I measured a micron (0.001mm or 0.00003937in) variability after repeatedly traveling 5mm and even 10mm down and back up. I hope Zortrax fixes this mechanical design error soon...lol... ;)https://www.dropbox.com/s/zjpebksvoxs9bv4/video%20apr%2023%2C%2022%2031%2046.mov?dl=0
Since I could not really see anything with the 0.01mm dial indicator I pulled out my trusty millimess…https://www.dropbox.com/s/nvhcy6t18dcrfqo/video%20apr%2023%2C%2022%2055%2007.mov?dl=0
very nice testing, you’ve shown a 1 micron shift in a single location, now if we add a multitude of test points across the build plate and see the same error I wonder what that would look like on the surface of a flat part, my money is on what all the current pictures of flat surface parts on this forum have depicted.
As I wrote before please back here with real measurement not repeating again and again about your experience etc. mainly if designers like a you come here to work the first what they doing building new frame is they create horrible Z wobble.
And here is many things to improve surface quality with M200… using software (directions changes, floating point numbers inaccuracy, XY compensation etc.) we know how to measure things and we know how to simulate things (in attachment extrusion simulation).
The last thing which is just virtually same is pressure of filament inside of hotend this make extruded lines thicker or thinner and this create inconsistency with top of flat surfaces.
I’m amazed at how often you seem to contradict yourself in your writing on this subject and the personal attacks i hope are just language differences, I have no need to do your work for you so you just keep on taking your measurements and interpret them as you will. A lot of data is floating on this site and a lot of opinions too.
I will do what I have been very successful at in improving the designs of mechanical systems and sharing that with the community.
Interesting that you miss quote me and do not believe that the printer doesn't have to make repeated movements similar to the tooling I have been designing for over 30 years and have pattens on designs and processes the after making a vague reference to my ignorance of mechanical design and asking to drop this thread leads me to wonder why you want this to end.
I have been honest with my appreciation of the overall performance of the M 200.but will also be frank with my opinions on what I believe can be improved upon, your attempts to belittle me only serves to r enforce my view of Zortrax policy in regards to the community relationship.
I have zero interest in competition with Zortrax in making a printer but I will always share my insight and designs with community and manufacturers as I believe in karma and always want the best for others, a small investigation of my contributions may improve your opinion of me.
Sorry for the late and short reply, I’m typing this on my phone, I honestly hope I will be able to continue to help.
You see if you had wrote your responses in a similar fashion to this response my views and input would have been set to the side, however you were being rather rude to Andre who is one of the most respected members here and has contributed heavily.I don’t undermind your mechanical knowledge I’m simply saying that a printer is a relationship between both hardware and software and mechanical knowledge alone doesn’t give you great prints. If you’ve built a printer from scratch and played around with the software you would see how important those two go hand in hand and just how much the software can manipulate the print and cause areas to appear to be caused by inaccuracy in the axis. The machine has ballscrews already would you prefer overloaded balls screw nuts or overloaded dual ball screw nut? It would make movement more accurate but cost goes up and the demand goes down. I was just as stubborn as you once because I owned a machine shop and built cnc routers at 15 as a side business so I thought I knew everything but it wasn’t until I built my own when I really understood that it’s a different game with different rules. Your input is much appreciated on providing enhancements to the M200 but getting mad at those who are respected here will serve you no good
You see if you had wrote your responses in a similar fashion to this response my views and input would have been set to the side, however you were being rather rude to Andre who is one of the most respected members here and has contributed heavily.I don't undermind your mechanical knowledge I'm simply saying that a printer is a relationship between both hardware and software and mechanical knowledge alone doesn't give you great prints. If you've built a printer from scratch and played around with the software you would see how important those two go hand in hand and just how much the software can manipulate the print and cause areas to appear to be caused by inaccuracy in the axis. The machine has ballscrews already would you prefer overloaded balls screw nuts or overloaded dual ball screw nut? It would make movement more accurate but cost goes up and the demand goes down. I was just as stubborn as you once because I owned a machine shop and built cnc routers at 15 as a side business so I thought I knew everything but it wasn't until I built my own when I really understood that it's a different game with different rules. Your input is much appreciated on providing enhancements to the M200 but getting mad at those who are respected here will serve you no good
I hope I spelled your name right (I do not know your real name).
I would apologize to Andre for any personal slight he may feel, I try not to make any of my observations anything other than technical in nature but again I am sorry to Andre if I miss spoke.
I whole heartily agree with you that the mechanical and software can be a contributor or solution to the issues discussed here and while I am not a software designer by any stretch of the imagination I can speak my views to the mechanical side of the issue and everyone is welcomed to debate and disagree with me.
As to the issue of "Ball Screw" versus "Linear Bearing" versus "Slide bearing" versus ......... well we can go on and on about what would be better or more cost effective, they rarely coincide.
My comments about the mechanical issues in regards to the "Z" travel of the machine have been to my satisfaction displayed in every picture posted on this site that displays a part with a flat surface pierced by perpendicular features and by my direct observations, the software could probably reduce these by making fewer "Z" jumps but to date it has not been a complete solution and I'm unsure there will ever truly be one.
About you believing I'm "stubborn", I have no desire to attempt in this fashion of typing on a forum (I'm a very slow typist) of trying to change your mind, and tongue firmly planted in cheek would point out that to hear a contrary opinion and then firmly commit to denouncing without a comprehensive exchange of data and views is to my mind the very definition of "Stubborn" but I will hold back on labeling anyone. I have had my mind changed every day about things I thought immutable.
I notice you list on your profile you live here in the Bay Area as do I, I will be at the Maker Faire next month and if you look for me anywhere near a Zortrax or Afinia/UP machine you will most likely find me, I would welcome you to discuss our ideas in a wonderfully creative environment to be found there.
Lastly, "getting mad", I'm overly sensitive to being labeled that way as I try to not be "Trollish" in my correspondences but sometimes I should have a lock on my keyboard late at night as I have been known to be "gruff" when I'm tired but that is still no excuse for it so I apologize to those offended, you may have noticed I use my real name and a not to current picture of myself and so try to take great care of what I say and how I'm received out here in the world, I wonder how freely we would be with barbs and criticisms if we could not completely hide behind internet monikers, but this too will never be changed in my limited opinion.
With kind regards
"I like fairies"
...displayed in every picture posted on this site that displays a part with a flat surface pierced by perpendicular features...
Sometimes I swear my comments are invisible...
I fully explained this behavior in my previous post on this thread as well as other threads. It is SOFTWARE.
Feel free to check out my other thread on surface finish.
It was a good read and while I do agree with the other thread that this issue can be solved (or hidden to some extent) with a software patch, there is always a mechanical side of things to think of. These variables change as time goes on, something that software cannot adjust for on each individual machine being that they all wear at a different rate depending on use. That is all I can comment on as this seems to be a heavyweight fight and I have a limited knowledge base on this subject.
Of course there is a mechanical side to it and the designer of the machine itself, Martin, explained where the lines come from (but his posts seem to be invisible, too)…it’s a tool path/nozzle back pressure topic with the back pressure being the “mechanical side” of it. It has nothing to do with backlash or screw friction or whatever because those lines would look exactly the same if the ball screw would be glued in place.
You just have to look at the tool path when it happens and it’s obvious. I think the surface flaws of the raft were also brought up … just take a look at the zcode preview on your computer screen… The flawed lines are part of the code. See link…