RE: A vey unhappy experience.
I think that tells more about social media than it does about Prura printers.
^^^^ THIS ^^^^
I stay away from most of the 'usual suspect' so-called social media sites!
RE: A vey unhappy experience.
I concur on social media. It is important to understand there are a lot of trolls. For every real person posting a concern, there are an equal number or more that do not own a Prusa and are trolling for a response.
--------------------
Chuck H
3D Printer Review Blog
RE: A vey unhappy experience.
If fitting rods into parts is an issue prusa should be pushing a rod into every part. Does anyone know if Prusa does this? Or at least maybe measuring those critical parts? Maybe they do this. I didnt have any issue with my kit
RE: A vey unhappy experience.
I concur on social media. It is important to understand there are a lot of trolls. For every real person posting a concern, there are an equal number or more that do not own a Prusa and are trolling for a response.
--------------------
Chuck H
3D Printer Review Blog
RE: A vey unhappy experience.
Go on the Creality social media, and tell them you have had enough, and are buying a Prusa. I hear they love that.
RE: A vey unhappy experience.
I made a mistake by going on to social media and was cursed by the keyboard warriors telling me that I had not followed instructions and I should never have bought a kit as I was not competent
I think that tells more about social media than it does about Prura printers.
Inserting the rods was a nightmare and they would only go in if you bashed away far too hard risking fracturing and breaking the component
That sounds horrendous.
One of the things recommended in the Bear build manual, if the rods are too difficult to insert, is take an 8mm reamer, and run it about halfway down the hole. This will make it easier to gt the rod started, but enough of the hole untouched that the rod will still be held securely.
RE: A vey unhappy experience.
I did but would never post that on Social Media.
Go on the Creality social media, and tell them you have had enough, and are buying a Prusa. I hear they love that.
--------------------
Chuck H
3D Printer Review Blog
RE: A vey unhappy experience.
Go on the Creality social media, and tell them you have had enough, and are buying a Prusa. I hear they love that.
ROFL !!
RE: A vey unhappy experience.
For another data point, I ran through the calibration today for a spool of red Overture PETG, and the result was more interesting than I have seen thus far. The average wall thickness of the first calibration run was just under .48mm, and after calculating and slicing with the new multiplier of .945, the verification run had an average wall thickness of almost right on .45mm. This was on the 3S+ extruder, not the Bear.
RE: A vey unhappy experience.
As an addendum to my last post, the Bear calibration guide mentions at the end, "you can now more finely recalibrate your first layer." I didn't bother when I printed the parts for my Bear, because honestly I didn't see any difference. I found that the new extrusion multiplier for the red PETG was enough of a change, that I had to come down on the live Z a bit in order to get a good first layer. As in, I stopped the first print to do this because there were obvious adhesion issues. Came down .06mm and all seems to be happy now.
RE: A vey unhappy experience.
If tweaking the extrusion works for you, I would say all the better. All of us find that certain things do and do not work for us, and IMAO, one of the big issues in the 3d community is those who insist that everyone do things their way.
Having said that, I recently did a project that used those 8mm stainless rods (home-made laptop case) and I found that the best way to size the holes was by trial and error using test prints, and adjusting the model to get them dialed in. I found that 4.2mm (radius) holes were best for a snug but not binding fit using Cura and the Ultimaker. I never even thought of playing with the extrusion to size them.
Many of the prints I've done are model railroad buildings and flats, which are printed in pieces and assembled using registration pegs. Again, these were sized using trial and error using test prints for the best snug but removable fit, adjusting the drafts as needed. I did find that I needed to tweak these when I changed from doing them on the Taz (with Cura) at the local makerspace to doing them on the Prusa with PS. Prusa/PS gave a looser fit with default settings. Again, I never even thought of (or needed to) tweak the extrusion.
RE: A vey unhappy experience.
I have done the same thing, playing with the model when I was trying to make pockets that would be a press fit for some magnets that I purchased. It's probably the most efficient way for one-offs, and once you get the sizing figured out, you can hopefully use the same features/dimensions on multiple models. I ended up making several simple fridge magnets in the process of getting it right, since they would print in minutes rather than the 3 hours taken by the part I was actually trying to design.
For a guy designing precise mechanical parts to be printed by many different individuals using who knows what equipment and a dog's lunch of filament, I imagine that's just the beginning. But if you have your extrusion width precisely calibrated, and you can get all of the people building your design to do the same thing, then you've probably got a reasonable shot at them having good outcomes.
Most of the time it probably doesn't matter, and then you get an odd spool like the red I am printing with now, where the extrusion width is about .03mm wider than spec (prior to calibration), and suddenly things start not fitting right.
RE: A vey unhappy experience.
I have done the same thing, playing with the model when I was trying to make pockets that would be a press fit for some magnets that I purchased. It's probably the most efficient way for one-offs, and once you get the sizing figured out, you can hopefully use the same features/dimensions on multiple models. I ended up making several simple fridge magnets in the process of getting it right, since they would print in minutes rather than the 3 hours taken by the part I was actually trying to design.
For a guy designing precise mechanical parts to be printed by many different individuals using who knows what equipment and a dog's lunch of filament, I imagine that's just the beginning. But if you have your extrusion width precisely calibrated, and you can get all of the people building your design to do the same thing, then you've probably got a reasonable shot at them having good outcomes.
Most of the time it probably doesn't matter, and then you get an odd spool like the red I am printing with now, where the extrusion width is about .03mm wider than spec (prior to calibration), and suddenly things start not fitting right.
So, your print are coming our larger than the part is designed to be printed? That is odd, most of mine shrink. Is this from the extrusion multiplier?
--------------------
Chuck H
3D Printer Review Blog
RE: A vey unhappy experience.
The only thing I have measured is the hollow calibration cube printed in vase mode, following this procedure:
https://guides.bear-lab.com/Guide/Extrusion+multiplier+and+filament+diameter/8
I haven't had any fit problems with the parts I have sliced using my own generated multiplier. Maybe I wouldn't have had fit problems anyway with the filaments I used to build my printer. The procedure made a measurable difference although maybe not a significant one. The filament I generated the EM for yesterday though, I think the standard EM was off by enough that it might have caused problems. Either way it's not a difficult thing to do.
The guy who designed my printer insists in the instructions that the multiplier be calculated and used, so that's what I did. 20 years of working in aircraft maintenance have conditioned me to follow the manual, what can I say?
RE: A vey unhappy experience.
I have made some progress but I am now so fed up with it's hard to get motivated. Anyway reaming all the holes (great idea but you should not have to do it) has solved the problem of the rods requiring a beefy bash with a rubber mallet. Thanks, everybody for your constructive comments much appreciated.
RE: A vey unhappy experience.
I’m nearly certain they don’t test all of them. I am sure that they inspected them to an extent, but if you have your printer set right it should print basically the same everytime.
If fitting rods into parts is an issue prusa should be pushing a rod into every part. Does anyone know if Prusa does this? Or at least maybe measuring those critical parts? Maybe they do this. I didnt have any issue with my kit
RE: A vey unhappy experience.
Thats why QA exists things dont always do what they should
I’m nearly certain they don’t test all of them. I am sure that they inspected them to an extent, but if you have your printer set right it should print basically the same everytime.
If fitting rods into parts is an issue prusa should be pushing a rod into every part. Does anyone know if Prusa does this? Or at least maybe measuring those critical parts? Maybe they do this. I didnt have any issue with my kit
RE:
Finding multiple parts that are out of spec should be pretty rare.. I haven’t read of that being an issue with Prusa parts.. at least not in the last 4 months I’ve read stuff here. If you have a part that is too small (in diameter), measure the part with a caliper and take a picture and send to Prusa support.. I would hope they would see that you have a bad batch of parts and would send you a new entire set. Proving the parts are bad is something no one can deny and will help them improve their QA process so it doesn’t happen to others. Being an electronics Engineer I’ve put together several kits and reviewed many assembly manuals and Prusa’s effort exceeds most I’ve seen. Because of this care to detail, I know they would very much like to see exactly the issue is with your kit. Providing part measurements and then cross-referenced against the kit serial # would allow them to see exactly in their process something went wrong. Now I would also expect that some of the cross threading could be avoided with modified assembly techniques.