Will try test button when will be near laser 
I loaded cor file that came with EZCAD software when i added bjjcz device along with all other device settings.
But ok, will try to set correction manually.
But very strange, that while using rotate marking, such problem is NOT exist…
Measure the current state first. → Engrave a square of 100mm and measure. I claim it will come out more like 9.5mm
If your scaling is off, the problem did exist in rotary mode too.
It “worked” in rotary mode because of the small splits of 5mm. The splits moved the linear axis precisely 5mm. But the engraving was still squished due to the wrong scale.
Here’s a test of movement with Repeat Marking.
You are right — it moves 5 cm and then returns back.
That confirms (again) that the Steps per mm are correct. Thank you.
Did you get a chance to measure and adjust the scaling?
Have no time and material to test big sizes (sorry), but here some small size info:
I made blocks of 10x10 25x25 35x35 and 50x50 mm:
10x10:
25x25:
35x35:
50x50:
It’s hard to see, what you’re measuring, if you don’t start with 0.
The difference increases with greater distances.
That’s why I recommended engraving the largest possible rectangle and calibrate the Galvo Scale:
First of all, it’s important to note that the starting point is the 2 cm mark.
The testing area is 220 mm.
Start:
Finish:
Entire area:
Y axis is perfect.
Start:
Finish:
Entire area:
The ruler here is centered, so there’s a small 1 mm difference across this working area (22 cm).
There was also a slight bulge, so I made some adjustments:
However, the result is still not valid — there’s still some issue present:
I don’t understand what could still be wrong…
Nice!
Did you adjust this by calibrating the Galvo scale in the Device Settings?
From your image, I can see that “Galvo 2” is your X axis.
Yes, and test mark of ruler is the result of marking AFTER calibration.
On this image if you treat it from 1 to 23 cm → so yes 1 mm off, i mentioned that earlier:
The ruler here is centered, so there’s a small 1 mm difference across this working area (22 cm).
But 1mm for 230 is pretty much small in comparison with 1 mm per 10 mm (each repeat element) as you can see on ruler.
For your convenience, we increased this limit in the PreRelease candidate of an upcoming version:
It shouldn’t be too long before the aforementioned genuine “Split Marking” is publicly available. This should make setting up a linear table much easier, in contrast to the rotary function, which serves a different purpose.
Thank you!
Then I’ll try to test the functionality today or tomorrow and provide you feedback.
I see the split for rotary is way over my biggest lens now as well. What is the difference between that and split marking?
Well, we tried to test it, but still we are limited to value of “steps per rotation”…
Our motor got 1000 steps per 1 mm, it means for 5 meters we need 5000 * 1000 = 5 000 000.
Sadly, but current limitation is 1 000 000…
Split Marking will basically be the same as Rotary Marking, but made specifically for flat linear tables.
I see..
Can you decrease the Microstepping value of the stepper driver? / What’s the current division at?
1000 steps per mm sounds like a whole lot anyway.
Mine is 320 steps per mm. That still only gives 3.125 meters if there is a 1,000,000 step limit. (which is plenty for an X table but not for your traveler)
You can theoretically set the circumference and the steps per mm 1000 times lower and achieve the same result.
