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.