Folger Tech Kossel Delta 2020 Full 3D Printer Kit w/Auto-Level

Folks say that, but using those values, my dimensions are very close, and any corrections I calculate would need to go in the opposite direction . . . . thus, I am not convinced that they are wrong . . .

- Tim

If you change the motor steps/mm then you will have to adjust the other parameters in proportion to maintain the geometry. Off the top of my head, I think you will need to decrease the delta radius, diagonal rod length, endstop corrections and homed height by the same factor as you decrease the steps/mm.

---

Large delta printer [miscsolutions.wordpress.com], E3D tool changer, Robotdigg SCARA printer, Crane Quad and Ormerod

Disclosure: I design Duet electronics and work on RepRapFirmware, [duet3d.com].

Quote
tadawson
Folks say that, but using those values, my dimensions are very close, and any corrections I calculate would need to go in the opposite direction . . . . thus, I am not convinced that they are wrong . . .

- Tim

Several sources state that it should be 80 steps/mm with 20-tooth pulleys (EDIT: and 1/16 steppers).

Try googling "steps per mm 20 tooth pulleys" and se what you get.

I think it was thevisad who mentioned this earlier in the thread and used that value to get a more accurate print with this particular kit.

EDIT: Just re-read my post and I realized it got a "bad" tone to it, not my intention though.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2015 04:44PM by Koenig.

Quote
dc42
If you change the motor steps/mm then you will have to adjust the other parameters in proportion to maintain the geometry. Off the top of my head, I think you will need to decrease the delta radius, diagonal rod length, endstop corrections and homed height by the same factor as you decrease the steps/mm.

Sorry for the hijack, but I'm thinking about trying out your "Mini height sensor board", but I cannot find anywhere to buy it, perhaps you could point me in the right direction?

Quote
Koenig

Quote
dc42
If you change the motor steps/mm then you will have to adjust the other parameters in proportion to maintain the geometry. Off the top of my head, I think you will need to decrease the delta radius, diagonal rod length, endstop corrections and homed height by the same factor as you decrease the steps/mm.

Sorry for the hijack, but I'm thinking about trying out your "Mini height sensor board", but I cannot find anywhere to buy it, perhaps you could point me in the right direction?

Send me a PM stating which country you would need the board delivered to, and I will respond with a price.

---

Large delta printer [miscsolutions.wordpress.com], E3D tool changer, Robotdigg SCARA printer, Crane Quad and Ormerod

Disclosure: I design Duet electronics and work on RepRapFirmware, [duet3d.com].

Quote
Koenig

Quote
tadawson
Folks say that, but using those values, my dimensions are very close, and any corrections I calculate would need to go in the opposite direction . . . . thus, I am not convinced that they are wrong . . .

- Tim

Several sources state that it should be 80 steps/mm with 20-tooth pulleys (EDIT: and 1/16 steppers).

Try googling "steps per mm 20 tooth pulleys" and se what you get.

I think it was thevisad who mentioned this earlier in the thread and used that value to get a more accurate print with this particular kit.

EDIT: Just re-read my post and I realized it got a "bad" tone to it, not my intention though.

I've read all the arguments, but not one of those folks I recall having this printer, making the change, and seeing an improvement, just venting theory. Meanwhile, the reality on mine is that my calibration cubes are a tad *undersize* using 84 steps/mm, and going to 80 would make it worse. Myself, I'll go with the actual result in this case . . . since apparently my printer can't read and doesn't realize this isn't supposed to work . . . :-) :-)

- Tim

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2015 05:20PM by tadawson.

Quote
tadawson

Quote
Koenig

Quote
tadawson
Folks say that, but using those values, my dimensions are very close, and any corrections I calculate would need to go in the opposite direction . . . . thus, I am not convinced that they are wrong . . .

- Tim

Several sources state that it should be 80 steps/mm with 20-tooth pulleys (EDIT: and 1/16 steppers).

Try googling "steps per mm 20 tooth pulleys" and se what you get.

I think it was thevisad who mentioned this earlier in the thread and used that value to get a more accurate print with this particular kit.

EDIT: Just re-read my post and I realized it got a "bad" tone to it, not my intention though.

I've read all the arguments, but not one of those folks I recall having this printer, making the change, and seeing an improvement, just venting theory. Meanwhile, the reality on mine is that my calibration cubes are a tad *undersize* using 84 steps/mm, and going to 80 would make it worse. Myself, I'll go with the actual result in this case . . . since apparently my printer can't read and doesn't realize this isn't supposed to work . . . :-) :-)

- Tim

Starting from end of page 25 of this thread you will see that at least 3 users switched to 80 steps/mm and that one of them confirmed the improvement (plus - thevisad printed "benchy" getting the correct dimensions).

But as dc42 also mentioned, you have to look over other settings as well and do a new calibration when you change steps/mm.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2015 06:56PM by Koenig.

I spent some time thinking about this, and now my head hurts . . . . steps/mm on a delta are on the tower drives, not actual X/Y/Z directions . . . so, the only direct relationship is when all three towers move together for Z movement, then you are 1:1 . . . for X and Y, the delta calculations are in the middle. So, if, say, your X print dimension is off, you can't simply 'do the math' and adjust steps/mm for what is called the 'X' tower, since that isn't really the axis . . . .

So, ultimately, on a delta, how do you calculate corrections?

- Tim

Quote
tadawson
I spent some time thinking about this, and now my head hurts . . . . steps/mm on a delta are on the tower drives, not actual X/Y/Z directions . . . so, the only direct relationship is when all three towers move together for Z movement, then you are 1:1 . . . for X and Y, the delta calculations are in the middle. So, if, say, your X print dimension is off, you can't simply 'do the math' and adjust steps/mm for what is called the 'X' tower, since that isn't really the axis . . . .

So, ultimately, on a delta, how do you calculate corrections?

- Tim

What I did was use a dial indicator to adjust my z direction. I mounted the dial indicator so it was pointing straight up and let the effector push down on it when I issued a Z move command. I modified steps/mm on all 3 axis settings identically untill I got exactly 30mm when I told it to move 30mm down. (84 gave me the correct movement, believe it or not) I do not know if this has to be a whole number or if a decimal is allowed for super fine tuning. I stuck with a whole number. Then I used the following instructions to correct the x and y movement:
From:
http://minow.blogspot.co.at/index.html#4918805519571907051


Step 4 - Calibrate the firmware to print to correct dimensions.

At this point the printer probably prints, but the results are
dimensionally wrong. Printing something 100mm long results in a
printed object that is not exactly 100 mm long. This also, can be
corrected in firmware. Adjustments to
DELTA_DIAGONAL_ROD in the firmware control the size of
the printed object.
Create a simple calibration object in openscad, slice it, and print it.
By measuring the actual size of the object as printed and
comparing it to the size in the design, the accuracy of the printer
can be assessed and adjusted.
Here is my sample openscad object:
cube([100,2,2]));
If the length of the object is wrong, adjust
DELTA_DIAGONAL_ROD:
new DELTA_DIAGONAL_ROD =
100 / measured_length * original
DELTA_DIAGONAL_ROD
then reupload
the firmware, and print and measure again. When
the printed object measures 100 mm, the printer is printing
accurately to size and is fully calibrated.


Hope this helps...

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2015 07:09AM by mmcginnis9272.

Quote
mmcginnis9272

Quote
tadawson
I spent some time thinking about this, and now my head hurts . . . . steps/mm on a delta are on the tower drives, not actual X/Y/Z directions . . . so, the only direct relationship is when all three towers move together for Z movement, then you are 1:1 . . . for X and Y, the delta calculations are in the middle. So, if, say, your X print dimension is off, you can't simply 'do the math' and adjust steps/mm for what is called the 'X' tower, since that isn't really the axis . . . .

So, ultimately, on a delta, how do you calculate corrections?

- Tim

What I did was use a dial indicator to adjust my z direction. I modified steps/mm on all 3 axis settings identically untill I got exactly 30mm when I told it to move 30mm. (84 gave me the correct movement, believe it or not) Then I used the following instructions to correct the x and y movement:
From:
http://minow.blogspot.co.at/index.html#4918805519571907051


Step 4 - Calibrate the firmware to print to correct dimensions.

At this point the printer probably prints, but the results are
dimensionally wrong. Printing something 100mm long results in a
printed object that is not exactly 100 mm long. This also, can be
corrected in firmware. Adjustments to
DELTA_DIAGONAL_ROD in the firmware control the size of
the printed object.
Create a simple calibration object in openscad, slice it, and print it.
By measuring the actual size of the object as printed and
comparing it to the size in the design, the accuracy of the printer
can be assessed and adjusted.
Here is my sample openscad object:
cube([100,2,2]));
If the length of the object is wrong, adjust
DELTA_DIAGONAL_ROD:
new DELTA_DIAGONAL_ROD =
100 / measured_length * original
DELTA_DIAGONAL_ROD
then reupload
the firmware, and print and measure again. When
the printed object measures 100 mm, the printer is printing
accurately to size and is fully calibrated.


Hope this helps...

Very much. That's pretty much what I did, save for the DIAGONAL_ROD tuning. Next time I pull my belts off, I think I'm going to measure the pulley diameter with my calipers . . . . just out of curiosity . . .

- Tim

Quote
Djkingsley

Quote
Djkingsley

Quote
thevisad
Created a github repository which will contain all of the changes we come across here and I will try to keep it in sync with the official repo. Those who wish to use it or update it with me, feel free to contribute.
TheVisad

Beat me to it, thanks, one less thing for me to do.

There is an issue with the ENABLE_AUTO_BED_LEVELING, in SanityCheck.h near line 157 the conditionals need to be adjusted for a delta printer with xy=0 at the center. I don't have time to look at it right now so I turned off the auto level flag in my clone repository.

Did you ever find out what caused it?

I tried to upload thevisads fork of the firmware but I got a similar error as you got.

Quote
Arduino
Arduino:1.6.4 (Windows 8.1), Kort:"Arduino Mega or Mega 2560, ATmega2560 (Mega 2560)"

Build options changed, rebuilding all

In file included from Configuration_adv.h:550:0,
from Configuration.h:819,
from Marlin.h:22,
from blinkm.cpp:5:
SanityCheck.h:122: error: #error ENABLE_AUTO_BED_LEVELING requires a Z_MIN or Z_PROBE endstop. Z_MIN_PIN or Z_PROBE_PIN must point to a valid hardware pin.
#error ENABLE_AUTO_BED_LEVELING requires a Z_MIN or Z_PROBE endstop. Z_MIN_PIN or Z_PROBE_PIN must point to a valid hardware pin.
^
#error ENABLE_AUTO_BED_LEVELING requires a Z_MIN or Z_PROBE endstop. Z_MIN_PIN or Z_PROBE_PIN must point to a valid hardware pin.

This report would have more information with
"Show verbose output during compilation"
enabled in File > Preferences.

I don't know much about theese settings and what all does, but from the error-report it looks like there's no pin forthe probe defined.
I tried to look in the firmware from Folgertech to see if I could find any difference in the "pins"-file, but it was a bit much to take in at the moment as this is my first printer, or any familiarity to arduino at all...

EDIT: Never mind, found v2 of "Configuration.h" wich did work.

Still waiting for my rails from igus, just playing around trying to familiarize my self with the electronics while I wait.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/2015 12:47PM by Koenig.

Just got my Duet from Replikeo in the mail yesterday. Upon opening the package the USB header fell into my lap, it had ripped right off of the circuit board. I then proceeded to try and at least see if the unit would power on and the board I received was a DOA. I reached out to them and they indicated they would check the USB headers on the ones they have in stock and ship another replacement unit out. No testing of the Duet on the Folgertech for me this week, highly disappointing and a major mark against the Duet in my book. Especially when DC42's webpage indicated he also had issues with the USB header. I pay 15$ for a perfectly made Arduino Mega and have yet to have any issues with any of the "cheap" chinese knockoffs. However, a 90$ Duet comes to me in pieces and is DOA. Not a good start and makes me that much less likely to buy additional things that attach to it.

[puu.sh]

TheVisad

Sorry to hear about your problem with the USB header. Hopefully Replikeo has now learned that they need to get the USB socket mounting tabs hand soldered. RepRapPro went through the same learning exercise well over a year ago.

---

Large delta printer [miscsolutions.wordpress.com], E3D tool changer, Robotdigg SCARA printer, Crane Quad and Ormerod

Disclosure: I design Duet electronics and work on RepRapFirmware, [duet3d.com].

There was no post processing involved. These are basically out of the Folger tech Kossel.
No sanding no anything. I hightly suggest everyone follow the delta-calibration link I posted further up in this thread. It has been very enlightening.
Follow it and you will have some good quality prints. This was printed at .2mm layer height.

Quote
jculver09

Quote
Wittmason
I just posted some adjustable spool holder arms for our Kossel made from the "Spool holder that uses Emmet's gear bearing".
Adjustable spool holder arms for Emmet's gear bearing spool holder

IMG_0876_preview_featured.JPG

Thank You for these, I hadnt seen that gear bearing spool holder before, and these will make it easy to use.

Also, your finished parts look really clean, what kind of post processing steps do you use?

Regarding the spool holder, I made some variants of the gear bearing that fit the support from Folger . . . works quite well too, just not as sexy looking . . .

- Tim

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/13/2015 03:05PM by tadawson.

I know you've already "committed" to the Duet @visad but I replaced my RAMPS with the AZSMZ 32 bit smoothie board clone and I've been real happy with it.
I also purchased the LCD but I've been printing a lot with it and I have it setup with the DRV8825 stepper drivers you got earlier.
So 1/32nd micro stepping has been enabled and the machine is super quiet and FAST!!

I'll shoot a video of it in action if anyone is interested.

Quote
thevisad
Just got my Duet from Replikeo in the mail yesterday. Upon opening the package the USB header fell into my lap, it had ripped right off of the circuit board. I then proceeded to try and at least see if the unit would power on and the board I received was a DOA. I reached out to them and they indicated they would check the USB headers on the ones they have in stock and ship another replacement unit out. No testing of the Duet on the Folgertech for me this week, highly disappointing and a major mark against the Duet in my book. Especially when DC42's webpage indicated he also had issues with the USB header. I pay 15$ for a perfectly made Arduino Mega and have yet to have any issues with any of the "cheap" chinese knockoffs. However, a 90$ Duet comes to me in pieces and is DOA. Not a good start and makes me that much less likely to buy additional things that attach to it.

[puu.sh]

TheVisad

You should post them Tim (@tadawson) so the group can benefit. I'm a designer so designing "sexy" - I consider a compliment.

Tim aka wittmason

Quote
tadawson
Regarding the spool holder, I made some variants of the gear bearing that fit the support from Folger . . . works quite well too, just not as sexy looking . . .

- Tim

Quote
Wittmason
I know you've already "committed" to the Duet @visad but I replaced my RAMPS with the AZSMZ 32 bit smoothie board clone and I've been real happy with it.
I also purchased the LCD but I've been printing a lot with it and I have it setup with the DRV8825 stepper drivers you got earlier.
So 1/32nd micro stepping has been enabled and the machine is super quiet and FAST!!

I'll shoot a video of it in action if anyone is interested.

The AZSMZ looks to me to be a contender for the title of first 32-bit board at a sensible price. However, Smoothieware currently lacks the segmentation-free delta movement and the 30-second full delta auto calibration supported by the Duet firmware. By the time you add the drivers, the cost of the AZSMZ Mini is much the same as a Duet from Replikeo - but the Duet also provides an Ethernet port and web interface. Once you have used the web interface, you will never want to control your printer with a USB host program again.

---

Large delta printer [miscsolutions.wordpress.com], E3D tool changer, Robotdigg SCARA printer, Crane Quad and Ormerod

Disclosure: I design Duet electronics and work on RepRapFirmware, [duet3d.com].

I plan to, I'm just on my tablet at the moment, and kinda limited. First step is getting both into the same thing on Thingiverse . . .

- Tim

Quote
dc42
Sorry to hear about your problem with the USB header. Hopefully Replikeo has now learned that they need to get the USB socket mounting tabs hand soldered. RepRapPro went through the same learning exercise well over a year ago.

Well, I guess it doesn't matter at this point, Replikeo's site has been suspended at this time, so I doubt I will be getting the replacement from them. Looks like I will need to reach out to paypal. I tried to replace the USB header myself with some I had on had, but the board was a complete DOA and refused to power on.

I reached out to Replikeo who indicated they are "updating" their site

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/15/2015 03:55PM by thevisad.

Quote
tadawson

Quote
Koenig

Quote
tadawson
Folks say that, but using those values, my dimensions are very close, and any corrections I calculate would need to go in the opposite direction . . . . thus, I am not convinced that they are wrong . . .

- Tim

Several sources state that it should be 80 steps/mm with 20-tooth pulleys (EDIT: and 1/16 steppers).

Try googling "steps per mm 20 tooth pulleys" and se what you get.

I think it was thevisad who mentioned this earlier in the thread and used that value to get a more accurate print with this particular kit.

EDIT: Just re-read my post and I realized it got a "bad" tone to it, not my intention though.

I've read all the arguments, but not one of those folks I recall having this printer, making the change, and seeing an improvement, just venting theory. Meanwhile, the reality on mine is that my calibration cubes are a tad *undersize* using 84 steps/mm, and going to 80 would make it worse. Myself, I'll go with the actual result in this case . . . since apparently my printer can't read and doesn't realize this isn't supposed to work . . . :-) :-)

- Tim

Ahh then you missed all of my posts where I talk about immediate and drastic improvements. If you are using the 84 steps per mm settings then they are not a tad under, they are way under. Calibration should not be done on 10mm objects, they should be done on 100mm objects. If they are a tad undersized then you are not using the proper settings because they should be larger. Place a yard stick that measures in MM on your bed, then align it to the tip of your print head. Do a physical measurement and then run it to Z0, your physical measurement should be the same or close.

Any lack to properly define these will create prints that are not accurate.

84 steps per mm: physical height - 254.2, firmware height - 242

80 steps per mm: physical height - 254.2, firmware height - 254.2

Quote
thevisad

Ahh then you missed all of my posts where I talk about immediate and drastic improvements. If you are using the 84 steps per mm settings then they are not a tad under, they are way under. Calibration should not be done on 10mm objects, they should be done on 100mm objects. If they are a tad undersized then you are not using the proper settings because they should be larger. Place a yard stick that measures in MM on your bed, then align it to the tip of your print head. Do a physical measurement and then run it to Z0, your physical measurement should be the same or close.

Any lack to properly define these will create prints that are not accurate.

84 steps per mm: physical height - 254.2, firmware height - 242

80 steps per mm: physical height - 254.2, firmware height - 254.2

I had thought I had my system "Dialed in" with 84 steps - Got the effector nice and parallel to the bed, even tweaked the numbers so that I was printing a 25x25x25 cube almost spot on - except for the height. It was ALWAYS 26.4 - I tried printing larger objects and they were close, but the Z was always over.

Soooo. What is sounds to me is - set the steps at 80, go through the all the pain of that calibration again and my height will be spot on too? (Please tell me that is what you are saying )

Thanks - I won't even wait for a response - I'll try it ! (maybe I'll wait a little...)

Quote
cislom

Quote
thevisad

Ahh then you missed all of my posts where I talk about immediate and drastic improvements. If you are using the 84 steps per mm settings then they are not a tad under, they are way under. Calibration should not be done on 10mm objects, they should be done on 100mm objects. If they are a tad undersized then you are not using the proper settings because they should be larger. Place a yard stick that measures in MM on your bed, then align it to the tip of your print head. Do a physical measurement and then run it to Z0, your physical measurement should be the same or close.

Any lack to properly define these will create prints that are not accurate.

84 steps per mm: physical height - 254.2, firmware height - 242

80 steps per mm: physical height - 254.2, firmware height - 254.2

I had thought I had my system "Dialed in" with 84 steps - Got the effector nice and parallel to the bed, even tweaked the numbers so that I was printing a 25x25x25 cube almost spot on - except for the height. It was ALWAYS 26.4 - I tried printing larger objects and they were close, but the Z was always over.

Soooo. What is sounds to me is - set the steps at 80, go through the all the pain of that calibration again and my height will be spot on too? (Please tell me that is what you are saying )

Thanks - I won't even wait for a response - I'll try it ! (maybe I'll wait a little...)

Yes sir, the best site I have found which explains all of this is here http://delta-calibration.s3-website-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/ Once you get everything correctly lined up and dimensionally accurate, you can then move onto step 5 which is adjusting your rod length correct for a print that is exactly 10 cm long. A 25 mm cube is not bad, but you want to print something that is multiples in size (10 cm). The larger the print, the easier it is to calibrate the overall size. I used a 10 CM thin ruler that took about 15 minutes to print.

I will be throwing together some pointers on my website which shows all of the things that I have found. Parsing through this thread gets hard at times to.

Quote
thevisad

Quote
cislom

Quote
thevisad

Ahh then you missed all of my posts where I talk about immediate and drastic improvements. If you are using the 84 steps per mm settings then they are not a tad under, they are way under. Calibration should not be done on 10mm objects, they should be done on 100mm objects. If they are a tad undersized then you are not using the proper settings because they should be larger. Place a yard stick that measures in MM on your bed, then align it to the tip of your print head. Do a physical measurement and then run it to Z0, your physical measurement should be the same or close.

Any lack to properly define these will create prints that are not accurate.

84 steps per mm: physical height - 254.2, firmware height - 242

80 steps per mm: physical height - 254.2, firmware height - 254.2

I had thought I had my system "Dialed in" with 84 steps - Got the effector nice and parallel to the bed, even tweaked the numbers so that I was printing a 25x25x25 cube almost spot on - except for the height. It was ALWAYS 26.4 - I tried printing larger objects and they were close, but the Z was always over.

Soooo. What is sounds to me is - set the steps at 80, go through the all the pain of that calibration again and my height will be spot on too? (Please tell me that is what you are saying )

Thanks - I won't even wait for a response - I'll try it ! (maybe I'll wait a little...)

Yes sir, the best site I have found which explains all of this is here http://delta-calibration.s3-website-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/ Once you get everything correctly lined up and dimensionally accurate, you can then move onto step 5 which is adjusting your rod length correct for a print that is exactly 10 cm long. A 25 mm cube is not bad, but you want to print something that is multiples in size (10 cm). The larger the print, the easier it is to calibrate the overall size. I used a 10 CM thin ruler that took about 15 minutes to print.

I will be throwing together some pointers on my website which shows all of the things that I have found. Parsing through this thread gets hard at times to.

Awesome - Thanks! I'll try it out tonight and hopefully report back with a successful tear-jerking story of accomplishment.

Quote
thevisad
Well, I guess it doesn't matter at this point, Replikeo's site has been suspended at this time, so I doubt I will be getting the replacement from them. Looks like I will need to reach out to paypal. I tried to replace the USB header myself with some I had on had, but the board was a complete DOA and refused to power on.

I reached out to Replikeo who indicated they are "updating" their site

The site is up again now.

---

Large delta printer [miscsolutions.wordpress.com], E3D tool changer, Robotdigg SCARA printer, Crane Quad and Ormerod

Disclosure: I design Duet electronics and work on RepRapFirmware, [duet3d.com].

Quote
dc42

The site is up again now.

They are shipping out another unit already, checked the USB header and verified functionality by burning a firmware prior to shipping it. Despite a few rocky issues, they are really trying hard to address them.

I finally got some life into my kit!

Everything works but calibrations left to do.

I'm thinking of getting the Duet as well so I'm curious how it goes for you thevisad.

Well we finally got everything together, uploaded the 20 tooth firmware with the Arduino program, but we're getting an error in Pronterface. We get a bunch of random symbols when we try to connect. I've attached a screen print of what's happening. Does anyone have an idea what could cause this or have suggestions for what to try? I'm using the USB cable it came with and I've tried every USB port on my computer, and re-uploading the firmware a number of times. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

What I gather from this thread is that the extruder included in this kit is no good so I'm thinking of getting an "all metal" extruder, like this: [www.ebay.com]

Would that be a good choice or does anyone have a better recommendation?

Quote
matthew900
Well we finally got everything together, uploaded the 20 tooth firmware with the Arduino program, but we're getting an error in Pronterface. We get a bunch of random symbols when we try to connect. I've attached a screen print of what's happening. Does anyone have an idea what could cause this or have suggestions for what to try? I'm using the USB cable it came with and I've tried every USB port on my computer, and re-uploading the firmware a number of times. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

I think you need to change the speed that pronterface communicates with the printer to 250k.

Quote
Koenig
What I gather from this thread is that the extruder included in this kit is no good so I'm thinking of getting an "all metal" extruder, like this: [www.ebay.com]

Would that be a good choice or does anyone have a better recommendation?

Quote
matthew900
Well we finally got everything together, uploaded the 20 tooth firmware with the Arduino program, but we're getting an error in Pronterface. We get a bunch of random symbols when we try to connect. I've attached a screen print of what's happening. Does anyone have an idea what could cause this or have suggestions for what to try? I'm using the USB cable it came with and I've tried every USB port on my computer, and re-uploading the firmware a number of times. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

I think you need to change the speed that pronterface communicates with the printer to 250k.

yes, your baudrate should be the highest value in the dropdown, and all that mess will show up as status text when you hit connect.

As far as the extruder, I am still using the original hotend, only issue I have is that changing filament is a PITA because internally things dont line up well enough to use the extruder stepper to reverse old out and push new in. I have been eyeing the E3D V6 but cost for me is the prohibiting factor so the lite6 has also been on my mind. I am not 100% convinced the hotend in our kits is a major issue if you are just using PLA (as I am) and I am not sure how much of an upgrade the lite6 would be since it has a PTFE liner as well.

The cold end on the other hand was ok to get me started, but did not last more than 3kg of filament through it. I picked up an ez-struder from here: [seemecnc.com] I have put 2kg through it so far and I am very happy with it. The install was a piece of cake, just make sure if you order one you get the push connect fitting too as it does not come with the ez-struder unit.