It looks like it. I need to improve the sock mold, it’s too thick and too square. there is a slight area of the cross section that is covered by the sock, but a water glass test showed there is still plenty of airflow reaching the print area.
I am still validating of course, but at first glance it is looking much better.
Maybe you have noticed the variations between the samples. Usually varies in the order of thousandeths of a milimiters. The biggest error is during the first approach, the following samples vary less. The samples tend to report a variation every 5 to 10 measurements, but now they are kept within a small boundary which I think has not much significant effect.
But the important difference from now and before is that it is no longer compounding as it was before, so overall the imprecision seems to be contained within a small margin of error. I didn’t calculate the standard deviation, but my intuition says that it is around 0.005.
And the reported motor position is no longer drifting on the before and after, and I think that was the center of this issue.
I think Sineos is commenting on the fact that the last log you posted is littered with:
Stepper ‘stepper_z1’ position skew after probe: pos -17332 now -17333
Stepper ‘stepper_z2’ position skew after probe: pos -17316 now -17317
Which suggests problems still, even if all is printing well.
Right, I am not sure about specifics but I had the impression that this is expected to happen and that Klipper will do the job of correcting it.
Juding by the output of from start and end or two starts in sequence, the Z (in mm) positions matched. My assumption is that it is the correction working.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.