Groovy, well the ball is in ya’alls court now. At least im only a day behind, time to get back to work. Take care.
Hi there! I’ve been going through the support data but can’t see any obvious problems and have not yet been able to replicate the issue. Can I double-check a few things?
-
Could I please confirm you’re using a Falcon 2 with an aftermarket camera, and not the Falcon 2 PRO with the built-in camera? That really shouldn’t affect the result but just checking.
-
Did the Migrated alignment show the same misalignment as the new manual/tag alignments?
-
Do the automatic tag-based and manual alignment processes create the same bad result? (I’m guessing so)
I am very much at a loss for what is going on here. People have lots of trouble with Lens Calibration, but Alignment is usually very straightforward. I will run another series of tests today, but could I ask you to make a screen recording of you going through the alignment process? Perhaps I will see a clue.
Failing that, the support data you sent shows your settings before you attempted to realign. If you could generate another block of support data after you realign, there might be more clues there.
There is a “big hammer” that can correct this if your misalignment is persistently wrong but always the same… the Adjust Overlay overrides. They can mess things up just as badly, and their use should not be necessary, but they are there for this purpose. Just remember that you used it.
We have a slight concern that you seem to be using a GRBL-M3 device instead of plain GRBL. That shouldn’t affect the alignment, but you might want to check that’s the best device type. It might also be worth creating a new GRBL or Custom GCode device from scratch and seeing if the behavior changes, in case some old settings are floating around and messing something up.
The last thing I can think of is perhaps there is a Metric / Imperial conversion bug somewhere. We’ve had those before. Some firmware has them too. If you do create a new device, try running it purely in Metric mode?
Sorry we don’t have a definitive answer for you… I’ll be doing more testing today to try to find it.
I tried to replicate your setup as closely as possible: I have a Creality Falcon A1 Pro configured as a GRBL-M3 device with Imperial units, created a off-center pattern, did a speed-run through all the steps, and my alignment came out within ~2 millimeters of actual. (About what I expect in this case given the quality of the camera, the speed I did it, and the uneven surface of the paper)
I am at a loss as to why it’s not working in your case. There is probably something simple we are all missing.
I was using the beta versions, mostly because of the added support for networked cameras. I have an “official” LB camera (meaning I probably paid a bit too much 
) attached to a Raspberry Pi running ustreamer to expose the camera to my in-home network.
In my experience the production release for scaling and aligning the camera works much better than what was in the beta versions. I was maybe 1mm off near the bed center and I manually adjusted the offset. Works good enough for me. I DID have to realign my camera upon installing the production release.
Obviously using the camera is not a substitute for checking alignment via framing.
Same here, camera issues. I use 4 cams. Had them working great using the dropdown menu. But the update gods said Nope. Time to rearrange everything. Now, after re-calibrating all 4, LB doesn’t want to use them. Either the endless “connecting” screen or when you finally get and image it freezes the image. Guess it time to figure out how to roll back to a stable version. Production is not possible without cams.
I had similar, about 45mm off. Thought it was something I did.
Thanks, was wondering which one was still safe to use.
I’m so curious I’m going to test it now. I stopped using absolute with camera and have been using current position lol
2.1 was specifically built to support multiple cameras, I’ve had up to seven running at once with various mixtures of USB and Network cameras, and routinely use three at a time. Four should be fine.
Camera hardware tends to use all of the available USB bandwidth, and so multiple will stress even quality USB hubs. Some cameras do not seem to like sharing a hub, and the new features make it possible to do run in parallel for the first time.
If they are working individually but not all together it is more likely to be a hardware issue than software. It may be worth trying different hubs, ports, or limiting camera use to one at a time for testing.
If you could let us know the model of camera you are using, we can potentially find one for testing and see if it has unique properties.