X and Y off by 1%

Troubleshooting
94

Going back to that thread, where I ended up after some testing was this:

  • For vertical-ish frames the principles guiding arm layout are:
    • Opposite corners should be next to each other in the stack of arms, i.e. the pairs are TR<->BL and BR<->TL
    • The ‘highest’ and ‘lowest’ arms in the stack should be separated by a long edge, not a short edge. i.e. TL ↔ TR or BL ↔ BR

And from the above the ‘best compromise’ order I could come up with was:

  • For vertical-ish frames I’d go with the layout of (starting topmost ‘down’ to the sled) BL → TR → TL → BR

With changing the arm order I would strongly recommend redoing calibration. BUT BEFORE THAT, change the Maslow_**Z values in the ‘stock’ maslow.yaml to correspond to the changed order. And use it to wipe any existing ‘maslow.yaml’ file on your machine.

For example, here each value is 22mm different from the next (@bar can you confirm the offset is 22mm?), and they are reordered (by their relative height offsets) according to the stacking order. Please do NOT use these specific values, I’m showing them here for illustrative value only, instead figure out one of them for your specific machine (I’d recommend blZ), and then the rest will be simple offsets from that.

Maslow_blZ: 34.000000
Maslow_trZ: 56.000000
Maslow_tlZ: 78.000000
Maslow_brZ: 100.000000

PS. once you redo calibration these values will end up in different places in the maslow.yaml file on the machine.

PPS. you can also find these values in the code:

  • For the front end ESP-WEBUI they’re in settings.js as part of the CONFIG_TOOLTIPS, a guide for users, and
  • For the back end FluidNC they’re in MaslowConfig.cpp as dcM4ZAxis, which are the defaults for these values before the machine has loaded up the maslow.yaml file itself.
4 Likes