Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

SINGLENOZZLE #1624

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

SINGLENOZZLE #1624

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

MagoKimbra
Copy link
Contributor

Use one hotend and multy extruder...

Requires changes to LCD software and PID setting.

Use one hotend and multy extruder
@Wurstnase
Copy link
Contributor

This would be more readable and maintenance friendly if we use EXTRUDER and HOTEND instead of EXTRUDER = 1 in some definitions.

@MagoKimbra
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sorry Wurstnase, but my english is very bad... I do not understand if you like this or not....

int current_temperature_raw[EXTRUDERS] = { 0 };
float current_temperature[EXTRUDERS] = { 0.0 };
#else
int current_temperature_raw[1] = { 0 };
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Replacing EXTRUDERS with HOTENDS.

Make this everywhere you normally needs temperature or stuff you need for HOTENDS.

And then:

#ifdef SINGLENOZZLE
  #define HOTENDS 1
#else
  #define HOTENDS EXTRUDERS
#endif

@thinkyhead
Copy link
Member

Another option would be to make NOZZLES into a define right next to EXTRUDERS and make it normally set to the same as EXTRUDERS...

#define EXTRUDERS 2
#define NOZZLES EXTRUDERS // or "HOTENDS"
#define SINGLENOZZLE (NOZZLES == 1 && EXTRUDERS > 1)

@nophead
Copy link
Contributor

nophead commented Mar 21, 2015

SINGLENOZZLE doesn't seem general enough to me because you could have two Cyclops side by side giving 4 extruders and two nozzles. And it isn't really nozzles that are handled by the firmware, it is heaters so, yes HOTENDS is probably better.

@MagoKimbra MagoKimbra closed this Mar 23, 2015
@thinkyhead thinkyhead mentioned this pull request May 23, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants