Is checking the towers with a level any good?

[Lasivian]

I do not like how the squares I have do not seem to be "good enough" for my taste.

So I tried leveling the top of the box, then checking the level of the legs with a framing level. Which seemed to work rather well.

Can anyone think of any reason this would not be a good idea?

Thanks.

[cope413]

You could make the top level without having the extrusions all squared with the base.

[Eaglezsoar]

I do not like how the squares I have do not seem to be "good enough" for my taste.

So I tried leveling the top of the box, then checking the level of the legs with a framing level. Which seemed to work rather well.

Can anyone think of any reason this would not be a good idea?

Thanks.

Seems to me that all you are doing with a level is proving that the table the printer is on is level.
The uprights have to square to the top building surface of the printer, you cannot determine that with a level.
The upright may be plumb but that does not mean that it is square to the top of the printer.
The entire calibration routine depends on the fact that the uprights are square to the top build plate of the printer and also
square to the top plate that rests on the top of the uprights. The only way I know of to easily determine square
is with a square, not a level.

[Lasivian]

Actually, you square up the base of the printer checking on the build surface. Then you check the uprights for level in 2 axis. If both the base build surface is level and the legs are level along the vertical then it's perfectly square.

I verified with both a square and with measurements between the legs and it came out more precise than just using a square.