Core One MMU - Next Gen Solution
Although the MMU3 can be used with the Core One, the solution isn't the 'neatest'.
We have several printable solutions already available with enclosures and auto-retracting spool holders etc, so we know it can be done.
Then we have the competition, with their, in my opinion, very 'neat' solutions that just seem to work exceptionally well, albeit with a lot more wastage between colour changes due to the cutting rather than retraction.
So what do you think Prusa can do here, and what are you hoping for?
It seems an enclosed design that sits on top of the core one is a strong possibility, but what would the MMU design look like?
I'm really hoping its not something that's hidden away, or just accessible from the rear.......unless it is realy proven to be completely reliable and needs very little, if any, interaction.
Or maybe it's something that fits into the right side of the printer, taking the place of the spool holder?
What are your thoughts, or hopes, for the new solution?.....
RE: Core One MMU - Next Gen Solution
This INDX system would be perfect, but I find the chances of its implementation in the Core One to be very slim!.....
https://www.bondtech.se/indx-by-bondtech/?srsltid=AfmBOop-uGDEhmbwv4nncAdFHvv4NKqMEIuNuAYI0GAAoB7sYXg8ocl9
RE: Core One MMU - Next Gen Solution
I hope Prusa keeps with the ramming and retraction methodology. I find the "pooping" printers wasteful and inherently polluting to their environment.
As much as I'd like to see INDX availability on Prusa printers, INDX appears to easier to integrate on Klipper machines on the programming side. Marlin based printers are a little harder because instead of just a plug-in module (Klipper), INDX would likely require a monolithic firmware build. I've heard on the grapevine that Prusa is interested in INDX, but until we have any public announcements that should be taken with a big grain of salt.
See my (limited) designs on:
Printables - https://www.printables.com/@Sembazuru
Thingiverse - https://www.thingiverse.com/Sembazuru/designs
RE: Core One MMU - Next Gen Solution
slimmed down XL concept?
RE:
Didn't they say in a recent YT vid they're going to "reinvent" their MM printing from scratch?
Edit:
"reimagine" not "reinvent"
RE: Core One MMU - Next Gen Solution
Yes, that's what we're discussing - see first post.
What would you like to see from such a solution?
Didn't they say in a recent YT vid they're going to "reinvent" their MM printing from scratch?
Edit:
"reimagine" not "reinvent"
RE: Core One MMU - Next Gen Solution
I honestly don't have any real issues with the MMU3 as is. I'm a huge fan of the lower amount of waste and quick changes. If I could make anything easier it would be to fixing all the futzing required for loading/unloading. The AMS and similar solutions easily wins there.
RE: Core One MMU - Next Gen Solution
This INDX system would be perfect, but I find the chances of its implementation in the Core One to be very slim!.....
https://www.bondtech.se/indx-by-bondtech/?srsltid=AfmBOop-uGDEhmbwv4nncAdFHvv4NKqMEIuNuAYI0GAAoB7sYXg8ocl9
Ever since learning about Mihai Design's Pitstop 2 solution, that seemed the ideal compromise. Unfortunately, that project stalled a long time ago.
It did take longer than I expected for a commercial party to pick up that same idea and develop it into a working product. I've never been fond of solutions à la MMU, AMS, ECRF. They remind me of a Rube Goldberg machine. And XL style toolchangers duplicate too much hardware.
So I looked into RatRig VCore 4 IDEX, which suffers from the same hardware duplication problem (even more, since each extruder has its own set of motors and belts), but should be more reliable since there is no tool changing going on. Until I read the discord channel about IDEX input shaper tuning and I quickly tossed that option out of the window. I do like RatRigs, they seem very solid printers. But months of analysing input shaper graphs and adjusting belt tension.... no thanks.
All said, I will wait how this Bondtech INDX situation evolves. I expect RatRig will support it before Prusa does and thus my next printer will likely be a RatRig (with a more generous build volume).
RE: Core One MMU - Next Gen Solution
I'm going to wait for the next generation.
The only thing I really care about in a new system is the ability to use different nozzles. currently it seems only the brass 0.4 is supported, and the HF brass looks to be "kinda, but discouraged".
I'd love to use smaller nozzles for finer detail, I don't know why even standard brass 0.6 does not seem supported.
More importantly, there are abrasive materials where brass is very discouraged.
This feels limiting for the whole MMU project.
I would take a slightly more wasteful solution in a heartbeat if I could use different nozzles.
RE: Core One MMU - Next Gen Solution
Don't over complicate things.
RE: Core One MMU - Next Gen Solution
@DiscoJon: You're absolutely right. (The long wait for the C1 to be delivered is leading to the most bizarre, crazy thoughts.)
I'll probably end up installing the MMU like this too!
But you have to admit, the INdX solution is very interesting. 🙂
RE: Core One MMU - Next Gen Solution
and the HF brass looks to be "kinda, but discouraged".
I don't have an MMU, but I imagine the reason being the internal geometry of a HF nozzle not helping to create a good tip upon retraction.
On my MK3.5 a 0.4 HF nozzle yields only marginal speed improvements, like a few minutes on hours-long prints. But the difference might be larger on the Core ONE.
RE: Core One MMU - Next Gen Solution
The only thing I really care about in a new system is the ability to use different nozzles. currently it seems only the brass 0.4 is supported, and the HF brass looks to be "kinda, but discouraged".
My understanding is it's not recommended because of the increased amounts that would need to be purged during a filament change. I don't do too much multi-material printing, but I've never had any problem using a HF nozzle. (I'm not sure if the tip-forming is a concern -- it hasn't been for me in practical use.)