Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[BUG] G29 is probing in the wrong position #16348

Closed
rmcbc opened this issue Dec 26, 2019 · 8 comments
Closed

[BUG] G29 is probing in the wrong position #16348

rmcbc opened this issue Dec 26, 2019 · 8 comments

Comments

@rmcbc
Copy link
Contributor

rmcbc commented Dec 26, 2019

Bug Description

I'm using bugfix-2.0.x and the problem seems to be in this commit: Add NOZZLE_AS_PROBE (no probe offsets) (#15929) (1c9ccce) developed by @InsanityAutomation

G29 probes the points in the wrong position.

My Configurations

Archive.zip

Steps to Reproduce

  1. Send G28
  2. Send G29

Expected behavior:

Probe the 9 points of the bed all around 30 positions from bed limits.

Actual behavior:

Is probing the 9 points much more than 30 positions from bed limits (too near the center of the bed)

@rmcbc
Copy link
Contributor Author

rmcbc commented Dec 27, 2019

Fixed changing the file "G29.CPP"

G29.cpp.zip

Please search for "#if ENABLED(NOZZLE_AS_PROBE)"

@InsanityAutomation
Copy link
Contributor

Ill go over the action it takes there again, but the theory was the the inset would be honored for everything in the min / max position calculation. Prior it was possible to set points that did not honor configured limits. In reality those couple lines are a bugfix mixed with the feature extension to support lulzbot.

This would be expected behavior since you have
#define MIN_PROBE_EDGE 30
in youre config. This number is a bit extreme and 5-10 is more common.

@sjasonsmith
Copy link
Contributor

@InsanityAutomation, I found a problem causing MIN_PROBE_EDGE to be doubled. I'm testing a fix right now.

@sjasonsmith
Copy link
Contributor

@rmcbc, would you be able to test my fix in PR #16367, to verify it solves your problem?

@rmcbc
Copy link
Contributor Author

rmcbc commented Dec 28, 2019

@sjasonsmith for me your change works. Thanks.

@dburr
Copy link

dburr commented Dec 29, 2019

Experiencing the exact same problem, and the patch in #16367 solved it for me.

@boelle
Copy link
Contributor

boelle commented Jan 7, 2020

seems this one is solved by #16367

@boelle boelle closed this as completed Jan 7, 2020
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Jul 3, 2020

This issue has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jul 3, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants