Support for RepRapDiscount Smart Controller

briankb

I have a Prusa i3 clone that uses a MKS Base v1.3 board and what appears to be a RepRap Smart Controller LCD display with SD Card and rotary controller.

http://reprap.org/wiki/RepRapDiscount_Smart_Controller </div><div>

I tried using v.91 Repetier firmware and a few of the LCD options but could not get anything to work.

Is it possible to use this LCD/SD board with Repetier v.91 or v.92?

Repetier

They claim to be RAMPS 1.4 compatible and using the lcd pinout so in this case you should only need to set FEATURE_CONTROLLER 2 to make it working. I do not have the hardware so I can only say from what they claim.

briankb

Thanks. FEATURE_CONTROLLER 2 is set and I went back through the v.91 config tool.

It was compiling yesterday when I left out the Display settings but now when I try to compile I get errors.

the first error is

ui.cpp: In member function 'void UIDisplay::adjustMenuPos()':

ui.cpp:2016: error: ISO C++ forbids declaration of 'type name' with no type [-fpermissive]

uint8_t mtype = HAL::readFlashByte((const prog_char*)&(men->menuType));

I noticed something in the Repetier file about uncommenting the LiquidCrystal.h and I did, it didn't seem to help the error.

briankb

brief recap: compiled v.92 after config tool wizard with latest version of Arduino IDE. When I have (from wizard) No Display set in the User Interface section the resulting and downloaded code will compile and upload to the MKS v1.3 board and the axis and heaters/temp work as expect, just without LCD display.

When I set the Display to SmartController from RepRap Discount the compiler just throws up the error.

briankb

Not sure what happened but after trying again, I do know one thing I changed on the Wizard was to disable the "animate menu switches? ran through v.92 config tool again with new zip file. It compiled, uploaded, and the display is working!

:-D

Repetier

0.91 can not be compiled with latest Arduino IDE.

Animate menu can be 0 or 1 and it will compile. IN 0.92 the line you mention does not exist in this form and is on a different line, so I assume it is from 0.91 tests.