Maximizing Print Speed with High-Flow Nozzle: Adjustments Needed?

Bambu Lab X1 Series
1

Apologies for the basic question, but I was hoping to reduce the print times for some straightforward functional models in ABS by installing a high-flow nozzle on my X1c. I’m aware that the maximum flow rate isn’t the only factor that affects printing speed, especially for models with intricate details and numerous retractions. However, for a model like a simple drawer with many straight edges, wouldn’t a higher max flow rate significantly reduce the print time?

Also, after adjusting for a higher flow rate in the filament settings, should I also increase the speeds for outer and inner perimeters as well as infill in the Bambu slicer?

2 Likes
2
2 Likes
3

I used Revo 6 extruder for Mk3S which is very similar if not the same as the Panda Revo. And it increased dramatically the speeds made it with-in the 10%-30% from the X1C( it was a bit of a mission). But that is only for PLA. Never had a good ABS/ASA print above 150mm/S (both prusa and X1C) so many other problems (layer . adhesions/strength etc) the stock end can provide around 18-20mm3/s which is a lot more then required for 150mm/S even 200m/S . But have to admit quick changing the nozzles on the Revo was a great feature missing it now as upgraded the MK3S to MK4 which after some tunning is the same as the X1C apart from the AMS, and still using the X1C for PC and carbon materials and just a bit more convenient with ABS/ASA and higher temp materials

Not sure if worth changing for speed, but would be good to know if some one have more real life experience both speed and quality and layer adhesions/ tolerance accuracy.
EDIT originally did not have enclosure for prusa and even now is pain in the … to use the current enclosure compare to the X1C

1 Like
4

Wow! Thanks for posting that. Now I finally know what to do with my MK3S+. With the upgrade to an MK4 costing more than an A1, I was wondering whether to use it as-is, sell it, donate it, scrap it for parts, or just toss it in the trash. If that relatively inexpensive upgrade will get me to within 10-30% of an X1C, I think I’ll do that. Did you blog about it somewhere? i.e. Do you have any links to showing where you did it?

5

no as it is well documented , there is one quirk about he firmware which was not a problem, but since one prusa firmware upgrade needs a separate build provided in the same web site , and that is now documented . Also i kept my parts from the mk3sRevo to Mk4 upgrade and looking for broken mk2 /mk3 around NZ so i can restore the Mk3sRevo . Do not retire it, soon You will find out that even the old mk3s in many cases is better than the X1C . One example is TPU/Flex/TPE especially bellow 90 . Second example is quality, dimensions , tolerances, bed is better , accuracy . Yes I am happy with the X1C for most tasks but there are cases where is a … From the Mk3sRevo to Mk4 , with some tunning using Orca slicer main benefit was the automatic Z, a bit faster but tunned mk3sRevo is close enough. Do not see much quality improvement but still have not done proper tunning as it just printed what i needed no tunning

For me the Z and first layer has been probably the most important and annoying thing to do it manually, once done it works on the old one but event then

There is user guide video and all information in the link bellow:

Edit: There is a reason MK4 Upgrade to cost more than A1 apart from the brand

1 Like
7

I can not comment much on the A1 as i got X1C with AMS, and not sure if the bellow will help you
One thing i do not like in the A1 is the AMS is open filament , i would go for P1S or X1C, but check this out long thoughts:

You get better stepper motors 0.9d vs 1.8d, better drivers. great pressure sensor for the Z. Two heat sensors for the hotend and after the braker ( very important) mesh only on the object printed. In the upgrade you get a new HW for everything including the main board and only old frame and a few linear bearings from the old one . some of the rods also changed. The only mistake i did is that did not order new LM8UU linear bearings as i did not realize that my one after a few years(mk2->Mk3S-Mk3Revo->Mk4 are not in perfect condition
Better base plate ( flatter with expansion compensation) , but that was true even for the Mk3S just Mk4 is even better
my X1C base plate was V2 and had 0.2-0.3mm curve which expands to 0.6 with temperature , they replaced it with V3 now is better but still see 0.2mm-0.3mm Curve when heated to 100C

The down side of the Mk4 is AMS and enclosure compare to X1C, also out of the box you need to enable input shaper firmware to get the X1C speeds( also the same achievable with standard firmware but a bit more profile changes . Note that the default profiles are always slower but with increase of the speed to 150% from the screen do not need changes in the profiles. But i do tune the profiles instead usually . While the X1C default profiles are to the max and had to slow it down for a lot of tasks

Both have pluses and minuses.

  • X1C - simple fast prints easier quicker
  • MK4 - higher quality
  • X1C - better for ASA/ABS/PAHT-CF small objects ( easier) due to enclosure - requires hardened steel nozzle default for X1C option for P1S and A1
  • MK4 - ASA/ABS better for accuracy, warping and bigger objects - a bit hustle with the enclosure i have
  • X1C - PETG/PLA easier but never get near the quality of MK4 especially with bridges , top surfaces and overhangs complex objects simple objects much to the muchness
  • MK4 - TPU better , X1C soft TPU/Elastic ( 83 and bellow) next to impossible or impractical - have done it on the X1C with 63 but had to modify the head and lots of settings and only using MK4 now
  • X1C - Tolerance accuracy at best 0.1mm( achieved 0.05mm not practical) (average 0.15mm). MK4 - bellow 0.1mm, and 0.05mm is practical still not aways trivial
  • X1C - Multicolor better - not using it a-lot
  • X1C better in every day printing especially with AMS 4 materials ready , lately started using more the MK4
  • X1C - lidar and autocalibration useless ( may be for fist time user and simple object and no PEI okish )
  • MK4 - no lidar and autoflow calibration, but with defaults and conservatives speeds get more or less better results to X1C with autoflow
  • X1C - to get any good quality needs a manual tunning , but that is true for the MK4 just get better result
  • X1C slightly bigger print area - in most cases can not be used , i use almost all of it as all autoflowtuning is off. had one or two prints which 210x220x250 was just not enough and the 250x250x250 was able to print . But big objects combined with none flat bed and warping can be a challenge . MK4 at least the bed is flat and easier to add a glass where needed

X1C - camera is a good thing sometimes, missing on the MK4
X1C Still have not found a solution for big boxes ASA warping - i know what to do to add active heating to the chamber , but not sure if worth it as the bed will never be flat or too much extra hustle and thinking to spend some money on improving the MK4 enclosure . And at the moment is ok-ish for half size of the bed boxes like 150mmx150mmx60mm

NOT sure which one i like more at this stage , and if i had to chose only one today after all the experience i had with X1C and MKxx , probably will depend on the tasks engineering : TPU/PLA/PETG(MK4), Multicolor/Material no TPU (P1S + ams ) , ASA/ABS (MK4 + enclosure). home: wife’s pot printing- waste of money (P1S) , my tools , organizers and etc ( P1S/MK4)
I use the printers for all of the above apart from Multicolor , and almost stopped using Multi-material for supports as the increased print time

Note some of the above is observations from the MK3SRevo and only first impressions from MK4 as i did upgrade recently to MK4 and have not done a lot of printing and no tuning yet, while on MK3SRevo and X1C have close to 1000 hours each .
Also since i got the X1C i learned i few tricks which with Mk3S/Mk3SRevo even with Mk4 was not obvious and applied to it to improve speed and even the quality for the calibrations. But most of it was more Orcaslicer which i use most of the time on both , but have to say in general slicing PrusaSlicer does better job in many cases , just some of the important features are painful to add

1 Like