Core One MMU3 Prototypes  

RE: Core One MMU3 Prototypes

Option 1 seems kinda pointless and space wise really bad. Also looks very homebrew and messy

RE: Core One MMU3 Prototypes

Exact same situation here 😉

Posted by: @billb

I chose option one only because I would like to have easy access to the MMU3 during printing, for example doing color changes and yes, the occasional mis-feed or other problems that will happen (mostly my mistakes). Only problem is leaving the filament exposed to the air, this has giving me problems where the filament breaks in the buffers. I like the Coreboxx setup but not where the MMU3 is located, as that would not work for me because I have no access to the right and back of the printer without having to move it around and if the printer is running and I need to access the MMU3 it will be more of a pain then dealing with just the MMU3 by itself. 

RE: Core One MMU3 Prototypes

I tried these past few days to get my MMU3 working on the Core One. Was almost there, but its just too much of a fight now with the firmware not 100% ready and the slicer profile not ready. 

Read about my fun here: https://forum.prusa3d.com/forum/prusa-core-one-hardware-firmware-and-software-help/mmu3-on-core-one-attempt/#post-741219
and here: https://www.reddit.com/r/prusa3d/comments/1jdueth/mmu3_on_core_one_an_attempt_was_made/

I'll wait for some official update / product to purchase.

RE: Core One MMU3 Prototypes

I'm going to cast my lot in with the Option 1 voters. Even with the best possible tuning of the MMU3, you will need to do some feed management from time to time, and as a current MMU3 user, this configuration works best with the setup I have. I can manage the dryboxing of the filaments on my own.

RE:

Having not read the 5 existing pages of this thread, figured I'd throw out my thoughts. My opinions assume equal functionality of the two designs; if top-mount can't be made to work correctly, no amount of "polish" or convenience will make up for that.

Option 1 has almost zero benefit, in my eye. The only user it caters to are (possibly) people who already have investment in the Prusa ecosystem. While this is certainly not a small group, it settles on a hack-y solution to (maybe) allow for some cost savings exclusively for existing users, at the cost of providing an "unpolished" product to new users, which takes up an objectively unacceptable amount of space.

Option 1, from my perspective with many years professional design experience, is acceptance of a poor (bordering on unacceptably so) design as an "easy button." If parts commonality is high (say 90%+), it's a FANTASTIC option to offer. There are certainly plenty of users out there who already have an MMU, and may want to upgrade. With the obvious lack of effort required to implement this design, it's a no-brainer to make available, because it absolutely does benefit some people, and it takes almost nothing to offer as an option. It is not a reasonable option to consider as *the only* option offered, unless the goal is to drive new users away from the Prusa ecosystem. If/when people upgrade, surplus MMU's may be found at a discount, and offering a way to utilize those with the new printer would be awesome, and appreciated. But that does not make it an "ideal" solution.

Option 2 checks almost all the boxes I see most frequently complained about, for any printer brand:

- No increase in printer footprint. Obvious win, regardless of print farm, hobby, professional, or any other use case. Nobody alive is looking at their workspace and saying "boy, I really need to find a way to use up more of this horizontal surface!" Most other brands have committed to top-mount MMUs, to do anything less would be to admit defeat in a competitive market space.

-Enclosed, which I can only hope means it's heatable for storage and/or drying purposes.

-Enables users to tightly deploy printers and not worry about awkward filament access. Once upon a time I had an Ultimaker 3. The rear mounted filament looked nice, but boy was it a pain for day to day use. I *hated* it. While I have a Core One kit on order, I'm extremely dubious of the side mount filament. Love the idea, but I know from experience that it may bite me.

Maybe Option 2 as shown is just a concept, maybe it's not the final product, but the broad strokes of it are the only reasonable approach to an MMU if Prusa wants to be competitive with other manufacturers. Comments I've seen from users like "maybe you should take the opportunity to design your own solution" are a fine answer if Prusa's intent is to only cater to people whose hobby IS 3d printing; people who buy the product for the product to be their entertainment. For any customers buying printers as appliances (i.e. my intention is to rapidly iterate on designs, print fixtures to support other manufacturing techniques, or reliably produce tchotchkes for sale - where time spent tinkering with my printer is money lost) that answer is absolutely, completely unacceptable.

Again, Option 1 would be silly to not offer as an option, because the engineering investment is near zero. Maybe it's the only short-term option, as resources are inevitably finite. But if Option 1 is the only option ever offered, Prusa may as well just hang their hat and admit they are no longer even attempting to be a realistic competitor in the 3d printer market.

RE: Core One MMU3 Prototypes

I waiting to hear Prusa's solution but if it's option 1, I'm looking into the CoreBox instead.  It's an interesting project with several options being developed. 

RE: Core One MMU3 Prototypes

Surfalex2000 and 3D-Printivers are on a SiccoBox for the Core One with drying and buffer Function

Could be interesting the SiccoBox for the XL is very well done

RE: Core One MMU3 Prototypes

I saw the silica gel container by Surfalex2000 on printables, but I couldn’t find any info on the SiccoBox. Do you have a link to the project?

Posted by: @drid-ghost

Surfalex2000 and 3D-Printivers are on a SiccoBox for the Core One with drying and buffer Function

Could be interesting the SiccoBox for the XL is very well done

 

RE: Core One MMU3 Prototypes

I'm extremely dubious of the side mount filament

For anyone with only one printer and/or unlimited space it's a great solution. But if you have more than one printer and you need to consider space as an issue, the two pockets on the left and right side of the printer are absolutely unusable. I run a long PTFE tube to a wall mounted rack and feed filament from above

RE: Core One MMU3 Prototypes

Yes and no. I would probably go for option 1 for instance. Why?

1. I have a shelf above my printer where I place my spools - so no extra desk space taken and a relatively short travel distance.

2. I want easy access to the MMU3. As reliable as it is, there are occasions where you do need to clear an issue, or when loading and the filament gets stuck on occasion. So it does sometimes need tinkering with. hence I don't want it buried all the way inside the back of an enclosure where its harder to get to (my printer sits in a corner where the back and one side are against a wall).

Sometimes having a nice clean look isn't important to everyone. Depends upon your use case. But either way, it's good that we have options 😉

Posted by: @curiousrambler

Option 1 has almost zero benefit, in my eye.

RE: Core One MMU3 Prototypes

Maybe this is a solution. I haven't tried it myself because I don't have the printer for it 😀

https://www.printables.com/model/1216115-prusa-core-one-internal-spool-holder

RE:

I saw that and didn't understand how that is any better than the current setup. Didn't help that the pictures look like taken at night...

RE: Core One MMU3 Prototypes

The spool is inside the printer. The only thing that blocks the way is the print bed. It have to be on a lower position

RE: Core One MMU3 Prototypes

Okay. I'll pass. 

RE: Core One MMU3 Prototypes

You can see the project in a video on YouTube from 3D-Priniverse where the SiccoBox for Mk4S is shown.

And also for the Core One

The Video

Posted by: @altaic

I saw the silica gel container by Surfalex2000 on printables, but I couldn’t find any info on the SiccoBox. Do you have a link to the project?

Posted by: @drid-ghost

Surfalex2000 and 3D-Printivers are on a SiccoBox for the Core One with drying and buffer Function

Could be interesting the SiccoBox for the XL is very well done

 

 

RE: Core One MMU3 Prototypes

Option 1 would be an insult, and pretty solid proof that Prusa is not listening to their customers. 

RE:

Yo voto por la opción 3 si la 2 se puede poner al lado de la máquina y no encima como una pieza 

individual que pueda cambiar de impresora sin mucha modificación

Pd: también se podría montar encima sin necesidad de desmontarla tapa

RE: Core One MMU3 Prototypes

There's any chance to reuse our functional MMU2S units upgraded to MMU3 from our Mk3s on core one ? what hardware we needed  to make it ?

I think the optimal location for MMU3 unit will be on the actual spoolholder, it's accesible for maintenance or troubleshooting, don't consume to much height and you can stack in shelves easy. Top mount unit it's good if you have one or maybe two printers.

RE: Core One MMU3 Prototypes

Wondering if I could mount the MMU3 rather then on the top rear panel of the printer, but on the top RIGHT panel of the printer, with the filament being fed back down and into the normal filament feed on the side, rather then directly to the top of the extruder......?

Or would the run be too long for the buffer to handle?.....

RE: Core One MMU3 Prototypes

No one's that uses MMU daily uses buffer.

You have a bunch of options to get rid of that unnecesary part.

• Filamentalist (silent)
• Gravity Spool Holder (silent) or variant.
• Autorewind.... (noisy)

Posted by: @iftibashir

Wondering if I could mount the MMU3 rather then on the top rear panel of the printer, but on the top RIGHT panel of the printer, with the filament being fed back down and into the normal filament feed on the side, rather then directly to the top of the extruder......?

Or would the run be too long for the buffer to handle?.....