UMO / UMO+ Firmware
- LePaul
- Reactions:
- Posts: 3979
- Joined: February 7th, 2016, 10:26 pm
- Location: Bangor, Maine USA
- 3D Printer(s): 24 - Yes I have a problem!
- Contact:
Re: UMO / UMO+ Firmware
Does it use the bottom one? I did the heated bed upgrade and remember replacing the top limit switch...but I also haven't cranked the bed all the way to the bottom
- Amedee
- Reactions:
- Posts: 599
- Joined: February 15th, 2016, 11:10 am
- Location: Brussels, Belgium
- 3D Printer(s): UMO / UMO+
- Contact:
Re: UMO / UMO+ Firmware
Yes indeed. And on the original UMO the Z is quite slow, so homing at the bottom would take agesantiklesys wrote: Better to rely on the top end-stop only for this to be compatible with both UMO and UMO+
I have an UMO but I actually don't use the lower Z endstop...and with the mods I have in place I couldn't even if I would.
When you have and UMO+ or an UMO with the official HBK, the firmware (official one and mine) is setup to use soft limits. so lower Z is not used.LePaul wrote:Does it use the bottom one? I did the heated bed upgrade and remember replacing the top limit switch...but I also haven't cranked the bed all the way to the bottom
Now I need to run some tests to confirm, but setup with offset should be possible with the top end-stop if we set the switch 'low enough'. A bit like the UM2 setup procedure, but with the first step manual:
- Rough setup: set the switch to home at about 1mm from the nozzle
- Fine tuning: use the offset to bring the bed at the right place.
But I need to dig into the code to see how the offset works, as having the actual home above the physical one may introduce negative physical coordinates.
- drayson
- Reactions:
- Posts: 254
- Joined: February 15th, 2016, 5:04 am
- Location: Graz, Austria
- 3D Printer(s): UMO with mods :-)
Re: UMO / UMO+ Firmware
Has somebody already tried the new Marlin RC from the official Git?
- antiklesys
- Reactions:
- Posts: 183
- Joined: February 13th, 2016, 8:01 am
- 3D Printer(s): UMO
Re: UMO / UMO+ Firmware
Accordingly to Marlin soft limits are set for both the standard UMO firmware and the one for the HBK Upgrade and the UMO+.Amedee wrote:Yes indeed. And on the original UMO the Z is quite slow, so homing at the bottom would take agesantiklesys wrote: Better to rely on the top end-stop only for this to be compatible with both UMO and UMO+
I have an UMO but I actually don't use the lower Z endstop...and with the mods I have in place I couldn't even if I would.
When you have and UMO+ or an UMO with the official HBK, the firmware (official one and mine) is setup to use soft limits. so lower Z is not used.LePaul wrote:Does it use the bottom one? I did the heated bed upgrade and remember replacing the top limit switch...but I also haven't cranked the bed all the way to the bottom
Now I need to run some tests to confirm, but setup with offset should be possible with the top end-stop if we set the switch 'low enough'. A bit like the UM2 setup procedure, but with the first step manual:
- Rough setup: set the switch to home at about 1mm from the nozzle
- Fine tuning: use the offset to bring the bed at the right place.
But I need to dig into the code to see how the offset works, as having the actual home above the physical one may introduce negative physical coordinates.
The difference is that the soft limits for HBK/UMO+ are "bigger" as the building area gets "slightly" larger with the bed upgrade.
- Amedee
- Reactions:
- Posts: 599
- Joined: February 15th, 2016, 11:10 am
- Location: Brussels, Belgium
- 3D Printer(s): UMO / UMO+
- Contact:
Re: UMO / UMO+ Firmware
Which Marlin???antiklesys wrote:
Accordingly to Marlin soft limits are set for both the standard UMO firmware and the one for the HBK Upgrade and the UMO+.
The difference is that the soft limits for HBK/UMO+ are "bigger" as the building area gets "slightly" larger with the bed upgrade.
From the official Ultimaker repo:
- UMO: soft limits = false
- UMO with HBK: soft limits = true
- UMO+: soft limits = true
I do exactly the same in my 'unified' build (There is no particular reason to keep hard limits on UMO, but I wanted to guarantee full compatibility with Ultimaker's build)
- Neotko
- Reactions:
- Posts: 1142
- Joined: February 7th, 2016, 7:02 pm
- Location: Madrid
- 3D Printer(s): UMO+ x2.5
- Contact:
Re: UMO / UMO+ Firmware
Maybe you should keep the Umo stationary just wondering) because ultimaker has stop selling them, they are cleaning that stock by selling the umo kit at 790 or so.
That would allow for a 'basic' build, and more progress for the experimentals? Just thinking out liud
That would allow for a 'basic' build, and more progress for the experimentals? Just thinking out liud
- Amedee
- Reactions:
- Posts: 599
- Joined: February 15th, 2016, 11:10 am
- Location: Brussels, Belgium
- 3D Printer(s): UMO / UMO+
- Contact:
Re: UMO / UMO+ Firmware
There is a very good reason to keep UMO current: I have one
- Neotko
- Reactions:
- Posts: 1142
- Joined: February 7th, 2016, 7:02 pm
- Location: Madrid
- 3D Printer(s): UMO+ x2.5
- Contact:
Re: UMO / UMO+ Firmware
I was just pulling your leg XD
- antiklesys
- Reactions:
- Posts: 183
- Joined: February 13th, 2016, 8:01 am
- 3D Printer(s): UMO
Re: UMO / UMO+ Firmware
I wasn't referring to the fact they were enabled or disabled, but more to the bed-area size defined in them as you can see below in this snipped from configuration.h :
I found them rather useful as I'm currently running with a MK2B bed mounted on a UMO+/UMO2 Z building platform and a customized XY gantry, so having the limits active is a good thing for me (I had to shrink a bit the build area )
I believe the only reason the limits are disabled on a UMO is due the building platform being made of think plexiglass rather than glass which easily shatters when heated
Code: Select all
// Travel limits after homing
#ifdef ULTIMAKER_HBK
#define X_MAX_POS 210
#define X_MIN_POS 0
#define Y_MAX_POS 210
#define Y_MIN_POS 0
#define Z_MAX_POS 210
#define Z_MIN_POS 0
#else
#define X_MAX_POS 205
#define X_MIN_POS 0
#define Y_MAX_POS 205
#define Y_MIN_POS 0
#define Z_MAX_POS 200
#define Z_MIN_POS 0
I believe the only reason the limits are disabled on a UMO is due the building platform being made of think plexiglass rather than glass which easily shatters when heated
- Neotko
- Reactions:
- Posts: 1142
- Joined: February 7th, 2016, 7:02 pm
- Location: Madrid
- 3D Printer(s): UMO+ x2.5
- Contact:
Re: UMO / UMO+ Firmware
Ohh having a panel for that on the builder would be quite superb, ofc it would be a blast to have it on the printer, anyway I always define the limits on the slicer so it's quite weird to print outside the limits.
Ofc it would be great to have, specially since I plan to install um2 shafts next week on my beyond slide blocks to finally test it.
Ofc it would be great to have, specially since I plan to install um2 shafts next week on my beyond slide blocks to finally test it.
- Amedee
- Reactions:
- Posts: 599
- Joined: February 15th, 2016, 11:10 am
- Location: Brussels, Belgium
- 3D Printer(s): UMO / UMO+
- Contact:
Re: UMO / UMO+ Firmware
It is a design decision: UMO was designed with limit switches in all directions so there was no reason to perform software checks; the min/max from the config file are only used by the controller.
In later versions (UM2, UMO+ or HBK upgrade) they decided to use switches only for homing and do software limits.
Now this is what is is, and this is how Ultimaker configures its firmware. You are free to do whatever you prefer with your printer.
I am not arguing here, just saying that by default UMO and UMO+/HBK handle limits in a completely different way and if one want to do software bed leveling like @neotko was suggesting one must disable the limit switches on UMO.
In later versions (UM2, UMO+ or HBK upgrade) they decided to use switches only for homing and do software limits.
Now this is what is is, and this is how Ultimaker configures its firmware. You are free to do whatever you prefer with your printer.
I am not arguing here, just saying that by default UMO and UMO+/HBK handle limits in a completely different way and if one want to do software bed leveling like @neotko was suggesting one must disable the limit switches on UMO.
- antiklesys
- Reactions:
- Posts: 183
- Joined: February 13th, 2016, 8:01 am
- 3D Printer(s): UMO
Re: UMO / UMO+ Firmware
True, still it doesn't seem a major issue to disable the hardware limit switches and use the software ones instead.Amedee wrote:It is a design decision: UMO was designed with limit switches in all directions so there was no reason to perform software checks; the min/max from the config file are only used by the controller.
In later versions (UM2, UMO+ or HBK upgrade) they decided to use switches only for homing and do software limits.
Now this is what is is, and this is how Ultimaker configures its firmware. You are free to do whatever you prefer with your printer.
I am not arguing here, just saying that by default UMO and UMO+/HBK handle limits in a completely different way and if one want to do software bed leveling like @neotko was suggesting one must disable the limit switches on UMO.
As you said it was a design decision, but we can see the UMO+ works perfectly fine without half the switches and thus this could be considered an "Upgrade" for the UMO, while gaining the additional functionality of doing the bed leveling via the controller
- Neotko
- Reactions:
- Posts: 1142
- Joined: February 7th, 2016, 7:02 pm
- Location: Madrid
- 3D Printer(s): UMO+ x2.5
- Contact:
Re: UMO / UMO+ Firmware
We could upgrade the hardware to be able to do it:
https://ultimaker.com/en/community/2212 ... mit-on-umo
https://ultimaker.com/en/community/2212 ... mit-on-umo
- Amedee
- Reactions:
- Posts: 599
- Joined: February 15th, 2016, 11:10 am
- Location: Brussels, Belgium
- 3D Printer(s): UMO / UMO+
- Contact:
Re: UMO / UMO+ Firmware
I think there is enough free movement in the switch to use it as such... we may loose accuracy by having it the other ways around.
(Looks like each time you tag me I am earning points, as I just reach a new level on the UM forum without doing anything )
(Looks like each time you tag me I am earning points, as I just reach a new level on the UM forum without doing anything )
- Neotko
- Reactions:
- Posts: 1142
- Joined: February 7th, 2016, 7:02 pm
- Location: Madrid
- 3D Printer(s): UMO+ x2.5
- Contact:
Re: UMO / UMO+ Firmware
I'll run some test today if I can. I think the sensibility of the sensor should be just fine.