You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am always struggling with the way the Z position is shown on the display. The slicer sets a height of, say, 0.2mm. When leveling with a paper one has to set the Z offset to minus the thickness of the paper, say, -0.1mm, to have the nozzle at 0 level in reality.
The displayed value, though, is the slicer value added the Z offset. In the example given, the Z position will be shown as 0.1mm, whereas the real height above the bed is 0.2mm.
I am finding myself calculating this backwards all the time to learn at what height the print currently is, so a displayed Z position of 3.85 with a Z offset of -0.15 is 4mm in reality.
Would it be possible to have that corrected at least optionally?
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
I am always struggling with the way the Z position is shown on the display. The slicer sets a height of, say, 0.2mm. When leveling with a paper one has to set the Z offset to minus the thickness of the paper, say, -0.1mm, to have the nozzle at 0 level in reality.
The displayed value, though, is the slicer value added the Z offset. In the example given, the Z position will be shown as 0.1mm, whereas the real height above the bed is 0.2mm.
I am finding myself calculating this backwards all the time to learn at what height the print currently is, so a displayed Z position of 3.85 with a Z offset of -0.15 is 4mm in reality.
Would it be possible to have that corrected at least optionally?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions