Thought I'd better start a new topic !
I should have a calibration jig ready some time next week, but in the meantime a question re the alignment of the fid cam.
It needs someone with a properly calibrated camera to check the angular alignment of the camera.
In other words, the angle of the cross hairs when the arm is in a particular position.
If anyone has seen the calibration process, they may know the correct way to set it, otherwise a protractor at the home position might be enough to get started ?
Mine seems to be at a slightly arbitary angle - not aligned with the head, or teh bed at home position. It may be that it's fitted "however" than the actual rotation specified or measured somehow.
And as in principle you only care about the centre, does the fid cam rotation actually matter that much ?
I did wonder if the camera had to be aligned so that the auto correct moved the arm in the right direction
eg if the cam was 180 degrees out, would it move away from the correct location ?
Anyhow, I stripped the Fid Cam illuminator (or should I call it LED cooker !) and rebuild it..
The illuminator comes out from below, so no need to disturb the camera itself.
board dimensions are 16.4mm dia by 8mm bore
changed from 8 LEDs each with its own 1k resistor to 2 chains of 4 with just one 220r resistor each chain...
quadrupled the light output and reduced the heat by a factor 4.
Certainly this evening, room lighting makes no difference to the software's ability to find the centre of the test calibration dot.
and with a massively increased threshold range.. up from 120 - 130 to 90 - 170
so that bodes well for calibration
pictures below ( dot and the original led board )
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s48/Iamcabaged/IMG_20160816_220551_1.jpg)
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s48/Iamcabaged/IMG_20160816_201725.jpg)
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s48/Iamcabaged/IMG_20160816_201731.jpg)
An update on progress (in case anyone is interested !)
the parts for the jig were delivered (in ally instead of steel, but not a big issue)
Parts assembled and test fitted to the registration points on the machine.
I then went through the calibration procedure in the factory settings.
I think I am getting the gist of most of it and it doesn't seem to be as complicated as some people have suggested in the past ;)
There are still some unknowns, eg
the rotational alignment of the fid cam (I am assuming parallel to the front edge when the arm is at full extension (setting x y)
the height of the over-travel test block
I don't fully understand a reference to reversing the camera.
the actual set position when setting x y position ( I am assuming the arm in the central position, nearest the front)
Some parts run fine, for example the encode rotation section.
I should have more time next week to try the full calibration procedure and compare with the calibration settings of the two machines I have.
Fingers crossed !
Quote from: spiyda on August 20, 2016, 12:11:41 AM
An update on progress (in case anyone is interested !)
Pretty sure a lot of us are extremely interested!
The bit that is puzzling me at the moment, is when starting the "Grid Head" process, the dialog says "Set Camera in Reversed Position" The process then images a pattern of test marks, then the dialog says "Set Camera in Normal Position" then re-images the test marks. These take place with the nozzle lowered so that the mirror is vertical and out of the way.
There are a whole range of possibilities, but I'm assuming that they don't include physically moving the fid cam.
so, since this part of the process is to calibrate the head, perhaps an extra camera is mounted on the nozzle.
That would certainly be the way I would do it, if I was designing a calibration process, but cameras are smaller and cheaper now.
I can't imagine the camera under the arm being used as it wasn't there on the non-s models, and no-one would write a separate calibration routine for each model, that would also rule out swapping the on arm camera connectors.
Unless anyone has seen this part, it looks like I will have to try everything I can think of, then analyse the results in the data file.
Any thoughts ?
If the flying cam is involved I'd expect it to switch video inputs - you should hear the relays click.
Maybe the nozzle height is a red herring and reversing is referring to rotating the fid cam?. Maybe the nozzle is used as a physical reference position for positioning a jig for the first pass, then lifts it out of the way for the second as it's not needed ?
Could it be measuring the actual fid cam rotation by starting with imaging at (approx?) 180 deg then imaging at correct rotation?
It might be useful to measure the fid cam rotation on multiple machines to see if it's consistent - may give a clue as to whether the process measures and stores the actual rotation, as opposed to wanting it to be in a consistent accurate position.
Here's one data point :
Start in the home position
Place a piece of PCB on the back edge support, overhanging left enough to be under the camera.
Place a sheet of paper or card on the PCB, and rotate clockwise until the left edge appears vertical in the fid cam.
Tape the paper to the PCB and remove to measure the angle between the rear edge of the PCB and the rear edge of the paper.
On mine it's very close to 20 degrees , i.e. a horizontal object rotated 20 deg clockwise appears horizontal in the cam.
Have you experimented with the cancel and apply fid rot buttons ?
I need to run 100 boards on the machine, but after that I will get back to it. I bagged some 28" long calipers from eBay to check the grid accuracy, but the rust needs removing before I can use them, they are sitting a soda crystal solution with 300mA running through them at the moment !
Hopefully it will become clearer when I actually generate some data files and compare them to the stock file.
Its a pity no-one who has seen or done the process is willing to discuss it, I hate re-inventing the wheel, but that is where we are.
At least the head rotation calibration procedure runs through smoothly. I don't know how it was done originally, but a disc machined out to fit in place of a nozzle, with the calibration disc stuck to it does the job perfectly !
Quote from: spiyda on August 20, 2016, 07:54:52 PM
At least the head rotation calibration procedure runs through smoothly. I don't know how it was done originally, but a disc machined out to fit in place of a nozzle, with the calibration disc stuck to it does the job perfectly !
Can you explain a bit more about that - I don't think many of us have played with many of the cal functions - all I've ever done is tweak tool block positions slightly.
Would be good to document each of the functions as they're discovered.
I'll document it properly when we can perform an actual calibration
Its early days, but so far what we know is this (anyone please feel free to add or comment if they have an information or insight)
The "Rgrid" calibration ring is fitted to a disc which is machined to fit the nozzle holder.
The calibration jig (which I have made) sits on the machine table, locating on the two dowels.
The feeders need to be removed, but the upward looking camera and, with a little adjustment of the dimensions on the jig drawing, the tool block can stay.
The 0.5" grid of white dots which should be fitted to the jig can easily be imaged by the fiducial camera in a wide range of lighting, as long as the illuminator ring is in tip top shape.
We don't know the exact alignment of the grid on the jig, but that can be established by generating data and comparing it to a good calibration file
Z reset function seems to run
XY rest function runs and I'm assuming the calibration position is with the arm aligned directly forward
Grid Head function This images the dots of the calibration grid but the references to camera reversal are currently not understood This needs the grid on the jig which is the next job
Test Head Grid not much use until we understand the Grid Head function
Grid Fiducial this scans the dots and images them, presumably with the fiducial camera (no camera reversal references here)
Test Fiducial Grid
Overtravel This requires a test block for which we don't know the height, but we should be able to reverse engineer it from the data
Tool Block Height Straightforward enough
Tool Positions This seems straightforward
Encode Rotation The encode rotation and test rotation function seem to work, they rotate the calibration ring above the upward looking camera and do stuff !
Test rotation see above
Offsets This seems pretty straightforward
If there was a camera fitted in place of the nozzle, the cryptic reverse camera message in the Grid Head function would make a lot of sense.
The function would want to ascertain the nozzle position in relation to the calibration dots.
So, fitting a composite video camera to the nozzle, and connecting it to the input to the digitiser board
(probably by breaking into the connector on the back of the arm) would do that...
the system can image the dot and therefore work out the nozzle position
it would be very difficult to align the camera to the centre of the nozzle.
but, and here's my thinking... if the function took one whole set of readings, then the nozzle and camera were rotated 180 degrees and the procedure repeated.... half way between the two sets of data is the exact nozzle position...
As I mentioned earlier.. If I were trying to design a calibration routine to precisely map the nozzle to grid, , that would be probably the simplest way.
OK, so Versatronics may not have done it the simplest way, but its a place to start !
(reverse engineering ! don't you just love it !!) ;D
ps devils advocate welcome ! ;)
A couple of steps forward (I hope) this evening.
First, I built a better rotation grid, I had a few thou out on my printed version and although it ran perfectly, I wasn't 100% happy with it.
This one works perfectly.. and the runout is better than my ability to measure !
The process might be useful to others.... !
3mm Acrylic, matted off with 600 wet and dry, sprayed with matt black paint
extra thickness glued to the back where it needs to fit the nozzle fitting on the head (I don't have any 6mm acrylic !)
The white dots were laser ablated, leaving the white matt of the acrylic.
the disc was laser cut and finally, the hole chamfered to protect the "O" rings.
I could have used this method for the main head grid, it would give a cracking result, but my laser is nowhere near large enough :(
Second, I started building a rig to test my hypothesis regarding the camera and reverse.
I started looking at fitting a composite video camera to the rotating part of the head
The gap between the camera and the test grid is quite limited, and the only useable image I got from any of the composite video cameras I have was from a pinhole board camera. It fits nicely in the gap and can be mounted using a similar mount to my rotation grid.
Its not yet mounted to the head, but connected to the digitiser through the Fiducial connection it images and finds the centers of the grid dots OK... I picked up the power from the upward facing camera power plug as it was convenient.
It has the same number and orientation Red LEDs for illumination as the fid cam.
Work is now getting in the way and I probably won't get back to this for a few days.
ps, yes I know the camera is old fashioned ! its been in a drawer for 20 years !
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s48/Iamcabaged/IMG_20160823_014308.jpg)
Checked my printer accuracy today with my reconditioned calipers and the standard print is within 1 part in 1,000 over A3 which can be corrected to less than 1 part in 10,000 in software. That is better than the dimensional stability of the paper so its as good as it can be and I'll stick to the default print scaling.
Thinking about it, the linearity of the grid is important, but the actual accuracy less so.
My understanding is that the the grid is used in two ways.
1. to map table positions against job pcb positions. In this case setting to the fiducials corrects for any small overall dimensional differences, using the difference between the stored fiducial positions and the imaged fidicuaials to scale the job x y co-ordinates to fit the actual pcb. So the machine will compensate for a grid slightly out of scale.
2. to map the fiducial camera positions relative to the head. Again, a small scale difference would be compensated for.
so..
I have the kit and a plan, just waiting for time to have a play !
I managed to find a few minutes this evening to try a short test run with my camera rig attached to the nozzle stub.
I didn't remove all my feeders (as I still have more boards to run this week), just enough to get a level area back left where the grid head routine starts.
The good news is that the grid head routine moved the head around the grid, one dot at a time, imaging it correctly until I told it to stop.
I did learn a couple of things from the run
1. with my setup, I need to tie the mirror up out of the way as the camera fouls it when retracted enough to focus
2. It seems it doesn't matter too much what camera/lens is used as the first thing the calibrate routine does is do some scaling on the image. This scaling must just be to set the imaging window as it didn't affect the head movement steps.
3. My current set up has a couple of issues. First, the grid needs to be matt, as the semi glossy card stock I used at first has too many reflections. Second, The LEDs will need a diffuser, again to minimise reflections, the same type material as used on the illuminators for the fid and up cams will do, I will try a bit of matted off acrylic next time I try.
I have a feeling that the CAL05 drawing is of a camera adapter to fit a camera of the type used in the Fid cam to the head.
I can't quite get my head round how it is supposed to fit, but since I don't have a camera of those dimensions available, I will stick with my cobbled together set up for now until I have the process working and need a more accurate and stable mount.
a brief (and not very exciting video here https://youtu.be/EZZ1gP36r9s )
The movement of the head from one dot to the next shows up nicely.
You can clearly see the reflections of the LEDs in the black toner which cause the issue, the digitiser sees them as white areas unless the threshold is spot on.. The phone camera I am using to take the video shows them much better than the human (or at least my) eye.
You can also see a pause where the initial imaging fails and the routine adjusts the threshold for a better image.
For best diffusion you ideally want something that is translucent throughout,not just on the surface. Opal acrylic is ideal,but csn be hard to find in small pieces. Polythene,or translucent hotmelt glue are also options.
I've been reverse engineering the code from time to time whenever I have some spare time. I have quite good knowledge of how the software is structured now internally and I am able to extract functions into pseudo readable code, then convert them manually into something a bit more understandable. Calibration code was my next step, but it is quite difficult without actually seeing what the machine does during calibration as I need the jig. It's mostly being limited to finding the pieces of code that represent events on the machine like displaying dialog boxes.
Spiyda, can you please let me know the exact steps that don't make sense to you and I will see if I can extract the logic behind the code on the machine. Maybe with combined effort we might be able to fully reverse engineer the functionality?
I have a couple of orders to get out in the next couple of days, but after that, I plan to remove the feeders, fit the calibration plate and attempt to run through the whole process.
I've got some opal acrylic on the way to play with as well as a smaller camera (I know I had some somewhere but they have escaped)
I will document each step properly with more detail on any parts not understood.
I'm not quite sure why the nozzle doesn't automatically rotate 180 degrees between passes (as would be logical if my hypothesis is correct) but some index mark on the jig will be required to get the 180
I honestly don't think we are far off, but the run through is bound to throw up something new !
Just started reading this thread with interest, great work. I believe you are on the correct track fitting a camera centred on the nozzel location as speaking to an ex versatronics engineer he explained that to calibrate the machine a camera needed to fitted inplace of the nozzel.
Quote from: Sixexe on September 05, 2016, 10:15:10 PM
Just started reading this thread with interest, great work. I believe you are on the correct track fitting a camera centred on the nozzel location as speaking to an ex versatronics engineer he explained that to calibrate the machine a camera needed to fitted inplace of the nozzel.
Thanks for that, it gives me a bit more confidence that we are not far off... !
I'm still waiting for the smaller camera to arrive :(
For the test, I will be mounting the camera on an M6 Nylon bolt, which perfectly screws up into the center of the nozzle stub !
This gives a more positive and better alignment than slipping something over the two "O" rings, without doing any harm.
I guess it is critical to align the calibration camera perfectly in the centre of the nozzel axis or is this the purpose of reversing the camera? If the camera is rotated in the head 180deg then it would be possible to calculate and compensate for a non centred camera?
Quote from: Sixexe on September 06, 2016, 01:15:03 PM
I guess it is critical to align the calibration camera perfectly in the centre of the nozzel axis or is this the purpose of reversing the camera? If the camera is rotated in the head 180deg then it would be possible to calculate and compensate for a non centred camera?
That is exactly what I'm assuming, but getting the camera as near as possible to the nozzle centre won't do any harm !
Finished the boards I needed to do, so the feeders are off and tried a first fit of the calibration plate.
It sits nice and level, a tight fit to get in, but looks good..
I need to ream out the dowel location holes to 6mm (not 8mm as per the drawing).
The original dowels may have been stepped, but mine are plain 6mm
Hopefully the new camera will arrive tomorrow and will just need the lens swapping to a pinhole ( greater depth of field)
The rotating shield with the slot for nozzle rotation indexing seems to have a hole exactly opposite the slot..
If that is the case then adjusting the camera 180 degrees between passes should be easy.
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s48/Iamcabaged/IMG_20160909_003235.jpg)
More progress today.
I printed 4 off a3 sheets and joined them as a temporary grid.
The joins are not perfect and would not be good enough for an actual calibration, but OK for a test.
I went through the procedure as far as "grid head"
Results were encouraging.
after a tweak.. the first half of the grid head calibration procedure runs all the way through
The tweak was to ignore the automatic nozzle height at the start of the procedure and move the camera further from the grid.
This means that slight variations in height of the grid have less effect on the image.
I ran the procedure until the machine asked for the shaft to be rotated 180 degrees. (as previously discussed)
I didn't proceed as at this stage the diffuser was held on by elastic band and would have dropped off !
videos on youtube
https://youtu.be/bNJtTmpBflk
https://youtu.be/S4CqeLFYCpg
Have you been looking at what it's putting in the cal files?
Quote from: Mike on September 12, 2016, 10:42:30 AM
Have you been looking at what it's putting in the cal files?
I'm deliberately holding off until I can run through the "Grid Fiducial" with a decent grid..
I can't see there is much to learn until the data produced is decent
hopefully this week.
Too bad that proper work gets in the way !
I'm waiting for a better printed grid to try the process end to end, then I can compare the calibration files.
But in the meantime a couple of observations, notes on what I have learned.
The plate specified in the drawings upon which to mount the grid, is bigger than it needs to be. Its about the maximum size you could possibly fiddle in while the machine is in its case.
One job to do is to redraw it to the minimum size needed to do the calibration. It could also easily be made in two parts to make posting it easier if required.
It would easily work with just a chunk of MDF or Worktop. The precise alignment using the dowels is only required if you want to stop the process half way through, remove the jig and come back again, or just recalibrate the fid cam without recalibrating the head.
The Camera definitely works best with a small CMOS camera with a pinhole lens, (greater depth of field)
It needs to be mounted on the nozzle shaft, (I used a nylon M6 bolt, which screws nicely up the centre of the nozzle.)
Any led illuminator needs a diffuser
It works better further away from the grid than the default position, and the software allows for the z position to be adjusted before starting the procedure.
A soft foam pad is needed in the park position as unless you are careful, the arm dumps the camera with some force onto the grid plate ! (yep, I lost a camera that way !)
An M3 set screw or bolt, fits into an existing threaded hole on the side of the head to hold the mirror up out of the way while this is all going on.
So far, I'm impressed with the calibration routines. For code written for Versatronics staff to use, the quality is as good as the production part of the package. For example, if the camera fails to image the dot properly, it tries again by adjusting the threshold, and if that fails, it pauses and gives the user the option of skipping that dot and using calculated co-ordinates. So a failed dot doesn't mean starting again !
The test I have done show the imaging is remarkably forgiving, it coped with misaligned dots, greyish print, the join sticking up several mm and still managed to keep going.
Just waiting for a call from the printer !
If close focus is an issue, Cameras can generally be made to focus closer by screwing the lens out further from the sensor.
Quote from: Mike on September 13, 2016, 04:14:44 PM
If close focus is an issue, Cameras can generally be made to focus closer by screwing the lens out further from the sensor.
Hi Mike, its not the ability to focus closely, but when the camera is close, any variation of the distance between the grid and the lens makes a large difference to the apparent diameter of the dot... and also to the brightness of the image.
When the camera is further away the same difference in grid height makes less difference to the image size or brightness.
I suppose the best way to explain it is that a 5mm difference in height when the lens is 25mm away is 20%
when the lens is 50mm away, a 5mm difference is only 10%
and somewhere in there is the square law.. but I give up on the maths.. I'm sure you get the gist...
But now from practical experience, I know it actually makes a huge difference to how well the routine copes with the small variations.
Oddly, when I tested it, with the camera further away, not only were there less errors, but the process was much faster, probably twice as fast !
ps ( reminds me of father ted ! ;) )
Do you know if the absolute location of the grid dots is important, or the size of the grid dots, or the height of the grid? I was thinking about how you were going to get your grid printed and wondered if you had considered getting a photoplot from gerber data. I found jd-photodata.co.uk could supply a photo plotted image size of 556 mm x 695mm at 4k dpi for £38.
Quote from: Sixexe on September 13, 2016, 11:45:29 PM
Do you know if the absolute location of the grid dots is important, or the size of the grid dots, or the height of the grid? I was thinking about how you were going to get your grid printed and wondered if you had considered getting a photoplot from gerber data. I found jd-photodata.co.uk could supply a photo plotted image size of 556 mm x 695mm at 4k dpi for £38.
I don't actually know anything !
Its all educated guesswork, Ive certainly never seen anyone calibrate a machine or seen the kit used to do it !
So this is a bit of a rambling reply !
But from what I understand, and trying to imagine how I would design a calibration process, I don't think the absolute location or the exact size of the grid dots is crucial.
The purpose of the head calibration is to get build a data file that relates the arm positions to the actual x,y coordinates
My thinking is this.. there are two distinct types of points.
Points that are stored based on the current head position or the current fiducial camera position + offset (the precise data in the co-ordinate pairs is unimportant as the stored position will be calculated using data which will be the same data the head uses to get back there.. so even if it is incorrect, the head will still return to the same location)
Points that are derived from the gerber and are always relative to the fiducials. (these will need to use the x,y co-ordinate data) If the data is out, the placement of components will be distorted away from the fiducials.
What I don't yet understand is how the fiducial calibration procedure and the fiducial offset are related, but hopefully that will come.
My point is that provided the dots are evenly spaced over the working area, and are reasonably close to 0.5" apart, I think the machine will cope with the scaling reasonably well, That is part of the function of using the fiducials. As for the dot size, again, as long as they are consistent and approximately the right size, the first part of the routine automatically scales them so it should be OK. The imaging seems to cope fairly well with small differences in the dots, and if they are outside the parameters, allows a manual overide.
I'm happy to be shot down in flames if it doesn't work properly with a 600dpi printed grid, but that's part of the fun.
That jd-photodata.co.uk info is useful though, The grid needs to be 800 wide but there is no reason it couldn't be in two halves as long as they are aligned on the board.
As far as height is concerned, it needs to be a height that is in focus for the fiducial camera. On one of my machines the pcb sits a good 10mm lower than the feeders but I may change that so that they are the same height and adjust the grid to a similar height.
So far my guesses seem to be working, the next step will be to try and run the process from end to end, compare the data generated with the original data file, then try actually using the machine with the new data file. It should be quickly obvious if it isn't working properly.
Just waiting on a full size grid printed in one piece.
Re. photoplots, my PCB place charges me £10 per layer. They use http://www.phillipsdigital.co.uk/
A quick update of what I learned this evening.
Something I missed earlier,
The camera needs to either be spot on the centre of the z axis (actually quite difficult to achieve)
and it needs to be aligned with the axis also.
or it needs some kind of adjustment.
I knew it had to be reasonable but I assumed that the reversing of the camera would compensate. It has to be quite a bit better than my first attempt and the greater the distance of the camera from the grid, the better it needs to be aligned. The software does compensate, but I would guess that it is only up to maybe half a dot diameter.
I used a nylon bolt through the center to locate it, but they do flex a bit and although the camera was close to centre, it was out of alignment with the axis.
It needs to be pretty close to centre and on axis because, when the camera is reversed and the arm returns to where it started the grid calibration for the second pass the dot needs to be close enough to the middle of the field of view to be imaged correctly.
Mine wasn't .......... so the second pass failed. :(
I will need to re-engineer the camera mount, probably by making a dummy nozzle holder and centering it up before fitting.
It may mean it needs a different material for the bolt if i stay with my current mounting method, but that is just minor tinkering.
I can take the opportunity to fit the smaller camera (which finally arrived) and tidy up the wiring a tad.
Basically it needs a proper engineered mount ! (but i suppose we knew that already)
To be honest, the first attempt was a bit of a lash up but it fulfilled its function and I learned from it!
On the bright side, a cheaply (and to be honest not very well) printed grid worked pretty well. It gave me a chance to adjust the brightness of the LEDs, the distance of the camera from the grid, and the initial threshold setting.
The first pass went through with no intervention with just a couple of dots multiple imaged by the software.
I don't know exactly why they were multiple imaged, but it could either be the xy coordinates were outside a soft limit, it could be that the lighting was a little different or in some cases it could be where the arm changes direction (which is where any wear or slackness of the belts would affect it)
I was chuffed that it went smoothly enough that none of the dot positions failed imaging and needed to be set by calculation.
Onward and upward !
Almost finished the new camera mount, just need to mount the LEDs.
It has three M2 mounting screws with springs behind to allow adjustment.
All mounted on an aluminium support machined to fit the shaft of the "Z" axis and tapped for the screws
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s48/Iamcabaged/IMG_20160923_001753.jpg)
ready to play over the weekend :)
Very nice work! Where did you get the camera and lens from?
Quote from: Sixexe on September 24, 2016, 07:16:03 PM
Very nice work! Where did you get the camera and lens from?
I was tempted to use a usb webcam or a rasberry pi camera module and a raspberry pi, which has of course a composite video output.
I have a couple of Pi 2s that would do it, but a pi zero also has the composite video output and would be the cheapest.
but a mate had a couple of composite video cameras in a drawer from years ago when we made CCTV cameras, so I used one of those, with one for a spare!
Hopefully I will be trying it out tomorrow.
CCTV board cameras are less than a tenner on ebay, so no problem finding something useable & cheap
Tried a run through with the new camera, mount and illuminator. (still using the fairly poor grid)
Good news is that it ran through the Grid Head process without a hitch.
The head was reversed after the first pass and it completed the second pass OK.
I then ran the Test Head Grid process,
The test grid processed just imaged a limited number of dots. (probably 6, but I wasn't counting, see below)
At the end of the Test Head Grid process, it gave this data
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s48/Iamcabaged/IMG_20160926_013926.jpg)
I haven't analysed it yet but my guess is that it is the deviation from the position recorded in the grid head data to the imaged dot at the 6 test positions.
I have no idea at this stage whether it is a good or bad result, time will tell.
I did try the next step, Grid Fiducial, but I think the fid camera needs its axes aligning as it failed during the process.
I will analyse how it failed another day and figure out how it should be initially aligned.
Once I realised I hadn't swapped the digitiser input lead back to the Fiducial camera when trying to run the "Grid Fiducial" things became easier ! ::)
The Grid Fiducial routine is now runs smoothly, even with the extra illumination from the new camera illuminator !
The Test Fiducial grid results in the dialog below, again, not exactly sure whether it is good or bad !
A couple of things, the offset needs to be set reasonable close by imaging a datum first with the new camera then the fid camera.
Without that, the Grid Fiducial routine fails because after a fairly large change in arm position, the dot is outside the imaging area.
I imagine it is also important to line up on the same dot when starting the grid routines. (I probably didn't, time will tell)
Very close to having a set of numbers to play with , in fact I will upload the data so far to my website in case anyone want to take a look
http://www.spiyda.com/temporary/rvdata.dat
http://www.spiyda.com/temporary/rvdata.old
To be honest, at this stage I'm getting a bit fed up of the chase, I could do with spending some time earning bread and butter !
It did cross my mind that I probably should have checked the belt tightness before I started.
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s48/Iamcabaged/IMG_20160927_000132.jpg)
is anyone still out there or have you all given up and gone home !
This thread is the main reason i'm logging in every day.
I'm sure there's a long list of people out there awaiting the next episode, like me.
Thanks for that ! I won't give up just yet then !
I did run through the processes a couple of times today and learned that the starting point is critical (at least on my setup)
Its not marked on the grid, but I'm homing in on the sweet spot to start the grid processes from.
I suppose its the first quantifiable data that you can't derive directly from the software or dxfs.
Unfortunately, it takes a good while to run through to test. (each pass is approx 30 minutes and three passes to do the grids)
The idea being to image an area centered on the center of the grid, but without the arm becoming hyper-extended, or the fid cam dropping off the edge.
Too far forward and the arm cannot extend far enough to image the frontmost dots.
Too far back and the arm fouls on the central pillar.
At the moment it seems to be 5 dots from the left and 26 dots from the front (for the Grid Head)
but starting from that position, the Grid Fiducial drops off the back of the grid
My assumption that both the Grid Head and Grid Fiducial start on the same spot may not be true
If I'd realised I would have to work this out I would have made more careful observations earlier !
Okay, so I ran through the Grids several times
Gridding the head from 5 from the left and 26 from the front completes successfully
Gridding the fid cam from 7 in from the left and 24 from the front also completes successfully.
I've tried the spots around those and they all fail, either due to moving off the spots, over extending the arm, colliding with the pillar
or just moving over the edge of the grid.
Certainly the mid point 6, 25 fails for both
I really expected there to be a common start point :-(
the Test results for the final runs was
Head
X1 3 Y1 -2
X2 3 Y2 5
X3 -1 Y3 -2
X4 2 Y4 -2
X5 7 Y5 1
X6 1 Y6 1
Fid
X1 3 Y1 4
X2 4 Y2 1
X3 0 Y3 1
X4 8 Y4 0
X5 6 Y5 -1
X6 5 Y6 5
I've updated the new DAT file to compare with the one that came with the machine in 2000
http://www.spiyda.com/temporary/rvdata.dat original machine dat from 2000
http://www.spiyda.com/temporary/2rvdata.dat dat I was recently using for placing
http://www.spiyda.com/temporary/3rvdata.dat dat generated by the calibration process (grid head and grid fid only)
I'm kind of stuck now... any thoughts ?
Do I proceed assuming these are correct.
> I really expected there to be a common start point :-(
Does the difference between start points equate to roughly the distance between head and fidcam?
If so, this might make some sense as the arm would be in the same starting position.
or, just to throw in another complication:
Are we sure that the camera should be attached directly UNDER the head shaft?
I wonder whether the camera would be located accurately by the head shaft but actually be offset from it allowing for a larger camera.
Would a miniature camera of the size that you are using have been normal back in the day?
Quote from: Jason on September 29, 2016, 07:30:33 PM
> I really expected there to be a common start point :-(
Does the difference between start points equate to roughly the distance between head and fidcam?
If so, this might make some sense as the arm would be in the same starting position.
or, just to throw in another complication:
Are we sure that the camera should be attached directly UNDER the head shaft?
I wonder whether the camera would be located accurately by the head shaft but actually be offset from it allowing for a larger camera.
Would a miniature camera of the size that you are using have been normal back in the day?
Thanks for the thoughts..
The distance between the dots that seem to work is approx 35mm
the distance from the head shaft to fid cam is approx 55mm
to get the difference between the dots to be the same as the fid cam offset would mean the dots would have to be 3 different in x and y
eg 5,26 3,23 but that is well outside the range of where the calibration process would run.
The idea that the camera should be mounted under the shaft
1. If I was designing a calibration process, that is where I would mount it.
2. The dialog that asks for the camera to be rotated 180 degrees suggests it is mounted on something that rotates
and oddly enough, the camera boards that I am using actually date from around 1998, so they were available and probably cheaper than now !
Quote from: spiyda on September 29, 2016, 12:51:24 AM
I'm kind of stuck now... any thoughts ?
I'd think the thing to do would be to do a test placement with pre- and post- calibration data to compare the errosrs.
Quote from: Mike on September 29, 2016, 10:43:56 PM
I'd think the thing to do would be to do a test placement with pre- and post- calibration data to compare the errosrs.
I think you are right Mike,
I'm pretty sure the linearity / scaling will be correct, the process went too smoothly to not be correct.
The issue is whether the Fid cam is any better
I'll remove the grid, put the head camera back on, set the offset correct in the centre of the work area,
and see what its like at various places within the working area.
If its well out, at least a pattern may emerge. !
I need to remove the grid to do the rest of the calibration anyway.
I don't actually know how good the fid camera to head offset compensation is when the machine is set up perfectly ...
In theory, it should be possible to use the fid cam to set up the feeders and tool pick up points.... but at least I now have the camera for that !
I haven't given up,
just been to busy with work to get back to it.. :( :)
Unfortunately I had a Z axis crash today... so its put the calibration procedure on hold for still longer..
It was a bit of a nasty one, preceded by the sound of one phase dropping out, smashing both the nozzle and the reject tray, pulling several cover tapes off and moving everything out of alignment by several thou, requiring recalibrating the tool and camera positions as well as the feeders.
( To be honest it sounded like the end of the world !)
I just dropped in my spare control box and it seems to be OK and that points to probably a hybrid driver ( I have a couple of spares, but time is in short supply)
Fingers crossed it will be OK for a few days as I have several hundred small boards to populate.
Does anyone know which of the modules in the switch mode style control box drives the "Z" axis ?
Quick way to check is with power off, unplug one motor at a time until it becomes easier to move the axis by hand.
Check the D connectors, especially the one that goes into the bottom of the unit - I had a contact go bad - it was very visibly burned.
I doubt a hybrid would cause an intermittent fault- connections are a more likely issue.
The IDC connectors on the stepper control boards (and elsewhere) are also a common problem.
ISTR that the DSP boards and ISA carrier boards can have issues - would be worth giving these a good wiggle
I swapped the boards around and its definitely the driver board somewhere, 1 phase down.
I ran 90 boards today with the Power unit from my second machine without a hiccup.
Got another 150 or so to do over the next day or so.. for which I'm sticking with the pre-calibration dat file
The faulty driver board needs fixing and I have a couple of the hybrid modules but decided to take the easy option
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/151701173165
That will be used to replace the faulty unit, which I'll repair and keep as a spare.
We have a show end of next week, but once that is over I'll be proceeding with the calibration.
ps, with the switch mode psu, moving the stepper motor makes the cooling fan spin... !
Anyone interested in resurrecting this topic? Seems to me that spiyda was getting fairly close?
From a post way back: Ed: "Ed - a while back i offered to do a training session on how to do the cal.. not a single taker.......i will be selling the equipment for this soon. :) "
Err, anyone know who Ed was?
Alan
p.s. is drawing CAL05 the calibration camera mount? Also, is it possible to say where the various drawings came from - I'm wondering whether any additional information could be obtained from the same source :)
I'm pretty sure Ed was in fact David Clements, I can't imagine there were ever many calibration kits in existence and VSMT who took on the servicing was only ever a 2-3 man outfit, David, Darren and I remember one other but not their name.
I would have thought David was well shot of any kit, at the time of that offer RV machines were apparently owned by two types of customer, small OEMs who didn't have the cash to move on, and hobbyist/single person outfits. One group was confident in their ability to work things out themselves and the other weren't going to invest in a dead platform or perhaps had already gained the knowledge required.
I was havin a poke around in the files and I noticed that the cal grid seems to sit in a maybe obvious way on the bed - spiyda probably figured this out already.
This maybe?
http://anagram.net/nuts/Versatronics/RVxS-grid.jpg (http://anagram.net/nuts/Versatronics/RVxS-grid.jpg)
Also, blnkgrd1.sys and blnkgrd2.sys suggest that rvplace holds the grid and cal numbers as 56x56 matrices. I also found that there are 6,272 rows in the cal grid part of rvdata.dat - which also suggests (conveniently) 2 off 56x56 matrices of x,y points. 56 btw is 27.5 inches / 0.5 cal grid spacing (+1 to make it even) and note the first column of the various matrices (blnkgrd1.sys / blnkgrd2.sys / rvdata.dat) is always blank.
Anyone buy that?
Alan
Quote from: Gopher on November 26, 2017, 03:22:58 PM
I'm pretty sure Ed was in fact David Clements
I believe so. Probably the most unreliable person I've ever had the misfortune to deal with.
He was really pissed off about me setting up this forum...
OK, I don't know exactly what this means and it may well not all be correct, but here is a visualisation of the two cal matrices in my rvdata.dat with the tool etc positions from the same file. It is possible the cal matrices don't start at cartesian 0,0 (as my previous graphic) and it is possible that the rows/columns may be inverted - as I made a guess which may the matrices are serialised into the file. Anyway, FYI:
http://anagram.net/nuts/Versatronics/RV1S_152%20RBMAR07.png (http://anagram.net/nuts/Versatronics/RV1S_152%20RBMAR07.png)
The green lines are the 1st matrix and the red lines the 2nd - if indeed my guess about the matrix dimensions is correct. The overall shape of cal data looks bona fide, but who knows. There looks something fairly wrong in that the cal data spans the whole bed - which is clearly wrong as the arm can't actually do that - but that's as far as I've got so far. Constructive comments welcome.
Alan
Ah think I've figured out the camera positioning - the camera adaptor shown in the CAL05 model mounts direct to the brass bar on the z-axis. The camera is either 15mm or '17.17mm' diameter and is held with the two m3 grub screws. I was expecting it to be another WAT-704 but apparently not as those are 18mm diameter. Of course, it could be some camera + light rig. I think the slots on the CAL05 model, can be sensed by the R-axis zero sensor.
Something like this:
http://anagram.net/nuts/Versatronics/Possible%20camera%20mount.PNG (http://anagram.net/nuts/Versatronics/Possible%20camera%20mount.PNG)
http://anagram.net/nuts/Versatronics/Camera%20adaptor%20orientation.PNG (http://anagram.net/nuts/Versatronics/Camera%20adaptor%20orientation.PNG)
Alan
Alan,
you are more than welcome to the parts I made / had made to take this further.. ( rotational calibration thingy, camera on mount and grid plate with slightly iffy grid print)
I had the calibration routine running through from end to end but ran out of enthusiasm / time to progress.
The machine I was using decided it didn't want to play any more and I switched to my spare machine which is better calibrated. Having spent quite a lot of time on it, I need to get on and do some new product designing !
contact me if you would like to take it on
Hey Spiyda,
>>> you are more than welcome to the parts I made / had made to take this further.. ( rotational calibration thingy, camera on mount and grid plate with slightly iffy grid print)
Thanks that would be great - but I'm hoping we might convince you to re-kindle some interest :)
I think you were nearly there - seems to me there's (a) just checking that the grid is accurately positioned where it's meant to be - if, in fact, that's required and (b) verifying that the resulting cal file is at least as accurate as the previous one.
I'm up for spending some time to finish this off - anyone else? Mike? Spiyda, any chance of finding some more enthusiasm / time for the last couple of tasks?
I've found a camera which seems to the job and have CADed-up Versatronics' mount design, so it would be easy to print it up. I have to get some stuff water-jetted over the next week or so, so could get some cal platforms cut for anyone who's interested.
Alan
OK a slightly different proposal for a possible cal grid position:
http://www.anagram.net/nuts/Versatronics/RVxS-grid%202.PNG (http://www.anagram.net/nuts/Versatronics/RVxS-grid%202.PNG)
I'm thinking the whole thing is keyed for exact position on the 6mm dowels (which I just discovered come out and could be replaced for this purpose with longer ones). I think they might stick through the 7mm holes in the Cal04 bed and key the cal grid directly or whatever it is mounted on.
Spiyda: anything else about the cal you can think of? Does the cal routine look like it goes through all the accessible points on the grid? In what order?
Alan
Yes the calibration grid plate keys to the two dowels...
You need to start the process at the right spot to enable it to complete..
too far in any direction and at some point the camera will try to image off the grid..
If I remember correctly, it starts a few dots in from the left side.. not far from the position the head waits at after finding the switches..
The camera needs to be on and able to be rotated 180 degrees.
then you manually move to the start position, image the correct dot in the cam and set it off on its travels..
at a certain point it will ask for the camera to be rotated. than carry on to the end.
I got to the stage where it was producing a file...
the next step would be to get a grid printed more accurately, ( the one I had was not 100% so wouldn't be a fair comparison of the files produced)
I think Mike suggested a way to get one printed.
Quote from: spiyda on December 13, 2017, 09:36:59 PM
the next step would be to get a grid printed more accurately, ( the one I had was not 100% so wouldn't be a fair comparison of the files produced)
I think Mike suggested a way to get one printed.
Photoplots ( or maybe just get a PCB made ?)
I don't know if typesetting films are still easily available (I used to use these in teh days when PCB makers would take transparencies), but that would probably be another option - they are typicallt about 1200dpi but not sure what the dimensional stability is like.
This is one possible source - my PCB places uses them and charges me £10 per layer for plots
http://www.phillipsdigital.co.uk/
Quote from: Mike on December 17, 2017, 12:39:22 AM
Quote from: spiyda on December 13, 2017, 09:36:59 PM
the next step would be to get a grid printed more accurately, ( the one I had was not 100% so wouldn't be a fair comparison of the files produced)
I think Mike suggested a way to get one printed.
Photoplots ( or maybe just get a PCB made ?)
I don't know if typesetting films are still easily available (I used to use these in teh days when PCB makers would take transparencies), but that would probably be another option - they are typicallt about 1200dpi but not sure what the dimensional stability is like.
This is one possible source - my PCB places uses them and charges me £10 per layer for plots
http://www.phillipsdigital.co.uk/
I don't know much about printing but there may be another way
I don't know if it would be accurate enough, but my new laser could probably do something half the size needed..
Its accuracy is only as good as the toothed belts it uses..
but it would probably be better than the sheet I had made by a local printer :(
My son has a lot of customers with big industrial lasers, some use ball-screws which would be a lot more accurate., I will ask him tomorrow.
I guess I could try different materials on my laser to see what the camera images best, then get a full size one made on the industrial laser.
Quote from: spiyda on December 17, 2017, 12:57:57 AM
I don't know if it would be accurate enough, but my new laser could probably do something half the size needed..
Its accuracy is only as good as the toothed belts it uses..
You'd probably want to make it do everything from the same direction to avoid errors from backlash, though move optimisation in the software may get in the way of that. Also, with a laser you're a bit limited with materials - obviously you need something with good stability.
>>> Yes the calibration grid plate keys to the two dowels...
I wonder whether the dowels stick through the grid plate and the grid is directly keyed on them. Maybe the 8mm reamed holes just take bushes to actual locate 6mm dowels and then longer 6mm dowels stick through the 7mm holes in the cal plate to key the film/print on? I wonder how important it is that the grid is located accurately with respect to the bed? Do you think that the matrix results of the cal are the errors between the arm 'thinks' the theoretical spots are calculated from geometry vs. the actual position where the camera is homed in on the spots?
>>> If I remember correctly, it starts a few dots in from the left side.. not far from the position the head waits at after finding the switches..
I just re-read the thread, and your notes suggest around here?
http://www.anagram.net/nuts/Versatronics/RVxS-grid%202.PNG (http://www.anagram.net/nuts/Versatronics/RVxS-grid%202.PNG)
'spose the machine target accuracy is better than 1 thou (I did a quick check with a dial indicator and each step from the GUI is very close to 1 thou), that suggests a printing accuracy of 10x this would be about the minimum you would need, i.e. ~10K dpi? I know I'm being vague with accuracy, resolution etc here :)
I was thinking maybe laser-cut black mylar on a white background would do it. Or say this:
http://www.jd-photodata.co.uk/photo-tooling/low-resolution-film/28-x-32-photo-tool.html (http://www.jd-photodata.co.uk/photo-tooling/low-resolution-film/28-x-32-photo-tool.html)
28"x32" - they even do 6mm mounting holes! I guess the max size we actually need is 21"x26". Then laser the outline out of the photoplot (doesn't need to be accurate) to fit round the arm etc. Do we need the whole grid imaging as I'm surprised that anything other than the bed needs calibrating - it seems that the positions of the tools, feeders lanes etc are directly calibrated anyway? Also, the arm can't actually reach 1/2 of the grid.
spiyda - how does it walk round the grid - Y front to back (as it seems in your videos) on the spots it can reach then X left to right?
Any ideas why there seems to be two matrices stored in rvdata.dat - head and fid maybe? Lastly, any ideas on how we would we know if the cal is good? I seem to be good with the questions rather than the answers today :)
A.
p.s. here's a visualisation of the default cal data from blnkdat2.sys: http://www.anagram.net/nuts/Versatronics/RV1S-003%20Paul%20F.Mills.png (http://www.anagram.net/nuts/Versatronics/RV1S-003%20Paul%20F.Mills.png)
I was just contacted by David Clements, who expressed interest in selling his cal kit and providing info on the cal procedure.
No figure was mentioned, but if there's any serious interest in having a whip-round and making him an offer, please PM me.
I'm not interested in offering a cal service or making anything out of it, but I'd be happy to document it here and be custodion of a cal kit for loan to people wanting to cal their machines, or get any low-cost parts copied.
If you are getting a cal grid printed, I would go at least one dot oversize in each direction... you can always cut a bit off !
@ alan The way it walked around the grid must be programmed in somewhere.. its not as simply as y then x, it follows a preprogrammed path that didn't seem entirely logical but moves around the area getting to most of the extremities.
The start point is critical or it goes "Off piste" at some point in its travels...
but if you look through my thread, I don't think I was a million miles away...
certainly the smaller board camera mounted to the nozzle holder seemed to do the trick, and the 180 camera rotate and repeat is a clever way of correcting for camera alignment.
Having a working calibrated machine took the urgency out of taking the next step.. placing components makes money
It would be nice to know from David, just how close I got , or where my misinterpretation is!
Chris
After a long absence from the forum I am now back.
We acquired some of the calibration kit from a sale of RV's that we purchased for spares. I also had some good discussions with DC regarding the calibration procedure which was explained to me in some detail.
We were missing the camera that aligned with the centre of the nozzle spigot - it is vital that this camera is aligned 100% coaxially with the nozzle spigot and plumb vertically.
Illumination is also critical. We were told we were missing two sets of three bulb spotlights, which were secured on the left and right side of the RV at the top. However, I see no reason why a circular illuminator could not be used.
Unfortunately, I was asked by someone if they could borrow my camera mount from the calibration set as they had to perform a calibration on a customers machine. The item was never returned - and I have never forgot about it.
In any event the most important item is the screen. Attached are some pictures of my screen as supplied initially by DC.
The base looks like Aluminium plate about 8 mm thick and powder coated white. The film is a photoplot secured with black electricians tape. There are two al bars underneath, one with dowel holes.
Some of the dots are yellow, I don't know why yet. There is a bunch of tape in one location that could signify a start point.
I will measure the sizes accurately and post shortly.
There was a lot of postulating about two sets of data points and if it could relate to the fiducial camera, and to be honest I do not believe it does. This is my understanding of the calibration data and how it relates to the real world, I could be wrong but I don't think I am and would argue the point with anyone:-
1)There are three horizontal 2D co-ordinate planes. The first is the real world plane which is the machine base or table. The second is the calibration grid co-ordinate plane - this is related to the real world plane by two dowel pins. Provided the calibration grid is square and aligned with the real world x and y axis when looking in plan view it should not matter if this is not exactly positioned as to adjust exactly the calibration would be an x and y amount. The third is the arm or nozzle tip plane. This is related to the calibration grid by a 2D set of data points (x' and y'), so for each dot on the cal grid scanned by the calibration camera there will be an offset of x' and y'. This would be related to the real world plane by (x+x',y+y').
2)I do not believe there is a need to calibrate the fiducial camera on the cal grid - even though I was told that it should be calibrated that way. Why do I say this? Well the fiducial camera is fixed to the same plane as the nozzle, so nozzle calibration will automatically calibrate the fiducial camera - the fiducial camera being placed a set distance from the centre of the nozzle, say x" and y". So this would be related to the real world plane by (x+x'+x",y+y'+y"). I have set the fiducial camera using the 'prestick' method as shown to me by DC with no problems whatsoever.
Of course when not calibrating there is another horizontal 2D co-ordinate plane, that being the PCB board.
I will start playing around with the calibration settings again and see what else I can find.
That looks pretty much like what I ended up with...
regarding the camera, you are welcome to use the board camera setup I built that aligns with the nozzle spigot.
The calibration routine calls for the camera to be rotated 180 degrees about half way through the calibration process and this I think is to compensate for any errors in alignment with the spigot..
the circular illuminator around the camera lens certainly seemed to work just fine, the software recognised the dots over the whole screen area and the illumination will be a lot more even than buln spotlights !
The only Thing I was missing was an accurate screen...
I will look at fabricating something along the lines of your board camera setup if I cant recover the original.
I have had a little play with one of the RV's and also taken a look at some of the cal data files. I may have to eat my words on the fiducial camera setup grid - but I cant get my head around why you have to calibrate the fiducial camera on the grid. I also remember DC showing me a little trick in setting the fiducial camera with Prestik.
Spiyda, have you tried to run the grid calibration with the fiducial camera and if so how did it work out?
Great to see some activity with this. If there is anything I can do to help, let me know.
Trev
Quote from: basemetal on March 06, 2019, 04:04:20 PM
Spiyda, have you tried to run the grid calibration with the fiducial camera and if so how did it work out?
to be honest, I can't remember... if I did, I will have mentioned it in the thread somewhere
Anyone made any progress?
Why does the software need intermediate plots and not just 3 or 4 accurate end points?
RV camera cal info from alanambrose - added here to keep cal info together
Hi,
>>> We acquired some of the calibration kit from a sale of RV's that we purchased for spares.
Ah, I hadn't noticed that there was some progress with this. This is very encouraging :)
>>> We were missing the camera that aligned with the centre of the nozzle spigot - it is vital that this camera is aligned 100% coaxially with the nozzle spigot and plumb vertically.
if that helps, I created some cad and a 3d print to hold, what I assumed was another fid-style camera.
>>> In any event the most important item is the screen.
I was hung up on where the dot screen was located relative to the positioning dowels. Is it possible to measure that or post an image with the grid in position and a ruler showing the distances? There are a few logical positions and I couldn't figure out which made the most sense.
>>> I have set the fiducial camera using the 'prestick' method as shown to me by DC with no problems whatsoever.
Can you describe that in more detail, I would love to setup my fid camera properly?
>>> There was a lot of postulating about two sets of data points and if it could relate to the fiducial camera, and to be honest I do not believe it does.
This is my interpretation ...
Firstly, there are two clear matrices of positioning cal data in rvdata.dat. Secondly, looking at some general information about scara arms and algorithms - it seems to be a general strategy to (a) use geometry to get from desired Cartesian nozzle x,y on the bed to rotational a,b and then use (b) adjustments based on measured data to get a more accurate position. I'll see if I can locate again some articles I found on that. That points to a tactic of figuring out which square you're in on the bed and then using the cal values and 2d interpolation to get the accurate fix. Hence, you need some data showing how far off the real numbers are from the calculated ones. That points to using an accurate physical grid (i.e. the photoplot) and a cal routine to calculate the adjustments...
Yeah, since the fid camera is located a fixed distance from the nozzle it wouldn't be strictly necessary to have two adjustment matrices. However, if you've already written the cal routine code based on a camera mounted on the nozzle holder, it's perhaps the easiest course of action to just use the same code for the fid camera - particularly if they're the same camera model :)
Alan
Hi I am trying to make a camera attachment to fit onto the nozzle for calibration, I need a miniature camera but so far I haven't found one that is compatible with the RV video input, I tried one from Ebay listed as a 12V 380TVL PAL Black and white but although I can capture images to a pc with a composite video interface, the video card on the RV just shows a black screen. any Ideas.
Ebay listing No was 223439036512
Micky
Hi,
I always guessed that the cal camera was the same as the fid camera - mainly because it needs to be fairly small and presumably if you had written a bunch of camera code, you would tend to want to use some of the same code for the cal routines - which I'm suggesting implies the same camera. I can always be wrong. If I remember correctly the fid camera is a Watcom WAT-704R G3.8 - and you can still buy these new (for about £125 + VAT). It would be worth double checking I have remembered the right camera. The specs are here:
https://www.watec.co.jp/English/eng_spec/WAT-704R_G3.8_eng.pdf (https://www.watec.co.jp/English/eng_spec/WAT-704R_G3.8_eng.pdf)
Although the Wacom has AGC etc, I would have thought your eBay camera would work as it seems to have similar specs. I remember that there's some camera routines (maybe DOS based) that allow you to test the camera capture from the Imagenation board outside of the RV software. I can dig out my CAD for the holder for the Watcom camera if anyone wants to 3d print that.
Alan
Thanks Alan I will look see if I have the dos routines and go from there, the ebay cam has quite a good picture and can be focussed to quite a short distance maybe 10mm off the deck just a pity it isn't working. I didn't go for the Watcom because its quite long and needs to be a fair height above the grid to focus and have the dot at a usable size.
Micky
Hi Micky,
I think you boot into DOS and the utilities are in an 'Imagenation' directory - it was 3 years ago that I used them.
An image for the sleeve for the cal camera (assuming a WAT-704R) that I designed and had made is below - I've never had the time to test it though. From memory, it was meant to mount instead of the 'nozzle pick-up' - the thing with the two o-rings on - with some slits for the a-axis optical homing switch.
Alan
(http://anagram.net/nuts/Versatronics/cal%20table/Cal%20camera%20sleeve.JPG)
Thanks Alan, I have noticed a possible problem with the Ebay cam and the spec for the Watec mentioned in other posts, my Ebay Cam is PAL 50Hz and I have seen mention of the EIA spec which is based on the NTSC standard, is the card expecting an NTSC style 60Hz signal?
Micky
Hi,
No I don't believe so - it's CCIR as far as I know. Unfortunately my RV is about 85 miles away atm otherwise I would check. One possible test is to check the Imagenation utility sees your FID & main cams OK. It might even give some camera data, sorry I can't remember whether it does. I have found though a copy of the PXC 200 docs and utilities:
http://anagram.net/nuts/Versatronics/PXC%20200%20card/ (http://anagram.net/nuts/Versatronics/PXC%20200%20card/)
There are two versions of the utilities there - which version I used I'm not sure.
Alan
thanks for the files Alan, I will let you know how I get on.
Micky
Oooh, more PXC documentation. I'd started reverse engineering this so I could
replace the PXC board with a shim through to modern Windows capture subsystem
but it was slow going and I'd lost enthusiam a bit. This might give me the boost
to see it through, thank you!
Its been a while since i posted, but i have had to stick my nose in our RV4's to sort out a little problem and so got caught up again in the forum ;D
I did get my outstanding calibration bits from DC so i now have a complete original calibration kit - except the 4 spot lights that were placed in each corner of the machine to illuminate the grid. I have attached the pictures of the bits as calibration parts1 and calibration parts2. Somewhere on the forum is a pile of drawings in some obscure cad format that gives the dimensions, but for clarity i have attached them in pdf.
I was totally thrown by a drawing that showed orientation of the camera holder somewhere on the forum - but it appears wrong. I know that the fiducial camera was used when doing the calibration and know that the mirror needs to be held up with a cable tie or similar. I believe that the stepper motor is removed and the camera adaptor fitted ON TOP of the rotating bit (shown in Fitup of camera holder). The camera then looks down through the spindle, after removing the plastic plug. The camera is then held and adjusted with the hex head screws to get perfect concentricity.
Cheers
Hmmm, for some reason it didn't post the pdf's. 2nd try.
Cheers
This is a method that we have used when fixing the light ring on the fiducial camera to re-align it, or to get it to align with the arm picking tip when we have removed it.
Put a small blob of Prestik on a a PCB mounted in the machine. Poke the tool tip into the blob very gently using 10th increments. Switch to the fiducial camera and you will see just how much you are out by.
You can only adjust in x/y directions when the arm is in a specific position. The reason is you have to imagine three separate planes or grids (one for the fiducial camera, one for the fixed camera and one for the OTF camera) that all have to be related back to the master grid which is the arm placement grid. This step sets the fiducial camera to the placement tip.
Hope this helps someone.
I found some of my notes that i made a number of years ago when DC did some adjustments on one of our RV4's and i have written them up. They really follow on from the camera calibration routine (need to be done immediately after doing that).
Cheers
Quote from: basemetal on June 05, 2020, 11:44:18 AM
They really follow on from the camera calibration routine (need to be done immediately after doing that).
Ah, this is brilliant, I had a long standing problem with rotated parts that I could never
cure using camera alignment alone. This is just the information that fixes it. Thank you!
When using the smallest parts, I had been laying boards out with as many components
at 0 degrees as possible :o I won't need to do that any longer!
Quote from: basemetal on June 05, 2020, 11:44:18 AM
I found some of my notes that i made a number of years ago when DC did some adjustments on one of our RV4's and i have written them up. They really follow on from the camera calibration routine (need to be done immediately after doing that).
Cheers
Thanks a lot for sharing these notes.