Simplify3D setup?

OK, I appreciate that this probably isn't the crowd for payable software, but has anyone set up S3D to slice files for a Fisher yet? Long story short I have S3D but have never gotten far enough with it to print anything so please don't expect me to be an expert on S3D or anything else, hence my question.

Thanks in advance.

It might be worth posting this in the Ormerod forum too, because a number of folks there use S3D and can tell you how it compares with slic3r. Fisher shares the same electronics as Ormerod.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2015 04:13PM by dc42.

---

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 use Simplify3D with the Fisher. My slice profile is attached.
Clearly, you'll need to tweak the filament diameter and temperature to suit your setup.

Thanks a ton! I'll try it out this weekend. I've also commented out the homing and added the Z0.2 offset script as I had trouble printing the robot.g due to the head being too close to the print surface. It's taking longer to get the soles of his feet of the print surface than it took to print...

Quote
Theolodian
Thanks a ton! I'll try it out this weekend. I've also commented out the homing and added the Z0.2 offset script as I had trouble printing the robot.g due to the head being too close to the print surface. It's taking longer to get the soles of his feet of the print surface than it took to print...

You can correct the Z0.2 offset by adjusting the Z trigger height in the G31 command, in the config.g and/or bed.g file. See this thread [forums.reprap.org].

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2015 06:07PM by dc42.

---

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].

Yeh, have you read the other topic about calibration of the plane? My setup (and I guess most, if not all others) require a different Z offset at the centre. I also do a 7 point calibration (at the towers, the opposites, and the centre). Attached is a copy of my bed.g file. You may need to tweak lines 21 and 37 (with G31) to suit you setup.

OK, thanks. I had seen that thread but didn't understand what I need to do. I'll have to read it a few more times. I'm happy with the 4-point probing, but at the start of robot.g it probes the centre again so maybe that's causing problems.

Quote
Theolodian
OK, thanks. I had seen that thread but didn't understand what I need to do. I'll have to read it a few more times. I'm happy with the 4-point probing, but at the start of robot.g it probes the centre again so maybe that's causing problems.

My guess is that there is a G30 command near the beginning of robot.g to find the bed height. In which case, changing the Z parameter in the G31 command in config.g from 0 to -0.2 will cause the print to start with the nozzle 0.2mm higher, which I think is what you are trying to achieve.

---

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].

Yes there is. And then it starts the print at Z0.35 in theory. However it rubs the head into the print surface quite severely. The G31 in config.g is already Z-0.1 so I am going to have to try something a lot larger, maybe Z-0.5. Thanks again.

Z-0.5 was better but still way off. Z-0.8 is better still. Will try Z-1.0 next.

I have not done any endstop settings yet. Just running with Home All, Auto Bed Compensation, and then printing robot.g

I am pretty sure that config.g is back to original except for this G31 setting for Z.

I have set the first layer settings in S3D to 175% of 0.20mm layer height for 0.35mm first layer as in robot.g. When the first layer is correct on robot.g I'll try moving on to creating my own files.

-0.8mm sounds far too large a correction to me. Depending on what version of bed.g you are running, there may be one or more G31 Z commands in bed.g. These will override the one in config.g.

---

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'm just running the Auto Bed Compensation, not any Macros directly. Not sure if that's different. It definitely doesn't seem to be making as much of a difference as I would have expected. My hobbed insert is probably full of PLA at this point which won't be helping. Can't extrude with the nozzle rammed into the print surface.

If you mean the bed.g in the sys folder, it has two G31 codes; Z-0.2 followed by another with Z0.1 WTF?

Quote
Theolodian
If you mean the bed.g in the sys folder, it has two G31 codes; Z-0.2 followed by another with Z0.1 WTF?

So put a G31 Z-0.2 or whatever you need at the end of bed.g, then it will be set up for running a subsequent G30. Although you don't need to do a G30 if you've just run bed.g.

---

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].

Aha! Set both G31s in bed.g to Z-0.5 and it is printing happily! Probably drop it back to Z-0.4 but definitely found a winner! Thanks again.

Quote
Theolodian
I have set the first layer settings in S3D to 175%...

I can never understand why there would be any reason to set the first layer height to anything other than 100%, the same goes for the extrusion multiplier. Both are nothing more than fudge factors because there's something else wrong with your setup.

I strongly recommend that you get your config.g and bed.g setup correctly such that you you don't have to fudge the first layers in slicing software.

Regarding the two G31 codes in bed.g - these are to use different offsets depending on where you're probing as the centre point requires a different value. Personally, I think that the Z0.1 in the default file provided by RRP is wrong. I've spent a good while looking at this over the past few days and I can't get any sensible results with a positive value.

Like dc42 said, -0.8 sounds a little large...

The robot.g starts the first layer at 0.35mm and then goes up 0.2mm per layer. I don't want to add any more variables to this than absolutely necessary so will start the same with S3D.

Z-0.5 was definitely aggressive, but a LOT better than Z0.1 FFS! Z-0.2 is probably fine, I'll try Z-0.3 next and go from there.

Quote
Theolodian
Z-0.5 was definitely aggressive, but a LOT better than Z0.1 FFS! Z-0.2 is probably fine, I'll try Z-0.3 next and go from there.

One way to get the G31 Z height right on a Duet-controlled printer goes like this (I've adapted it for the Fisher):

1. Heat the nozzle to operating temperature.

2. Home the printer and run bed calibration.

3. Run G1 X0 Y0 Z5 F2000 to put the nozzle 5mm above the centre of the bed.

4. Run G30.

5. Raise the nozzle 1mm or so, and slide a piece of ordinary 80gsm photocopier paper under the nozzle. Then lower the nozzle in 0.05mm steps until the nozzle just grips the paper. Then read off the height from the web interface. Ideally, it will be zero. If it isn't, adjust the G31 Z parameter by subtracting the height you read off.

---

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].

Thanks. I actually prefer to run a bit farther from the surface. I still have to take the bed out to get the robot off at Z-0.3 so even though it is a bit extra I am happy with it. Kids are going gaga for the robots so on number 7 or 8 now ;-)

Well that was interesting. I didn't notice the G28 homing in the Ending Script. It printed a Minion, homed, and rammed the hot nozzle into his head at speed. I now have a Minion with a hairdo like Don King and an equally fuzzy hot end.

Haha!!! Ooops! :-s I'm sorry! That description is amazing, have you got a picture?
Oh yeah, I completely forgot that I had modified the homing script! I didn't see any need for the head to come down after homing. I generally leave the head clear when heating up so I can quickly grab off any oozing material before the print starts. Similarly, I like to move the head out of the way at the end of the print.

Just remove the "G1 Z4 F12000" from homedelta.g to stop it flying down to the bed at the end of a G28.

Ha. No worries! At least I shouldn't have to worry about the brass nut coming off again...

Interesting how with all this tech it's harder to upload a picture than print a Minion...

Show us a picture!! Might be the last drop for me to get a fisher and imitate it :-)

---

----- Making the world smarter @ www.xetal.eu
----- Helping entrepreneurs @ www.fralke.com

The usual suspects:

In other news, running bed.g starting from the top of the machine doesn't work very well. I am also going to edit the path to put intermediate travel points as the wires for the hot end are catching on one of the belts when you run bed.g (Auto Bed Compensation).

However, first I need to redo the harness routing for the Nth time...

OK, working well. Summary of changes:

Now on G31 Z-0.2, that G31 Z0.1 in sys/bed.g is a real problem. It introduces a 0.3mm offset into the print surface. Bloody hard to get even small items off the BuildTak surface...

Did the calibration and edited sys/config.g, now under 100 microns 'deviation before' error after booting up from cold. In simple terms to do initial calibration run: Home All, then Auto Bed Compensation 4 or 5 times in a row until the 'deviation before' as shown in the Gcode console onscreen log drops to circa 0.020mm. Then run M665 and M666 and copy values to sys/config.g

Commented out the G28 in my ending script (I'm looking at you bluesign2k ). Removed "G1 Z4 F12000" from the end of sys/homedelta.g and added it to sys/bed.g just before the probing moves. It was already in the starting script before the G30 probing of the centre of the bed.

Running an initial layer height of 150% (0.3mm), running a single skirt but going back to a double to make sure the head is extruding cleanly before starting on the part.

In other news I am running the hot end harness and one of the endstop harness along the outside of the strut to keep them from fouling the carriage/link. They are strapped to the outside of the strut, and then come right back in, they don't run all over the outside of the machine.

Many thanks to dc42 and bluesign2k for the help!

Theo

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2015 02:25AM by Theolodian.

Hi all

Sorry for the problems with bed.g. Now Jean-Marc is back from holiday, we have found out that we did manage to upload the wrong version of bed.g to the 'updated' version of the SD card files. This looked like:

; Probe the bed and do auto calibration
G1 X-64.95 Y-37.5 F12000
G4 P300
G30 P0 X-64.95 Y-37.5 Z-99999	    ; X tower
G4 P300
G30 P1 X64.95 Y-37.5 Z-99999	    	; Y tower
G4 P300
G30 P2 X0 Y75 Z-99999			; Z tower
G4 P300
G31 Z-0.2
G30 P3 X0 Y0 Z-99999 S0		; centre, and auto-calibrate
G31 Z0.1

The last 'G31 Z0.1' is wrong, and puts the nozzle too close to the bed. This was a transposition mistake, and, as many of you have pointed out, should be Z-0.1. Sorry! This is the same as is set in config.g. This gives 0.1mm of movement of the head to disconnect the bed probe, which seems about right.

The 'G31 Z-0.2' is the one to play around with, as it's the offset for the centre of the bed; it will require a little more force at this point to disconnect one of the bed probe contacts. We've been playing around with this, and it looks like 'G31 Z-0.3' is just about the right. So the last couple of lines should be:

G30 P2 X0 Y75 Z-99999			; Z tower
G4 P300
G31 Z-0.3
G30 P3 X0 Y0 Z-99999 S0		; centre, and auto-calibrate
G31 Z-0.1

We'll update the downloadable file shortly. And we've removed the endstop offset from config.g!

Ian
RepRapPro tech support

The offset thing is an interesting one. Personally, I'm not sure I buy the reasoning of more force being required - but it seemed to work, so I went with it. The reason I think the idea is flawed is that you're saying more force is required at the centre... which it does... but that really shouldn't make any difference unless some part of the mechanism is stretching or compressing (significantly) due to this extra force. The fact is that we're interested in displacement, not force.

Over the weekend I printed some calibration pieces and found that the printer was producing parts ~2% too large. I also found that at the extremes of the print area, the 'level' around the circumference was sinusoidal - the tower probe points were slightly high and the mid points between towers was slightly low.
Starting with the dimension problem, in theory, the corrected arm length to be input into config.g should be ~163.2. Out of curiosity, I made a calibration script to do 7 factor calibration using 10 probe points (the towers (75 mm radius), the tower mid distance from centre (37.5 mm radius), the tower opposite (50 mm radius), and the centre). Before I did the calibration, I set all offsets and endstop corrections back to 0. After 15 or so iterations, all of the adjustments settled and the rod length it came up with was ~170 mm. This was clearly wrong; indeed, parts now came out a few % too small, but the bed was surprisingly level across the entire plane... like +/- 20 um.

This leads me to believe that with a little more work, it should be possible to correct the print dimensions and have a flat build plane *without* having to use different Z-offsets for different probe point - just using 1 offset to take into account that the probe doesn't trigger until the bed has been displaced.

The head doesn't stay level as you move away from the centre. I am sure this isn't modeled correctly if at all. Sounds like an arm length of 165 might be a good compromise for now.

Quote
Theolodian
The head doesn't stay level as you move away from the centre. I am sure this isn't modeled correctly if at all. Sounds like an arm length of 165 might be a good compromise for now.

If you change the arm length in the config (M665 D parameter), then you also need to change the delta radius (R parameter) to keep the printing plane flat. The easiest way to find the new value is to temporarily increase the Z probe dive height (M558 H parameter) to 10mm or so to cope with the curvature, run 4-point delta calibration a couple of times, then run M665 to read off the new value.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2015 12:12PM by dc42.

---

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].

Check your bed is actually flat. The Fisher I built, it turns out the acrylic is slightly warped, and I have a dip in the middle of my bed of around 0.3mm - it's visible when I put a flat edge across it. We'll have to work out how common this is, and what's causing it, as obviously it needs to be flat.

The config.g uses the actual lengths, from the design files, EXACTLY as it's modelled!
M665 R81.0 L160.0 B75 H180 ; set delta radius, diagonal rod length, printable radius and homed height

So I don't really understand your comment, Theolodian. You shouldn't really cheat the arm lengths; you'll just get errors somewhere else. We'll look into it, and try and work what's going wrong.

Ian
RepRapPro tech support