Links: [[!Rat Rig]] [[Rat Rig - Log 2024-1]] ## Contents [[#Flow (Re)Calibration]] [[#Stringing and Retraction Tests]] [[#Filament Optimization]] [[#Klipper Notifications]] [[#Preheat Macro]] [[#New RatOS and Beacon Calibration]] [[#No Z-Hop - Speed Boost]] [[#Flow Rate & Surface Finish Calibration]] [[#Bed Mesh & Beacon Calibrations]] [[#New Beacon Features Review]] [[#Air Quality]] [[#Hexagon Calibrations 2]] [[#Hexagon Calibration 3]] [[#Egg Man Slicer Videos]] [[#Hexagon Calibration 4]] [[#PA Reference]] [[#Shaper Calibration]] [[#Pressure Advance]] [[#Hexagon Calibrations 4 Outer Walls]] [[#Generating Resonance Graphs]] [[#Belt Tension Calibration]] [[#Accelerometer Issue]] [[#Input Shaper Tuning]] [[#Tuning Tower Resonance Tests]] [[#Abridged Resonance Notes (Getting Impatient)]] [[#Tightening Belts]] [[#New Resonances]] [[#Command Reference]] [[#Weighted Top Resonances]] [[#Calibration Battery 2]] [[#Damping Ratio]] --- #### Flow (Re)Calibration I did some invasive work over the weekend, so I need to recalibrate the flow rate. The motor cages I printed showed clear signs of overextrusion. Did the 100/120 test and got a perfect 20, so that's fine. Loading up EM Cube and running the first test at 1.000. This time I'll optimize for tactile smoothness over visual surface finish. ##### Test 1 - 1.000 Slight ridges in the middle, lowering 0.5% to 0.995 ##### Test 2 - 0.995 Another step in the right direction. Next is 0.990 ##### Test 3 - 0.990 This one is the smoothest so far. ##### Test 4 - 0.985 This one got less smooth. I don't believe there are now gaps between the lines, so I'm not sure why. But I guess the golden number is somewhere between 985 and 990. ##### Test 5 - 0.9875 Undecided whether 3 or 5 is smoother. May try 0.9925. Angel said 3 is smoother, so 0.9925 it is. ##### Test 6 - 0.9925 Hmm, not quite ##### Test 7 - 0.991 Still not quite. Gonna call it at 0.989 and move on. #### Stringing and Retraction Tests I set up SuperSlicer since it has better tools for this and can automatically generate test prints. It's important to have an efficient workflow for calibrating these things. ##### Retraction Test 1 ![[Pasted image 20241024141404.png]] - The gist here is that it prints 5 different objects, one at a time, at different print temperatures, while incrementing the retraction distance every couple layers. - 255 looks the best. The higher temperatures see much more stringing. - I have Short Layer Slowdown disabled for this as well so it's more difficult test conditions ##### Retraction Test 2 Tried 255,250,245. 250C looks best. Going to try no Z hop this time. Results are great. Lowering temps from 265 -> 250 and keeping Z-hop off. It makes me nervous because Z-hop is what stops it from clipping into big prints and destroying the hotend, but I'm hoping that I've done a good enough job addressing thermal warp that that won't happen anymore. I also have a backup hotend either way. #### Filament Optimization - I'm also going to start drying 1kg ASA spools so once everything else is dialed I can see if I can tell a difference with higher quality filament. - I'm sure a new/clean PTFE tube will help as well. - Considering cleaning out the Filament Sensor as well as the Extruder gears. - 1kg Flashforge Black ASA in the hot box at 65C for 6 hours. ##### Interesting note from Standardprintco.com `When compared with ABS, ASA experiences less shrinkage when cooling (0.7% versus 1.6% for ABS), but the problem is not entirely non-existent. For this reason, you'll want to ensure your printer is equipped with both to ensure your part stays warp-free and stuck to the bed.` #### Klipper Notifications - I can set up Pushbullet or Telegram integration to get Klipper to send me a notification. - This might be worth setting up. - I use Toolboard at 60C as the indicator that pre-print heat soaking is finished. #### Preheat Macro - In the filament preheat settings, you can define a bed temp, nozzle temp, and custom GCode. - So for ASA I have it - Set bed to 110C - Home All Axes - Move to (250,250,5) Super easy, actually. #### New RatOS and Beacon Calibration [New Beacon Calibration Guidelines for RatOS](https://github.com/HelgeKeck/RatOS/blob/documentation_v2.1/site/docs/configuration/beacon_contact.md) [Beacon Contact Docs](https://docs.beacon3d.com/contact/) It's been a while since I did a system update. I've been putting it off because I saw there were some conflicts with RatOS and the Beacon Calibration configs recently, but it looks like they've resolved all that now. Once I update there are some good new features for me to make use of. It looks like the Beacon sensor is getting more value add. - RatOS Heat Soaking Time Variables/Macros - Beacon Temperature Expansion Calibration - Beacon Gantry Warp Compensation All things I've been struggling with for the last few months. Hopefully a closer look at this stuff will solve some of my problems. However, Beacon now provides Beacon Contact measurement, which is super scary, so I'll have to read all this stuff very carefully #### No Z-Hop - Speed Boost This thing is so much faster it's like Rock Lee dropping his training weights. Super impressive. It might be worse investing in better stepper cooling and tuning near-limit flow rates. No matter how fast I print ASA I definitely have sufficient cooling, since 40% on my 20W 4028 is already pretty overkill for ASA. #### Flow Rate & Surface Finish Calibration I printed some enamel pin things holder things for Angel and I'm starting to see what my next steps are. ![[Pasted image 20241026060551.png]] When calibrating EM, I'm printing squares with 10-20 top layers and about 90x90 dimensions. There's definitely some smush/overextrusion ridges at the edges near the perimeters on those, but the center area of the square usually ends up coming out very smooth. So now, on smaller prints like this enamel pin holder, that smooth and polished finish is nowhere to be found. A couple things come to mind to try: - Increasing top layers (to match test conditions) - Decreasing Solid Infill Speed (which is far more uneven) - Decreasing EM (since that's what I see here) Additionally, this print seems like a good test in general for checking dimensional accuracy, sharp angles, surface finish, etc. It's got most of the basic features a print might have, while avoiding most of the more complex ones. ##### Hexagon Test 1 - Test: Slower Solid Infill - Solid Infill Speed: 350 -> 180 mm/s (test) - Notes - Just noticed SuperSlicer has a settings of `Maximum acceleration when Extruding` defaulting to 15k slowing me down. - Wondering if I should be testing at 0.1mm or 0.2mm layer height. I guess I'll learn which parameters are effected and how eventually. - Surface finish is definitely a bit smoother and better, but I'm not sure if it's worth the sacrifice in speed. I have a feeling there's something else I can change to get better results at speed - Dimensional Accuracy - ASA allegedly shrinks about 0.70%, and the hexagon sides should be 55m. It's a good example since they don't perfectly align on 90s or 45s. I can rotate them 5/10/15 degrees each test to see how variations manifest as well. - Measures - 54.71 -> -0.53% - 54.93 -> -0.12% - 54.76 -> -0.43% - Average Shrink: 0.36% ##### Hexagon Test 2 - Test: Lower EM 2% - Solid Infill Speed: 350 mm/s (revert) - EM: 0.989 -> 0.970 (test) - Max Accel while Extruding: 15k -> 20k - Object Scale: 100.36% - Notes - Definitely got worse. I think it's more of a speed thing than an overextrusion thing, so I'm reverting the flow rate. - I'm also seeing way more gaps in between perimeters now from increasing the acceleration. - I noticed SuperSlicer didn't pick up my unique acceleration for external perimeters - Thinking about switching the extrusion width back to 0.4mm basis from 0.6mm basis. I'm starting to get a hunch that's a factor too. - Dimensional Accuracy - 55.09 -> +0.16% - 54.88 -> -0.22% - 55.00 -> +0.00% - Average Shrink: 0.02% - 100.36 x 99.98% = 100.34% ##### Hexagon Test 3 - Test: Slower Moves - General Accel: 10k - External Perimeter Accel: 3k - Top Solid Accel: 3k - EM: 0.989 (revert) - Notes - Perimeter lines are MUCH cleaner. - Top layer is generally smoother but still has that rough and choppy finish - Forgot to to Object Scale - Dimensional Accuracy (100.36%) - 55.04 - 54.92 - 55.10 ##### Hexagon Test 4 - Test: Thinner Lines - Extrusion Widths: 0.6 -> 0.4 mm - Object Scale: 100.33% - Keep lower accel - Notes - Looks wayyy better. That was a great call. - 0.6mm width extrusions will be useful for draft prints, fast and functional from here on, but they're not good for pretty prints. - Dimensional Accuracy (100.33%) - 55.06 - 54.99 - 54.89 ##### Max Line Overlap ![[Pasted image 20241026132459.png]] This Filament Setting seems relevant for ASA, since it's known to be more viscous. I might try setting it to 90% There's also this one under Print Settings > Width & Flow ![[Pasted image 20241026132609.png]] I'm going to change a lot of parameters at once for the next test to see if I come up with something substantially different. This may explain why my flow rate seems well tuned but I'm still having problems - the ASA is simply too viscous to seep into its own cracks, and so the lines should be spaced further apart. These are new settings that I've never touched before so let's see what happens ##### Hexagon Test 5 - Test: Reduce Overlap - Print Settings > Width & Flow > Overlaps - Perimeter Overlap: 100% -> 90% - External Perimeter Overlap: 100% -> 90% - Gap Fill Overlap: 100% -> 90% - Solid Fill Overlap: 100% -> 90% - Infill/perimeters encroachment: 25% -> 15% - Filament Settings > Filament Properties - Shrinkage: 100% -> 99.7% - Max Line Overlap: 100% -> 90% - EM: 0.989 -> 0.990 (setting this as new default) - Notes - **This is probably the smoothest surface texture I've produced. I can't catch my nail on any ridges. It's very flat.** - It looks even better and is much less rough to the touch. There are still some areas where it ends up feeling rough and jagged. - Now that I'm thinking in terms of viscosity, flowing, and seeping into cracks in between lines, I'm rethinking the decision to use 250C nozzle temp. - If it's hotter, then it should be less viscous (but off-gas more) and seep into the cracks better and end up smoother. - I'm satisfied with how the perimeters and the infill encroachment looks at 15%. Maybe 5% is worth trying. - So for the next tests I'm inclined to try one of the three: - Hotter Nozzle - 260C - Even Less Overlap - 80% - Less Cooling/No Cooling - Dimensional Accuracy - This one is double-larger because I changed Shrinkage in slicer settings but didn't scale the print back to 100% in the Plater ##### Hexagon Test 6 - Test: Increase Temperature/Reduce Viscosity - Nozzle Temp: 250C -> 260C (revert) - Cooling Fan: 40% -> OFF - Shrinkage: 99.7% (keep) & Scale: 100.00% (revert) - Notes - Looks way worse somehow. Dimples everywhere. ##### Hexagon Test 7 - Test: Reduce Temperature, Increase Cooling - Nozzle Temp: 250C (revert) - Cooling Fan: 100% - Notes - This is good, closer to 5, but 5 is still clearly the best so far. - Revert Fan to 40% ##### Hexagon Test 8 - Test: Tweak Overlap - Print Settings > Width & Flow > Overlaps - Perimeter Overlap: 90% -> 80% - External Perimeter Overlap: 90% -> 80% - Gap Fill Overlap: 90% -> 80% - Solid Fill Overlap: 90% -> 80% - Infill/perimeters encroachment: 15% -> 10% - Filament Settings > Filament Properties - Shrinkage: 100% -> 99.7% - Max Line Overlap: 100% -> 80% - EM: 0.990 -> 0.989 (revert) - Temp: 250C (revert) - Cooling Fan: 40% (revert) - Top Solid Infill Speed: 60 -> 120 mm/s ##### Hexagon Test 9 - Test: New Filament - Switching to my FlashForge 1kg ASA filament that I dried earlier - It is still in the dryer and the dryer is active while it is printing - Otherwise, the same print ##### Hexagon Test 10 - Test: Same print, at 50% - Speed Factor: 100% -> 50% (in RatOS) - Notes - Absolutely the best by far ##### Hexagon Test 11 - Test: Same print, at 75% - Speed Factor: 50% -> 75% (in RatOS) - Notes - As good as #10, but surface texture is less consistent. ##### Hexagon Test 12 - Test: Back to full speed, single perimeter - Accel: 10k -> 20k - Top Solid Infill: 120mm/s (keep) - Top Solid Infill Accel: 3k (keep) - Solid Infill: 350 -> 500 -> 350 - External Perimeters: 2 -> 1 - Notes - Cancelled because the infill was going too fast. Something was off. - Repeating - Adding a notch to the design so I can tell where north is. #### Bed Mesh & Beacon Calibrations The excellent bed mesh I spent so much time producing back in August has been decaying and is now gone. Where I consistently got <0.400 range on my bed mesh and the occasional <0.3 or even <0.2, I'm now getting >0.500 and my cold mesh is currently 0.986. Terms - Cold Mesh = Bed Unheated - Warm Mesh = Bed at Temperature, no Heat Soak time - Hot Mesh = Bed at Temperature, Printer Heat Soaked Currently I'm getting - Cold Mesh: 0.986mm - Warm Mesh: 0.928mm - Hot Mesh - Toolboard @ 57C, 50 minutes: 0.498mm ![[Pasted image 20241026061554.png]] There are some new beacon features I can set up to work on this issue, but it'll take some time to read through all these docs. #### New Beacon Features Review [Beacon Contact Docs](https://docs.beacon3d.com/contact/) *If your chamber regularly hits 65C+ during operation or probing, it is recommended to calibrate your Beacon hot. Get it up to temperature by soaking it at the homing distance with your bed hot and run through `BEACON_CALIBRATE` after it has stabilized. The temperature compensation is applied relative to the model temperature, so this will reduce the applied compensation and minimize residual thermal errors.* ##### Beacon Models - **I need to calibrate beacon after heat soaking.** - When running `BEACON_CALIBRATE` it saves the calibration model to `default` by default. I can run `BEACON_MODEL_LIST` to see the list of models it has stored. - `BEACON_MODEL_SELECT NAME=modelname` to change models - `BEACON_MODEL_SAVE NAME=modelname` to save models. This requires a Save Config as well. - `BEACON_MODEL_REMOVE NAME=modelname` to delete - Each Beacon Model has its own Z-Offset - Calibrate Beacon - Then Tune First Layer/Z-Offset - Apply this tuned value to the beacon model using `Z_OFFSET_APPLY_PROBE` - Run a Save Config to save the model - Now your beacon model will remember the Z-Offset Generally, you do not need to create a different profile unless your bed conditions are very different. If you switch bed plates for a specific material, that warrants a new beacon model. If you are switching from enclosed to unenclosed or do not need a hot chamber, that *may* require a new beacon model. ##### Beacon Accelerometer - To use the accelerometer on the Beacon, you need to point the `[resonance_tester]` to the beacon in the config file: ``` [resonance_tester] accel_chip: beacon probe_points: 90, 90, 20 ``` - Basic Commands - `ACCELEROMETER_QUERY` - `MEASURE_AXES_NOISE` - `TEST_RESONANCES AXIS=X` - You can switch between chips on the command line like this: ``` ACCELEROMETER_QUERY CHIP=beacon MEASURE_AXES_NOISE CHIP=beacon TEST_RESONANCES AXIS=X CHIP=beacon TEST_RESONANCES AXIS=X CHIP=adxl345 ``` - You can adjust the sensitivity of the accelerometer in the config as well ``` #accel_scale: 16g # Adjust the sensitivity of the accelerometer during shaper measurement, # valid settings on RevH are 16g, 8g, 4g and 2g. ``` ##### Beacon Contact - Basic Premise - Beacon Contact involves the z-axis motion being interrupted by high resolution inductive measurements. - The nozzle physically rams into the bed on purpose, and beacon's inductive sensor will notice, and then stop it from pushing further. - The benefit of doing this is that Z-Offset can be calibrated perfectly and automatically - This perfect Z-Offset is called TrueZero - Restrictions & Cautions - This performance is limited to hard, robust surfaces: raw steel, powder coated PEI, or thin glass over aluminum - Additional mitigations may be required to keep the nozzle clean during contact probing - The contact force is low, but some thin PEI laminate sheets may melt when contacted by a print-temp nozzle. Reduced temp probing is recommended - If you work with less robust bed plates or often print filaments known to ooze significantly, you would be better served by probing at reduced nozzle temperatures. - Probing at reduced nozzle temps require additional positive offsets to account for the remaining thermal expansion that occurs when climbing to actual print temps. - Basic Requirements - Beacon must be approaching a metallic target when nozzle makes contact - Beacon must be rigidly couples to the hotend, such that its motion is interrupted by nozzle contact - Who Uses Contact? - For someone who doesn't swap build plates and doesn't swap nozzles very often, inductive sensing alone is generally sufficient. - Someone who swaps build plates and nozzles often is better served by a contact-oriented workflow that calibrates itself on every print. - Contact can be used to generate a new beacon model & z-offset calibration every print (never storing/using a "default" beacon model): ``` [beacon] home_method: contact home_method_when_homed: proximity home_autocalibrate: unhomed ``` - Beacon Auto-Calibration - `BEACON_AUTO_CALIBRATE` enhances the traditional beacon workflow with the new Contact system. - Recall that `BEACON_CALIBRATE` involves a manual process of tuning Z-Offset, usually with the paper-friction test. - `BEACON_AUTO_CALIBRATE` allows a beacon model to be calibrated at any X/Y position, *requiring the toolhead to be manually positioned at the desired location before beginning* - The traditional beacon operating mode was to use a pre-configured beacon model and induction proximity in order to function as a Z-Endstop - The G28 homing command can be reconfigured in the config and can be adjusted on the fly with command line parameters - For example, `G28 Z METHOD=CONTACT CALIBRATE=1` will do the equivalent of `BEACON_AUTO_CALIBRATE`, but additionally move the toolhead to the homing position first. ``` [beacon] home_method: proximity home_method_when_homed: proximity home_autocalibrate: never ``` - Safe Z Home Configuration - The beacon section of the config can be set up to use Contact-based homing to auto-calibrate the beacon model when performing the first Home after printer startup, and then switch to using Proximity-based homing thereafter. - These are the recommended defaults for a full contact workflow: ``` [beacon] contact_max_hotend_temperature: 180 # increase to probe at print temps home_xy_position: 117.5, 117.5 # update with your safe position home_z_hop: 5 home_z_hop_speed: 30 home_xy_move_speed: 300 home_method: contact # use proximity for induction homing home_method_when_homed: proximity # after initial calibration use induction home_autocalibrate: unhomed # contact will calibrate beacon on first hom ``` - With these settings, the first home at power on will use contact to calibrate beacon for scan mode. Subsequent homes will use the newly generated calibration model. Lots of other stuff for refining the poke/contact sequence, but it seems like this already isn't very relevant for me. I don't switch print beds situationally like that. ##### RatOS Updates and Guidelines [New Beacon Calibration Guidelines for RatOS](https://github.com/HelgeKeck/RatOS/blob/documentation_v2.1/site/docs/configuration/beacon_contact.md) - Says to read the Beacon Contact Docs first, which I now have. - RatOS now comes with a fully automated beacon calibration sequence that has Beacon Contact enabled by default. - By default the beacon contact feature is enabled. If you want to disable it, set `variable_beacon_contact_start_print_true_zero` to False. - Initial Calibration - Run `BEACON_INITIAL_CALIBRATION` - Then `SAVE_CONFIG` - Beacon Latency Check - Run `BEACON_POKE_TEST` - It will home and then poke the bed - You'll receive the Latency Score - Temperature Expansion Calibration - Unload filament from nozzle - Let machine cool back down to ambient - Run `BEACON_CALIBRATE_NOZZLE_TEMP_OFFSET` - this auto sequence take a while - Final Calibration - Run `BEACON_FINAL_CALIBRATION BED_TEMP=85 CHAMBER TEMP=45` or whatever you want. - Optional but recommended - Run `SAVE_CONFIG` - Beacon Scan Compensation (BETA) - Can automatically compensate for gantry twist - But Gantry Twist isn't really my problem. ##### Conclusion After reviewing all this new doc stuff, I've determined Beacon Contact and the new gantry twist compensation stuff doesn't really apply to my current use case. I'll still have to heat soak my printer. If I don't heat soak for an hour my gantry is going to expand and warp dynamically throughout the print either way, and I don't think any calibration will change that. I'm probably better off adding a space heater system or something to the printer to keep the air in there around 60C. But I'm also pretty sure that a space heater on top of my 1300W bedplate will be too much and trip a breaker or something. #### Air Quality Finally picked up an air quality sensor. Two measurements: 1. On top of the enclosure, 30 minutes into printing 2. After 5 seconds inside the enclosure, immediately after print completion ![[Pasted image 20241027113856.png]] #### Hexagon Calibrations 2 Having weird issues with infill patterns. I guess I thought it would throttle but it isn't, and the quality looks terrible before it hits the 24mm3/s throttle point. Probably because I lowered it to 0.10mm layers and 0.40mm extrusions. I wonder if increasing the temperature again would fix that. I'll try printing the next one at 265 and see if anything looks better. If that doesn't work, I'll just slow it down. I'm realizing I can iterate a little faster now. ##### Hexagon Test 2-1 - Test: Fix infill quality with higher temperatures - Nozzle Temp: 250C -> 265C - Notes - That worked a bit, but it seems pretty clear I should just slow it down. ##### Hexagon Test 2-2 - Test: Slow down infill speed - Nozzle Temp: 265C -> 250C (revert) - Infill Speed & Sparse Speed: 350 -> 200 mm/s - Notes - Looks better, much fewer breaks in the grid. I can tell that this is probably an issue specific to 0.1mm layers, every layer infilled. The nozzle is scuffing by on all these super shallow lines - Calibrating all this to 0.1mm is showing the speed limits of my extruder, but I'm not hitting flow rate. I'll have to see if I need to reduce flow rate when I switch back to orbs at 0.6mm width and 0.3mm layer heights, etc. ##### Hexagon Test 2-3 - Test: Every other infill, very slow top layer - Infill Every Other Layer - Top Solid Infill Speed: 120 -> 60 mm/s - Top Solid Infill Accel: 3k -> 1k - Notes - Best one yet! Beats 1-10. It's just a bit smoother to the touch. - Now for more speed - Then fix pressure advance ##### Hexagon Test 2-4 - Test: Maxing out Speed - Infill Speed: 200 -> 400mm/s - External Perimeters: 180 -> 250mm/s - General Accel: 10k -> 20k - Notes - The texture of the subsurface infill is too inconsistent, and it makes the top layer look bad. - External perimeters weren't too affected, but do look slightly worse. ##### Hexagon Test 2-5 - Test - Infill Speed: 400 -> 200 mm/s - External Perimeters: 250 -> 120 mm/s - Notes - External perimeters are only slightly worse at 250, so I'm increasing it to 200 moving forward - at least at this quality bracket. - I'm hitting some diminishing returns and am having trouble getting consistently perfect results on the top layer. Little dimples and stuff. I think I need to remove the nozzle and actually clean the hotend, replace the PTFE, etc. - Replace PTFE - Remove Nozzle, Clean out Hotend - Test Square Corner Velocity - Tune Pressure Advance - Optimize Travel moves ##### Hexagon Test 2-6 - Test - External Perimeter Speed: 120 -> 60 mm/s - External Perimeter Accel: 3k -> 1k - Pressure Advance: - PA: 0.01 -> 0.05 - Smooth Time: 0.04 -> 0.10 - Notes - PA and ST didn't have a significant effect - External Perimeters are not substantially better - Stop Surface still has weird dimples. 2-3 was best still ##### Hexagon Test 2-7 - Test - Revert PA and ST - 0.01 and 0.04 - External Perimeter Speed/Accel: 200/5k - Top Surface Infill Speed/Accel: 200/5k - External Perimeter First: OFF -> ON - Avoid Crossing Perimeters: OFF -> ON, 200mm ##### Hexagon Test 2-8 - Test - Revert Settings back to Test 2-3 - Keep Avoid Perimeter Crossing - Top Infill Width: 0.4 -> 0.35 - Notes - Looks good. Next is to text if cleaning, oil, extruder tension, belt tension, etc. have an impact - I've also seen online that ABS may benefit from as low as 35% line overlap. - It might be worth printing several objects in one run, with increments in line overlap ##### Hexagon Test 2-9 - Test - Oiled Rails - Cycled Cleaning Filament - +1 Turn on Extruder Tension - Same GCode as 2-8 - Notes - Looks great. Printed it three times total now and they look very consistent. - Those minor maintenance changes did help #### Hexagon Calibration 3 Now that I have some reliable, speedy, and quality settings, I can batch test prints more intelligently. Having to annotate the previous test and come up with new tweaks every 20 minutes is actually super exhausting. ##### Hexagon Test 3-1 - Test - 5 prints, 20% intervals of overlaps: - Solid Infill Overlap - Ext. Perimeter Overlap - Gap Fill Overlap - Perimeter Overlap - Filament Overlap Limit: 100% - Notes - This one threw me for a loop. The one at 100% looks and feels the best - The earlier ones I printed alone at 80% look closer to 20/40/60% - So I guess I'll print another one at 100% and verify that it looks good. Not sure why or how that happened. Maybe it just came out better because it was in a different part of the bed, or because I heat soaked more fully. - Next major calibration is outer shell quality for sure. I'm seeing bad claw marks stretching through it. Maybe some external perimeter first kind of stuff. #### Egg Man Slicer Videos [# Best Possible Settings for a Clean & Fast Print](https://youtu.be/dWL2swAqcyY) - Start by analyzing the print for solid infill and sparse infill where it's not needed. Usually in small perimeter areas - Make sure the infill pattern makes sense for the print. Linear patterns don't look right on circular objects, etc. - Take a moment to visualize travel moves and see if they'll create marks/stringing issues - Start the analysis by reducing the print to the bare minimum: - 2 Perimeters (1 internal, 1 external) - 1 Top layer - 1 Bottom Layer - 0% Infill - You may see unnecessary infill near perimeters - related to "Ensure Wall Thickness" - The "Avoid crossing walls" is useful for optimizing travel moves as well - Take a moment to visualize print speed. If the outer shell's print speed is variable, this will greatly affect surface gloss, especially with matte filaments - "Slow down for overhangs" is a big factor - Slowing down print speeds for short layer times is also a major contributor here - First Layer Reliability > Everything Else - Don't be afraid to smush the z-offset using custom gcode for the print - If your z-offset is too low, it'll pillow out and will have a sharp edge on the first layer - this is fixed by increasing "Elephant Foot Compensation". - Increasing by 0.10mm is usually enough - Analyze the pathing of the printhead for the first layer and make sure it isn't stupid. - If you're using concentric fill, try and get it to fill outside-in, instead of inside-out, etc. - Modifiers are scary but they are your friend - e.g. You can use modifiers to only generate infill within the domain of a cylinder (and leave other inner print space empty) - You can also use modifiers to change the number of top/bottom layers for a particular region of the print. - Modifiers also have priorities, which you have to be pay attention to - Infill patterns can add material where it's not needed. Pay close attention - Top Surface Optimization - Recommend slightly reducing the width of all top layer lines to get cleaner top surfaces - Outer Wall: 0.42 -> 0.4 - Inner Wall: 0.45 -> 0.4 - Top Surface: 0.42 -> 0.35 - Avoid single dot extrusions - Adjust top surface line width (above) until tiny dots are replaced with closed shapes. - 0.32mm is how low he goes in the video. Not sure how low is too low - Recall you can adjust these parameters only within the scope of a modifier - You can adjust where the seam is by rotating the geometry slightly - You can make prints faster, more reliable, and use less material by taking the time to make things perfect. [# 5 Tricks For Incredibly Clean Prints!](https://youtu.be/CxbidoZCw1A) - Line width should be within 50% to 150% of the nozzle diameter - Avoid crossing walls is very important, again - Enabling "Outer Perimeter First" has some tradeoffs - Since the outer wall is usually where overhangs occur, and there won't be any prior lines for it to attach to, overhangs tend to be worse - BUT dimensional accuracy tends to be a bit better, since the outer wall is placed and cooled first and then the inner wall has to ooze around it instead of vice versa - Again, be mindful of keeping print speed consistent for outer shells - Disable Slow down for overhangs - Disable Slow down for short layer times - These can cause cooling issues - OrcaSlicer can keep perimeters at speed, and then slow down infill to get the best of both worlds - Infill Pattern - Monotonic and Concentric infill usually look the best, but don't sleep on the beautiful patterns that can happen sometimes. - Keep prints close to minimize travel moves/times OR print by object - Other factors - Temp Tuning - Flowrate - Pressure Advance - Dry Filament - Retraction Settings - Belt Tension #### Hexagon Calibration 4 The prints are looking great. Next Tuning Targets - Pressure Advance - Input Shaper - Section on measuring the ringing frequency - Outer Shell Quality I noticed the lower belt seizes near the very back end of the printhead's range. The motors are obviously strong enough to manipulate it anyway, but when they're off it doesn't move evenly. I'm not sure when or where that happened. Things that affect Pressure Advance: - Different filaments and brands - Nozzle Sizes - Large Hotend Temp Changes - Enabling/Disabling Input Shaper - Changing hotend, extruder, tubing length #### PA Reference ![[PA-Squares.jpg]] #### Shaper Calibration [Klipper: Measuring Resonances](https://www.klipper3d.org/Measuring_Resonances.html#measuring-the-resonances) [Klipper: Resonance Compensation](https://www.klipper3d.org/Resonance_Compensation.html) Printer starts rattling around 70-75 Hz When you run `SHAPER_CALIBRATE`, it provides recommended accel for each type of input shaper AND a recommend input shaper. You should still review the chart and decide, since the script can make suboptimal choices. ##### Ringing Tower Test Setup - Ringing Tower STL Slicing - Layer Height: 0.2mm - Infill: 0% - Top Layers: 0 - Perimeters: 2 - External Perimeter Speed: set at intention - Minimum Layer Time: OFF - Dynamic Acceleration Control: OFF - Do not rotate the model. - Pre-Print RatOS Config - `square_corner_velocity` set to default fo 5.0 - `SET_VELOCITY_LIMIT MINIMUM_CRUISE_RATIO=0` - `SET_INPUT_SHAPER SHAPER_FREQ_X=0 SHAPER_FREQ_Y=0` - `TUNING_TOWER COMMAND=SET_VELOCITY_LIMIT PARAMETER=ACCEL START=1500 STEP_DELTA=500 STEP_HEIGHT=5` - Adjust to desired test conditions ##### Ringing Tower 1 - (1k + 5x1k) - Notes - Looks surprisingly terrible. I think it might be a cooling issue, so I'm running the same test again but with the fan at max this time. ##### Ringing Tower 1 - (1k + 5x1k) - Notes - 100% Fan caused it to come loose and fail about halfway through. - Getting the impression I should just print my external perimeters at 1k accel Decided to make a post on the Rat Rig Discord to try and get some guidance #### Pressure Advance I wanted to try it tilted at a 45 and at 0 to see if I get different numbers ##### PA 1-1 - 45 degrees - 0.0 to 0.05 in 0.0025 increments - 0.0400 seems to be the sharpest corner ##### PA 1-2 - no rotation - 0.0 to 0.05 in 0.0025 increments - 0.0350 seems to be the sharpest ##### Conclusion - Splitting the difference and setting PA to 0.0375. ##### Smooth Time Test 1 - 0.0 to 0.05 in 0.0025 increments - Best one is 0.05, so the optimal is probably further forward ##### Smooth Time Test 2 - 0.04 to 0.10 in 0.0025 increments - Best one is 0.06 ##### Conclusion Pressure Advance: 0.0375 Smooth Time: 0.0600 #### Hexagon Calibrations 4: Outer Walls I'm pretty sure I just need to print the perimeters dramatically slower. In this case I can print the external perimeters first, so lets see what I can come up with. Setting overlap to 100% moving forward. ##### Hexagon Test 4-1 - Test (5) - External Perimeters First: ON - External Perimeter Acceleration: 1k - New Pressure Advance and Smooth Time - New Shaper Calibration (still auto) - External Perimeter Speeds: - 40, 60, 80, 100, 120 - Notes - Top surface stays perfect, but the shell still sucks across the board. - But I am noticing that they're all about equally bad, which means it's probably acceleration more than speed. - Going even slower ##### Hexagon Test 4-2 - Test (2) - External Perimeters First: OFF - External Perimeter: 60mm/s @ 1k - Internal Perimeters: same speed - Second Print Rotated 30 degrees (flush on X) - Notes - Now top surface and outer shell are all 60mm/s - Doubles the print time to about 43 minutes... About 25 minutes overall spend slowly drawing out perimeters - I'll need to start printing these in pairs with 15/30 degree offset so I can get all sides of the kinematics - That Calilamp thing might be useful after all #### Generating Resonance Graphs I was SSH'd into the pi digging around looking for the scripts to manually generate the graphs using the python script and csv exports from shaper calibrate I forgot there was just a button to run the macro on the homepage that I didn't have visible lol. #### Belt Tension Calibration From 10/21: ![[belt-tension-resonances-2024-10-21-200753.png]] From 10/30: X-Axis: ![[Pasted image 20241030225718.png]] ``` Fitted shaper 'zv' frequency = 56.8 Hz (vibrations = 2.7%, smoothing ~= 0.054) To avoid too much smoothing with 'zv', suggested max_accel <= 12600 mm/sec^2 Fitted shaper 'mzv' frequency = 55.8 Hz (vibrations = 0.0%, smoothing ~= 0.065) To avoid too much smoothing with 'mzv', suggested max_accel <= 9200 mm/sec^2 Fitted shaper 'ei' frequency = 66.8 Hz (vibrations = 0.0%, smoothing ~= 0.072) To avoid too much smoothing with 'ei', suggested max_accel <= 8300 mm/sec^2 Fitted shaper '2hump_ei' frequency = 83.2 Hz (vibrations = 0.0%, smoothing ~= 0.078) To avoid too much smoothing with '2hump_ei', suggested max_accel <= 7700 mm/sec^2 Fitted shaper '3hump_ei' frequency = 99.6 Hz (vibrations = 0.0%, smoothing ~= 0.083) To avoid too much smoothing with '3hump_ei', suggested max_accel <= 7300 mm/sec^2 Recommended shaper is mzv @ 55.8 Hz shaper_type_x:mzv shaper_freq_x:56.200 damping_ratio_x:0.100000 ``` Y-Axis: ![[Pasted image 20241030225729.png]] ``` Fitted shaper 'zv' frequency = 41.4 Hz (vibrations = 28.0%, smoothing ~= 0.094) To avoid too much smoothing with 'zv', suggested max_accel <= 6700 mm/sec^2 Fitted shaper 'mzv' frequency = 33.6 Hz (vibrations = 2.7%, smoothing ~= 0.180) To avoid too much smoothing with 'mzv', suggested max_accel <= 3300 mm/sec^2 Fitted shaper 'ei' frequency = 45.2 Hz (vibrations = 6.5%, smoothing ~= 0.158) To avoid too much smoothing with 'ei', suggested max_accel <= 3800 mm/sec^2 Fitted shaper '2hump_ei' frequency = 46.0 Hz (vibrations = 0.0%, smoothing ~= 0.255) To avoid too much smoothing with '2hump_ei', suggested max_accel <= 2300 mm/sec^2 Fitted shaper '3hump_ei' frequency = 55.6 Hz (vibrations = 0.0%, smoothing ~= 0.265) To avoid too much smoothing with '3hump_ei', suggested max_accel <= 2200 mm/sec^2 Recommended shaper is 2hump_ei @ 46.0 Hz shaper_type_y:2hump_ei shaper_freq_y:46.200 damping_ratio_y:0.100000 ``` #### Accelerometer Issue ![[Pasted image 20241031091010.png]] Looks like the accelerometer isn't working? Idk. - Have to specify `ACCELEROMETER_QUERY chip=toolboard` for some of the commands but not others. - e.g. Measure Axes Noise doesn't require a chip ![[Pasted image 20241031101847.png]] My Baseline Acceleration reading do agree with this dimension layout. ``` accelerometer values (x, y, z): 296.082377, -9178.553681, 76.609550 ``` It seems like it's mounted upside down though. #### Input Shaper Tuning Starting point - heat soaked, belts redone, etc. ``` #*# [input_shaper] #*# shaper_type_x = mzv #*# shaper_freq_x = 56.2 #*# shaper_type_y = 2hump_ei #*# shaper_freq_y = 46.2 ``` ##### Hexagon Test 4-3 - Test: Tune up kinematics - Notes: Ringing issue is now isolated but not reduced #### Tuning Tower Resonance Tests - Notes from Ref Docs - I can manually set the input shaper parameters once I've decided on settings after a few tests - The Klipper Resonance Compensation reference suggests testing MZV then EI - 2HUMP_EI and 3HUMP_EI are not used with `shaper_freq = resonance frequency` since they're used to reduce several resonances at once. - `SET_INPUT_SHAPER SHAPER_TYPE=EI` - It doesn't say when to test ZV - EI Creates more smoothing than MZV - My Notes - Obviously I want to get speeds and accel as high as possible while being as smooth as possible - Going to test MVZ and EI both at 120 & 500-6500, decide which looks better, then increase speed and acceleration ##### Tuning Tower Test 1 - MVZ/120/6.5k - Test Parameters - Speed - External Perimeter Speed: 120 mm/s - Perimeter Speed: 120mm/s - Input Shaper Config - X-Axis - Type: MZV - Frequency: 56.2 Hz - Damping Ratio: 0.10 - Y-Axis - Type: MZV - Frequency: 46.2 Hz - Damping Ratio: 0.10 - Accelerations - Initial: 500 mm/s2 - Step: +500 mm/s2 - Final: 6500 mm/s2 - Notes - The reference claims that after a certain acceleration, the gap test will split apart. - My print didn't do that, so I'm assuming I can go higher than 6500. - The Stretch/Claw Marks are completely gone as well. - I'm not sure if that was resulting from the belting & kinematics issue, or if it was related to the internal perimeters being much faster. - Around 3500-5000 looks better than the steps above and below it on this test. - There seems to be a higher frequency ringing completely irrespective of the test - The Y-Axis is cleaner, and the curved grooves in the wall aren't what's echoing, there is a completely vertical line ringing in here. Not sure what that's about. - The X-Axis definitely has worse ringing, so I'm looking to see if EI does anything for it. After that, Upping the accel to climb to 10k, 20k, etc. - There are some corner artifacts but I imagine those will go away once I turn on & recalibrate Pressure Advance ##### Tuning Tower Test 2 - EI/120/6.5k - Test Parameters - Speed - External Perimeter Speed: 120 mm/s - Perimeter Speed: 120mm/s - Input Shaper Config - X-Axis - Type: EI - Frequency: 56.2 Hz - Damping Ratio: 0.10 - Y-Axis - Type: EI - Frequency: 46.2 Hz - Damping Ratio: 0.10 - Accelerations - Initial: 500 mm/s2 - Step: +500 mm/s2 - Final: 6500 mm/s2 - Notes - EI Looks better on X by a small but definitive amount - There's still a sweet spot right around 4500 accel - Y is almost exactly the same. The only difference is less horizontal streaking, which I wasn't expecting to be a factor - Moving forward with EI and raising the accel, speed, and speed differential ##### Tuning Tower Test 3 - EI/240/15k - Test Parameters - Speed - External Perimeter Speed: 240 mm/s - Perimeter Speed: 240mm/s - Input Shaper Config - X-Axis - Type: EI - Frequency: 56.2 Hz - Damping Ratio: 0.10 - Y-Axis - Type: EI - Frequency: 46.2 Hz - Damping Ratio: 0.10 - Accelerations - Initial: 3000 mm/s2 - Step: +1000 mm/s2 - Final: 15000 mm/s2 - Notes - Looks surprisingly good, comparing against MZV ##### Tuning Tower Test 4 - MZV/240/15k - Test Parameters - Speed - External Perimeter Speed: 240 mm/s - Perimeter Speed: 240mm/s - Input Shaper Config - X-Axis - Type: MZV - Frequency: 56.2 Hz - Damping Ratio: 0.10 - Y-Axis - Type: MZV - Frequency: 46.2 Hz - Damping Ratio: 0.10 - Accelerations - Initial: 3000 mm/s2 - Step: +1000 mm/s2 - Final: 15000 mm/s2 - Notes - X looks terrible! Definitely EI For X moving forward - May be worth defining 2HUMP_EI - EI Seems tremendously more stable for both axes across all accelerations I've tested so far ##### Tuning Tower Test 5 - EI/240/20k - Test Parameters - Speed - External Perimeter Speed: 240 mm/s - Perimeter Speed: 240mm/s - Input Shaper Config - X-Axis - Type: EI - Frequency: 56.2 Hz - Damping Ratio: 0.10 - Y-Axis - Type: EI - Frequency: 46.2 Hz - Damping Ratio: 0.10 - Accelerations - Initial: 8000 mm/s2 - Step: +1000 mm/s2 - Final: 20000 mm/s2 - Notes - Looks great, actually better at some higher frequencies even - Sticking with EI for now, increasing speed to 360 - Changing Accel parameters - Going to increase damping on X as well ##### Tuning Tower Test 6 - EI/360/20k - Test Parameters - Speed - External Perimeter Speed: 360 mm/s - Perimeter Speed: 360mm/s - Input Shaper Config - X-Axis - Type: EI - Frequency: 56.2 Hz - Damping Ratio: 0.25 - Y-Axis - Type: EI - Frequency: 46.2 Hz - Damping Ratio: 0.10 - Accelerations - Initial: 14000 mm/s2 - Step: +500 mm/s2 - Final: 20000 mm/s2 - Notes - 336mm/s -> 24 mm3/s seems to be the limit at 0.2mm layer height - Smoothing seems to push the claw marks further back? confusing - Lower the Smoothing - Try external perimeter at 180, perimeter at 360, same test - This one is all clawed up - There's a really explicit band right in the middle where it looks way better - Around 16.5k and 17k - It's really interesting. There is a high frequency diagonal ringing that switches direction around this deadzone - Going to tighten the acceleration band after the differential speed test - I have a feeling 360/180 won't work, because 360 is just a bit too fast and will create shell issues that will pass through an otherwise acceptable 180 - So maybe reduce to 240/180 or 240/120 depending on how this ends up looking - It could be a flow rate thing and maybe 360/180 will work just fine for 0.10mm - It's worth seeing how a reduced layer height affects this test ##### Tuning Tower Test 7 - EI/360-180/20k - Test Parameters - Speed - External Perimeter Speed: 180 mm/s - Perimeter Speed: 360mm/s - Input Shaper Config - X-Axis - Type: EI - Frequency: 56.2 Hz - Damping Ratio: 0.10 - Y-Axis - Type: EI - Frequency: 46.2 Hz - Damping Ratio: 0.10 - Accelerations - Initial: 14000 mm/s2 - Step: +500 mm/s2 - Final: 20000 mm/s2 - Notes - Y is pretty much perfect - X is still struggling a bit - Changing X Frequency from 56.2 to 53.0 - Narrowing the accel band - Start: 15000 - Step: +250 - Final: 18000 - After that, Lower the speeds again (120/120 or 120/60 or 180/60) and see if the quality increases meaningfully ##### Tuning Tower Test 7 - EI/360-180/20k - Same as 7, but with X_Frequency set to 53Hz. - Results about the same, maybe worse ##### Tuning Tower Test 8 - EI/120-120/20k - Test Parameters - Speed - External Perimeter Speed: 120 mm/s - Perimeter Speed: 120 mm/s - Input Shaper Config - X-Axis - Type: EI - Frequency: 56.2 Hz - Damping Ratio: 0.10 - Y-Axis - Type: EI - Frequency: 46.2 Hz - Damping Ratio: 0.10 - Accelerations - Initial: 14000 mm/s2 - Step: +500 mm/s2 - Final: 20000 mm/s2 - Notes - Getting the vertical ringing again on slower velocities, which is strange - But not on high speeds - Going to try 2hump for y and 3hump for x #### Abridged Resonance Notes (Getting Impatient) Still Running 14500 -> +500 -> 20000 for all of the following test ##### Test 9 - 2hump and 3hump are ridiculous, too much smoothing. - They do look good, but unacceptable loss of detail. ##### Test 10 - Ran at 180-180 - Looks good, but dealing with some very obvious low frequency ringing in X ##### Test 11 - Running 180-60 - Looks good. I consider this acceptable. I still have the high frequency vertical ringing - It's one or the other, feature-based ringing at high speeds - or HF Vertical ringing at lower speeds - I suspect it has to do either with belt tension or with extruder tension - try lowering extruder tension (bite marks in extrusion on non-viscious filament?) - try increasing belt tension (belt wobbling?) ##### Test 12 - Running 240-120 - Loosened Extruder Tension two hand turns - Depending on how the ringing looks I may revert and/or adjust belt tension It seems like both axes-the whole machine resonates around 30Hz ![[resonances_x_2024-11-02-000547.png]] New X-Resonance Try EI at 54.2 Hz instead of my previous 56.2Hz I guess Gonna try tightening the belts - since the resonance is also at the belt tension for both, but lower belt is looser Y Resonance is at 30Hz. Giving the upper belt 2 turns, lower belt 1 turn, then rerunning. #### Tightening Belts >Try putting 10kg on top of the printer and see how it affects resonances Belt Tension Before: ![[belt-tension-resonances-2024-10-31-021432.png]] ChatGPT suggested tightening the higher peak more, so 2 Turns on Upper and 1 Turn on Lower Belt Tension After: ![[belt-tension-resonances-2024-11-02-002651.png]] Very cool, I'm sub 1e6 now. ~0.6 turns on Lower ~0.3 turns on Upper Curious to see if I need to do an extended heat soak before running belt tension ![[belt-tension-resonances-2024-11-02-003910.png]] Got worse, rolling lower belt back half a turn ![[belt-tension-resonances-2024-11-02-004735.png]] That's better, and more balanced. Not gonna push my luck. New Shaper Calibration next, then rerunning the tests: - 360-360 - 240-120 - 180-60 #### New Resonances ![[resonances_x_2024-11-02-005533.png]] These are improvements The 125Hz hump jumped up slightly 0.4->0.5 The actual peak of the X went down from 5.5->3.2 ``` X Results Fitted shaper 'zv' frequency = 71.6 Hz (vibrations = 13.4%, smoothing ~= 0.037) To avoid too much smoothing with 'zv', suggested max_accel <= 20000 mm/sec^2 Fitted shaper 'mzv' frequency = 63.4 Hz (vibrations = 0.5%, smoothing ~= 0.051) To avoid too much smoothing with 'mzv', suggested max_accel <= 11800 mm/sec^2 Fitted shaper 'ei' frequency = 78.4 Hz (vibrations = 1.4%, smoothing ~= 0.052) To avoid too much smoothing with 'ei', suggested max_accel <= 11400 mm/sec^2 Fitted shaper '2hump_ei' frequency = 93.2 Hz (vibrations = 0.0%, smoothing ~= 0.063) To avoid too much smoothing with '2hump_ei', suggested max_accel <= 9700 mm/sec^2 Fitted shaper '3hump_ei' frequency = 113.2 Hz (vibrations = 0.0%, smoothing ~= 0.065) To avoid too much smoothing with '3hump_ei', suggested max_accel <= 9400 mm/sec^2 Recommended shaper is mzv @ 63.4 Hz ``` ![[resonances_y_2024-11-02-005544.png]] Y is about the same as before, but with much lower peaks around 70-75. I think I should've been changing the target X/Y frequencies along with the input shapers earlier. whoops. ``` Fitted shaper 'zv' frequency = 40.8 Hz (vibrations = 10.0%, smoothing ~= 0.097) To avoid too much smoothing with 'zv', suggested max_accel <= 6500 mm/sec^2 Fitted shaper 'mzv' frequency = 37.8 Hz (vibrations = 0.8%, smoothing ~= 0.143) To avoid too much smoothing with 'mzv', suggested max_accel <= 4200 mm/sec^2 Fitted shaper 'ei' frequency = 43.0 Hz (vibrations = 0.0%, smoothing ~= 0.174) To avoid too much smoothing with 'ei', suggested max_accel <= 3400 mm/sec^2 Fitted shaper '2hump_ei' frequency = 54.2 Hz (vibrations = 0.0%, smoothing ~= 0.184) To avoid too much smoothing with '2hump_ei', suggested max_accel <= 3300 mm/sec^2 Fitted shaper '3hump_ei' frequency = 66.2 Hz (vibrations = 0.0%, smoothing ~= 0.187) To avoid too much smoothing with '3hump_ei', suggested max_accel <= 3200 mm/sec^2 Recommended shaper is mzv @ 37.8 Hz ``` #### Command Reference `SET_INPUT_SHAPER SHAPER_TYPE=` `SET_INPUT_SHAPER SHAPER_FREQ_X=` `SET_INPUT_SHAPER DAMPING_RATIO_X=` `SET_VELOCITY_LIMIT MINIMUM_CRUISE_RATIO=0` `SET_PRESSURE_ADVANCE ADVANCE=0` `TUNING_TOWER COMMAND=SET_VELOCITY_LIMIT PARAMETER=ACCEL START=8000 STEP_DELTA=1000 STEP_HEIGHT=5` #### Weighted Top Resonances I put about 50lbs on top of the printer to see if it would affect the resonances or performance, and it basically didn't. #### Calibration Battery 2 I printed another 15 or so resonance tests but got tired of annotating them all so fully. I also started canceling them midway since I get the info I need pretty early on. At this point I have gone through a full 1kg spool just performing calibration prints. It's pretty tiring lol. ![[Pasted image 20241103114451.png]] #### Damping Ratio I'm seeing the higher the damping ratio, the worse the ringing gets. I feel like this runs counter to the instruction I've been receiving from guides online and ChatGPT but whatever. Current Best: ``` Unweighted - 240-240 shaper_type_y:ei shaper_freq_y:38.600 damping_ratio_y:0.010000 shaper_type_x:ei shaper_freq_x:75.400 damping_ratio_x:0.010000 ``` ##### Lower Belt Seized again Reducing the tension one full turn on each, I had to walk the upper belt back up around half a turn to balance it, not sure why. The belt resonance is about the same but the peak response is 1.75 on lower vs. 1.00 on upper, so I'm guessing the lower belt is just a bit too tight. ![[Pasted image 20241104063109.png]]