I’m running into a frustrating workflow issue with my H2C and wanted to see if anyone else feels the same – and hopefully get Bambu Lab’s attention for a future software update.
The Problem: Currently, if you want to use an external spool (for example, to print TPU) and use the dedicated bypass feed, the software forces you to physically remove the filament track switch first.
Why this is unnecessary: The bypass feed is designed specifically to route around the buffers. Since the filament is taking the bypass path anyway, there is absolutely no hardware reason to physically unplug and dismantle the track switch just to load the material.
The Request: Please add a simple software option/override that allows us to select and load external filament via the bypass without having to touch the track switch. It would be a massive quality-of-life improvement for those of us who frequently switch to TPU or other external-only materials.
Does anyone else find this physical disconnection step annoying? Would love to get some visibility on this so we can get it in a future firmware update!
If I have the FTS installed and allocate all filaments for a print to, say, my right H2C nozzles, the FTS has no problem handling that and is essentially operating in “two in, one out” mode. The entire filament path to the left nozzle is completely untouched.
So why is it that the completely untouched left nozzle can’t instead have a TPU assist feeding it?
Viewing the reply from bambulab, I have no doubts! Clients doesn’t matter… they only want sells, more a more, without supporting. This is a clear example, cause the add-on has a lot of potential, with a small implication from the developers, they could make it a great tool for every one, but… they only want sells….
I suspect that this ‘simple’ change is actually much more complicated. Hence,
This suggests that what appears minor to us, is actually not. e.g., for the FTS nozzle optimization logic to work it is higher in the stack of firmware functions and it’s not a simple, “If external, then skip” kind of function.
I’m not disagreeing. Removing the FTS and re-routing the AMS is not something I would want to do on a regular basis to print TPU.
But, who knows… things could change.
I completely agree with you that what a user considers simple has nothing to do with what is actually simple to implement. I have been a software architect and programmer for over 12 years, I understand what you are suggesting. But we are on a different level of conversation. What I believe Bambulab does not do, and stopped doing a long time ago, is care about the user.
They release an unpolished product, obviously ignoring VERY important nuances in a MULTILATERAL machine, according to their own description, and the response to the first, most obvious functional inconsistency is ‘we are not going to fix it in the near future’, End.
We are still waiting for ‘simple’ things (which all the competitors has) like ‘Printing with different nozzle sizes’.
Thinking about this, I reiterate once again that they are considering nothing else but the sale.
I appreciate the nuanced and informed replay. Same backgroud here, although I don’t write code any more.
But, if they were considering only the sale, that would just as likely suggest a strategy of releasing ‘me too’ features before they are fully baked – just to get the sale. It’s a balance. I’m hopeful for the FTS. it’s unique in the field of consumer FDM and - as you - I hope for improvements. (Like… maybe a powered version so I could have longer ptfe lengths…), or – crazy talk here – TPU in the AMS and FTS. (and no, not the TPU for AMS)
Clearly that’s the case, which tells me they really aren’t taking a modular approach to their programming and considering interoperability, rather they’re just programming for very narrowly defined objectives.
I haven’t been in the application world for a long, long time, but in terms of product development, none of this suggests great things IMO.