Make Magazine release their test models!

[biscuitlad @biscuitlad]

Well, Make Magazine have gone and released the test models used in their recent 2015 3D printer review. Some of these look extremely challenging for the Robox…

http://makezine.com/2014/11/07/how-to-evaluate-the-2015-make-3dp-test-probes/

Anyone fancy taking the challenge with a well set up Robox?

I suspect we can already guess those models that where Robox will currently fail badly (bridging / overhang test, spiky pyramids), but I’d be interested in how it would perform in the test for mechanical resonance.

[Jack @jack-strong]

She aint ready for that!

[Clicky @clicky]

No matter of that - it is still worth giving it a go! That’s the set of tests we were talking about (and were not knowledgeable enough to come up with).

I’ll give it a go during the week - and at least, if someone else does them we’ll be able to ‘compare’ results. It is not what’s the worst we can do - but whoever makes the best results would be able to help others get there…

 

PS it really resonates well with very old topic of ‘standard set of tests for Robox’ - or whatever it was really called. I just remember reading about it…

• This reply was modified 2 weeks, 6 days ago by  Clicky.

[biscuitlad @biscuitlad]

@clicky - nice one. Keeping my fingers crossed that I’ll one day get my machine back…

[Clicky @clicky]

Could anyone download that set of tests and upload it here? I seem to have an issue with downloading it from there…

[amuse @amuse]

You can get them from thingiverse: http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:533472

[BHudson @bhudson]

I think that a properly calibrated Robox can handle all of those tests. I would guess based on my testing that it will get at least a three in most categories and will score higher in some. I will let you know what I find when I get the time to run them.

[Clicky @clicky]

I do agree with you @bhudson. There is still a category or two where that fine calibration is going to make a big difference between (1) or (2) and (3). Like negative space test…

[BHudson @bhudson]

while my box was printing, it could have done all of those and I did variations of several of them on my own. It will be a while before I can do anything, though. My new head has the dreaded “axis B stuck” error and the heater runs to 280 and can’t be controlled by AutoMaker, so while I wait on support I am not printing anything anymore. Sigh.

[biscuitlad @biscuitlad]

@bhudson - curious to know how you managed good bridges without the changes recommended by @miffmaster ?

My Robox never managed to print close groups of fine details successfully, like the flat bed with tall spikes, always ended up dragging a stringy mess around as it didn’t let small layers cool sufficiently.

So mine would have failed those two tests without a doubt. Shame you’re another one who can’t print!

• This reply was modified 2 weeks, 5 days ago by  biscuitlad.

[BHudson @bhudson]

I ran all the models with my new head now that I got rid of the “B Axis Stuck error”. Here are the results:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/76olfg9tcti8lcx/AADXW4YWcnKnY7uY_jSf8KwFa?dl=0

I rate the Robox as:

Dimensional accuracy: 4 - deviation of .006 inches or .15 mm.

Bridging - 1.5 - Dropped infill on 3 longest bridges, dropped perimeters on all bridges.

Overhang - 4 - There is some small surface differences on the 70 degree bottom overhang.

Negative space - 0. I cannot remove any of the pins, though 3 of them wiggle.

Fine positive space - 4. Flow control issues, but nothing connecting the spires.

Resonance, fine wall - 1 - slic3r error eliminated the bottom portion of the wall. All other walls and corners are nearly perfect.

Resonance, 1mm wall - 2. Looks good to me.

Resonance in Z - 2: Once the bridging layer flow control issues were eliminated, the remainder of the stack is very, very good.

This is AM 10.0.15, default profiles, ABS.

[René @3dnerd]

Hi BHudson,

well done!

Is this all printed with the ‘normal’ profile?

I hope CEL team will take a look and start some improvements

[Author]

Posts