Also looking forward to this on the H2D, and seeing how it compares to the H3C when it eventually arrives. The software will mature so it’s going to be a fun ride. At a minimum having clearer text on the gridfinity bins is a plus.
I also like the idea of H3C position 9, being able to handle a larger size filament for TPU. We need a nozzle for the H2C as well? The problem for me is not speed of change as inconvienience of using an external spool, or the AMS HT for TPU.
That wouldn’t work as the extruder is not capable of handling the 2.85mm diameter TPU as are the other parts in the tool head.
They could offer upgrade kit for the extruder to make it compatible on right side or whole new print head. I would happily pay for this.
That would be an overhaul of the entire tool head, changes to firmware and possibly other parts of the filament path.
Where the H2C upgrade was basically converting one similar machine into another, so the design and engineering for all the components were already done.
Now you are asking them to redesign a tool head on an old machine explicitly for 2.85mm TPU. Also to develop firmware and all the tooling to produce the components. Let alone all the testing that is involved.
I am sure, you won’t be paying happily for that, as the cost would be way more than a new H3C.
I guess you are heavily underestimating the costs of such an endeavor.
The X2D has multiple nozzles each with their own independent filament path. The X2C has multiple nozzles with a shared filament path.
The difference when it comes to implementing mixed nozzle size support may be subtle but it is often those subtle differences which can come to bite you in software development, and in any case needs additional testing.
So it doesn’t surprise me that support for one will come before the other. The H2D was released first so again it doesn’t surprise me that development for the H2D started before development for the H2C, and therefore gets released first.
The H2D and H3C, on the other hand, are much more similar - multiple nozzles each with independent tool paths - just a different number of nozzles. Indeed, from a development point of view you would typically start with trying to implement the general case, and then test for specific cases.
If the code for the H2D was all ready to ship 6+ months ago, and Bambu has been holding back in order to help the H3C release, I think there is legitimate reason to gripe, although it still makes sense from a marketing perspective. However, the the H2D code is still not quite ready, or only just finished, then prioritising the H3C seems entirely reasonable.
When mixed nozzle support does reach the H2C, then it will have a distinct advantage over the H3C when printing multiple nozzle sizes in a single material, as the H2C can do that off a single spool, whereas the H3C needs multiple spools, one for each nozzle.
Indeed, printing in three colours each colour using 0.2, 0.4, and 0.6 nozzles would use up all 9 slots in the H3C. Other the other hand with a single AMS, the H2C could print four colours each using all four typical nozzle sizes (0.2, 04, 0.6, 0.8), and still have space for additional nozzles; and with the track switch print even more colours using all nozzle sizes.
So for certain mixed nozzle scenarios the H2C would be a better choice than the H3C (and more complex - again a justification for the later release time for the code), so the vortek system is not entirely obsoleted by the H3C.
Maybe the H4C will combine both vortek and tool changer thus combining the benefits of the H2C and H3C.
Matthew
I know exactly what is involved. I’m an engineer and understand the complexity. I never asked for anything. What I said is that they could offer upgrade kit (if they wanted) not that they must offer upgrade kit.
Orca Slicer 2.5 was just released and supports mixed nozzles on the H2D and X2D
Orca 2.5 supports mixed nozzles for H2C as well. 
Learning curve so far trying to figure out how to actually use it… 
-Max
Does Orcaslicer support multi-layer heights?
Does Orcaslicer support multi-layer heights?
Not on the same plane like the BL implementation is trying to do, no (AFAICT). The layer heights can only be varied in the “usual” ways like height modifier or variable height map, and “combine infill” has some more advanced options.
Line widths can be set to a percentage of nozzle size, vs. absolute size, but not layer heights.
As for H2C, from what I can tell only 2 sizes can be configured at this time, left and right, vs. all 7 possible nozzles. And only H2D & X2D support is specifically mentioned in the v2.5 release notes about the multi-nozzle feature.
-Max
That is what my last knowledge was also.
AFAIK Bambu Studio is the first slicer that can set different layer heights for the different nozzle sizes.
All the others are strongly limited by the common layer height.
And BS still has limitations, and it’s just a beginning, and more improvements can be expected, but I like the way that Bambu picked this up.