You may find this blog post by @nop_head interesting - http://hydraraptor.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/stepstuck.html?m=1
How can we determine if we have the correct supply voltage? And if that is correct, what else could relate to the incorrect stepping you’re describing @Whosa_whatsis ?I’m fairly sure I have this effect in a kit from RepRapPro, I just assumed I’d have the correct motors buying in a kit, perhaps I don’t or I’ve got something else NQR
My rule of thumb is that the supply voltage should be 3-5x the rated voltage of the motors, though for extreme speeds this will probably need to by higher. Honestly, finding the ideal value requires more math than I’ve done, requiring the phase resistance AND phase inductance as factors, as well as the rotor inertia and inertia of whatever is attached to it, but the rule of thumb has served me well.
@Alan_Weber you’re completely incorrect, this has nothing to do with slicer settings. It also has nothing to do with the resolution of the model.
@ThantiK some model simplification algorithms can introduce tree ring artifacts. For example netfabb studio has an option remove degenerate faces that basically creates a voxel-style simplified mesh, which would looks almost exactly the same as mistuned drivers.
Slic3r also has a resolution setting, but i’m not sure how this one works under the hood.
You’re right, they can. This is not an example of it though. In the situation you speak of, you’d be able to see these in the STL model on your computer screen.
@ThantiK you have no idea what you’re talking about.
@ThantiK absolutely correct.
And @Alan_Weber , enough is enough.
lol…
I think the slic3r resolution setting divides movements into “resolution sized” steps. ie - if you set it to .1mm, it will only choose between 0 and .1mm if it is between them, it will not insert a .05mm code ever.
Setting it to .001 for example should round all values to .001
In @ThantiK , @Thomas_Sanladerer , and @Whosa_whatsis we trust. Ever time I read a thread here I learn a ton from you guys. Keep it up fellas.
@Jarred_Baines I thought Slic3r’s resolution function operated on the facet size of the model, but if you’re right, that would explain why I was getting unexpected results from it and had to turn it off.
https://plus.google.com/101189457349966331973/posts/942DDaV9cQQ
Anybody know a good 3d gcode viewer?
I usually use Repetier Host for gcode viewing, but what you really want here is an A/B comparison, and I don’t know any that can do that well.
@Thomas_Sanladerer 's last link contains more discussion on @Jarred_Baines 's last comment about slic3r’s resolution setting.
And based on the discussion there, this does not appear to be an artifact of the resolution parameter. It would not introduce step discontinuities to perimeters.
Simple test:
Did you have anything entered in the resolution box @Jason_Gullickson ? If so, turning it off (setting to zero) will prove whether or not it is a possible cause.
@Thomas_Sanladerer - I’d use Repetier myself and copy/paste the Gcode from the second file onto the end of the first file (and DON’T print it :-P)
For the purpose of comparison I imagine this will be plenty good enough.
This is a sliced 100mm dia cylinder with 1mm ‘resolution’…
It’s very random, and I don’t think it would contribute to such a ‘perfect pattern’ as the tree ring pattern in the OP…
It really makes for an ugly print in this case… I wonder if I should turn it off rather than leave it set to .001 as I usually do…
moire patterns