RE: The XL is done forever, man. Game over. It's all gone to hell.
I personally didn't like prusa's xl enclosure solution and I'd love for them to come out with a kit to convert the xl to look something more like the core one L.
I've been working on something like this for about a year now. It's not exactly the same as the original case, but more of an ‘upcycling’ project. I hope to be able to show you some pictures soon.
RE:
short note. I have had Creality and Bambu and Prusa printers. All at one stage went wrong. Only difference is I got help fromprusa the same day. Even a Sunday. So even though my XL5 tool is a bit old now. I am sticking with it. Does all I need to do and the customer service is the best of all thanks prusa
RE: The XL is done forever, man. Game over. It's all gone to hell.
I’m glad Prusa created INDX. It has the potential to move the slicer toward a more mature multi-tool workflow.
I mainly use OrcaSlicer, because it handles supports better. I’ve owned an XL5 for about a year, and I also use a Bambu X1C. Before that I had an MK2 (2016), which replaced my Repman (2009).
With INDX, I hope Prusa will now focus more on slicer features that are essential for real multi-tool engineering workflows, not just speed or convenience.
Things I would really like to see in PrusaSlicer:
- Proper support for multiple nozzle sizes in one print (no longer experimental or blocked by warnings)
- A better wipe-tower / purge strategy for multi-material printing
- Automatic nozzle selection in the slicer (rule-based, not “magic”)
- Per-tool temperature management, e.g. different first-layer temperatures depending on what filament is underneath
- Dynamic nozzle temperature changes, for example to emphasize wood grain in wood filament
- Improved thin-wall handling, configurable per filament
- The ability to reliably print very fine functional features (I print antennas)
- Different speeds per tool
- Different extrusion widths per tool
- A more predictable wall generator (currently I still need many test prints to get deterministic results)
I could list many more multi-tool features, but the main point is this:
Until recently there were relatively few XL5 users compared to the smaller Prusa printers, so software development understandably moved slowly. For me, the main limitation of the XL is software, not hardware.
The XL is a bit like a bulldozer: very capable, very stable, but you shouldn’t expect Ferrari behavior. The out-of-the-box speed profiles are too aggressive for precision work.
INDX is brand new and will need time to mature. As soon as Prusa’s multi-tool solution can reliably print finer features than my X1C, I will seriously consider getting one. It would not replace my XL — I still need the build volume. In fact, my XL is currently printing an instrument case that only just fits on the bed.
So: well done, Prusa — keep innovating. And while you’re at it, please also look for a more robust solution to the fatal error caused by noise on the tool-head connector.