Squares Test

[Breogan Heflin]

Followingalong. The X and Y center apply to where the test is positioned in the work area. I wanted the same thing for different reasons, soot/ slag was contaminating the next square. As far as I know, no adjustment.

Might be time for an update. Without running a few and measuring, Ver 1.4 appears to maintain a constant gap between squares (approx 1mm by my tests). It gets a little funky when you add in kerf offsets, tho.

Yeah thats the problem here, 1mm is not adequate spacing at all.

I would like to test various speeds at various power settings so 10-20mm per square with approx 5mm between squares is required.

Another problem is that each line of squares is on the same layer!? Isnt this test supposed to create a different setting for each square?

I couldn't agree more and have been trying to run down whether or not the black square test ball is going to be offered on the retail market. I was very fortunate in getting an opportunity to test both balls and I am really hoping that the black square test ball made it into the new ProV1/ProV1X line. It seemed closer to the ProV1X (which is what I always play), but I fell in love with the performance of the black square ball - super long and great performance all around. Here's hoping it makes it to retail . . .

I think the circle and square balls were tested in 2013 and we the new NXT and NXT Tour that were released in 2014. I got what I'm fairly certain was a ProV1 and it did not have a black circle or square, but rather just Test where it would normally say ProV1.

I received the black square and circle sleeves Fall '13. I agree the squares were long with good stopping power too but the circles were not too far behind with the woods and I took that trade off for great short game feel and predictability, mid and long irons held nicely. Our Winter Park CC pros are on with Titleist now and our assistant pro bets that they were NXTs. I can't recall finding that thread.

The sleeve I received recently was marked test though it also had the gr(a/e)y alignment arrow la V1X. I am seriously impressed and shared with a group I paired up with, I was lucky they let me keep one. We all agreed they must be Pro V1X and we were all stoked for the release. I bought my first dozen as has my playing partner and I'm Sure those fun fellas grabbed some by now. Apologies to the manufacturer in my profile, I've made the switch. Thanks all TT members and Titleist for the opportunity, I'm predicting huge sales on the rise and my handicap on wane!!!

There may have very well been multiple lines sent out with the circle and square markings, but unless Titleist is changing the cover of the NXT line to match the ProV1/X, I am fairly positive the ones I had received and played with were something in the ProV1/X lineup.

I have DOE results that have a Effects Summary section with a p-value of 0.03866 for parameter A. In the Effect Tests section that same parameter has a p-value of 0.9353. The Parameter Estimate for that variable is also 0.9353. Why is the Effect Summary different from the Effect Test and the Parameter estimate and what does each test mean?

If you have modeled more than one response (Y role) at the same time without the option to fit individual models, then the Summary Report displays the the most significant result for each term from one of the models.

In the case of a single response or individual fits, the Summary Report and the Effect Tests are essentially the same. They test the significance of adding a term to a model given the other terms are already entered. The null hypothesis is that the additional term represents a negligible effect.

The Parameter Estimates often appears to be the same as the Effect Tests (redundant information) in some common cases but they are not the same. The parameter estimates table uses a t-test against the null hypothesis that parameter is zero. The effects table uses a F-test against a zero change in the model sum of squares.

If you fit the same model to five responses, you will get five unique sets of parameter estimates, one for each response. So each term has five estimates. The Effect Summary report shows the most significant estimate for each term.

Take another look at the Effect Summary, the order of the factors is by importance. The tables of Effect Tests and Parameter Estimates the factors are listed by user specified order in the model dialog.

Thank you for the response it was very helpful. In fact there is more than one response. I have one more question regarding your answer. In the first sentence you state "...then the Summary Report displays the most significant result for each term from one of the models". By the term one of the models do you mean a model with just one response (Y role?

Test pellons for running test prints before production runs. They help you by showing pin-holes or other mistakes in your screen, and assuring accurate registration before printing on your more expensive stock.

To use, I print out initially where one square is perfect (by adjusting Live Adjust Z calibration). Then I check the opposite square and saw the separation between filament lines. It could be ripped easily indicating not enough squish. In the calibration settings I lowered the nozzle by 15 microns (-.15). Eventually I was able to determine that with a left side bed level correction set to -.35 all 4 outer squares (and center square) printed with an equal squish. Further Live Adjust Z will set all sides equally going forward.

I do notice that although the squish is level on all sides there is some nozzle dragging on corners. If I raise live z adjust then there is not enough squish. Not sure how to handle that. Simplify3D print guide says to use z hop or check that too much extrusion is happening. I used default slic3r settings and measured filament diameter so that's correct.

Hi, I had the same idea to fine tune my bed but with 9 squares 20mm each side. I think 5 squares like you say is enough to tune the bed. Why didn't you use 20mm squares ? The printing took 16min with default setup on slic3r with your 40mm squares.

My nozzle seems to have touched the right and the front square during the print, so I think there is too much squish in those positions, what do you think ? Perhaps I have too much squish in every positions ?

I just want to add that I've printed more than 30 hours with this setup and all my printings were good. But it was small objets. I guess objects that would have been large enough to reach the right and the front side would have got some problems ?

I've printed a cube with 20mm each side and there was less than 0.04mm gap on all axis. I would even say that for Z axis the measure was 20.04mm while it was 19.98mm on X and Y axis. I think the precision is very reasonnable (this cube was printed at the center of the plate) but the above test makes me wonder if I should fine tune it more ?

Finally I've measured the thickness of each squares and they were all 0.15mm except the one on the left side (0.16mm). Now I don't know if I should fine tune juste the left side or let everything like this.

My nozzle seems to have touched the right and the front square during the print, so I think there is too much squish in those positions, what do you think ?

I think your first layer looks quite good. Enable Lift Z from 0mm (it's from 1mm by default) and the nozzle will no longer make scars in first layer.

Ok thank you david, I will try the same test print with your tip.

If I understand this option, it will lift Z from my first layer instead of the first mm ? But in fact for all prints that are higher than 0.15mm, it won't impact my last layer and will remain invisible into my print ? or does this scar will impact the last layer too ?

Hi all hi David. Thanks for the tip, that was the good choice to avoid scars in the first layer, I enabled lift Z from 0mm and there is no more scars in my first layer. I wonder why it's at 1mm by default ?

I also changed the dimensions of the squares (20mm each side instead of 40mm) so this test is faster (5min instead of 16min) I think this dimension is enough to calibrate the bed. I can measure the thickness of each square (should be 0.15mm) so I can fine tune the bed in front, left, right and rear positions in the calibration menu.

There is still a little scar in the bottom right corner, this is where the extruder ended the layer, I don't know if I can change something in the options of slic3r to avoid this.

It is still overextruded a bit, get the nozzle a bit up using Live Z adjust.

I think all of this will extend the print time ? Will we be able to easily and quickly analyse the layer with the letters ? I will try to see how much time it takes. I could also just put one little point in the middle of the front square, it would be enough to find the orientation of the squares as they are all attached ?

3a8082e126