Did not realize it did, but looks like it is a build flag to support it and removes, moves and shares inputs/outputs across the limited GPIO.
Edit: not sure if Carbide3D’s compiled version has that flag enabled or just shares a single axis step/dir output
I think your ballscrew needs some fish to go with those chips 
Got any more pics of the HDM undressed without the covers and panels on?
@Luke responded this when the machine was announced:
Optical switches would fix this. Capacitive and mechanical switched do have a larger tolerance.
The controller would need to support independent Ys. Does the warthog support that?
I was told the same thing but…its not something I’ve only had to do once.
I understand that switches can have a different activation point. Let’s say we have to shim them. Everything would be consistent from that point on.
Consistent is the key word
Setting by hand is not consistent and the best I’ve been able to get is the Y rails within 0.003" of each other (up to 0.020"). I’ve had crashes and chip build up cause independent Y stepper skipping. I should be able to fix the problem and rehome the machine but with only one stepper being homed, I have to manually reset both Y steppers.
My request of dual homing still stands.
It’s not a “deal breaker” and the machine still performs very very well. Most people probably won’t notice or have the same issues I’ve had. The last big aluminum project cut over 10 pounds, hitting well over 3 cubic inches mrr in roughing. The only issue (except for wanting the 2 2kw option) I ran into was tram error due to the y steppers.
It looks like it’s possible here. I’m not sure what’s the difference is between grblHAL and the fork C3D uses.
Quite a bit.
grblHAL is the evolution of Grbl that requires a more powerful MCU on the CNC controller.
Regardless, auto squaring is available on regular Grbl, but only when the second Y-axis motor is receiving separate Step and Direction signals. I don’t know anything about the Warthog controller, but previous Carbide boards would not be capable of doing this.
Maybe @Jorge, @wmoy, or @Luke could chime in on the details of the new electronics.
Interestingly, it appears that on the more industrial CNC platforms you don’t fine adjust the sensor position, you simply tell the controller how many steps to back off the sensor activation point. So if your sensors are repeatable enough to be useful, you can measure up and back off by different numbers of steps L&R to be square.
The current controller does not support de-coupled Y-axis movement so dual switches would be pointless without some hacky multiplexer-esque system to selectively enable Y+/Y- drivers based on sensor feedback… blah blah blah.
For the level of precision that’s reasonable to expect in a $4-figure machine, I’d say maybe just turn the Y-motor couplers by hand to “soft-crash” the gantry against the back of the machine (assuming the frame is square). Then power on the machine, let it back-off the sensor (might take two “initialize” cycles), and then use the machine as normal.
If you hard-crash the machine and lost steps, maybe do this again. Otherwise just “re-square” the gantry once or twice a year.
If the frame isn’t square (within the level of precision of your liking), just use a shim on the endplate to reference the gantry against. Unbolting the frame/y-rails is just more trouble than it’s worth and could lead to more problems down the line. But you’d need a really big granite square or something to make this level of calibration worthwhile.
TLDR, no this is not possible, but for the vast majority of people it’s also not going to result in any meaningful improvements in QOL. Just go forth and cut things. It’ll come out fine!
I “soft crash” mine to the front. I noticed that if I did the back, one side moved slightly after I banked. Using the front was more consistent on mine.
Solution, even if its the one we didn’t want to hear lol.
Ok, so lets talk about the best way to manually reset the gantry. The Y stepper couplers are completely covered and not accessible so you have to turn the ballcrews by hand or using quite a bit of force to pull the gantry forwards.
What do you think bout modifying the Y travel limits and making a Macro to “crash” or push the machine up against the front at a low feed speed, then rehome after?
In all likelihood that would probably be okay but not something I’d want to recommend. If you take off the inside covers you should be able to rotate the ball screw by hand.
Well it looks like my long term solution is going to be replacing the Warthog with a Masso controller I believe.
For a while I was noodling with setting up some optical switches on the front of the Y axes on my XXL. I was thinking of just having them control LEDs so that I could rapid forward and then slow-jog until I hit the beam-break and check if the two axes were still close enough to in sync. That would at least allow you to check if you needed to re-square as opposed to having to re-square just in case every time.
In the end I did something much simpler about manual squaring on startup but that’s not really viable on a ballscrew machine.
How about future HDM use dual shaft steppers with a stub shaft and a 8mm thick hex on the back where a hand crank can be placed for manual cranking of the axis ball screw? This won’t change your pallet shipping and is fairly cheap. Although I hope the electronics are upgraded as well. I’d love to have an active probe with advanced probing in the future.
@DiscoJon Masso is a great upgrade but is not a simple or cheap addition although in my ATC future it might be my go to choice but that is a long way off.
I was also thinking about the dual shaft steppers to allow for a manual crank. If I ever get my HDM I’ll look into adding a manual crank to the ball screws. From what I’ve researched, the Masso should be pretty straight forward. Especially if you switch from steppers to their servo’s. Whats the difficulty you mention?
I use glancing homing/limit switches on my non GRBL machines. Never paid much mind to their physical position/trigger, the controllers allow you to dial in the details. Regarding difficulty, using a different controller, probably little to none. If you run servo’s, probably little need to have auto squaring functionality.
This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
