom of the sled as
slick as possible (and belt stretch during calibration will cause the anchor
locations to be off
As you are finding, the errors aren’t linear, so a fixed scale percentage is not
going to be reliable.
We are working on calibration improvements, if you are willing to run
experimental code, do multiple calibrations with different settings and report
the results (especially how they compare with stock, please let us know.
David Lang
Thank you for the answer.
however, the frame is on concrete, the anchors hold firmly. size 4.4m x 3.6m
I’m following some of your threads with test firmwares, I don’t know if I should be afraid of it 
I need to cut rather than test.
in version 1.07 I didn’t have this problem, I cut even 1.5m x 0.9m pieces accurately (which is enough for me for now)
is it easy to go back to the previous 1.07?
and the last question, if jogging goes exactly, why doesn’t the machine cut accurately?
JURA23 wrote:
however, the frame is on concrete, the anchors hold firmly. size 4.4m x 3.6m
that’s good (both in size and rigidity) this should let you have a very large
calibration grid area (pretty much limited by the need to have something under
the sled 
)
I¢m following some of your threads with test firmwares, I don¢t know if I should be afraid of it
the one I would have you test is the index.html.gz that has a different
calculation method. the test would be to save your existing maslow.yaml, do a
calibration with the new firmware using the old algorithm to see if it comes up
with similar numbers, then change an entry in the preferences menu (to right)
and then do another calibration and see what numbers it comes up with.
then try using each set of numbers to see which one works better for you
in version 1.07 I didn¢t have this problem, I cut even 1.5m x 0.9m pieces accurately (which is enough for me for now)
is it easy to go back to the previous 1.07?
it is, but what is probably different is the coordinates in maslow.yaml (do you
have the 1.07 version
and the last question, if jogging goes exactly, why doesn¢t the machine cut accurately?
it should. the only reason I can think it wouldn’t is if home is not set where
you think it is. but even that should just be an offset vs a size error.
can you explain a bit more?
David Lang
the one I would have you test is the index.html.gz that has a different
calculation method. the test would be to save your existing maslow.yaml, do a
calibration with the new firmware using the old algorithm to see if it comes up
with similar numbers, then change an entry in the preferences menu (to right)
and then do another calibration and see what numbers it comes up with.
I could still try that. Please, where can I find the download files?
it is, but what is probably different is the coordinates in maslow.yaml (do you
have the 1.07 version
I’m currently on 1.12 (of course I have saved the files I downloaded from my previous version 1.07)
it should. the only reason I can think it wouldn’t is if home is not set where
you think it is. but even that should just be an offset vs a size error.can you explain a bit more?
home was somewhere in the middle. For cutting I then repositioned it to the lower left edge of the cut part.
I described the inaccuracy with respect to jogging and cutting in a post above. Simply, when moving manually, the machine moves exactly 1mm, then when cutting the part, it cut the part almost 5mm larger on each side.
thanks
JURA23 wrote:
the one I would have you test is the index.html.gz that has a different
calculation method. the test would be to save your existing maslow.yaml, do a
calibration with the new firmware using the old algorithm to see if it comes up
with similar numbers, then change an entry in the preferences menu (to right)
and then do another calibration and see what numbers it comes up with.I could still try that. Please, where can I find the download files?
I will post a new thread on that shortly.
it is, but what is probably different is the coordinates in maslow.yaml (do you
have the 1.07 versionI¢m currently on 1.12 (of course I have saved the files I downloaded from my previous version 1.07)
that’s great. please look in each file and fine the section that shows the
anchor locations (it changed from 1.07 to 1.12) and post that section.
it should. the only reason I can think it wouldn¢t is if home is not set where
you think it is. but even that should just be an offset vs a size error.can you explain a bit more?
home was somewhere in the middle. For cutting I then repositioned it to the lower left edge of the cut part.
I described the inaccuracy with respect to jogging and cutting in a post
above. Simply, when moving manually, the machine moves exactly 1mm, then when
cutting the part, it cut the part almost 5mm larger on each side.
that sounds to me like a CAM problem, that it thinks it has the wrong size bit
or something. can you post the gcode?
David Lang
