400 x 400 Prusa Printer?  

RE: 400 x 400 Prusa Printer?

I don't see 2-3 large printers.  Too many to keep up with.  One or two: Maybe.  

RE: 400 x 400 Prusa Printer?

Mr Prusa whom I have tremendous respect should know he is losing a lot of business. I just purchased parts for a hypercube evolution. A 400x400x400 printer. Prusa's loss.

RE: 400 x 400 Prusa Printer?

Posted by: ben.p17

Mr Prusa whom I have tremendous respect should know he is losing a lot of business. I just purchased parts for a hypercube evolution. A 400x400x400 printer. Prusa's loss.

Good luck.  I have found my non-Prusa printers to be a bit finicky.  

RE: 400 x 400 Prusa Printer?

Posted by: katie.o

I think there's a bit of reality shifting here.

Nope, not shifting. Just have seen this play out before. After announcement, firms doing R&D like Prusa have about 6 months to recoup those costs before the low-cost clones start hitting. The clones don't even have to be good, so long as they look and are sold as the same. JP has mentioned not being willing to give previews for precisely this reason. Prusa is still open source, but that doesn't mean they are required to naively give away their competitive advantage.

Prusa are not needing to protect their innovation against Chinese competitors as their competitors are already ahead (ie we're up to the fourth or fifth iteration of a large scale design in makes like Creality). Prusa need to catch up so their customer base doesn't become fragmented away - to a degree it already has as this thread demonstrates but most I think would prefer to remain within one ecosystem and one set of parts, tools, software if possible.

Without knowing what Prusa is up to internally, how can you possibly know? Brands like Creality are doing a good job of putting out low-cost printers that can achieve good results, but I wouldn't say Prusa is behind in print quality. Yes, there are bigger printers, but they have their own issues. I spend enough time on the various 3D printing subreddits to know exactly how good those fourth or fifth iterations are. The list of "must do" fixes required for those printers is still pretty long, ranging from flashing to fully functional firmware to replacing crappy bowden tubing. Also worth noting that purchasers of the prior generations are out of luck in many cases as update parts aren't released. I'm still waiting for the Design Prototype Test YouTube extortionist artist to release his next "Make your Ender 3 into a Prusa Mk3 killer" video.

All Prusa need to do is introduce a large scale version which just nudges up the standard with their typical quality - most of this is instant through better quality parts they already use, better quality control etc.

I'm hardly a 3D printer hardware expert, but I know that as you scale up dimensions, you get into the square-cube law. Increasing the bed size 50% at least doubles the amount of material and corresponding weight required. Likely even more of an increase in thickness is required to maintain rigidity. If Prusa wants to keep the heated bed consistency, magnetic sheet and other features they're known for, weight goes up considerably. Now you're slinging a lot more weight around on the Y axis, so you're looking at other hardware changes. Not trivial. Sure, Creality and others do it but don't hit the quality and reliability targets that Prusa is known for. I'm sure the last thing Prusa needs is to engage in a race-to-the-bottom against cloners. Being known at the "ringmaster" is not what they want.

Likewise there's no need for massive innovation here or fundamental redesign as we can see by peers using very similar designs and receiving 'best of' awards for the same.

There are surely some awesome large format printers around, but those that I've seen (e.g. BeeVeryCreative B2X300) do make some trade-offs compared to the Prusas. Maybe not important to some users, but it's a change in approach.

We know Josef is lurking and isn't daft, hence I'm confident Prusa will be announcing something this year on this.....

Of that I have no doubt! I'm kind of hoping it's something besides FFF or resins. Or at least something beyond the current crop.

Given this is simply a scalar challenge, it'd be a very smart move to design a 500mm X 500mm architecture (or something robust enough) and then release 300mm, 400mm and 500mm versions for people to pick.  This'd create a full product range and reassert Prusa's position for the next couple of years.

I'd like to see that extend into smaller as well. I'd love a compact 150x150 desktop Prusa and I'm sure some folks interested in miniatures would be just as happy to see one. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "simply a scalar challenge" though. To double dimensions, you're get to 4X+ the weight unless you start making significant changes. Vector 3D's "extrudinator" video covered this. 

RE: 400 x 400 Prusa Printer?

I would rather have the head move in the X and Y, and even in the Z as well, I am fine with that (or the bed moving for the Z).  Makes it a lot easier to have things stick to a non-moving bed.

RE: 400 x 400 Prusa Printer?

Posted by: CybrSage

I would rather have the head move in the X and Y, and even in the Z as well, I am fine with that (or the bed moving for the Z).  Makes it a lot easier to have things stick to a non-moving bed.

Not sure that is true.  I have one with a head that does that and I struggle to get adherence.   The creality and prusa almost always adhere.  I think adherence is all first layer and print bed qualities.  

RE: 400 x 400 Prusa Printer?

Posted by: charles.h13

Posted by: CybrSage

I would rather have the head move in the X and Y, and even in the Z as well, I am fine with that (or the bed moving for the Z).  Makes it a lot easier to have things stick to a non-moving bed.

Not sure that is true.  I have one with a head that does that and I struggle to get adherence.   The creality and prusa almost always adhere.  I think adherence is all first layer and print bed qualities.  

I would not have thought that!  What causes it to shake free if the bed does not move?  I am sure you are right about the first layer being so vital.  I rarely have things not stick with my Prusa, this is true.

RE: 400 x 400 Prusa Printer?

Have been dabbling in the larger build area space and my last 4 printer buys have all been large format and hence non-Prusas.

My latest project is to build and get to know a CoreXY. Am beginning the process of building my own, frame and bearings ordered and on the way.

Of the large format printers I have tried, the CR10S-Pro has been almost Ok, but not quite good enough, and will be unwound soon. The Sidewinder X1 has been better than OK, only have a couple of hundred hours on it as of today, but am almost ready to commit to a second one as as a specialized material printer, carbon fiber..

I simply cannot live with the build area restrictions, especially the 210 mm height, anymore.. I have a few MK3S machines online (5 actually -down from 7). They are excellent, dearly loved and handle the smaller build space need damn near perfectly, but they sit idle more and more these days as my requirements are seeming to move more and more toward larger builds.

Soon I will have to begin to unwind a couple more of the MK3S machines as I need the bench space. It is a shame but I am space-restricted.

Would love a Prusa-designed larger build area printer but understand the dynamics and physics involved are not simple, hence me looking to move toward the CoreXY design and away from the  I3 design, as wonderful as it has been under the current build area design space restrictions.

I am still buying parts in the store here, parts and love Prusament, but JP is losing business. at least from me, due to the size issues.

I will  continue to watch and hope for news on this front, whatever that may be.

RE: 400 x 400 Prusa Printer?

After announcement, firms doing R&D like Prusa have about 6 months to recoup those costs before the low-cost clones start hitting. 

As previously mentioned, this is a generic point which is valid - but this is not what is being described in this case. Ie Prusa aren't going first to market with a large format printer, so there's no R&D point here. If they simply released a Sidewinder X1 clone, then they'd have two immediate advantages for their customers  1) all the software, slicing, ecosystem, support etc would be aligned which would be attractive on its own and 2) they'd have a £500 margin based on customer willingness to pay for the brand to decide how to distribute on better quality parts to improve performance even further.  There's nothing here that a Chinese company could then 'copy' as we're talking zero innovation.  Now of course if they then decided they wanted to innovate further then of course they should keep that under wraps, but this is no relevance whatsoever to them simply declaring 'we're working on a larger format range' as every one of the chinese competitors has already released several!

I'm hardly a 3D printer hardware expert, but I know that as you scale up dimensions, you get into the square-cube law. Increasing the bed size 50% at least doubles the amount of material and corresponding weight required.

Apologies, think you misunderstand my point here - two things 1) as you say this is already being done, so again they are following, not leading - so they could look at the 15-20 approaches to decide the best 'Prusa design' - eg CoreXY, Creality triangle etc etc.  Once they have this scale point, then the rest is pretty predictable - eg extruder choice, software choice, etc. 

The main point here as various people have articulated well in this post alone - if all Prusa did was release a CR10S Pro clone, then this alone would have lots of advantages that would keep customers in this domain - ie you could use one suite of software, familiar firmware, one set of spare parts for extruders, Prusa's 'self printable' mindset etc etc.  Then anything extra they did would be a bonus.

Oh and we also need to be a little bit realistic about the 'Prusa standards of performance' being mentioned as a differentiator.... MMU anyone...? Powder-coated sheet...  MK3 Filament sensor.... etc etc  I think their customers are more than used to things being significantly below par, so I'm not sure I'd get totally hung up on Creality vs Prusa.  

I like Prusa for the fact they move things forward.... come on Josef..... 😉

RE: 400 x 400 Prusa Printer?

Posted by: katie.o

[...] If they simply released a Sidewinder X1 clone, then they'd have two immediate advantages 

 

[...] There's nothing here that a Chinese company could then 'copy' as we're talking zero innovation.

RE: 400 x 400 Prusa Printer?

I say heck no to the clone Chinese crap game.  Make a good large format printer.  Avoid the junky clone stuff.  

RE: 400 x 400 Prusa Printer?

Posted by: bobstro

Posted by: katie.o

[...] If they simply released a Sidewinder X1 clone, then they'd have two immediate advantages 

If Prusa starts cloning other designs, why on earth would anyone pay the premium that Prusa needs to maintain their operations? Other than the Prusa name, it would have little to offer.

 

[...] There's nothing here that a Chinese company could then 'copy' as we're talking zero innovation.

There's your answer. Zero innovation means they're entering the race-to-the-bottom game. 

 

Let's turn your approach around: If that's all you're after, why don't you just buy a CR10 and paint the Prusa name on it?

Personally, I say make it a combo effort.  Look over all the large print bed printers and see the pros and cons of both, then innovate by taking the pros of them all and mitigating the cons, to create a new type of printer that is the best large bed out there.

Innovation, but without reinventing the wheel to do it.  🙂

RE: 400 x 400 Prusa Printer?

Posted by: charles.h13

I say heck no to the clone Chinese crap game.  Make a good large format printer.  Avoid the junky clone stuff.  

Charles, since you've actually tried one, how do you find the print quality on the larger format CR10S-style printers? I have wondered if the sheer mass of the bed is practical beyond a certain size. Do you get a lot of ringing, or do you have to crank down acceleration and jerk settings quite a bit to avoid it? A print that big would already take quite a bit of time, and I'm wondering if slowing it down for decent quality is worthwhile?

Have you mounted a Volcano or SuperVolcano?

RE: 400 x 400 Prusa Printer?

CR-10S Pro:  Decent quality when you can get it to work.   1/37 scale Saturn V transition and it is beautiful and I have struggled to get a quality print since.  I have several beefs with this printer:

1. Bed is on springs and you have to manually level it to get the auto leveling to work.  It an be a huge pain in rear end to get it manually level and you often have to manually re-level the things after each print.  More in number 2.  
2. The PINDA is capacitance based.  It is hugely humidity and temperature sensitive.  Have to re-level it daily sometimes more than that.  I live in Georgia and it is very humid.  
3. The bed is a thin Buildtak rip off.  It is very hard to get prints off of it.  I tore one trying to get my first print off.  
4. The PTFE tubing is a Capricorn clone and not a great one.  I replaced it with the real stuff.  
5. The extruder goes from under extrusion to snapping the filament during retraction.  

Ender-3: Manual level is a challenge because the bed are arm are not level.  I have also struggled with under extrusion.  I installed a PINDA probe and Bondtech.   We will see if I get get it level.  Struggles with this printer are real.  I can see the promise but I need to level it first.  

Anycubic Predator:  This one is very promising.  I have had a number of successful prints.  I like it so far and am just getting use to the settings.  It is not near the quality of the Prusa, but it might be a standin until Prusa make a big capacity printer.  No ringing or quality concerns yet, but not MK3S quality.  

RE: 400 x 400 Prusa Printer?

Anycubic Predator - this one has been interesting me also. 

Am wondering if buying one and spending some money on common upgrades (eg hotend, dampeners etc) whether this would be a decent alternative. 

I'd appreciate thoughts - that or the CR10 Max which is still fairly new...?

RE: 400 x 400 Prusa Printer?

My take on the CR-10 Max: they realized the capacitance PINDA was not working so they when back to the mechanical probe.  I want to see some reviews but I am a skeptic.  

RE: 400 x 400 Prusa Printer?

My point that was missed: the CR10 doesn't use rods with linear bearings. They use guides with roller bearings. Guides are not machined, but are extrusions, and positional accuracy suffers.  You gain size, but at a cost.  

Also, Prusa is already making changes to reduce MK3 costs, shortcuts that appear sensible, but at the apparent reduction in overall quality and reliability (based on forum posts of really silly problems that can be traced back to the printer hardware itself).  Using this as a guideline, changing from 8 mm hardware to 12 mm hardware would be expensive: thicker everything is needed, twice the torque for the motors, more compute horsepower, and my guess would double the cost of making the printer. At a reasonable margin, that means a 300 mm printer will cost users 3x what the MK3 costs.

And a final problem: Prusa is already swamped trying to support the MK3 and new SL1; unless they make some infrastructure changes, a new larger printer will bury them.  But then, I'm just a customer, and my opinion is worth, well, the ink it is written with. lol. 

RE: 400 x 400 Prusa Printer?

I think they are caught up now.  I would pay a premium for a 500x 500 prusa.  

RE: 400 x 400 Prusa Printer?

The E3d Tool changing and motion system is beginning to look interesting. I wonder how the print quality will compare to PRUSA and what price point that system will come in at?, I bet it won't be cheap.

It looks like it may be a bigger print area as well and that video of the print head moving, you would never be able to print at that speed.

c">

RE: 400 x 400 Prusa Printer?

Posted by: katie.o

All Prusa need to do is introduce a large scale version which just nudges up the standard with their typical quality - most of this is instant through better quality parts they already use, better quality control etc.

Likewise there's no need for massive innovation here or fundamental redesign as we can see by peers using very similar designs and receiving 'best of' awards for the same.

Why not do it yourself then, to prove it is as easy as you claim it is to do.