Page MenuHomeAleph Objects Inc

Create burn-in and calibration gcode.
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Description

We will need a bushing burn-in and octopus calibration gcode for quiver. Also a dimensional accuracy test. Probably the quick circle since that is what we use for mini 2 and we want to be able to compare these two printers. We will want to also test both extruders, so maybe we need to print two quick circles.

Event Timeline

kent created this task.Oct 16 2018, 7:55 AM
kent triaged this task as Normal priority.
kent created this object with edit policy "LulzBot Hardware Products (Project)".

I have been thinking of this... Would it be better to have a dual color quick circle to test the accuracy of using the 2 hot ends at the same time? (The quick circle would still be the same dimensions as the mini)

kent added a comment.Oct 16 2018, 8:06 AM

I'm not sure you can print with both tool heads at the same time though, @oliver

karrad added a subscriber: karrad.Oct 16 2018, 8:07 AM

We should be able to set up a file that prints one circle, than switches to the other head and print a second circle.

Sorry, I my wording was bad. I meant 1 quick circle in 2 colors. So we can see how well the printer is able to 'blend' together and hold dimensional accuracy.

kent added a comment.Oct 16 2018, 8:38 AM

@oliver not a bad idea but if you do that it will be less of a direct comparison to mini 2 and that would be interesting information to know IMO.

@kent It may take too much time and quite a bit more data collecting but at the very least we could do 3. One for each hot end and a mixed one. But I do agree at most we do need 1 for each hot end.

Throwing my two cents in here, I don't think multiple would be required. Extrusion will need to be verified off of each nozzle, but the dimensional accuracy will only need 1 print since the entire tool-head is moving, there shouldn't be a difference in shape between the two prints. One print with a few layers of the other tool head in the middle will let us know if the offsets are in place and give general information on extrusion. This is what I believe @oliver is getting at with the original comment. Printing multiple is redundant.

logan added a comment.Oct 16 2018, 9:21 AM

I agree with @EricNugent I think we can come up with a dual color, one piece print that would show us what we want to know. I also agree with @kent that we want the closest comparison possible.
That having been said, one thing to keep in mind while creating calibration gcodes is time. There is a limited amount of space on the burn-in racks and naturally we want to keep calibration moving as quickly as possible, so we need to keep calibration gcodes to the minimum necessary. If it doesn't provide us with a useful metric it should be eliminated.

What do we benefit by tracking results of dimensional accuracy tests? Performing the test is great to make sure our printers are good when they leave, I just am not understanding how tracking that data is useful. As far as I can tell, all it tells us is how many of our calibration prints fail.

@logan Tracking the quick circles over time allows us to monitor for any problems over the life of the design as well as track the effects of any changes we make to the printer, whether they're beneficial to assembly or not.

WE had Dave Robertson make a dual print for us in MER as a standard test print for the v3. Maybe we could use it for TAZ 7 also.

kent lowered the priority of this task from Normal to Low.Nov 26 2018, 4:11 PM

This will need to happen, but not until we are ready to make the beta tag.

logan added a comment.Jan 2 2019, 12:10 PM

Here's a calibration cube I made that gives X/Y/Z offset visualization as well as X/Y dimensional accuracy. It is a 20mm cube

logan added a comment.Jan 3 2019, 1:22 PM

Here is a quicker vernier scale for dual calibration:

The quick circle is split into 2 colors which gives a bit of visualization for Z nozzle offset since the vernier wasn't working as well in that scenario.
Further profile mods: (ABS)
Fan: 12 reg 15 max
Connect infill lines: No
Infill offsets X/Y set to align center of infill in circle tower
extruder 1 no top layers
extruder 2 no bottom layers

logan added a comment.Jan 4 2019, 9:59 AM


Here is a PLA gcode for vernier with 2 small squares to assist with Z nozzle offset. I was able to measure the two small squares and apply the difference between the two to correct z nozzle offset.
Including cool down time this print takes 25 minutes.

I have made a burn in gcode


Cycles X/Y/Z, fan 100% and tool switch half way through, takes 18 minutes to complete.

Let me know what y'all think, if there's anything missing or could be improved upon.
Just be aware that the circle on the vernier print will fail due to T5033

@kent Please review burn in gcode above
Vernier print needs product name fixed and resliced with latest CuraLE, but I want to make sure everyone is on board with that calibration print.
Let me know what you think and I can get these pushed to a branch

@kent Everything is now in T4129 branch

kent closed this task as Resolved.Jan 28 2019, 1:34 PM

This is merged in now.

$ git diff master --summary 
 create mode 100644 sample_prints/calibration/burnin.gcode
 create mode 100644 sample_prints/calibration/quiver_vernier_PLA.gcode
 create mode 100644 sample_prints/calibration/vernier_noz1.stl
 create mode 100644 sample_prints/calibration/vernier_noz2.stl
 create mode 100644 sample_prints/calibration/vernier_v4.fcstd
logan reopened this task as Open.Feb 4 2019, 2:58 PM

I just noticed that the last vernier gcode I pushed didn't have the 2 squares set up right; selection was wrong when exported.
I'm working on drafting instructions for calibration OHAI now; will get a new one pushed once verified.

@Hob @karrad @eBeardslee @mcoronado

Dave Robertson is working on the first prints that the customer will do, but we also need to have a print that calibration. @logan has designed a print that MER has been using to test the calibration with. Logan is leaning toward the LulzBot Green base with black lettering as it's easier to ready. Are we okay with sending that to the customer, rather then the octopus?

logan raised the priority of this task from Low to High.Feb 26 2019, 8:06 AM
anolen added a subscriber: anolen.EditedMar 1 2019, 11:16 AM

I was getting good results with these when the Smooth is set to 0.0 and the Correction is set to 100% on the machine.

PLA Calbration Print

PETG Calibration Print

logan added a comment.Mar 4 2019, 11:29 AM

The above PLA gcode results in good circles, but makes the vernier unreadable. I'm not sure what the settings were that resulted in that.
Here's what the gcode looks like when imported into CuraLE:

anolen added a comment.EditedMar 5 2019, 10:01 AM

@logan I re-sliced to hopefully get better clarity, let me know if this one works or not for you.

kent added a comment.Apr 1 2019, 1:16 PM

There are both burn-in and calibration print g-codes in the repo now, so the original purpose of this ticket is complete. If there are issues with either the burn-in gcode or the calibration print gcode, they can go into a new ticket.

kent closed this task as Resolved.Apr 1 2019, 1:16 PM