Egg - printer (Easter egg printer)

Gizmoń wrote:

because they're o-rings, right?

Yes, these are O-rings. I had a couple of car air-conditioning systems on hand so they came in handy; D

Gizmoń wrote:

I am also impressed with the functional spring printing. It is very rough, but it works and does not crack - I must admit that it is a surprise for me

I didn't believe it would work but it worked and I was surprised by its elasticity. It is rough because I printed with a support and I did not want to clean it.

tplewa wrote:

I am writing more about the situation to make the drawing look nice without distortions, etc. - as if to roll an egg onto a flat surface ...

Right here. To keep the dimensions, you would need to scale the drawing to the size of the egg. However, the variation in egg size is not great, and you don't need anything more than steps per revolution to draw simple lines.

tplewa wrote:

However, as for the program, you can use whatever you want, but in matlab it is simply faster (and I have a licensed version in the company, so I have no problem) and you do not need to play indirect G-Code which IMHO is first of all form over content in such a device, and secondly, the firmware that I want to use does not even support it ...

Something's wrong with me. Every CNC machine uses g-code, and just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. After all, any program must send commands to the plotter (CNC machine). As for matlab - it's great that you can use it, but for simple solutions, I prefer simple tools.

Gizmoń wrote:

The whole device is one great excess of form over content A, these are the transformations it is about. It is not so much the diameter that would be needed as the entire profile of the longitudinal section. In my opinion, it is really difficult to implement, and without it the drawings don't come out so bad. And most importantly: after correction, maybe they would look perfect, but only when looking straight ahead. At a different angle, they would completely fall apart.

In the "for stubborn" version, you could be tempted to convert it to the active workspace by a laser scan. Why not

@.:KoSik:.

But this is not a typical CNC machine and it is enough to look at the banally simple code of the program to see that it does not use G-Code because as I stated, it would be a slight excess of form over content, someone who created it did not waste time writing something that would not be used even in a small percentage ... could use a library as it happens in Arduino - but why how? it could be easier See that the original eggbot doesn't even have a limit switch ;)

It would make sense, for example, by adding an SD card and then you could actually use the equipment without a computer Of course, if someone wants to, he can use any firmware - what's the news in this thread ... I choose what they used in eggbot because as I mentioned when the PCB comes to me, I will have little time to solder and start the whole thing. This is probably how the electronics would look different (maybe even from the USB to the flash drive or SD card). Another thing is that for me it has to be simple because it is supposed to be handled by my daughter, so explaining her what is G-Code etc. is pointless because it is supposed to be something for her that will give her some joy and fun without going into technical nuances. .

Maybe someday, when it comes to me and I will have more free time, I will do something more extensive with the change of pens etc. and then it is very likely that I will use G-Code ... but time will tell :)


On the other hand, Matlab is the most simple tool - it allows you to test various solutions from simple to very complicated in a short time - we actually deal with the essence of the problem, not the whole envelope that sometimes needs to be created in other programming languages - another matter, you can always use the free Octave But that's how I speak if you prefer :)

.:KoSik:. wrote:

Gizmoń wrote:

I am also impressed with the functional spring printing. It is very rough, but it works and does not crack - I must admit that it is a surprise for me

They work, however, there is a disadvantage that they degrade quickly ... in my experience they were the best with ABS In total, there are many projects where the spring is printed, whether it's watches or other wonders ...

Erbit wrote:

Gizmoń wrote:

But who needs a circuit? I will write again: it is enough to know how long the drawing corresponds to 1 egg revolution, and scale the graphics to this dimension. No matter if the egg is large or small, each one will make 1 revolution, so on each drawing it will cover the entire surface and come together nicely at the ends. You don't have to measure anything
...

The friend is right. At most, the patterns will be larger on the larger egg and smaller on the smaller one. Scaling the size of the pattern is done "independently" through the diameter of the egg.

Draw two circles (bigger and smaller) with a common center, you will understand what my colleague Gizmoń wrote about.

A diameter scaling would make the patterns on the egg the same size regardless of the egg diameter.

Buddy, we know it It was about a slightly different topic, or rather my thoughts ;)

Here, basically, knowing the number of steps, it is only worth choosing the length of the drawing so as not to overwrite it one way or the other and keep the print proportions when scaling, i.e. length / width I haven't checked yet, but there is a template for Inscape prepared by the creators of EggBot, which they probably did optimally somehow ...

In total, maybe I will look for the weekend because somewhere I had Mega32U4 on the prototype board, maybe I can do it on a spider somehow pre-fire before it comes from PCB production ...

And when drawing by hand, make sure that the patterns match, i.e. the beginning and the end are at the same height ...

Well, as I say, all this is more of a combination out of curiosity - because in the practice of painting eggs, it probably won't matter much ...

Gizmoń wrote:

But who needs a circuit? I will write again: it is enough to know how long the drawing corresponds to 1 egg revolution, and scale the graphics to this dimension. No matter if the egg is large or small, each one will make 1 revolution, so on each drawing it will cover the entire surface and come together nicely at the ends. You don't have to measure anything

Maybe the artwork will help in this discussion:


I will write again that, of course, with eggs it does not matter much, because the diameters do not differ much and you will not see these distortions, but what if we want to decorate a Christmas tree bauble? Then this scaling may be more important.

tplewa wrote:

But this is not a typical CNC machine and it is enough to look at the banally simple code of the program to see that it does not use G-Code because as I said it would be a slight excess of form over content, so someone who created it did not waste time writing something that will not be and so used even in a small percentage ... he could use a library as it is in Arduino - but why, how can it be simpler See that the original eggbot does not even have a limit switch

In fact, someone did follow their orders. Most likely to use only genuine software. Complete nonsense to me. Using g-code is as complicated as this, and gives you much more possibilities, such as ...

tplewa wrote:

I haven't checked yet, but there is a template for Inscape prepared by the creators of EggBot, which they probably did optimally somehow ...

I don't know this software. It's just a guess, but just when you want to do anything else on this device, you need to change the driver or software. I run another program or g-code downloaded from the Internet and voila!
Of course, this is just a theoretical consideration, and I understand that you may not want to use it for anything else

.:KoSik:. wrote:

In fact, someone did follow their orders. Most likely to use only genuine software. Complete nonsense to me. Using g-code is as complicated as this, and gives you much more possibilities, such as ...

Rather, what I'm saying, someone went for simplification and made his own simple communication, which makes sense with a device that requires constant connection to a PC. As I mentioned G Code has great possibilities and it would be a slight excess of form over content and an unnecessary expansion of the code. Although maybe I could add some G76 etc. that could be Here the mower had a simple plugin concept for a graphics program + a simple device. As I mentioned G Code is practically known to people who deal with CNC and to a limited number of commands with 3D printers. As I mentioned, if it was an autonomous solution with a card or USB, it's ok It can be compared more to a plotter where only some of them support (handle) G Code ...

Anyway, as I say, nothing stands in the way of launching the firmware similar to a friend, but I do not see much of a difference from the practical side (creating an egg painting project in some CAD or by hand patting G Code, I do not see the slightest idea. to do this with this machine, and I could do as it was - apart from some fad that I can generate it from another program ... here also if I insist and write soft, I will ) ... and if I wanted to torment my daughter, I would take her to the garage and let me play with a Mach3 milling machine (but she is moderately interested in it )

I would be more happy with some even simpler software because, unfortunately, Inscape is not the simplest either, just because it would be easier for younger ones ;)


However, as for my razor, it slowly folds up :)

tplewa wrote:

Rather, what I'm saying, someone went for simplification and made his own simple communication, which makes sense with a device that requires constant connection to a PC.

As the conversation becomes a bit pointless, let's get down to business.
You think g-code is something scary and complicated - I still don't understand why. Additionally, as an argument you give that your daughter does not know g-codes, and she doesn't have to. You also think that a script to a graphics program couldn't send commands as g-code. Come on, a lot of cnc machines are controlled that way - not necessarily from a memory stick; and the egg printer is also a cnc machine and is actually a 3-axis machine.
Your thinking is completely wrong, because here is your simple control code:
- head movement - "SM, , , "
- pen status setting - "SM, , , "

For the g-code comparison:
- head movement - G01 X13.146553 Y2.807370 Z-1.000000
- feather lowering - M5 S90

On which side is code called "EBB Commands" simpler than g-code?

.: KoSik :.

I have not written anywhere that G Code is difficult, I wrote that it is an excess of form over content because the possibilities it offers will not be used, even to a minimal extent. When controlling something from a computer, simple communication protocols are usually used (or at least it's worth simplifying). It is running along the cable and we do not see it - so the least important is whether it will be binary or nice in a form that is relatively easy to understand. I just do not see the advantage of G-Kod in this type of salvation over any protocol, yes, you can prove by force as a colleague does. Just let a friend give a specific example of what I will not draw on the egg without having this G-Code? In this case, you could send a letter to HP why it is not in the printers because it is also a device that can be compared to a CNC ;)

On the other hand, a friend really does not have to write to me about G Kode because, to be honest, I have a bit to do with CNC and I have a little idea about it (maybe I even use commands that my colleague did not deal with, e.g. the mentioned G76) ;)

What is simpler ... building a parser ... Why do I need to write a complex parser that is to handle a few commands crosswise And if a colleague does not believe, let him write this code from scratch (and not use a ready-made library), he will understand what I am writing about ...

For example, what a colleague wrote:

.:KoSik:. wrote:

Secondly, each time you generate a Gcode file, you need to process the file again. The postprocessor converts the commands to raise and lower the pen.

Why do I need it ? What facilitation / advantage does something like draw after pressing a button? What is the advantage of using this postprocessor?

Just a real example, not that I will come up with something because on this principle you can prove everything, even that the earth is flat

tplewa wrote:

In this case, you could send a letter to HP why it is not in the printers because it is also a device that can be compared to a CNC

An inkjet or laser printer is not CNC.

tplewa wrote:

On the other hand, a friend really does not have to write to me about G Kode because, to be honest, I have a bit to do with CNC and I have a little idea about it (maybe I even use commands that my colleague did not deal with, e.g. the mentioned G76)

You can see not too much, because my colleague does not even understand what CNC is - https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computerized_Numerical_Control

tplewa wrote:

But what is simpler ... building a parser ... Why do I need to write an extensive parser that is to handle a few commands crosswise And if a friend doesn't believe it, let him write the code from scratch (and not use a ready-made library), he will understand what I am writing about. ..

Let my friend not write about parsers here, because this is a completely different topic, he will only write where the g-code I pasted is more complicated than the "simpler" one.

tplewa wrote:

I just do not see the advantage of G-Kod in this type of salvation over any protocol, yes, you can prove by force as a colleague does.

My friend probably does not see the advantage of microUSB over Lightning, but this is my friend's case. I don't even want to prove anything to anyone. I just don't like when someone writes such stupid things and claims to be an expert, because he has, for example, a milling machine in the garage. I am not a specialist and maybe my theory is not correct and if so, please give details, not tell a story. This is a technical forum.

As for my opinion, I think that g-code has an advantage over other solutions, because it is universal and I can run any program and handle the device. Eggbot's solution blocks access to free software, giving it limited functionality.

tplewa wrote:

Why do I need it ? What facilitation / advantage does something like draw after pressing a button? What is the advantage of using this postprocessor?

This is my solution and you may not like it, of course, but it is not a solution required for g-codes.

tplewa wrote:

Just a real example, not that I will come up with something because on this principle you can prove everything, even that the earth is flat

What is this example? I don't see any particulars.

In conclusion, if a colleague is going to write in generalities again, I ask the colleague to start a separate thread. Here we will maintain the technical level.

.: KoSik :.

Buddy, forgive me, you wrote a string of nonsense that nothing comes of it. It was a colleague who described this device as a CNC:

.:KoSik:. wrote:

Something's wrong with me. Every CNC machine uses g-code, and just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. After all, any program must send commands to the plotter (CNC machine).

And for me it is more a plotter (I will add that such devices did not have G Code support in the past, and currently, apart from cutting ones, which is an extension of the idea, they are practically not used), a printer for printing on eggs, as there are dedicated printers for printing on CDs / DVDs etc. or plastic cards. Likewise, large-format printers now replacing old drawing plotters do not have G Code support ...

I do not know why just something that is painted on eggs, my colleague called a CNC machine that must have G Code (especially since the people who invented it, i.e. the eggbot creators stated that G Code is not needed), and both my friend's solution and mine are basically clones this idea in a different version ...

.:KoSik:. wrote:

tplewa wrote:

But what is simpler ... building a parser ... Why do I need to write an extensive parser that is to handle a few commands crosswise And if a friend doesn't believe it, let him write the code from scratch (and not use a ready-made library), he will understand what I am writing about. ..

Let my friend not write about parsers here, because this is a completely different topic, he will only write where the g-code I pasted is more complicated than the "simpler" one.

Why should I not deal with the essence or firmware in this device? Do you construct such a device ... Just by designing the device in this form I don't see the slightest sense of using G Code or any advantages. Regardless of whether the record is simple for a human or not ... If someone is bored, he can do it, but I do not see any practical advantage.

To teo what do USB and Lightning have here? Did I mention anything like that? The only thing is that with a device controlled directly from the computer, in practice, the communication protocol in its highest layer can be any and it does not matter much for the user of the device. Because does the colleague think about what is happening and what is going on WiFi / USB, etc. how does print press in a text editor? Is there a need to think about it?

The colleague is right in one thing. The G code is universal and a kind of standard was created to make it easier for every machine manufacturer to not have to reinvent the wheel. It is just a toy that basically does not have to be compatible with anything, so that it has software from which you can print something ...

I have not written anywhere that I am a specialist - a friend makes some unnecessary jokes. In the same way, I have not written anywhere (it's a colleague's delusions) that my colleague's design is wrong.

I just do not see any advantage of one solution over the other, I see a greater amount of work which, in addition, does not make it easier, because the need to use an additional postprocessor. Why so and not otherwise - I do not know. Perhaps the author of this solution would write something more why this solution, and not another. Why did he use GRBL etc.

So I keep asking a simple question, what won't I paint on the egg (because that's what this device is supposed to do) when I don't implement G Code support in it? Because I do not see something like that ... You can, but it does not give any advantage, apart from increasing the workload, if I can write a firmware from scratch for a processor other than atmega or even give up Arduino which I simply do not like, which will also require rewriting ...

And the question is whether a colleague using G Kode, e.g. commands for a thread, will draw a thread on the egg? Does a colleague have such commands implemented? If not why not?

tplewa wrote:

Buddy, forgive me, you wrote a string of nonsense that nothing comes of it. It was a colleague who described this device as a CNC:

Yes. I specified and therefore take the use of g-code for granted. Where is this chain of nonsense. Again, my friend forgot the details.

tplewa wrote:

especially that the people who invented it, i.e. the creators of the eggbot, stated that the G Code is not needed

Again, I will use this comparison that my colleague did not understand. The fact that someone came up with this does not mean that it is good, just like using the Lighting plug replaces the microUSB in the iPhone. It was done in order to tie the customer to the brand. I do not know why it was done in eggbit but it is foolish to reinvent the wheel (unless for the cash register).

tplewa wrote:

Why should I not deal with the essence or firmware in this device? Is constructing such a device ...

The command used has nothing to do with parsing the data. Any one can be used. You can go ahead and change these commands to g-code in this software.

tplewa wrote:

I have not written anywhere that I am a specialist - a friend makes some unnecessary jokes. In the same way, I have not written anywhere (it's a colleague's delusions) that my colleague's design is wrong.

I have the impression that my friend forces his convictions by ignoring factual arguments. Our discussion is, of course, purely theoretical, because both solutions are sufficient in this case. I am not delusional and do not claim that my friend wrote that.

tplewa wrote:

I just do not see any advantage of one solution over the other, I see a greater amount of work which, in addition, does not make it easier, because the need to use an additional postprocessor. Why so and not otherwise - I do not know. Perhaps the author of this solution would write something more why this solution, and not another. Why did he use GRBL etc.

I have already written what the advantage of the post is before. There is no major circulation. The software is comparable. In my solution you have to use a postprocessor but that has nothing to do with g-code.

I used the GRBL library because it is free and universal. It gives great configuration options and the ability to use any software that supports g-code.

tplewa wrote:

So I keep asking a simple question, what won't I paint on the egg (because that's what this device is supposed to do) when I don't implement G Code support in it? Because I don't see anything like that ...

I do not know. I didn't use an eggbot. I suspect that the capabilities of both devices are similar.

tplewa wrote:

You can, but it does not give you any advantage, apart from increasing the workload, as I will write the firmware from scratch for a processor other than atmega or even give up Arduino which I simply do not like, which will also require rewriting it ...

I don't really understand ... Eggbot is on Arduino and GRBL library too. What is your colleague's workload?

... but enough of these quarrels. We are gadu gadu here, and has the friend already fired his equipment? I am waiting for results

Buddy, first a little bit of a nervousness This is a discussion and I am not attacking you, but in discussions sometimes arguments are exchanged. Especially when we talk about the design of devices, we often argue why it was solved this and not otherwise.

Another thing, the second time you have not read the facts.

Eggbot did not do this to attach anyone to anything. The original one is made on a PIC microcontroller and all the source codes are available (I've given a link to them anyway).

In my opinion, this is what I wrote, they did not unnecessarily complicate the writing of the code.

So it is also not true that the eggbot is Arduino based. Eggbot clones, on the other hand, are based on Arduino and as you can see here we have different approaches, someone used a huge library with great possibilities (like the solution you made), and someone else, for example, the guys from jjrobots to create a Sphere-O-Bot clone used the original protocol and wrote a simple code that as you can see does the job.

To tell you the truth, when you tell someone about attachment you can talk about Apple companies, but not about constructions where you have everything shared and can do as you see in a million ways. Anyway, let's leave it to Apple because these are different states of consciousness and what this company does is sometimes difficult to comment in any reasonable way. ;)

Another thing CNC ... You called it CNC and ok I called it a printer because it is an IMHO device more similar to what a large format printer or plotter does than to what, for example, a CNC lathe does However, when I write about CNC, you give me a link to wikipedia and say that in this description on the Wiki you catch an egg painting toy, because I have a lot of resistance to classify it. Structurally, it is similar to a large-format printer and a lathe :)

Another thing, as I said, I am not attacking you - but I would love to hear why, for example, when designing such a device from scratch, i.e. creating electronics, firmware, etc., he used G Code, what would give an advantage - and the advantage is not sdandard because as I mentioned pulling the toy under the machine The CNC is highly questionable :)

You can find many toys with some mechanical solutions, sometimes very similar to those used in CNC machines, but that doesn't make them CNC machines.

My approach is simple, designing any device should meet certain assumptions. In this it is supposed to be a solution for drawing on eggs and other such types, eg baubles, etc. The design assumptions have been met because you will not deny the same effect in both cases. However, you are suggesting that this solution is not the best and say that the G Code supporting version has the advantage.

If this is the case, then you can easily answer me a simple question, what will I not draw on the egg if I do not have G-code support ... And please, no extremes, because we will soon come to the fact that in order to paint eggs we have to buy Autocada or Solidworks -and ;)

However, how do you want my opinion on why someone used GRBL, because unfortunately the world of arduino is bricks. Hardly anyone makes an effort to do something optimally(because hardly anyone using Arduino can program well, as can be seen from the poor quality of many libraries), and this library just proved to be effective and you didn't have to think much - it makes sense for me to use this library in such a project.

If you have a different opinion, justify it substantively, not with an attack or examples that Apple did something there ... because it is, to put it mildly, argumentative ...

For example, I gave you an example when it would make sense to use G Code ... so far you are writing about butter and no particulars ... why to do this, and not otherwise.

Although I'm not sorry ... one argument is that the toy is compatible with CNC machines ... Only I have doubts whether this compatibility is needed for anything and what benefits can be obtained from it.


Or let's say otherwise. You do a project in the company, as if you would argue to the boss by creating such a toy (you cannot use a ready library for some legal reasons, for example) that you need to implement G Code support in it, which will result in more work, and thus the cost of creating the project. .

tplewa wrote:

Buddy, first, a bit of a nervousness. This is a discussion and I do not attack you, but sometimes in discussions, arguments are exchanged.

I don't really need Nervosol. As for the discussion - discussion is an exchange of views and views. A colleague does not talk to me, but shoves his truth into me. He'll probably accuse me of delusions, but I have proof of that
The questions arise again:

tplewa wrote:

If this is the case, then you can easily answer me a simple question, what will I not draw on the egg if I do not have G Code support ...

and

tplewa wrote:

but I would like to hear why, e.g. when designing such a device from scratch, i.e. creating electronics, firmware, etc., I would use G Code, what would it be advantageous

and yet

tplewa wrote:

If you have a different opinion, justify it substantively, not with an attack or examples that Apple did something there ... because it is, to put it mildly, argumentative ...

and I have already answered these questions. It was enough to read.

tplewa wrote:

So it is also not true that the eggbot is Arduino based.

has nothing to do with:

tplewa wrote:

The original uses as electronics Arduino Leonardo + JJrobots´s Brain SHIELD (https://www.jjrobots.com/product/b-robot-electronic-brain-shield/)
Unfortunately, I do not have any arduino board in stock, and the purchase + execution of the shield was a bit pointless, I found that I would stuff it on one PCB.

It's a friend's word.

tplewa wrote:

However, how do you want my opinion on why someone used GRBL, because unfortunately the world of arduino is bricks.

Arduino is bricks, and in this case someone used GRBL because it works, it is good and universal. In this case I used GRBL because my project is not a copy of the device from the Internet and as I wrote before, I gave the reason for using this library.

tplewa wrote:

However, you are suggesting that this solution is not the best and say that the G Code supporting version has the advantage.

I am not saying that.

tplewa wrote:

Or let's say otherwise. You do a project in the company, as if you would argue to the boss by creating such a toy (you cannot use a ready library for some legal reasons, for example) that you need to implement G Code support in it, which will result in more work, and thus the cost of creating the project. .

First of all, it will not affect more work, because the g-code handling is quite simple and, as I have already written, comparable to eggbot code handling. Second, it's a lot more work to come up with your code. Third, it is natural that we use standards if they meet expectations.

tplewa wrote:

Another thing, as I said, I'm not attacking you

As I have a different opinion, because my friend did not deign to answer my previously asked question, I will not continue this verbal scuffle. Greetings to my friend and I am waiting for photos from the progress of work

Well then.

As for arduino and the word original - writing this as the original, I had a solution not eggbot, but its clone called sphere-o-bot which actually uses Arduino.

Why did I choose to make electronics for ATMega - compatible with Arduino? For a simple reason ... I was going to provide the PCB design and schematic (partly apart from the price, I also did not give the a4988 circuits on the PCB as in the original eggbot because they can be difficult to solder for many), and PIC microcontrollers are with us less popular and many people do not have a programmer for them.

Another thing is a certain distinction. Namely, what is a communication protocol and what is a data format. When communicating by means of anything, be it ethernet / USB / RS232, we deal with a communication protocol, and the G Code is actually a data (file) format - which is generated by various software, whether it will be a slicer in 3d printing or, in the case of machine tools, a module CAM for the software in which we create the project.

Even in CNC machines, it often happens that the "interpretation" of G Code data is handled by, for example, the built-in PC, and the communication with the executive part (i.e. controlling motors / inverters, etc.) is carried out using a specific protocol for the manufacturer of the machine.

Here, in this case (eggbot), we are dealing with the control of the executive part which does not have to deal with the interpretation of the G Code because the control has been implemented directly in the drawing program.

In the case of CNC machines, it is unrealistic because each CAD program would have to have the ability to operate each CNC machine (something like drivers in the operating system for printers, etc.), therefore a universal format was created, i.e. G Code ..

This protocol from eggbot to save PC / ATMega connection bandwidth could be done completely binary and wouldn't be a problem. Probably it was done in the text for the reason that less knowledgeable people could easily write a program / plugin to control from another program, and the hassle of a large library greatly simplifies the firmware itself.

Now why did I give up the G Code solution. First of all, I didn't think of it - I just didn't find such a solution on the Internet. Most of the ones I found were either based on a PIC or a complete copy of an eggbot, or on the sphere-o-bot solution.

Another thing, as I mentioned, the project was to be implemented in the initial phase on a different processor, namely STM32, which are cheaper than ATMega32U4 and I have a lot of them in stock. However, it would involve writing the code and despite its simplicity, you would have to spend some time on it, not to mention using G Code where it would take even more time ... Unfortunately, because I started it a little later than expected (other commercial projects) and the time to make a PCB at the last minute, however, I decided to use ATMega, so I was able to do it in a few hours that I could find for "fun".

The problem of G Code itself resulted more from the fact that we followed entirely different projects, and my friend did not look at my code and said that there must be a G Code ;)

Which has even a plus, because it made me start to think a bit about completely independent electronics. With a USB flash drive / SD card and a small LCD as in 3D printers, so that the device does not require a permanent connection to a PC, maybe even WiFi (then the whole could be controlled using e.g.. ESP32) and just uploading the gcode files to the card like this.

The weekend was good, so I had some time to dig into the machine ...

Electronics soldered, at the moment two complete pieces (I lacked procks to two in stock - heh I thought I had more at home) ... that someone would like to resell at cost).



heh just saw the description on PCB REV V1.0 and it should be REV 1.0, but this is how PCB is done at night A bit funny ...

The whole thing is put together for the moment, replaceable holders on magnets for markers etc. For this preliminary check, ie whether the motors are turning and whether the servo is working. Unfortunately, there was no time to paint an egg, maybe today we will be able to practice it ;)

Hello, does anyone have a set of working files for arduino uno.
I built such a plotter but it doesn't work.
I tested dozens of dunks and lime.
That's what I used Arduino Uno klom on 328p smd and another on DIL
motor controllers typical stepsticks and CNC signboard
I followed various instructions found on the web and managed to get the connection but
trying to read the version, it did not return the version, but the following message:

Traceback (most recent call last):

File "eggbot.py", line 28, in

from plot_utils_import import from_dependency_import # plotink

File "C:\Users\Tadeusz\AppData\Roaming\inkscape\extensions\plot_utils_import.py", line 1, in

from importlib import import_module

ImportError: No module named import


In the Arduino in the monitor it returns nothing.

Have you uploaded GRBL to arduino?

Actually, I'm talking about EggDuino, but you have to let go because it's some kind of scam, I tested a herd of files and nothing probably substitutes the original tiles.
Eggbot and in the videos it works.
I tried GRBL CNC Shield + Z axis servo MIGRBL - Electric Diy Lab.
MIGRBL compiled and uploaded, the boards are operational because uploading the example blink code is the diode on the board blinking.
MI Inkscape Extension copied tab is and G-code file appears but axis driver GRBLgrblcontroller361
I don't think GRBL is connected and there is no way to move the axes manually for testing whether the engines work.

Here you have a link to the Eggbot I built https://rctruck.pl/forum/viewtopic.php?p=112124#p112124 with a description of what and where I got it. Browse the whole thread because there are posts about CNC Shield on Uno.

Regards

Thanks for your help, it turned out that Arduino IDE 1.8.19 compiles incorrectly, no errors, but the size of the file after compilation should
be 14246 b and occupy 44% and it was 12570 b and 39% I saw on a YOUTUBE video.
I changed the Arduino IDE to 1.6.5 and it went.
There is only one more problem with the servo it doesn't work for any commands but I'm not sure if they are good I got some of the broken models.
Inscape is 0.91
And I used this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUuS6milfNk

The servo is already working, we managed to choose efficient ones from the keel because they were digital and analog.

wirusa wrote:

I am also doing this printer except that I have a problem with the operation. I have a board for two stepsticks for Arduino nano, but unfortunately it doesn't work. Hence the question about boot order.

There is a problem with this board because the Chinese who designed it (cloned it) made some changes and the board is not "compatible" with the default GRBL configuration file. This is the first problem, the second is an error in connecting jumpers to configure "microsteps" on stepsticks.
What is it?: https://www.instructables.com/Fix-Cloned-Arduino-NANO-CNC-Shield/
or: https://forbot.pl/forum/topic/17693-cnc-shield-v40-licza-jak-uruchomic-trzyosiowa-maszyne/
Need to cut paths and "wire" for microsteps to work and change Grbl configuration files (or cut and wire more paths for grbl to work in standard configuration)
Type in google - "cnc shield v4 incorrectly"
Such a story!