Pressure advance

[mvdveer]

Currently tuning the Voron 2.4 and using Andrew Ellis's guide. Always did pressure advance using the square cube but decided to try the linear method. Really impressed with the outcome and ease of use. But... Even though the instructions clearly state: Remove...., it is to make sure you check the Code, I did not then wondered why the print did not start.

https://realdeuce.github.io/Voron/PA/pressure_advance.html

And then I was stupid enough to click on the link provided after the Code command:

Refer to https://bit.ly/3q1dChR

Joke is on me.

But the end results are good. Pressure advance set to 0.025 as per below

Or should it be 0.04?

[RepRapster3D]

id say none because it looks like it is normalising out higher than 0.10, the acceleration point is getting thicker towards the same as the start slow line and the second slow line bulge is decreasing in size, you want the lines to be as near to equal as possible…

[mvdveer]

2 minutes ago, RepRapster3D said:

id say none because it looks like it is normalising out higher than 0.10, the acceleration point is getting thicker towards the same as the start slow line and the second slow line bulge is decreasing in size, you want the lines to be as near to equal as possible…

Ah ha, thanks - got it

[smu]

To me it looks like you should try re do the test with value range higher than 0.09 as those look the best in this example. For somereason it seems to fail completely at 0.02-0.04

 

 

[mvdveer]

1 minute ago, smu said:

To me it looks like you should try re do the test with value range higher than 0.09 as those look the best in this example. For somereason it seems to fail completely at 0.02-0.04

Busy setting that up - will run the test again tomorrow - thanks for the input.

[mvdveer]

Set the steps from 0.1 to 0.2 

Results, now that I understand it better are:

Would lead me to belief the setting will be 0.155 or 0.16 ?

[smu]

Yes, 0.155 looks perfect. (Or even 0.15) If multiple values look all quite same always choose the lowest

[mvdveer]

1 minute ago, smu said:

Yes, 0.155 looks perfect. (Or even 0.15) If multiple values look all quite same always choose the lowest

Thank you very much for your help and advice. Will go with 0.15

[GarthSnyder]

Wait, wait, wait. There’s no way you should be up in the 0.15 region on a stock 2.4. At least, not with ABS or PLA. Typical values are ~0.04. Something’s wrong somewhere - could be anything from the extruder/hotend to the test print setup.

The test line for pressure advance = 0.0 in the first image above is much worse than you should be seeing with PA turned off.

For what it’s worth, my experience with the test pattern that Ellis uses has been poor. It consistently recommends PA values that are roughly 0.02 too high, leading to corner bulges. I still use the test pattern, but I start 0.02 lower and then tweak using test prints until there are no artifacts.

[RepRapster3D]

i did the test box for pa with 0.064 as the result but then tweaked a few bits on my 2.4 and then used the ellis test pattern to re do my pa with 0.055 as the result and my prints still look great, so unless he missed some settings or other settings aren’t set correctly giving higher readings???

[mvdveer]

2 hours ago, GarthSnyder said:

There’s no way you should be up in the 0.15 region on a stock 2.4.

Would the LGX Extruder have something to do with this?

 

1 hour ago, RepRapster3D said:

so unless he missed some settings or other settings aren’t set correctly

Rechecked the Code - settings seems ok

Will run the square box test tonight and see if that makes a difference.

[GarthSnyder]

32 minutes ago, mvdveer said:

Would the LGX Extruder have something to do with this?

The extruder could indeed make a difference. I didn't find any obvious refs for this, but you might try asking around to see what other LGX owners have ended up with for PA.

[Wick]

hmm found an interesting new way to calibrate both flow and PA (unfortunately in german language)

Macro is here: https://github.com/Fragmon/calibration/blob/main/calibrate_beta.cfg

what do you think about it?

 

[mvdveer]

11 hours ago, Wick said:

(unfortunately in german language

Thanks for the link - will have a look. Deutsch ist gut, kein Problem. Using Andre Ellis's method up to now with good results though. But anything that makes life easier.

[GarthSnyder]

14 hours ago, Wick said:

Macro is here: https://github.com/Fragmon/calibration/blob/main/calibrate_beta.cfg

The .cfg file itself is in Germlish, so it's a bit hard to know for sure. But at first glance, this doesn't look like a new calibration method so much as a Klipper-based implementation of a couple of standard calibration prints, much like the web-based ones referred to in the Ellis guide.

I'm all for it! The web-based ones are kind of a pain to use.

[mvdveer]

32 minutes ago, GarthSnyder said:

he .cfg file itself is in Germlish, so it's a bit hard to know for sure. But at first glance, this doesn't look like a new calibration method so much as a Klipper-based implementation of a couple of standard calibration prints, much like the web-based ones referred to in the Ellis guide.

 

Just finished watching the clip and you are correct - it is basically a macro based implementation of the Ellis configuration for integration into Klipper. Will make it easier to run when calibrating different makes and colours of filament. Think I will try and implement this (That's when I finally have some time)

[claudermilk]

Hmm, so it's the lines pattern just in macro form? That would be more convenient than the website one. Which is kind of a pain to use.

I've heard of (and used) "Spanglish." "Germlish" is new to me.  I'd have to run the code through Google translate before using it. I wonder what that will come up with.