RE: Update...(Kind of)
And don't get me started about the aesthetics of all those fiddly and completely unnecessary 45° bits and cuts. Looks like some junior engineer's "my first day with CAD software and a laser cutter".
"Design language" 🙂
But hey, aesthetics can be fixed in the next revision or upgrade. I'd put it in a positive light, they are setting priorities correctly. It needs to work on day one. Looking good comes later.
RE: Update...(Kind of)
"Design language" 🙂
But hey, aesthetics can be fixed in the next revision or upgrade. I'd put it in a positive light, they are setting priorities correctly. It needs to work on day one. Looking good comes later.
But the design does not even make sense from a technical perspective:
- What are those diagonal struts for anyway? There are no shear forces to take care of. Just omit these and give me a clear view. If you need more stiffness in the main mounting bar, give it a folded top edge -- the struts do next to nothing for that anyway.
- Why those humps? If you absolutely insist on the diagonal struts to prevent the user from reaching in, just connect them to the straight edge of the frame profile.
- More humps. How many arbitrary fills and asymmetries can one design into such a simple shape?
- Right, those mini cutouts solve the visibility issue. The design engineer probably walked by a construction site in the morning and got inspired by the little peepholes in the fence.
All of this can be fixed, of course. I may keep my INDX order in place and try to design a neater solution myself. But my point is, why can't Prusa be arsed to spend an extra day and ship a neat solution right away? What message is that sending to customers? How many potential customers will Prusa lose because they don't trust such a contraption and rather buy a Bambu Lab printer?
RE: Update...(Kind of)
Maybe they should provide a colonoscopy camera in the kit that you can feed through to check on your first layer 🤣
RE: Update...(Kind of)
Im not happy about it, but I won't be cancelling my order.
I fully get what you're saying, but for me my C1 is primarily a tool that that I use heavily now for my small business....and I need tool changing capabilities asap.I am still dithering. A Bambu H2D would do all I need -- two materials at once, even faster changeover than INDX, larger build volume, available and known to be working now. But it's another expensive toy, and my reservations against Bambu as a company do still apply.
So, that was why I ended up getting rid of the Core One. I'm not a Core One hater; the Core One prints great, especially after the firmware matured. However, when I got the H2D it was a day and night difference... and the multi-material aspect has been wonderful. I upgraded it to an H2C, which did take me a full day, and I lost a little bit of build volume. That said, you loose build volume when you install INDX... soooo... I'd need/want are Core One L with INDX to make it worth it.
I'm certainly wondering just how long it'll be before the Core One L get's INDX... and how crazy expensive it might be.
Current printer setups are a H2C and a P2S... They share many parts. Not sure how bullet proof they are compared to a Core One (if I'm running a business)...
RE: Update...(Kind of)
Hey Prusa: That's unacceptable!
I've cancelled my order; maybe that will help find a better and more sensible solution!
RE:
I personally don't see this as an issue and will certainly be ordering an 8 tool INDX when able to do so.
The redesigned "fence" addresses an issue in relation to rigidity and I'm happy to accept what the Prusa engineers have designed.
If I look at every INDX video to date, with the old tool holder setup (before the "fence" piece redesign,) I can clearly see the nozzle and print job when looking under the horizontal cross piece and this is even with the prior iteration of tool head fixing which extended slightly lower than the cross bar. The new design would indicate that nothing extends below the bar, so looking in from below the bar, perhaps we will still see everything.
Perhaps we may not, but I suspect Prusa would have been aware of the need for visual access to the nozzle and print job as part of overall INDX Core One integration requirements.
For those who don't like what has now been designed, don't buy it. It's hardly unacceptable or a "fail" on Prusa's part, given there are some, like myself, who see the new solution as totally acceptable.
RE: Update...(Kind of)
The redesigned "fence" addresses an issue in relation to rigidity and I'm happy to accept what the Prusa engineers have designed.
[...]
For those who don't like what has now been designed, don't buy it. It's hardly unacceptable or a "fail" on Prusa's part, given there are some, like myself, who see the new solution as totally acceptable.
Yes, the fence addresses a rigidity issue, and it's important that Prusa did that. But it addresses it in an unnecessarily clumsy way, such that usability takes a major hit. I find this disappointing for an engineering company and am baffled that this passed internal design reviews.
Prusa must realize that it is a disappointing solution -- why else would they have kept showing off the sleek version when this was already implemented? That's also one of the issues I have with your "if you don't like it, don't buy it" stance: I feel cheated, since they made me prepay and plan for a different product than what they ship now, and they kept up those false pretenses until the very last day.
Finally -- if poor execution means that Prusa lose 30% of their addressable multi-material market (to make up a number), I am pretty sure they will call this a "fail". The fact that 70% are still buying it no matter what does not make it a success. Given how critical INDX is for Prusa's recovery in the market, I don't understand why they did not polish the hell out of this, but decided to ship such a clumsy solution.
RE: Update...(Kind of)
The redesigned "fence" addresses an issue in relation to rigidity and I'm happy to accept what the Prusa engineers have designed.
[...]
For those who don't like what has now been designed, don't buy it. It's hardly unacceptable or a "fail" on Prusa's part, given there are some, like myself, who see the new solution as totally acceptable.
Yes, the fence addresses a rigidity issue, and it's important that Prusa did that. But it addresses it in an unnecessarily clumsy way, such that usability takes a major hit. I find this disappointing for an engineering company and am baffled that this passed internal design reviews.
Prusa must realize that it is a disappointing solution -- why else would they have kept showing off the sleek version when this was already implemented? That's also one of the issues I have with your "if you don't like it, don't buy it" stance: I feel cheated, since they made me prepay and plan for a different product than what they ship now, and they kept up those false pretenses until the very last day.
Finally -- if poor execution means that Prusa lose 30% of their addressable multi-material market (to make up a number), I am pretty sure they will call this a "fail". The fact that 70% are still buying it no matter what does not make it a success. Given how critical INDX is for Prusa's recovery in the market, I don't understand why they did not polish the hell out of this, but decided to ship such a clumsy solution.
The absolutely baffling thing, is this seems like it could easily be solved with a bit more thought, and if they cant come up with anything better, pay a third party industrial engineer to come up with something that doesn't completely annihilate the ability to see whats going on on the build plate.
Delay the launch for a week or 2 if need be.
We've waited months for this, I personally would rather wait a couple of weeks extra if it meant they could solve this.
RE:
Sure, I'm miffed about the bait-and-switch from both BondTech and Prusa. For the former, unless I mis-remembered it, we were supposed to be able to configure the nozzles at purchase. I really do not have a need for 8 0.4mm nozzles. As for Prusa, it's more of the fact that the software is still not ready and I fully expect that the first few months of playing with the INDX will be via g-code hacks. Or that (and that's my fault) I was expecting the C1+ to have a HT hotend and heated chamber like all of their competitors now have as standard. Not $10 worth of printed parts that have been on Printables in some form or another for a year.
One of the reasons I got into 3D printing was to support my other hobbies (and to find new ones). For the first 3 years (out of 5) I was mostly just a tinkerer. Mod the printer, print a few nicknacks then put the printer back into the closet. My latest hobby, as most of you (the regulars) know, is rockets. Even printing a simple tube is not straight-forward. It requires: advanced materials (which need high nozzle and chamber temps), a multi-material setup and a decent build volume. For that the Core One (as well as the L) is completely deficient in its current form.
So... Why did I buy the INDX? Nobody was forcing me to. I can certainly afford to buy an industrial spec'd printer (my wife would kill me but that's a different story). I suppose the tinkering aspects of 3D printing haven't fully gone away and I enjoy playing with broken toys. The Japanese have a concept of "kintsugi" which (roughly) means "golden repair". You take something broken, repair it with gold and make it useful again. So, I will attach the gold (INDX) to my Core One and continue to use it.
As for my model rocket hobby? The H2D arrives next week.
RE: Update...(Kind of)
As for my model rocket hobby? The H2D arrives next week.
You’ll love it… It’s a great printer, and the H2 C is even better in many respect… Biggest issue is how freaking expensive buying multiple nozzles is
RE: Update...(Kind of)
The absolutely baffling thing, is this seems like it could easily be solved with a bit more thought
Hmm, I had the exact same thought with the camera included with the CORE One L. There's a collision with the vent grille. Unbelievable that this wasn't caught by Prusa during the dev/test/beta phases. And what's even weirder is that no one has published a fix for it. This could mean two things: either nobody prints materials that require the vent to be closed, or there just aren't that many One L units out in the wild. Anyway, I ended up making a remix of the camera body that I published on Printables to fix the issue.
Regarding the INDX, I agree that we need a way to safely get our fingers or tweezers in there to grab that tiny string that unfortunately comes from the intro line sometime. Or because we need to babysit this support that’s seriously wobbling. Nevertheless, the INDX technology is promising.
RE: Update...(Kind of)
The absolutely baffling thing, is this seems like it could easily be solved with a bit more thought
Hmm, I had the exact same thought with the camera included with the CORE One L. There's a collision with the vent grille. Unbelievable that this wasn't caught by Prusa during the dev/test/beta phases. And what's even weirder is that no one has published a fix for it. This could mean two things: either nobody prints materials that require the vent to be closed, or there just aren't that many One L units out in the wild. Anyway, I ended up making a remix of the camera body that I published on Printables to fix the issue.
Regarding the INDX, I agree that we need a way to safely get our fingers or tweezers in there to grab that tiny string that unfortunately comes from the intro line sometime. Or because we need to babysit this support that’s seriously wobbling. Nevertheless, the INDX technology is promising.
That's the point of nozzle wipers which Prusa seems strangely reluctant to include with their printers.
RE: Update...(Kind of)
I wouldn't be so sure. Do you remember the blog posts a while back where Prusa were commenting on MMU3 on the Core One? They were saying that the MMU3 will be the last of the MMU line and that they have a new solution for multimaterial printing in the pipes. I think it's pretty obvious they were talking about INDX, so my guess is that they knew.
RE: Update...(Kind of)
After reading through this thread and staring at the new fence. I am still very excited to be getting this. Looking forward to putting it through its paces. Recently in my printing business I have hit the limit of having only 5 colors in a single automated print. I think the fence will be refined after they have a moment to catch their breath. And the dozens of mods people make. I think all the extra struts are due to the force when docking-undocking the middle 2 nozzles. Without having a huge amount of time, this was the best to get it working and out the door to align with Bondtech. I assume Bondtech are mainly the ones setting the pace, as this is their creation. I hope those who cancel were ahead of me in shipping order. The only part I am not a fan of is being stuck with 8 CHT .4 nozzles. Glad they allowed others to be added on. Wish I could have grabbed a couple more, but all the extra U.S. fees really hurt. But that is literally the price I pay when choosing what companies get my money.
RE: Update...(Kind of)
I wouldn't be so sure. Do you remember the blog posts a while back where Prusa were commenting on MMU3 on the Core One? They were saying that the MMU3 will be the last of the MMU line and that they have a new solution for multimaterial printing in the pipes. I think it's pretty obvious they were talking about INDX, so my guess is that they knew.
I don't remember that. But does make sense. I think the INDX will be the best path forward. It will allow Prusa to focus on the mounting and software. I do hope they find a way to keep the Core One L print volume the same with INDX. And would be nice to see refinements on the Core One to get some of what was lost back.
RE: Update...(Kind of)
Do you remember the blog posts a while back where Prusa were commenting on MMU3 on the Core One? They were saying that the MMU3 will be the last of the MMU line and that they have a new solution for multimaterial printing in the pipes. I think it's pretty obvious they were talking about INDX, so my guess is that they knew.
I recall that those hints at a future, non-backwards-compatible solution, and Prusa "completely rethinking" multi-material printing. I think it was Jo Prusa himself, in a video. And I agree that this would already have been the INDX solution, so they must have had the contract with Bondtech in place at that time.
But this was well after the release of the Core One. I am sure it was even after I had built my kit, i.e. April or later. Users were complaining about the lack of a clean MMU integration, and Prusa eventually announced the semi-integrated version with the tank turret, the community version with a spool holder box, and hinted at a future "all new" solution.
So the Core One design had been finalized at least half a year earlier, and I doubt that Prusa considered INDX during the design phase. Otherwise, wouldn't they at least have provided some mounting points (aka screw holes) for the tool dock, avoiding the need for the awkward front fence?
RE: Update...(Kind of)
So the Core One design had been finalized at least half a year earlier, and I doubt that Prusa considered INDX during the design phase. Otherwise, wouldn't they at least have provided some mounting points (aka screw holes) for the tool dock, avoiding the need for the awkward front fence?
So is that all thats needed? Like a few extra holes on each of the front corner vertical profiles? (Just behind the door)
If so that makes it incredible they’ve gone for the stupid metal fence.
RE:
Not sure why they didn't consider creating a "XL Mini" basically a Core One with 2 tools with and option to expand to 4 tools. They could have released something like that 3 years ago and been ahead of the market. Instead we got the MK4. I suppose it would have been too expensive though.
Bambu is releasing the X2D (and possibly the X2C) next month. Creality, AnyCubic and Qidi are coming out with their INDX clones by end of this year.
RE: Update...(Kind of)
So is that all thats needed? Like a few extra holes on each of the front corner vertical profiles? (Just behind the door)
If so that makes it incredible they’ve gone for the stupid metal fence.
I am pretty confident that this would work well. Just a rectangular metal plate, as wide as the printer, as tall as required to accommodate the two mounting points for each tool -- maybe 5 cm? Depending on the material strength, maybe give it narrow folds along the edges or an embossed profile along the center, for extra stability.
The whole "detour" of attaching the dock via a new top frame piece must be due to the lack of suitable mounting holes. I understand that Prusa can't expect users to drill holes into the vertical profiles. But I think new mounting blocks for the belt tensioners would do the trick -- they could extend inward a bit further and provide mounting points for the docking bar.
RE: Update...(Kind of)
After sleeping on it, I have cancelled my order for the INDX upgrade. It's not only Prusa's poor solution for the dock itself, but also the implication that the whole integration seems rushed (again), which drove my decision.
I will give it another night but will probably pull the trigger on an H2D tomorrow. No AMS, no H2C for me; I don't really expect a need for more than two materials at a time. The larger build volume is a plus for me, as is the availability of proven dual-material printing now.
If anyone is interested in a very diligently built Core One (kit), please drop me a personal message. I am based in Hamburg, Germany.