Firmware bug alert!
I finished my Mk2 build yesterday.
I downloaded the current firmware source from GitHub (Latest commit e4b7219 3 days ago) and built the .hex file. I did this because I substituted a PT100 for the standard hotend thermistor and needed to adjust the sensor type. I flashed the printer with my customized firmware and everything went along fine until I ran the XYZ calibration. The routine hit the first four calibration points as expected, but then it moved the printhead to 0,0,0, engaged the Y endstop (which I’m assuming was disabled), and sat there rattling the Y stepper.
I then downloaded the precompiled firmware from the Prusa support site, flashed the printer and ran the XYZ calibration again. This time the routine ran to completion and I got the “front calibration points unreachable” error.
I fixed the problem and ran the standard XYZ calibration again. This time I got “X and Y axes slightly skewed”. Much better.
Finally, I reflashed the printer with my locally built hex file and ran the XYZ calibration yet again. This time the routine completed, but I got the “X Y Severely skewed” error.
It seems that there are some differences between the “standard” firmware on the Prusa site and source on GitHub. It would be good to get the differences resolved ASAP.
And before you ask, yes, I’m sure the only change made to the source was this one:
#define TEMP_SENSOR_0 147.
Re: Firmware bug alert!
Not sure if your very specific endavours into modifying the firmware entitle such a catchy tittle. I can't see an issue for 99.99% of customers.
Re: Firmware bug alert!
Sorry if I offended anyone.
What I observed was a substantial difference in behavior of the XYZ calibration between the pre-compiled firmware and the source. The difference being significant enough that the calibration would not complete using the version compiled from source. In my world this is a bug.
I can't speak to how this affects 99.9% of users, but it is a point of concern for me.
I am hopeful that someone knowledgeable can address this issue and provide clarification.
Re: Firmware bug alert!
Bob
Your findings have echoed mine from around the time V3.0.0 was released. And support for the Mk1 firmware is no longer present.
I used to regularly amend the firmware to my own liking but have now given up doing so (since about 3.0.5), although I had hoped that 3.0.9 would be user-compilable simply because PR has been through a huge overhaul of source and compiled firmware.
Peter
Please note: I do not have any affiliation with Prusa Research. Any advices given are offered in good faith. It is your responsibility to ensure that by following my advice you do not suffer or cause injury, damage…
Re: Firmware bug alert!
Peter, thanks for the confirmation that I am not alone here.
I only modified the firmware so I could use a PT100 in place of the standard thermistor. (a whole other story there that I will tell later), otherwise I would not have done it. It wasn't the compilation that was a problem, only the behavior of the firmware afterward...
Is there any official support for the firmware? Any "forum" where the type of issue I have raised can be addressed and resolved?
Bob
Re: Firmware bug alert!
Bob
Other than this forum, there is really only GitHub for problem reports, both of which are monitored by PR staff.
Peter
Please note: I do not have any affiliation with Prusa Research. Any advices given are offered in good faith. It is your responsibility to ensure that by following my advice you do not suffer or cause injury, damage…
Re: Firmware bug alert!
> It seems that there are some differences between the “standard” firmware on the Prusa site and source on GitHub. It would be good to get the differences resolved ASAP.
The MK2 branch is the official firmware source for the Prusa i3 MK2 printer.
There is some noise in the measurement, so you may get a XYZ calibration message "severely skewed" and then later "slightly skewed" if your printer skew is just at the threshold between the two messages. So your firmware may be perfectly ok.
We did not test the firmware with the PT100 thermal sensor, so I cannot say anything to that. I understand your frustration, but our development resources are limited and there were just two or three requests for this feature as far as I am aware of.
Vojtech