So I’ve had this printer for a year or so now and when I first got it there were a ton of gripes with the slicing software etc, most of which have been resolved over the past few months. But one thing I can’t get out my head is how average the fine detail print quality is on these printers. For all the sensors and technology in them they continually get outperformed by my £400 Flashforge Creator Pro 2.
The first issue is the size is never true to model, it’s always smaller, but never uniformly, some bits are okay and other bits are not, so it makes fine adjustments with the slicer software impossible, you actually have to edit your model in the specific areas especially for this printer. That isn’t a good trait.
The other issues I am continually facing is how poorly this thing does fine detail, especial when it comes to text. An X for example, you might think it would be simple. Well it is for my Creator Pro 2 with a 0.4mm nozzle. The same X done on my X1C, with the 0.4mm nozzle there are hairlines gaps in the structure of the X where the wall doesn’t meet infill, and no matter what settings you adjust it doest change it. The X also has the webbed feet look in the centre.
So, do what all the people recommend and get the 0.2mm nozzle, because it’s a must for fine detail they say. Okay well after investing in that, the X now resembles a roman X with flared end points. It really is something ridiculous, I am probably thousands invested into this printer and it continually gets out-performed by my slow but sure Flashforge
Anyway, rant over, I just needed to get this off my chest as it is really upsetting me lately that I’m so cash deep into this ecosystem
I have used many different printers and I can tell you that my X1C is the best printer I have ever used in terms of speed, quality and user experience.
Have you ever entertained the thought that your issues might not be caused by the printer???
Yes, you’re right, the issues are me being stupid, you got me!
Joking aside, I currently own 3 other printers and they all do fine detail better than the X1C. The reason I invested in the X1C is because of the AMS system.
Before using BBL printers I considered myself a pretty wel experienced 3D printer and I had tweaked a lot of printers an profiles to get good results…
Only to find out that most of what I learned did not aply to the X1C. I had to relearn what 3D printing was all about and the knowledge I had gathered before didn’t aply anymore…
I am not saying you are stupid, but I have a hard time believing your machine is not capable. I can tell you that mine is very capable. Without any tweaking of modifying the machine or the profiles. I print mostly standard settings.
Have you done much upgrading of the machine or settings?
I’m pretty much in the same boat as you with my P1S. But nobody seems to care about dimensional accuracy.
Based on the amount of ‘polish’ these printers have, I was dumb enough to assume the positional accuracy to be at least on par with my previous printers (after mechanical adjustment and calibration). But it is not and there is no way to fix it because of the black-box firmware.
I’m lazy so I will again link to another post of mine summarizing my experiences:
After almost a year, I am still overwhelmed with the X1C.
Sorry that you aren’t getting the same experience.
Some notes which I found to affect the print quality significantly in comparison to other printers:
dryness - the printer seems quite sensitive to filament moisture.
My other printer performs better with a slightly wet filament than the X1C.
The printer is relatively fast, so to ensure strict tolerances and great details, I set the printing speed for the outer walls, top surfaces and detailed regions at a lower speed.
chamber temperature - for the first time, take note of the chamber temperature.
Depending on the printer’s surroundings, you may need to adjust ventilation (e.g. door open).
As you have another printer, I assume you calibrated your filament.
Interesting. I’ve had my X1C since December last and it prints very accurately for my mechanical parts. It compares quite well to my older QIDI printer (which still works well but not as good as the Bambu).
Did you actually measure the parts or needed things to interface with non-printed parts?
The thing is that the printer is very precise - dimensions are off but very very repeatable (within 2-3/100mm) as long as nothing else on the part is changed.
So similar ‘shapes’ (square to square, cylindrical to cylindrical) printed on the same machine might fit each other perfectly well but the actual ‘real world’ dimensions could well be off by several tenths of a mm.
I tried the latest Califlower calibration tool. For prints that should be 100mx100mm they were 99.75mmx99.80mm. My skew was 0.06 degrees. That’s some of the best results I’ve seen from a mass produced consumer 3D printer. If 0.20-0.25mm difference on a 100mmx100mm parts is a major deal breaker, you can fix it in Orca Slicer.
Without any adjustments I had no issues with everything working on the torture toaster using ludicrous speed.
I do use printed parts in conjunction with existing mechanical parts. To expect sub-millimeter accuracy seems a bit too much with a system that uses toothed belts to move the important parts around. I use 3D printed parts in my machine shop but not at that level of precision. I have printed gears for use in lathes that have stood up for years but then they don’t require that level of precision.
I would expect that there is some place in the slicer software that can be changed to achieve whatever accuracy you need assuming the hardware can support that level.
That’s not my experience with other and much cheaper printers. Quite the opposite, +/-0.05mm of the target dimension is what I’m used to from my old but well maintained bed slinger.
Also fixing things in the slicer is not really a solution in most situations.
As described the toolpath simply deviates depending on the geometry. It’s seems pretty obvious that this is a firmware issue. The square vs cylinder delta of exactly 0.2mm reported by several users can’t be a mechanical problem.
I presume these errors you all are talking about is what’s remaining after accounting for shrinkage? Under the filament profile, the slicer can automatically compensate if you know the expected amount of shrinkage.
Those were my measurements before doing any adjustments in the slicer to account for shrinkage. I assume you are talking about after adjusting for shrinkage if you expect +/-0.05mm.
I have been doing this professionally for the last 6 years and I concur with those here that say the X1C is the best printer I have ever used. I just brought our second one online and am waiting for the additional 5 to show up. We work mostly with CF and exotics) I really would like to help out like most people on this Forum and get you happy with your gear. Have you done some of the so called quality of life mods?
On the fine details:
As far as I understood, the input shaping has the effect of very slightly rounding sharp features. Maybe you see that? I think, If the base that the printer stands on is less stable, input shaping has to suppress more frequencies stronger, which will lead to more affected corners.
My printer stands on a sideboard, which is attached to the concrete wall with two screws. There really isn’t the slightest vibration. Is your printer on a stable surface? Hopefully you don’t use those soft feet. I don’t understand why they became popular. They are directly harmful to print quality in my experience.
Have you tried printing at slower speeds, similar to your old printer? Just for testing, not saying you shouldn’t use faster speeds.
Of course your unit could just have some fault.
Could you show an example of that non-uniform undersizing? I can’t imagine how to understand that.
And i would also be interested in side by side fotos of the X, one from X1C, one from Flashforge.