There’s another data point that might help to explain why level/plumb doesn’t help. I live in a house built in the 1950’s in an area where the soil ranges from hard as concrete to nearly soup depending on the time of year.
There is no surface in my house that is actually “level”. Using any leveling mechanism to align my bed properly results in a lot of extra work.
Once I understood the fact that I wanted the extruder to move parallel to the bed for the same Z value, my life became easier.
In my experience, people don’t seem to read instructions carefully in any case. They seem even more likely to skip the instructions if they “think” they know what they are doing. (I can include Wade-past, who assembled my first printer in this category.)
I guess my problem with level, is that everyone thinks they know what we mean, and they think they know what tool is needed for that. Using a different term is likely to cause this hypothetical layperson to stop and check the instructions if the term is less familiar.
What a storm in a teacup!!.. Note sure I would ever want to spend time on such a frivolous matter imho, but as humans, we abuse the words all the time. Good for you if you speak with better words, but you should start from the beginning then: a “3D printer” is not even a “printer” as the average joe would think… And by the way, some of them have no physical X/Y plane as a reference for the parallelism so there is an abusive assumption here also
@Jeremie_Francois , that’s what open source really is. Yeah, we argue about things. But in the end, what are we arguing for really? We’re arguing on how we can be more clear to people. We’re arguing about how to improve things.
I can use strong language, and know that nobody here is going to take offense. In the end, we’re all going to continue to improve the community, help others, and we’ll all remain friends.
It really is a big deal to argue about this particular subject as well though. I’d much prefer just simply using the word tram, as it’s the most correct, but it’s an uncommon terminology to the layman. Every idea expressed here is a good one, which has its own merits. I get the whole parallel argument, just don’t agree with it. Others don’t agree with my usage of “square” on the basis that it’s going to actually cause someone to pick up an actual square or may think it refers to bed shape. It’s all good. Arguments help weed out the less sound ideas.
@ThantiK I agree, especially as I have been localizing Cura in FR. I had to ask myself a lot of questions, including while looking at the source code at the same time to make sure what David was meaning.
Then an “intermediate” FR guy took some really dangerous approximations, including some re-wording that obfuscated a few options and made some other better.
Now I chose trade-offs. E.g. “firmware” exists in FR as “micrologiciel”, that I used in the first place, but that was re-writted as “firmware” (not FR!). Well, I left it this way.
“Bed” really is no bed either, and my initial litteral translation as “Lit” was re-written as “Plateau” (i.e. “plate”, which is probably better even in EN imho).
Now for “Tram”, I suspect it applies well to CNC where I would translate it to “Rectifié”, but also suggests that some bed (oops, plate?) material is removed, in order for it to be both flat (oops, “planar”?) and horizontal-if-your-machine-itself-is-horizontal (you guess the picture…).
It is a never ending story indeed…
It is probably worth mentioning that there are many types 3D printer besides ones that print plastic like PLA and ABS using some sort of fused-filament technology.
In other such machines, specifically the powder based ones, and especially printers that use a liquid that is laser hardened, there is an explicit need for the build area to be precisely leveled.
The question then arises, are we aiming for using terminology shared across the different technologies, or just for fused-filament machines?
Fused filament machines are more tolerant of being a bit off truly level, and if they are off-level then there is a need to describe a Z-axis motion that is also off-plumb. However, level and plumb is still the ideal that we are all aiming for with every technology.
It seems that the confusion arises because some designs are difficult to calibrate, and the procedures to do that can seem a bit arcane to the newcomer.
This seems to argue for clearer calibration instructions, rather than an across-the-board terminology change.
Leveling the bed ( NOT WITH A SPIRIT LEVEL )with disclaimer added
Nozzle to build plate calibration
There surly is not one term that is a fit all for everybody. It depends on where you were brought up and by how terms were used as to how you perceive them.
I have a friend that i have been helping build a DELTA. I asked him what his next step was and he told me he was going to level the bed. I have not said anything to him about what this in-tails as i want to see what he comes up with for doing this.
Like it or not leveling the bed is what it is called ( even if it is not the correct term ). Sometimes words take on new meanings or there meanings are changed somewhat to fit a particular operation or industry or even a 3D printing hobbie.
With using " level " i am sure some will think of a spirit level but not all.
It may easier to repurpose " level " to fit this hobbie as apposed to sticking a different label on it.
If we want to use a description that is more than one word then something like i have at the top or some version of may work
@Paul_Gross fff printers of many varieties can print on their sides and even upside down with proper bed adhesion. Level is 90 deg from plumb plumb is derived from the gravitational pull toward the center of the earth. Even sintering powders can be on an incline so long as the rake moves in a parallel plane to distribute the powder evenly at the desired layer height and the laser travels in the desired path (if via a xy actuator the head must move parallel, if in a mirrored system then the mirror is properly placed software emulated this movement via appropriate angles and trajectory of the beam.). The exception to this is liquid resins the liquid will always find level as long as it is in gravitational pull of the earth. Though it doesn’t make much sense to, cnc and regular mills can operate on slants so long as the pitch and yaw of the mounting face are parallel to the plane the tool path makes when the head or the work travels in x and y axes.
@Paul_Gross@D_Rob powder-based machines don’t need to be perfectly level, and most modern liquid resin machines don’t either, due to the new bottom-up style where the resin is cured against the clear bottom surface of a vat rather than on the top surface of the liquid (which of course is self-leveling). With the bottom-up method, the machine just needs to remain close enough to level so that the resin completely covers the bottom of its vessel, even if the surface of the liquid is not parallel to it.
@Whosa_whatsis , powder and liquid resin machines can tolerate a small amount of error from truly level, but it is unlikely that someone calibrating such a machine would deliberately ignore leveling the machine, just to prove they can tolerate a bit of slope.
The point is, they are designed to be used when level, and that is what the manufacturer wants its users to aim from when they are calibrated.
@Paul_Gross My point is that there’s no need to level either type of machine. It won’t print on its side or upside-down like an FDM/FFF machine could, but place them upright on any nominally horizontal surface and they will be close enough to level, thus leveling them is not necessary.
@Whosa_whatsis , I would not, in good conscience, tell a new user of a powder or liquid resin machine that they can just ignore leveling it.
While it is possible to just go ahead and print on a nominally level surface, it is not what the manufacturer would recommend, because there is no point in adding to the list of possible things that could go wrong with an already complex machine.
What someone can sometimes get away ignoring, compared to what is good practice to do, can be quite different.
@Paul_Gross I’m doing my level best to remain open minded to your point of view, but your loyalty to the word “level” is beginning to seem unreasonable.
