trust me the broad population don’t know what they want. Because things are built on narratives, rather than facts. and narratives are often based on intuitive ideas that rarely make sense deep down.
For example, AMS drying. It’s literally a super bad idea that has been built upon a narrative that is resonating EVERY WHERE without actually thinking how it should be implemented to make it useful. The poor implementation of AMS 2 Pro’s heating function is a joke for serious users but it suits well for a new user. The result is that now everybody has to pay more to get a functioning AMS, and every AMS unit gets bundled with a pretty bad dryer that requires even more dollars to buy a standalone power cable to dry in full power… (which, is still pretty weak anyway).
And so is the AMS HT. It’s a half baked joke that is pushed out simply because the narrative pushed it. With so many ridiculous flaws and yadayada. Bad temperature modulation, bad sealing, bad angle for bypass outlet, only one slot… I can’t even describe how much I hate this device except that I have maxed out my AMSs and I still need more slots to just store my spools reducing manual labour.
Following the narrative = make good money, not actually benefiting the users.
They could have make a proper dryer with multiple chambers, they could have made something like the AMS HT and Creality Space Pi X4 had a couple children. They could have made a buffer & automatic feeding system that works well with TPU, but they didn’t, because the narrative doesn’t care, every youtube video or 小红书 post is just screaming that AMS should come with a dryer function.
The loud narrative is rarely smart unfortunately.
My only Christmas wish is that Bambu open up the AMS limits and allow us to connect to more than just 4 AMS units (no, I don’t like AMS HTs)
You are absolutely right. There is a company in eastern Germany called Jenoptik. One day, a customer came to them looking to solve a problem with a rather complex technical solution. An unsuspecting Jenoptik engineer then told the customer that the problem could actually be solved much more easily and without much technical effort.
Later, a former CEO appeared on television and proudly claimed that he had taught the Jenoptik staff how to think economically. He said that he had scolded that engineer and made it clear to him that he should never have talked the customer out of the expensive, complicated solution, but should have sold him exactly that.
Well, I’d say the CEO was probably quite right — at least from the shareholders’ point of view.
the h2d already was tight…thats true… the kobra3 max came disassambled…i
i havent thought about that… but still i think 350*350 x400 should be possible if they make the space inside the box a lil bit tighter it might fit…also 100m for parking is alot and it also could be archieved in the back…
yeah 10cm is alot but that was just a example! they can also park in the back next to the other toolheads… .i havent designed the machine yet LOL
core xy has nothing to do with linear rails… i think u mixx somehitng up…
also i never said the a1 is core xy?!
im not sure what is confusing about the ability to connect a ams to each print head… .i udnerstand its for one color, but if u change colors then u have to flush again… if u have 7 color u def wont change them often… but if u need to get a extra color u can get it…
If one believes in the idea enough, the next step can be to start a Kickstarter campaign to find out if there are demands for it. Give Bambu Lab a run for their money
Not explicitly, but your printer description included both with zero distinction.
Here…
You said you need an A1 after you denoted the requirement of core XY.
There is zero confusion from me, just from your wish to include it. I pointed out the issue.
You stated it needs to be a tool changer, if so, you must be seeking the benefits of the speed to change between one tool and another.
If you add an AMS to each tool head you remove all benefits of a tool changer. Every change of colour would take significant amounts of time. This wasted time negates the reduction in material swapping between tools.
The same problem is found on the Vortek solution in the H2C.
i tried to explain it before… if every toolhead is loaded with filament from a ams- its loaded and doesnt need any longer then any normal toolhead… JUST if u switch the filament on the toolhead via ams it takes longer but as long one filmanet is loaded and doesnt get changed it is the same like with a u1 or pursa xl…
Please be careful with me still new at this 3d printing thing but this is what i am pondering about. To me this looks like a ‘caching’ problem say you want 24 colors to print it doesn’t make sense to have 24 heads with 24 lines to 24 spools. The changes of needing all colors on same layers are very small. We can already see this with the h2c on real models more than often only 2 to 4 colors max on a layer. It looks to me bambu is testing with 2 things one is more than one head (2 now) and being able to when needed which the hotend to make switching one the heads to a new color easier and more consistent since most of the time the same material is there. It also looks to me that the new nozzle is smaller and faster in heating up once thats also proven tech why would they just not double things. Work on the head and make it a 2x2 head with 2 hotswap nozzles on the front and 2 fixed nozzles behind it. with some work i can see they might be able to keep the weight the same. You will have to find 20mm in depth or loose it on the build plate. Have 4 tubes going to the head. Add a vortek (by that time proven tech) to the other side for the left-front nozzle, the right-front nozzle stays the same as now. We now have 2 fixed nozzles and 2 hotswap nozzles on the front. Giving us 2 ‘base-colors’ 2 swap-in colors. I bet 95% of all models would be no swapping at all anymore once the print has started but before the start and/or if needed. Is there still a loss in speed compared to tool changers in some cases sure but it will most likely be youtube ‘forced’ models that by design use 5 or 7 colors per layer and within that 5%. It would turn this h2z into a h2c but just double. quad head, 2 hotswap, 48 colors (redesign of ams system is needed anyway we all agree on that with multiple outputs). The internal space would still be kinda clean with 4 tubes (maybe a combined tube) coming in instead of a mess of tubes once indx/toolchangers hit +10 colors.
Is this going forward with what they have and making it smaller really such a bad plan ?
All this talk of more and more AMS units is solving the wrong problem. The 3D printer that the world really needs has only 5 spools (or tanks or whatever) - cyan, magenta, yellow, black and white - and magically mixes them together in the toolhead on demand to create limitless colors. Oh, with minimal waste and purging too. Well, I can dream, can’t I?
This is probably just ‘pie-in-the-sky’ thinking, but how about a feature with the newer machines with laser modules, that allow the laser to slightly melt the previous layer while the nozzle is depositing the new layer to greatly improve the Z axis strength.
I’ve not used any of the new printers so I have no idea if this is possible.
But just a suggestion.
Seen similar machines running 24/7 running for already 5 years in a building where our office resided. And yes, with a footprint of 1x2m they are not really for home use.
Bambu wasn’t thinking of SLS, so maybe also not about this. Same kind of resins involved, just a different process.
But you never know.
I don’t really think it’s for the hobbyist.
Though perfectly fine for a print farm.
