Hi everyone, Adam from Vector3D here. Little update: we now support Bambu Labs skew correction! 🎉 At the time of the video Bambu Labs didn't have skew correction in their firmware so it needed a workaround, but now they do. Bambu Labs have said their implementation is currently still in testing at the (time of writing) so you might get some unintended consequences. That said, from my testing, it seems to work fine. Thanks again Stefan for such a great video covering Califlower!
This made me happy. When I first started 3D printing, I printed out maybe 50 of the cubes. They were so new that... they were just cubes. No XYZ labeling or brands or whatnot. And I wasn't printing it for dimensional accuracy, I was so new I didn't think that was an important thing at that point, I printed them just to try and get a successful print. "Did the top layer look bad? Did it even get past the first layer?" etc. Fast forward: I've ignored so many of these tests for a simple reason - I just want to print stuff, not spend all my time calibrating my printed. I'm glad to see basically all the printers you tested have small skew and dimensional issues. You have a good point though: what is the acceptable amount of inaccuracy? That's a different topic. But the 2 things on my mind: 1) a pet peeve that you're slowly smashing - ending hearsay in 3D printing. Enough of this "print one of these and you'll have have a good print" "it works for me" "run a temp tower" "no, temp towers are useless, do this calibration print" "make sure you calibrate your e-steps before you check dimensions" "wait, I though dimensions was for checking e-steps" wait wait... stop, can we just get an instruction sheet that we should be doing that produces a reproducible result? I remember you trying some service on Meltzone Podcast where you basically got sets of gcode to run, printed them, then answered some questions. Similar to a game called Q20/20 Questions, and at the end it gave you a printer/filament profile that was "perfect". There's a ton of calibration tests out there, some built into slicers, some separate, some free, some cost money... I'd love for some system, paid or not, that you could run the set of tests, get a profile or similar out of it, and move on. At the time that Q20 profile generator was discussed on Meltzone, it did basics. But now we have printers with flow calibration, input shaper, and more. And one thing not covered by any of them, is they don't take into account wear. Like, imagine getting a new printer, run the first run... it spits some random models out, you answer some questions... it auto-calibrates the machine (hey Prusa, when you gonna add that skew adjustment to the MK4/XL/Mini?), and then you move on. Have the slicer be able to do the same for filament. But then in a month or two, you can do a small print and find out if you need to rerun the calibration or not. A canary of sorts. I made the mistake of using the same brass nozzle for like 4 years, no carbon fiber or whatnot, but I finally went to replace it and found the 0.4 nozzle was closer to 0.55mm. Oops... but I had no real sign of this and it's not like I memorized how well things fit together from 4 years prior. 2) ERRF 2019 had a keynote speaker that was great to listen to: Adrian Bowyer. History and some ideas for things in the future... and he commented on this exact topic. That these were imprecise machines. And he proposed something... if the nozzle could tell when it makes contact with something in more then one dimension, it could be used to calibrate itself. Think: print the infamous 20mm calibration cube, it then cools, then pokes it... and finds out that it's 20.01mm, so it adjusts itself so it's next print is 20mm. Of course, this isn't some ground breaking concept... this is used by CNCs to find their source material, inspection systems, and in the 3-4 years since then (depending on how you want to measure time :P), we've gotten strain gauges on all the things and the Prusa XL literally does this to calibrate nozzle location between tool heads. It isn't fast, but at least you don't need to buy an external camera or similar. But the point is: it's there... right now. "We have the technology" we just need to use it.
This is so perfect. Measuring mounting holes and creating a mount has been the best real accuracy test. I use a hole center calibrator. Checking a calibration hole (inner dimension) in an object is very different than measuring a cube. Hole center to center is the best method. Thank you for this video!!!
I love the califlower: after making tweaks, it's a single print that gives me confidence that everything is still working as expected. The older califlower is the only STL I've ever paid for, and I paid mostly for the support files. It was worth every penny, and the new design looks even better. Highly recommended if you are someone who mods their printer, even if you mostly print aesthetic parts: you're gonna need good accuracy on any new mod parts. I especially appreciate what look like caliper supports in the design, as getting the calipers square for all the measurements is the biggest pain the ass through the whole process.
tusjak is beginning the new design i heard so. he/she/they is been working on new gender for a while so its good to be back now. i spoke with he/she/they now a fewest day ago
Great Video- I've always used the Cube for quick- "Corner Bulge' and "Ringing" and Tuning in the "Top Layer/Ironing" but remember back in the early RepRap days guys saying don't use it for Measuring and it didn't take long to realize why,,,,, but here we are 10yrs later All the Best-.
Great video, but the one part you definitely should have included is *why* it's a bad idea to adjust steps/mm: Because the steps per millimeter can be mathematically calculated based on the number of teeth on your motor's pulley and the pitch of the belt. The only way they can be off is if the belt is stretched. If it's off, it's either shrinkage or under/over-extrusion, either of which should be compensated for in the slicer (as you pointed out).
Exactly... X/Y/Z steps/mm or Rotation Distance should be mathematically derived, not corrected based on inaccurate plastic measurements. My belt with a 2mm tooth pitch around a 20 tooth pulley WILL move 40mm per rotation. If it doesn't, something is wrong!
This is also true for esteps on your extruder. Every filament behaves differently and the best way to adjust, as Stephan briefly mentions, is by adjusting the extrusion percentage in your slicer
Hm, but with the cheap belt gears you find in 3d printers the core diameter isn't as accurate as should be. See, if the 20 tooth gear moves 20 teeth around a diameter of let's say 12 mm, 36 mm travel will occur with one full rotation. If the diameter is just 0.2 under you get just 35.4 mm travel. And the rubber belt would just be fine with it because of the flex in the teeth. If we had precision parts we would be happier, but these parts are expensive
@@sandrolauer350 That's not how cogged belts work. Unless you have it installed inverted with the flat side towards your cogged pulleys or are using smooth pulleys instead of cogged ones, it's impossible for a belt with a 2mm pitch to move more than 2mm per tooth. Even if it's loose and skips teeth, it's still going to move a multiple of 2mm per tooth.
I never thought about skew correction on my 3D printer until I experienced a lid not aligning fully some weeks ago. The califlower has been a great help correcting for it as well as adjusting the shrinkage in the slicer!
You can also just use a dial indicator to check the distance of your travel moves. This eliminates any variables from extrusion width,, shrinkage etc. and purely check the motion system to see if a 20mm travel move is exactly what it should be. Adjust steps/mm from there. I know not everyone has a dial indicator, but they aren't expensive.
@@KeksSektor Cal cubes don't check for skew either. The sides will still be parallel, and a 25mm cube isn't really big enough to check the edges with a good square. Correcting for skew is really it's own thing.
I had always made my own calibration blocks (usually modeled off 1-2-3 machining blocks) with chamfers and radii to avoid the issues you mentioned. The cauliflower looks great and I will have to go pick that up.
Hi Stefan, we are running a large professional 3D printing farm, and never ever done "calibrations" like this. We are printing some shapes that we have made ourself, to check skew and have a tool that measure travel of the print head manually, and part of maintenance is to go over the mechanical issues. We have slicing profiles (shrinking, material) that we now are dimensionally within our tolerances, which is within 0.1. Best regards, Annie
Important point is: steps/mm is mechanical property that depends on belt type and gear tooth count. For the rest of 99% circumstances, calibration problems all about frimware and slicer settings.
I don't know how more people don't understand this. You are right it's just fixed. If you have your rotation distance/esteps set up for your specific pulley setup - that's all you need. The rest is slicing and flow tuning. Spread the message!! Don't fuck with rotation distance/esteps!!!!
Loved the video. I caught on to the Vector3D Califlower a few years ago and it really helped me tune my Ender 3V2. I saw another video awhile back from a youtube creator that was making collector card holders who first mentioned calibrating to a larger dimension due to the percent error you find with a smaller calibration cube. His explanation and Vector 3D really solidified the idea/theory for me. Its funny you had the same issue with measuring with calipers and got him to update the model. Thank you for letting us know there is a new model that we can snag now at no additional cost.
This, signle point dimensional calibration is my pet peeve. Two points are an improvement, but I prefer 10-20, shrinkage isn't always perfectly consistent. I once designed calibration square that let you measure both XY shrinkage and skew with 40 data points (technically 38), the only downside was that it had limited capability for measuring internal dimension.
I haven't trusted prints for calibrating X, y and z rotation distance for quite a while. I bought a dial indicator with 50mm measuring distance and an accuracy of 0.1mm used and it served me well for calibrating lengths. Also I agree that the scew measurements with the califlower are tempting...
Gates GT2 belts are spec'd to >0.3mm every 92 teeth at a 6.6lbs belt tension. I do just over 7lbs for a passively heated chamber (~65c when printing with a bed temp of 105c). You can find the full spec sheet online rather quickly. The further the tool is from the motor pulley gear the more relative tension effects accuracy. Meaning if you have at most 0.3mm off than it will average out to just over 0.15mm. Everything else is shrinkage and not having your machine square and tramed. With that said, shrinkage is dependent heavily on temps, extrusion speeds (and cooling), color that effects material properties, etc. And you should never expect a perfectly demential print on the most precise printer as every print will have its own unique shrinkage/internal tension.
I disagree. As you state at the end, the Cube can be very useful if used properly. Just measuring X, Y and Z is barely scratching the surface. You can check skew with a square as well or measure diagonally as you mentioned. I use the CHEP Cube for many of those references beyond measuring X,Y & Z
I really love your takes on 3D printing, you have a unique understanding in engineering and that shows. I fell into this cube trap as well without even thinking about it... the effect of "this must work as so many use it".
Good data, and you make a good case for sure! I've often printed my calibration cubes much larger, usually around 100mm, but I really like the additional checks and balances from the califlower! I'll definitely be supporting that project, and once I get my printer set back up, I'll have to look into all of the calibration methods pointed out in this video, especially skew!
Callipers can vary a fair amount in accuracy. If you get a cheap micrometer then you can use that to calibrate the callipers. Also, be aware that you must manually apply consistent pressure with callipers, while a micrometer should have a friction wheel that applies a set amount of force each time.
There are calipers that are called "pressure calipers." They have an extra dial on them that shows how much force you are putting the jaws. If you buy a new one made by Mitutoyo they are about $900. Also, using a cheap micrometer to calibrate your calipers is not really the method to use. Using a "standard" or even a gauge block will work very well. To each his own.
@@6milesup You can use the micrometer to measure a test piece (such as the maligned 20 mm cube), then use that as your ‘gauge block’. Plastics deform much more than metal or ceramic under load, so by doing this you have a better idea of the final dimension if you are wanting press-fit accuracy. It gets complicated fast, if you want to measure TPU etc. Maybe an optical method is better there. You could use your phone camera for an ad-hoc measure with a reference (e.g. your calliper set to a close value) and some pixel counting. Really depends upon how accurate and precise you want your results to be.
You can also use a dial indicator to just check the motion system directly. zero it on some part of the gantry, do a 20mm move, and see if it's exactly 20 mm, no printing required, and no shrinkage or extrusion width to possibly interfere with the measurement
Pretty sure caliper accuracy is more than good enough for 0.2mm layer printed parts...aiming for x.xxxxx level of precision with fdm is silly and unnecessary imo.
@@Fennecbutt With plastics you can get away with less precision, but you still want enough accuracy for fitment. Errors compound, too. A small error here and a small error there can result in something that won’t fit. Squareness / orthogonality of axes should also be considered.
The mark of a good scientist is not "I know everything" but rather "I do not know, how can I learn what I do not know", I used benchys and calibration cubes and still end up with errored prints and knowing that there is better ways to measure and calibrate, made me learn a new skill and I appreciate that, so thank you. I will try it.
When I first started printing I was surprised to see how many people relied on a simple 20 mm size cube measured with a cheap caliper to adjust the steps per mm. Having a good amount of experience with measurements I knew the result would likely be worse than leaving the default values. I'm happy to see someone else pointing out the issue.
Yep, the best investment in my shop is a (used) mitotyo caliper. The cheap Chinese crap always loose the zero after switching off and eat button cells due their bad power management.
@@ipadize oh I am so sorry that I made a typo and luckily you discovered it. I meant the mitotoyo (hope I wrote it right, the letters on my caliper are almost wiped away by heavily usage)
I completely agree with this method and this video explains the multitude of variables and how to calibrate and square the machine quite well. I've tried to guide customers to calibrate their machines and most will just not do it at all and assume that the machine is already calibrated from the manufacturer. the only change I would make to the cali-flower is adding a relatively tall tower thus adding more accuracy to the Z axis. The wider, longer, higher measurements you can do will add more accuracy. It would be nice i the material doesn't matter and the measurement were measured at the center of the nozzle from a reference point and the software would compensate for the material and settings used.
I've measured the outside dimensions of stepped features to do this a few times, back calculating the thickness offset for the extrusion, but the simple elegance of averaging the inside and outside is something that I feel silly for not having thought of myself.
I used dial indicators to calibrate my axis, just use the full range (10mm in my case) of the dials and make sure to only move in one direction to prevent backslash from the belt. Takes out the whole material tolerances and only focuses on the mechanical parts.
I do the same. I also used the dial indicator to make sure every axis was adjusted square to each other. Once this is done, you know any error is from something else.
Really, I mean Really, and I can't stress this more, YOU REALLY spoke from my heart with this video. I never understood why you should ever tune your printer for dimensions with printed parts. There are sooooo many, and I mean soooooo many influencing factors for plastic parts, especially in 3D-Printing that it just don't make sense. Get a good dial gauge and measure the distance the printer is moving. And check the skew with other proper measurement equipment. If you print different materials you will notice differences in measures, printability and so on and so on. So thank you very much for this video.
You should link videos (or another video) for the aforementioned: filament profile tune, optimal extrusion temperature, extrusion flow percentage, tuning retractions, and optimum pressure advance value. I have lots of different links for printer tuning but I always collect more advice because I want to get the best prints 🔥
One very important factor to having dimensional accuracy is belt quality and consistent tension on the X and Y. I switched my ender 3 v2 print farm to all gates belts and tuned them all exactly the same using spectroid app to 115mhz. I also do skew correction and my prints are absolutely spot on. I have a tolerance of 0.1mm on all of my printers so they are all printing within 100 microns of each other.
Thank you! I have been fighting step calibration myths like the mentioned for years now, but every youtuber made a video on this and keeps the myths alive. E-Steps in particular are a very hard thing to explain... Don't calibrate E-Steps, calibrate flow for each filament... Use the steps from the manufacturer X,Y,Z steps should only be dependent on gear ratios, belts and stepper degree, so imperfections are mechanical problems
there's definitely a place for calibrating E-steps though, for instance, if you change components on your extruder that change the gearing, you need to change the e-steps. that way 100mm of filament is actually 100mm and not 112 or 95, then you can fine tune flow per material in much smaller amounts after that.
@@callsignapollo_ 100% true, but in most cases the manufacturer will provide the e-steps for your extruder gearing. Those are usually for 1.8° steppers, so in case it's a 0.9° stepper those needs to be converted.
Thank you for confirming my long held suspicions. I've never bothered to print a calibration cube because I wasn't confident that my cheap vernier calipers were accurate enough to make my calibration better rather than worse, but the Califlower being designed for standard 150mm verniers makes a lot more sense. I've just bought the Califlower model, so I look forward to giving it a go once I've fixed my current Octoprint problems.
5:26 I prefer the calilantern, which is the version of the model with a z component! If you're going to measure a bunch, you may as well fix the skew on all axes. And yes, the shrinkage should be tuned for each material as well, once a base rotation distance has been set.
Yeah, going to buy the calilantern now. I've printed so many public STLs that didn't quite fit, never sure if it was the model or my printers. The biggest downer with 3D printing IMHO is making parts fit with post processing.
Major props for letting the author of the cauliflower update his design, it's not one I've seen before but I've been meaning to my Voron even more dialed in and it looks like it'd be a big help. I'm fully in agreement with your conclusions. Steps-per-mm are defined by the gearing of your printer. Shrinkage adjustments, line width, etc will dial in a printer far better. And don't forget to print a cooling tower to dial in your fan speeds as well!
I find those vids/topics fascinating, mostly cuz makes me realize how experience/knowledge dictates much of what one does. Personally, since the very 1st time I've started 3d printing on my 1st machine years ago, I've calibrated it on a per project/material basis.. for me this has always been a given, but then again I went on to study precision mechanics when I was 14'yo and thus have had a deep understanding of many different manufacturing processes and materials for literally decades... Since I also have an engineering degree on mechatronics/robotics, so CNC machines and such are just intuitively simple to understand and thus tweak. But I do realize many enthusiasts lack the same fundamentals, and this is what I like the most about the 3d printing community, folks often times share openly the knowledge and often challenge the "trends" in order to help each other to achieve better results... Kudos for the topics and analyses... I will say thi tho, I do find both my i3Mk3s and P1S to be reliably precise, as long as properly calibrated for the material used, and still is not uncommon for me to tweak the models to compensate for inaccuracies of the machines, after all hobbyist 3d printers are not nearly as accurate/precise as professional grade industrial machines... Even so, w/ the certain measure of knowledge and care one can achieve amazing parts w/ these little machines XD
also, I hate when my phone wrongly auto-corrects me (like my comment above), kudos to machines that while maybe not as smart and thus very reliant on us to get things right (as of yet) at least don't pretend to be "smart" and f. us all the time on simple stuff (like writing a message or navigating the city)...(looking at you iPhone/Apple and others).. love my 3d printers cuz whatever tasks that don't need my input they do perfectly well, everything else they do _exactly_ what I command them to do...
Stefan, I noticed these issues with the calibration cube myself a long time ago, but I chocked up the issues I was having with just personal error and mistakes. I feel ashamed and foolish for not having though that the print used to calibrate could be the problem. Thank you for this. I have already purchased the cali flower. I'm going to go tune my printer now. Thank you!
This is funny to me because I've never printed a calibration cube 😂 For me, I needed to make a thing. So I printed it with super low infill settings and then measured it. After that, I just adjust the size of the print in CAD to what works for the part while keeping in mind the allowable tolerances. But, I'm lazy 😅
Why would I leave a bad comment for the 'god' of 3D printing? You clearly have more knowledge and better equipment than me. I really appreciate you taking the time to do things that helps others. Ive never printed a calibration cube because ive never felt the need - maybe ive just been lucky with my printer or the things I print dont need as much accuracy. Sorry to hear about Adams diagnosis. I hope he gets better.
When i first started 3d printing i altered the steps per mm, but as i gained more printing experience I came to the same conclusion as you that it was not the proper way to compensate for size error as the majority of it is material shrinkage which varies. I've also found that there are tons of variables including temperatures when printing, i.e hotend, bed, enclosure or ambient temps. I've also found the speed at which the part is printed can affect shrinkage. I think this has to do with the rate at which the filament cools on the part. For example, I've printed a test part and then scaled it. Reprinted the part to verify that the scaling was correct. Then when i would print a batch of those parts the size would change. I suspect this is because the layers have more time to cool as the printer is moving from part to part every layer. I was able to negate this by completing individual parts 1 at a time. Aka if printing 10 parts I'd enable individual part printing where it would fully complete 1 part before starting the next. I guess my point is that if you want to print accurate parts there is not 1 set of variables that will work for all situations. You'll have to adjust based on what your printing.
When I calibrated my steps per mm, I used the caliper to measure the hardware how much the X and Y moved for 100mm. like you said in video printed parts shrinks, I compensated for that in slicer settings, filament shrinkage, print stick 100mm long and measure/calculate the difference. I am no pro, but it just made sense to me to do it that way, maybe something to try yourself.
Use the depth measuring feature of your caliper to measure the height of a staircase type step (not an individual printer step) That way you will be measuring the difference in height of 2 top surfaces.
The parts come out undersized not only because they shrink, but also due to wrong assumption. You assume that every tooth of 2gt belt has a 2mm pitch; however the belt is manufactured undersized, because it's supposed to preload to nominal pitch while minimising vibration and backlash. You notice that when you adjust the tensioners on your 3D printer, they go quite a way between the belt has its slack out and when it actually feels right, and all this tensioner displacement goes into stretching the belt. And there's yet more leeway, it's in millimetres, it's not at all minor. Unfortunately i forgot what the belt spec tension to size is, and it's going to be different between Gates belt and a Chinese belt anyhow, but from my memory you can't really achieve it without exceeding the maximum recommended lateral loading for your steppers, too much and they may not run smoothly or the bearings may seize up. On a Cartesian driven printer, you expect the tensioning error to be quite anisotropic as well. I'm actually working on a yet different way to calibrate printer XY/skew, it's not going to use calipers, or indeed a print, and i think it'll be better.
I've been relying on Adam's Califlower for tuning since it was released. That's the only tuning process I use for skew / dimensional accuracy per material. The most helpful print, IMHO. It's also a great thing knowing you've been working with Adam to further improve it. Makers helping and supporting makers.
5:53 I would really appreciate links to the other tuning steps you took - so many stl's and techniques out there just knowing what you used would be valuable, otherwise I'm left trying to recreate the process and wondering if my results are as good. You mention: Extrusion Temp Flow % Retractions Pressure advance
If Stefan says calibration cubes are no good for size calibration, I believe him. Stefan is very experienced when it comes to tech and 3D printers. I mean, with the name CNC Kitchen, I've come to learn that the channel and Stefan deserve respect! Thank you Stefan.
Coincidentally I just used the skew compensation in Marlin for the first time about a week ago. I recently finished a 3D printer build I started years ago (and kinda forgot in the corner) which has a very classic "printed parts and threaded rods" frame construction. But the printer I used to print the parts ~5 years ago had a somewhat tilted bed - resulting in a permanently skewed printer, no way to get it square without completely reprinting and rebuilding it. Then I remembered that there was this skew compensation nobody ever talked about in the Marlin config and gave it a go - works great!
Your per-material scaling factors are in line with what I've seen working in a 3D printing-based production environment, which is reassuring. I wonder if we'll see a specialized filament for calibration with a minimal or precisely known shrinkage factor so we can still do these tests to figure out actual steps/mm
I agree 100% with you. BTW Adam created a new test jig the "Calilantern Calibration Tool" that do the assessment in 3D. I ordered it today and I am looking for my first evaluation. Also, a suggestion: with that many parameters to tune to optimize prints, printer, filament, etc. could it be possible to create a presentation on test methods and their sequence ? I am convinced that many viewer would appreciate it. Keep the good work.
hmm never tought to calibrate X /Y Steps by measurements. calibrated them in the past by verifying correct movement with a dial gauge. 1mm commanded should result in 1mm moved.
Great video. I appreciate the idea of not using steps per mm to adjust scale, I configure my steps per mm by reading the actual travel of the machine with a dial indicator, so I know that any dimensional error I get in my prints are results of print settings not hardware configuration.
I agree that the cube isn't perfect at all, but it's a good quick way of checking accuracy in general rather than a tool for adjusting for it. Califlower seems like a nice development, though I'd like to know how can I adjust bambulab x1c with data I get from that print except for in slicer settings for every profile for every nozzle and material I use.
My Bambulab X1c came out at 0.11 degrees skew. My self sourced Voron Trident turned out even slightly better at 0.10 degrees. After calibration I ended up with 0.01 degrees on the Voron, really cool. The Bambu can’t be tuned, but 0.11 degrees is fine.
Finally! A good youtuber like you had to point this out. I started 3D printing 6 years ago and always tell people that this stupid calibration cube is bad and always recommend something else like the "caliset calibration kit" available on printables.
I think we need an ECO version of the CaliFlower. The skew calibration is a one time thing. While the X Y an Z is after change of filament test. A simple design that uses less plastic and prints faster is needed for just filament testing.
The coaster aspect of the califlower is amazing! I always tuned the most in the profiles per filament and that was usually enough to calibrate for differences in measurements. That said, i usually care for specific dimensions and not all of them at once.
This is most important video for tuning, also accuracy of best calipers is +- 0.05mm even. So with 20mm you would need a micrometer to measure anything and the plastic melting will have more effect on the size that anything else :)
I just bit the bullet and bought the Califlower as I’ve been struggling to get anything to print that needs to fit together. 2 prints and a tweak to the extrusion and I’ve just printed a 3 part print and it fitted together perfectly first try. Best $11 I’ve spent on the printer!
The only thing that would actually cause the printer to be inaccurate is if the sprocket (or screw) is inaccurate. So I agree with you, never change the steps.
Actually I suppose it is the belt tooth spacing. The pulley picks up 16 or 20 teeth in a rotation, and the belt determines how long a distance that is. Thus, belt tension plays a role.
@@pizzablender The teeth are only to prevent slipping. All that matters is the diameter of the sprocket. If your belt is so stretched that it slips you have worse things to worry about than accuracy.
@@MaxWithTheSax No. The belt never skips, but if you stretch the belt, then for the equal number of teeth passing the pulley, with a stretched belt the gantry travels bigger distance.
Spot on Stephan! The first time I used a cali-cube the size of it never felt comfortable. Far too small to make an impact to precision for larger parts and seemed a bit under designed to consider all of the mechanical movements of the printer and properties of the filament. Seemed like it was targeting a simple process, and likely fits a larger audience using a printer in a different method than a multi-material / part maker. Thanks for the reference to califlower; will check that out to setup each material. 🙏
I love the color Cube and feeding the numbers back into my printer with the same filament that I use all the time made them more dimensionally accurate and it was really wonderful. It is a lot of work but once you get those X and Y numbers Your Parts come out way better and it's worth it
I've been talking about this since 2015. Everyone called me an idiot. Apparently people would listen to e-celebs, but listening to common sense is not a thing.
I bought my copy of Adam's Califlower when it first came out. Brilliant! Both my home machines are dialed in because of Adam's great work. Nice to see others in the community agree.
Software hacks to compensate bad constructions are no good. But when it comes about bed mesh leveling it's often difficult... because you can't simply tell that person buy new beds until you find a completely flat one 😅
@REDxFROG Especially for beds with larger or fancier platens. A 500x500mm chunk of cast aluminum 4-8mm thick isn't a cheap thing. Services or tools to flatten the surfaces aren't cheap either of they become necessary. And you can't use them at all if that platen comes with a special textured surface on it or the bed heater comes welded in place or there are magnets glued "permanently" to one face, or if it comes powder-anodized for grounding purposes.
I don’t even use calibration cubes to calibrate, I just use them as a test print after changing filament or leveling the bed to make sure prints come out properly. It’s a great little test!
I said this a long time ago. There's also expansion and contraction in the machine, belt tension changing, per filament spool differences (no two are exactly identical), z-offset, motor steps, acceleration and de-acceleration, etc. I always go for a +/- 0.2mm.
I have never done it that precise. I happen to have my own test with a 15 times 15cm square that has a pilon that is 15 cm in height as well. I always used that to check my printers but only after I suspected them, it is not a test i do as a standard. Good video, I learned a lot.
I always kind of wondered about the error of measuring a small cube vs a big cube, but I never thought about the rest of what you talked about. This was a really neat video to watch.
As for Core XY machines (i run a ratrig v-core 3 as well), you should be able to correct skew by balancing the tension of the two belts. I found it totally sufficient to measure the distance the left and right gantry joiners have to the corners of the frame. Checking for squareness is something I thought everybody does everytime they retighten the belts. I modified my printer quite a bit and maybe had to do it more often than most folks, though. I put a lot of effort into finetuning my frame and my linear rails into something very close to true square (hand-tight screws and soft nudges with a plastic mallet will get you there, measuring diagonals repeatedly) Just put something (any rigid object of appropriate size, really) in between one side of the gantry and the inside of the frame and jog to the position where it just touches. Then adjust the tension of both belts so you have the the gap feeling the same on both sides. If this leads to tension being noticibly different between the two belts, just loosen and retighten the screws that connect the gantry extrusion to the joiner pieces, and repeat the process. In my opinion, there is no reason for software scew correction or to deviate from the nominal steps per mm in the printer settings ever, at least for extrusion built core xys. Different amounts of thermal shrinkage can be compensated for in the slicer in a much better way. As for precise measurement of the frame diagonals, instead of buying very large and expensive calipers, it might serve better to wrap a tailor's tape measure around diagonal opposing beams. Put two flags of painters tape or sth on the overlapping areas of the tape measure and cut into the flags. Remove one side of each flag, so they form a hairline thin gap when the tape measure is held tight. wrapping it around the other diagonal, you can easily see even tiny differences when holding a lamp behind the slit.
Yes. Been telling people all of this since 2013. You are correct in every detail in this video. I like Adam's design, I already made something similar but your joint update looks great.
I totaly agree. Thats why I created the "calibration cross" on TV (precursor of the calbratin flower?)and proposed a material&heat bed shinking compensation for the Prusa slicer (was never accepted). By the way the most of the shrinking is exactly what you can expect from a part cooling down from heat bed temperature to room temperature with the corresponding coefficient of thermal expansion.
Thank you After years of trying to explain exactly this in facebook groups and always being shut down with "but youtubers use it" i had kind of given up the topic
I actually printed only a few millimetre height of a 100x100mm cube, and always though it was a bad idea, I will try your method, and I agree materials are very different, even from brand to brand.
Preach, Stefan! It's a fine test of the final result. But I made this mistake on my first Ender 3. Its travel accuracy was actually perfect, and I just needed to better tune linear advance for corners and expansion to account for edges and holes. Then every part was spot on everywhere to 0.05-0.1 mm.
great point on no current systemic way to determine skew, happy customer of the Califlower supporting Adam who provided a great solution. Saves so much headache when designing functional parts.
The way i used calibration cubes, since the beginning was to shave off every corner first... But i never calibrated steps, there is rarely any reason to do that. I've used them for tuning up tolerances, mainly flow.
I primarily have been using the "cube" as a first print just to make sure the printer is actually working (just ask that half printed Voron cube with a snake coming out of it). Then I worry about tuning and calibration later. I've bought a few things from Adam like the Wire-Stripping adapter in Feb 2022, his workbench schematics and his Califlower.
Yes, I do check it from time to time. The first time I did it was when I had the same problem with the lid not closing. Then after a while I did it again because the belt on one of the printer's axes was worn out, which resulted in an oval instead of a circle. Now I check it by printing similar models to califlower
My frustration is with skew. I got into the habit of pulling the gantry forward by hand to replace filament on my modified FT-5. By pulling from off-center, I know I have introduced skewing. I did a skew correction in Marlin once, and that worked until the next time I pulled the gantry. The best option would be to add dual end-stops on the y-axes to ensure that the gantry is squared.
I've been replication parts I physically have on hand with blender and my mk3 and mk4. I found the dimensional accuracy to be perfect. At least perfect enough that it serves its function. If it's off from the original part's size the change is so small that it doesn't matter. My battery case holds the same batteries. The mirror bezzle I designed for my parent's car fits the same mirror (although I did have to make a lot of fine adjustments on that one)
I love watching videos explaining measuring objects because its great knowing I have the perfect tool for the job sitting in my tool box! Micrometers for the win baby! Much more accurate than calipers.
I noticed the cube was correct, but my hole distance wasn't correct anymore. That is when I started testing my calibrations with different methods. Great video btw 👍
Over the years I've not commented much on anything. But this one rang out to me. THANK YOU for doing this. So many things I've said in past finally said by someone that is listened to. Deffo going to look into this califlower I like the idea of it and not only is the price reasonable but a good cause. Hope adam has a good outcome from the news he got.
I bought the Calilantern (calibration latern) from him a few months back and calibrated my machine. It was a ton of work but I now have very precise parts and I know what to tweak or check if I need to make adjustments.
