Topics

G11 - Direct Drive vs Belt for long focal length imaging

Rockmover
 

I am in the process of designing a new mount from scratch (different project), however I came across a great deal on a used older G11 mount and figured it would be an excellent test rig for really getting into this amazing OnStep project (and deciding if I want to convert my old EM-200).

I just got the G11 yesterday, and last night I stripped it down and cleaned everything. I have all new bearings ordered from McMaster-Carr which will be here Monday.  Not sure if I really needed to, but as they are so cheap I'd rather just replace everything, re-grease, and start things in as near perfect condition with as few unknowns as possible....

Now on to OnStep:

I know many people are directly driving the G11's with the following motor:
https://www.omc-stepperonline.com/nema-17-stepper-motor/nema-17-bipolar-0-9deg-46ncm-65-1oz-in-2a-2-9v-42x42x48mm-4-wires.html?mfp=149-step-angle%5B0.9%5D%2C148-bipolar-unipolar%5BBipolar%5D

I am planing on then using the TMC5160 drivers (I assume the best option?):
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07QPS7846/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o08_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

With this, and the G11's 360 gear reduction, and using the 5160 at 128 micro-steps (I believe it can do 512 but baby steps), then that gives me 0.281 arc-sec tracking resolution (but a very slow 0.2 deg/sec slewing).  The slow slewing is just fine with me as I pretty much only ever image one object a night (and rarely two) . I also just use plate solving to get things dead on anyways so again, the turtle slew speed is ok with me.

I was just planing on 3D printing the bracket from here (actually it is printing downstairs as I type this):
https://groups.io/g/TeenAstro/wiki/Losmandy-G11-upgrade-kit

I just order this coupling (uxCell 5mm to 6.35 mm) this morning.  I understand it is 18 mm in diameter, and wont fit stock, so I will need to throw it in the lathe and reduce it to 14-15 mm or so to get it to fit...no big deal.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06X9X9G6V/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1

-----------------------------
So now the question:
-----------------------------
I saw several posts (most from 2017) that say the G11 direct drive is ok for visual, but marginal and reduction should be used for photography? 

But It seems the above would be more then adequate, or am I missing something?  Would this setup not be a huge improvement in tracking quality over the current 12V Hurst motors that are in there?  

I am 100% ok with designing, and 3D printing, a 60/20 belt reduction mount (I have several ideas I have already drawn up), but I see no reason for it?  Is there ANY advantage to using reduction on this, or would a guy simply just to 256 or 512 mico-steps if needed?


I guess I'm just looking for anyone who is imaging with the G11 and OnStep to confirm that belt drives are completely unnecessary and would be a wasted effort to use (or someone to say the exact opposite and that I should put them in).

THANKS IN ADVANCE!


P.S. - This is one post in particular that bothers me (Alexander Varakin comments about why he added reduction, and great idea to flip the worm gear 180 degrees..but then the discussion ended without confirmation one way or the other):
https://onstep.groups.io/g/main/topic/26743607#12069

Ant No
 

I know very little but yes the TMC5160 drivers are the best.

Microsteps are not a replacement for real gears. High microsteps lower torque and increase the chance of missed steps. Torque drops off rapidly above 16 microsteps.  Of course it depends how much torque you start with and how much torque you need at the end.

Ant👣


On 6 Mar 2020 17:06, "Rockmover" <kruse@...> wrote:

I am in the process of designing a new mount from scratch (different project), however I came across a great deal on a used older G11 mount and figured it would be an excellent test rig for really getting into this amazing OnStep project (and deciding if I want to convert my old EM-200).

I just got the G11 yesterday, and last night I stripped it down and cleaned everything. I have all new bearings ordered from McMaster-Carr which will be here Monday.  Not sure if I really needed to, but as they are so cheap I'd rather just replace everything, re-grease, and start things in as near perfect condition with as few unknowns as possible....

Now on to OnStep:

I know many people are directly driving the G11's with the following motor:
https://www.omc-stepperonline.com/nema-17-stepper-motor/nema-17-bipolar-0-9deg-46ncm-65-1oz-in-2a-2-9v-42x42x48mm-4-wires.html?mfp=149-step-angle%5B0.9%5D%2C148-bipolar-unipolar%5BBipolar%5D

I am planing on then using the TMC5160 drivers (I assume the best option?):
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07QPS7846/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o08_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

With this, and the G11's 360 gear reduction, and using the 5160 at 128 micro-steps (I believe it can do 512 but baby steps), then that gives me 0.281 arc-sec tracking resolution (but a very slow 0.2 deg/sec slewing).  The slow slewing is just fine with me as I pretty much only ever image one object a night (and rarely two) . I also just use plate solving to get things dead on anyways so again, the turtle slew speed is ok with me.

I was just planing on 3D printing the bracket from here (actually it is printing downstairs as I type this):
https://groups.io/g/TeenAstro/wiki/Losmandy-G11-upgrade-kit

I just order this coupling (uxCell 5mm to 6.35 mm) this morning.  I understand it is 18 mm in diameter, and wont fit stock, so I will need to throw it in the lathe and reduce it to 14-15 mm or so to get it to fit...no big deal.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06X9X9G6V/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1

-----------------------------
So now the question:
-----------------------------
I saw several posts (most from 2017) that say the G11 direct drive is ok for visual, but marginal and reduction should be used for photography? 

But It seems the above would be more then adequate, or am I missing something?  Would this setup not be a huge improvement in tracking quality over the current 12V Hurst motors that are in there?  

I am 100% ok with designing, and 3D printing, a 60/20 belt reduction mount (I have several ideas I have already drawn up), but I see no reason for it?  Is there ANY advantage to using reduction on this, or would a guy simply just to 256 or 512 mico-steps if needed?


I guess I'm just looking for anyone who is imaging with the G11 and OnStep to confirm that belt drives are completely unnecessary and would be a wasted effort to use (or someone to say the exact opposite and that I should put them in).

THANKS IN ADVANCE!


P.S. - This is one post in particular that bothers me (Alexander Varakin comments about why he added reduction, and great idea to flip the worm gear 180 degrees..but then the discussion ended without confirmation one way or the other):
https://onstep.groups.io/g/main/topic/26743607#12069

bjaffa Jaffa
 

I currently do imaging with an OnStep MaxPCB2  direct drive G11. My OTA is currently an AT130 EDT refractor F/9 although I have used a 10" SCT F/10 in the past.
It is the same design modeled after Howard's in the wiki.
I am currently getting with Phd2  around 0.78 to .65 arc sec guiding.
I have backlash & other issues so I do not think I would get any better performance from belt reduction mount. However I am always open to suggestions.
I am interested in this topic so I would like to hear from more experience people.

Howard Dutton
 

Agree, it is up for debate whether there is room for a meaningful improvement over the usual direct drive method we use on the G11.  Especially if the motors/drivers/current settings are chosen well.

I'm switching to Oriental PKP246MD15 motors on my G11 since careful testing showed they should provide a meaningful improvement over my PKP244MD08 motors.  If I can't tell the difference after installing these motors I will cease to worry about it...

The "worked examples" in this study are for my G11, directly driving the worms:
https://onstep.groups.io/g/main/wiki/Stepper-Motor-Accuracy

Khalid Baheyeldin
 

Howard used motors with less torque (59 oz in) to direct drive a G11, and his images were excellent.
So, you can direct drive with the motor you linked to, which provides 65 oz in.
However, your motor is 1.45 ohms, and is rated for 2A, so there will be heat dissipation.
Will it be a problem? No way to know beforehand.

Having more gear reduction makes things easier for the motors, and allows for the use of smaller motors too.
For example, I have a 180:1 worm wheel, but with a tiny NEMA11 motor I can drive it with ease, because the motor has an 18:1 gearbox. The motors have no difficulty moving the heavy housing where the motors reside, without any optical tube or counterweight.

You may want to consider a motor with 5:1 or 10:1, in addition to the 360:1 of your worm wheel.
For example, this motor.
There will be some backlash and some non periodic error, but PHD2 should be able to compensate for both, without the need for PEC even.

Yes, the best driver is the TMC5160. It has no heat dissipation, provides high current, and 256X interpolation.
The 0.28"/step is not a concern because of that interpolation.

As for slewing speed, the 4.x branch of OnStep has a feature where you can use a separate microstepping value for slewing (e.g. 1/2) than for tracking (e.g. 1/64), and get much faster slews.

Also, search the showcase page for G11. There are a few in there.

If I were you, I would try what you have already (2A motors) and start with direct drive. If things work out, then you are done.
If you see there is room for improvement, then consider other solutions (a geared motor directly coupled, or pulleys, which will be more involved and use space).

Rockmover
 
Edited

Howard Dutton
 
Edited

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 03:15 PM, Rockmover wrote:
I have ordered the same PKP246MD15 motors from Oriental. I assume the 5160's will be ok with these?
That's the same motor I have.  Keep in mind these are big for a NEMA17 as in long body.  You will sacrifice some range of motion... but the servo's hanging off the G11 like the Gemini2 did until recently had to be as bad if not worse.  I tested on the Watterott TMC5160 (from Digikey) and it looked really nice [decent but not as good as a TMC2130] at 1.5A (set 1500mA in OnStep Config.h)

Wayne Hilliard
 

 I can relate my experience with a Celestron fork mount I've converted I believe it's relevant.
This mount has a Byers RA worm gear set. 359 tooth gear. I ripped out the old 120 volt synchronous  motor and replaced with a 400 stepper.
I used a flexible coupling between the stepper and worm. I am now considering replacing it with a belt coupling.
The problem is unless you have perfect alignment between the motor and the worm, in which case you wouldn't need a flexible coupling you will have a wobble that puts a rotating side load on the worm. If you have any clearance at all in the bearings that support the worm you will transmit that side load into the gear that will cause a periodic error in your RA.  I've attached a screenshot of a PHD2 recording I've recently made.  I have a 4 minute period on my worm the graph shows a perfect 4 minute PE. Would be perfectly fine for visual, depending on you photographic requirements maybe not so much. I think a belt coupling would tend to smooth this out a bit.

Good luck
Wayne Hilliard


On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:06 PM Rockmover <kruse@...> wrote:

I am in the process of designing a new mount from scratch (different project), however I came across a great deal on a used older G11 mount and figured it would be an excellent test rig for really getting into this amazing OnStep project (and deciding if I want to convert my old EM-200).

I just got the G11 yesterday, and last night I stripped it down and cleaned everything. I have all new bearings ordered from McMaster-Carr which will be here Monday.  Not sure if I really needed to, but as they are so cheap I'd rather just replace everything, re-grease, and start things in as near perfect condition with as few unknowns as possible....

Now on to OnStep:

I know many people are directly driving the G11's with the following motor:
https://www.omc-stepperonline.com/nema-17-stepper-motor/nema-17-bipolar-0-9deg-46ncm-65-1oz-in-2a-2-9v-42x42x48mm-4-wires.html?mfp=149-step-angle%5B0.9%5D%2C148-bipolar-unipolar%5BBipolar%5D

I am planing on then using the TMC5160 drivers (I assume the best option?):
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07QPS7846/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o08_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

With this, and the G11's 360 gear reduction, and using the 5160 at 128 micro-steps (I believe it can do 512 but baby steps), then that gives me 0.281 arc-sec tracking resolution (but a very slow 0.2 deg/sec slewing).  The slow slewing is just fine with me as I pretty much only ever image one object a night (and rarely two) . I also just use plate solving to get things dead on anyways so again, the turtle slew speed is ok with me.

I was just planing on 3D printing the bracket from here (actually it is printing downstairs as I type this):
https://groups.io/g/TeenAstro/wiki/Losmandy-G11-upgrade-kit

I just order this coupling (uxCell 5mm to 6.35 mm) this morning.  I understand it is 18 mm in diameter, and wont fit stock, so I will need to throw it in the lathe and reduce it to 14-15 mm or so to get it to fit...no big deal.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06X9X9G6V/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1

-----------------------------
So now the question:
-----------------------------
I saw several posts (most from 2017) that say the G11 direct drive is ok for visual, but marginal and reduction should be used for photography? 

But It seems the above would be more then adequate, or am I missing something?  Would this setup not be a huge improvement in tracking quality over the current 12V Hurst motors that are in there?  

I am 100% ok with designing, and 3D printing, a 60/20 belt reduction mount (I have several ideas I have already drawn up), but I see no reason for it?  Is there ANY advantage to using reduction on this, or would a guy simply just to 256 or 512 mico-steps if needed?


I guess I'm just looking for anyone who is imaging with the G11 and OnStep to confirm that belt drives are completely unnecessary and would be a wasted effort to use (or someone to say the exact opposite and that I should put them in).

THANKS IN ADVANCE!


P.S. - This is one post in particular that bothers me (Alexander Varakin comments about why he added reduction, and great idea to flip the worm gear 180 degrees..but then the discussion ended without confirmation one way or the other):
https://onstep.groups.io/g/main/topic/26743607#12069

Rockmover
 
Edited

So last night I threw together a 3D mount using the 60/20 tooth pulley set off Amazon ($12) I had laying around.  I started the print, and went to bed.  Below is what I had this morning when I stopped it to just do a first initial test fit of everything. 

Clearly I now need to tweak a few items to get the  pulley shaft and worm gears to line up exactly (which of course is impossible but at least with a 3D print you can tweak and tweak and it costs you basically nothing).  I also need to add a little more adjustment on the motor side to be able to properly tighten the belt. But overall I think its about what we need ???

However, please offer any suggestions and constructive cristisium is very welcome.  

I'll be posting this on Thingverse for anyone else who would ever want's to use it.  The bearings and everything seem to fit really nicely, but with Wayne's post below about alignment now this all kind of worries me.  I will print is with 100% infill in the final version, and I have added a "solid top" to make it really stiff once the whole part is printed, but I am wondering if I'll need to machine it out of aluminum?  ...I hope not as that would be 20x more work than pushing a print button and spending $0.50 for some PLA.

Also, and MOST importantly, is all this completely silly and in the end I am adding more complexity and introducing more errors and slope than a direct drive setup???  On the positive side its now a factor of 3x in the movement which has to be worth something?  Further the pulley bearings now take the load rather than the motor directly.  But does that matter?


...I must say, what an amazing world we live in: To be able to design something at 1 am, wake up to it 3D printed at 10 am, and then ask for help from people literally around the world who love this crazy hobby as much as you do.  Amazing, and what a great time to be alive!  






Khalid Baheyeldin
 

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 06:50 PM, Howard Dutton wrote:
I tested on the Watterott TMC5160 (from Digikey) and it looked really nice [decent but not as good as a TMC2130] at 1.5A (set 1500mA in OnStep Config.h)
That is kinda of a disappointment.
One would think that the TMC5160 will be just as good as the TMC2130.
Maybe a different current setting will bring them to the same level?

Daryl <dkranec@...>
 

The only thing I could think of with PLA is the torque may cause some flex, but as long as there's no slipping I don't think it's matter.


On Sat, Mar 7, 2020, 2:28 PM Rockmover <kruse@...> wrote:

[Edited Message Follows]

So last night I threw together a 3D mount using the 60/20 tooth pulley set off Amazon ($12) I had laying around.  I started the print, and went to bed.  Below is what I had this morning when I stopped it to just do a first initial test fit of everything. 

Clearly I now need to tweak a few items to get the  pulley shaft and worm gears to line up exactly (which of course is impossible but at least with a 3D print you can tweak and tweak and it costs you basically nothing).  I also need to add a little more adjustment on the motor side to be able to properly tighten the belt. But overall I think its about what we need ???

However, please offer any suggestions and constructive cristisium is very welcome.  

I'll be posting this on Thingverse for anyone else who would ever want's to use it.  The bearings and everything seem to fit really nicely, but with Wayne's post below about alignment now this all kind of worries me.  I will print is with 100% infill in the final version, and I have added a "solid top" to make it really stiff once the whole part is printed, but I am wondering if I'll need to machine it out of aluminum?  ...I hope not as that would be 20x more work than pushing a print button and spending $0.50 for some PLA.

Also, and MOST importantly, is all this completely silly and in the end I am adding more complexity and introducing more errors and slope than a direct drive setup???  On the positive side its now a factor of 3x in the movement which has to be worth something?  Further the pulley bearings now take the load rather than the motor directly.  But does that matter?


...I must say, what an amazing world we live in: To be able to design something at 1 am, wake up to it 3D printed at 10 am, and then ask for help from people literally around the world who love this crazy hobby as much as you do.  Amazing, and what a great time to be alive!  






Ant No
 

Looks nice.  You are hugging the motor in PLA, opposite of a heat sink. I see you have holes in the frame to help minimise this and I don't know how hot the motor will run. Do you? That's my only initial concern and may be unfounded.

I don't think it's silly.

PETG is a nice intermediate material. Fairly cheap and easy to print with better properties than PLA. But I'd just go ahead and tweak, then try solid PLA as you plan. Like you say, it costs next to nothing and the truth is the only way to know for sure is to try.

You are correct. We live in an age of marvel's and wonder. Enjoy them. Have fun😇

Ant👣


On 7 Mar 2020 20:57, "Daryl" <dkranec@...> wrote:
The only thing I could think of with PLA is the torque may cause some flex, but as long as there's no slipping I don't think it's matter.

On Sat, Mar 7, 2020, 2:28 PM Rockmover <kruse@...> wrote:

[Edited Message Follows]

So last night I threw together a 3D mount using the 60/20 tooth pulley set off Amazon ($12) I had laying around.  I started the print, and went to bed.  Below is what I had this morning when I stopped it to just do a first initial test fit of everything. 

Clearly I now need to tweak a few items to get the  pulley shaft and worm gears to line up exactly (which of course is impossible but at least with a 3D print you can tweak and tweak and it costs you basically nothing).  I also need to add a little more adjustment on the motor side to be able to properly tighten the belt. But overall I think its about what we need ???

However, please offer any suggestions and constructive cristisium is very welcome.  

I'll be posting this on Thingverse for anyone else who would ever want's to use it.  The bearings and everything seem to fit really nicely, but with Wayne's post below about alignment now this all kind of worries me.  I will print is with 100% infill in the final version, and I have added a "solid top" to make it really stiff once the whole part is printed, but I am wondering if I'll need to machine it out of aluminum?  ...I hope not as that would be 20x more work than pushing a print button and spending $0.50 for some PLA.

Also, and MOST importantly, is all this completely silly and in the end I am adding more complexity and introducing more errors and slope than a direct drive setup???  On the positive side its now a factor of 3x in the movement which has to be worth something?  Further the pulley bearings now take the load rather than the motor directly.  But does that matter?


...I must say, what an amazing world we live in: To be able to design something at 1 am, wake up to it 3D printed at 10 am, and then ask for help from people literally around the world who love this crazy hobby as much as you do.  Amazing, and what a great time to be alive!  






Howard Dutton
 

No way would I use PLA for this.

ABS.
HIPS.
PETG.

Wayne Hilliard
 

Donst look bad to me. My only comment is that the worm shaft should be coupled to drive shaft by belt and 1 to 1 pulley  unless you want more reduction. IMHO.

If you decide to go with a direct shaft to shaft link I'd recommend buying a domestic flexible coupling from McMaster Carr or similar. I've bought a few chinese made flexible couplings and have had issues with alignment.YMMV!

Good luck!
Wayne


On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 5:06 PM Rockmover <kruse@...> wrote:

I am in the process of designing a new mount from scratch (different project), however I came across a great deal on a used older G11 mount and figured it would be an excellent test rig for really getting into this amazing OnStep project (and deciding if I want to convert my old EM-200).

I just got the G11 yesterday, and last night I stripped it down and cleaned everything. I have all new bearings ordered from McMaster-Carr which will be here Monday.  Not sure if I really needed to, but as they are so cheap I'd rather just replace everything, re-grease, and start things in as near perfect condition with as few unknowns as possible....

Now on to OnStep:

I know many people are directly driving the G11's with the following motor:
https://www.omc-stepperonline.com/nema-17-stepper-motor/nema-17-bipolar-0-9deg-46ncm-65-1oz-in-2a-2-9v-42x42x48mm-4-wires.html?mfp=149-step-angle%5B0.9%5D%2C148-bipolar-unipolar%5BBipolar%5D

I am planing on then using the TMC5160 drivers (I assume the best option?):
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07QPS7846/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o08_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

With this, and the G11's 360 gear reduction, and using the 5160 at 128 micro-steps (I believe it can do 512 but baby steps), then that gives me 0.281 arc-sec tracking resolution (but a very slow 0.2 deg/sec slewing).  The slow slewing is just fine with me as I pretty much only ever image one object a night (and rarely two) . I also just use plate solving to get things dead on anyways so again, the turtle slew speed is ok with me.

I was just planing on 3D printing the bracket from here (actually it is printing downstairs as I type this):
https://groups.io/g/TeenAstro/wiki/Losmandy-G11-upgrade-kit

I just order this coupling (uxCell 5mm to 6.35 mm) this morning.  I understand it is 18 mm in diameter, and wont fit stock, so I will need to throw it in the lathe and reduce it to 14-15 mm or so to get it to fit...no big deal.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B06X9X9G6V/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1

-----------------------------
So now the question:
-----------------------------
I saw several posts (most from 2017) that say the G11 direct drive is ok for visual, but marginal and reduction should be used for photography? 

But It seems the above would be more then adequate, or am I missing something?  Would this setup not be a huge improvement in tracking quality over the current 12V Hurst motors that are in there?  

I am 100% ok with designing, and 3D printing, a 60/20 belt reduction mount (I have several ideas I have already drawn up), but I see no reason for it?  Is there ANY advantage to using reduction on this, or would a guy simply just to 256 or 512 mico-steps if needed?


I guess I'm just looking for anyone who is imaging with the G11 and OnStep to confirm that belt drives are completely unnecessary and would be a wasted effort to use (or someone to say the exact opposite and that I should put them in).

THANKS IN ADVANCE!


P.S. - This is one post in particular that bothers me (Alexander Varakin comments about why he added reduction, and great idea to flip the worm gear 180 degrees..but then the discussion ended without confirmation one way or the other):
https://onstep.groups.io/g/main/topic/26743607#12069

Alexander Varakin
 

I image using G11 with a direct drive at 2000mm which translates to 0.5"/pixel. 
I am getting around 0.6" RMS on the nights of good seeing.
Here are some images:
https://www.astrobin.com/full/41qbl6/C/?nc=user
https://www.astrobin.com/50588h/?nc=user
I implemented a 1:2.5 pulley at some point but there was not much difference so I just went back to direct drive.
Initially, I was using TMC2130 in dumb mode with 16 microsteps and driver-based interpolation. I recently switched to MKS SERVO42B. There is no much difference between the two.

Alex

Rockmover
 

Thanks Alex, that is really interesting and valuable info. I am going to just start with direct drive and go from there...even though I now have the 3D belt mount completed and dead on (may still post it on Thingverse if anyone wants it).

I just ordered my Teensy 3.6 and the MaxPCB Version 2 boards so still may be a while before I get it working. 

bgilsrud@...
 

Rockmover,
I'm still very interested in your design. I like the idea of the tucked-style motors whether or not it improves accuracy.

Thanks,
Ben

Martin Bonfiore
 

Probably missed something in the emails but what is "tucked-style" motor?

TIA

Virus-free. www.avast.com

Ant No
 

I vote put your design on thingiverse for posterity. Who knows what the future holds?

Ant👣


On 9 Mar 2020 19:38, "Rockmover" <kruse@...> wrote:
Thanks Alex, that is really interesting and valuable info. I am going to just start with direct drive and go from there...even though I now have the 3D belt mount completed and dead on (may still post it on Thingverse if anyone wants it).

I just ordered my Teensy 3.6 and the MaxPCB Version 2 boards so still may be a while before I get it working. 

Ant No
 

As Howard suggests, recommend PETG or ABS and include a descriptive chat of how you homed in on exact alignment.

That way if the different materials print a little differently the user can tune the print in.

You can give all your PLA settings as a jumping off point, whilst stating that is for  PLA and suggesting one of the other materials might be preferable.

Ant👣


On 10 Mar 2020 14:34, "Ant No" <cmpaqp1100@...> wrote:

I vote put your design on thingiverse for posterity. Who knows what the future holds?

Ant👣


On 9 Mar 2020 19:38, "Rockmover" <kruse@...> wrote:
Thanks Alex, that is really interesting and valuable info. I am going to just start with direct drive and go from there...even though I now have the 3D belt mount completed and dead on (may still post it on Thingverse if anyone wants it).

I just ordered my Teensy 3.6 and the MaxPCB Version 2 boards so still may be a while before I get it working.