Yeah, it sat on the real plate overnight so it popped off perfectly.
OMG… you realy did it…
Hahahahaha… i thought we were making funn as you told us “challange accepted” to print on the vision encoder plate…
Ohh bummer… you did not rly print on it.
1 Like
They claim one calibration with the encoder should last a few weeks
After a few calibrations with the encoder plate I got yesterday, my accuracy actually got a little worse. My average was in the 230 range and the max deviation was in the 430 range. Because it basically repeats the value on subsequent runs, I’m assuming it is simply running the test from a raw machine baseline. So, I’d assume each time its run, it clears the previous adjustment and starts from scratch.
I ran tests on 200mm squares, a few small holes, and a slot. My baseline was really good on the large squares, nearly no significant differences, the small holes got a touch worse (approximately 0.07mm worse), and the slots were about the same (approximately 0.05mm worse, but within a reasonable deviation).
Personally, I was hoping it would improve the hole accuracy, but that is still relatively unchanged (my holes are consistently 0.3mm undersized, and after, looked to vary up to 0.30mm - 0.37mm). Overall they seemed to get a little worse, but could be within the normal deviation from hole to hole. So… overall, I don’t believe it makes a difference on that.
All and all, in the back to back prints of the same file (toggling the adjustments on and off), I’m finding I’ve lost about a 0.1mm or so in accuracy. So…not a serious problem, but I think Bambu still has some work to do, especially if you are going to charge $100+ for it.
2 Likes
I have used the encoder on my two H2D printers and really think I see an improvement on both machines print quality. Albeit, not a massive improvement, but certainly worth the price of admission after the cost of the two printers. I hope someone makes a storage case to protect the encoder as it isn’t going to be great if it gets banged up or scratched.
Just a heads up. It should not affect quality at all. Only make the parts more acurately sized.
1 Like
i do have a plate rack designed for vision encoder, search for “vision encoder protector” and the first result is mine.
1 Like
So…is there any reason a large piece of paper with this design painted on it would not function? I think it is really cool they made this technology, and they should make some money off it…but $100 for what appears to be a 2d image on a sheet of PEI or whatever…just curious if there will be a cheaper way to achieve this. woulda been nice if they just printed it on the heatbed under where our printer plates go…
not trying to troll, just curious.
Initially, I didn’t think it would make sense to try, but after seeing it and using it, I think it may work. Just not sure how accurate the placement needs to be, which seems like that could be problematic with a piece of paper.
I didn’t buy it and no way I am paying 100+ for unproven technology. Maybe when it’s on sale. The product page says you will be printing parts that look like abs injected mold parts without layer lines and with dimensions as accurate to the length better than a human hair it says.
So many people have bought this and don’t even test it but assume it works I said before in a post, and as one responder to me put it he doesn’t care what I think it’s enough that he thinks it “appears to have made an improvement” So that guy was perfectly content allowing personal bias to be the judge. I mean who needs facts right?
All you have to do for starters is print a calibration cube and measure it with calipers. Only 2 people have posted that they did tests. One showed the results barely being worthwhile. The other showed his results were worse after calibration with the plate.
3 Likes
The simple reason why printing on pater is useless is that a normal laser or inkjet printer might get 1200DPI and you would need minimally 20x that resolution.
Additionally paper is too sensitive to moisture. so if you would be able to print it on polyester film you might get rid of that bit
There is another thread on the vision encoder plate that explains it all.
1 Like
Forgot to mention… is there a reason you even want to try it? Are your prints far out of the expected dimensions (other than holes)? If its printing well, I would suggest not worrying about it. In my experience, its not gonna make a good printer great. Good will remain good.
1 Like
I feel like there’s an audience for this board, and they benefit from it, but for most of us, it doesn’t provide much value.
Overall, I’ve not really had issues with the question of accuracy on any of my Bambu printers. My X1C, the P1Ss I had, the A1 Mini, and this H2D. I think the tolerances in filament do more to throw things slightly off.
I feel like the people that’d benefit best from this setup have highly tuned setups that go beyond what most of us do, or require.
I was thinking though, and considering. I wonder to what extent they use the board’s data to fine tune the movements of the machine. I mean, in theory, you could use it to correct for slight skews or such too. Not just the distance from point a to point b. Though, I never had much issues with things being skewed either, so.
2 Likes
I had a test calibration print that spanned 250mm and the difference before and after was a whopping 0.04mm (249.95 vs 249.91 for the calibrated print). I would actually call that expected variance, from print to print. Again IMO, not worth the cost if you have a good printing printer.
@hotellonely I am curious though, would you call your printer bad for holding spec prior to the calibration?
No I think the filament shrinkage is doing more harm in any sort of fdm. Correcting the motion system is just giving you more peace of mind and can focus more on the shrinkage itself.
if you do some technical Designs, it makes a big difference. 0.1mm more accuracy will be a game changer if you in need of it.
for stand alone Designs it will make no difference
I understand your point, and to some degree it had been (past tense) true, but by opening the door to greater precision and accuracy, and making it stupid easy, it now becomes feasible for more people to leverage, which grows both the population of projects that can be attempted and the population of people who can attempt them. Projects you might have previously dismissed as impractical or beyond the limits of what your 3D printer can achieve might now be on the table. Eventually some of those projects might make their way to makerworld or some of the other, similar platforms, and then, if you want to print them at all, you’ll need the capability, even if it’s never something you might craft yourself. So, there’s also that as additional amplification, creating further pull. What a nice viral way to boost demand for a more capable printer than to say, “Ooops, sorry. Your printer can’t do it. Maybe consider upgrading to fancy new printer XYZ so you aren’t left in the dust?” Call it fear of being left out. Or obsolescence. I’m 100% in favor of it. It’s how progress happens, and how it propagates.
Yeah, lest people get confused, consider going toward the start of that thread and start reading there. The absolute tail-end end of the thread is more of an inside joke among some of us, as it pertains to a particular strain of AI’s posing as users and posting to the Bambulab forum, so not directly relevant to the topic, but I promise there’s plenty of on-topic meat and potatoes earlier in that thread.
