Comment on FYI (opinion.) don't buy an MMU
elucubra@sopuli.xyz 1 week agoThe swapper may reduce poop, but it looks like it won’t reduce print times.
Also, it looks like it has a ton of failure points. Tool changers are much simpler and faster.
Comment on FYI (opinion.) don't buy an MMU
elucubra@sopuli.xyz 1 week agoThe swapper may reduce poop, but it looks like it won’t reduce print times.
Also, it looks like it has a ton of failure points. Tool changers are much simpler and faster.
Bluewing@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I have no need of this tool changer myself nor am I selling them. But that Swapper IS the OG tool changer. Industry has been using that turret style tool changer since automatic tool changers have been a thing. So there is no new idea involved in this design, just the application.
Those turrets are dead reliable on machining centers and seemingly never wear out. At least I’ve never had to repair one, even on 30 year old machines. To be fair, those are made from hardened steels parts. And not the plastic of the Swapper. Still the design IS well proven on production floors across the planet.
Fun side note: If you look at the photo on their web site, the turret shows 25 slots. But you can’t load 25 tools, you can only load 24. Because you always need 1 empty slot in the turret to make the first tool change. The 25th tool is already loaded in the print head.
As far speed goes, it’s not like you are actually making the tool changes manually. The turret is still much faster than you and the AMS/MMU systems that are common today. Is it as fast as the Prusa XL or Snapmkaer U1? Nope. But speed matters a lot less than being dead reliable. And the Snapmaker or the Bondtech still remain unproven in that regard. The Prusa XL has been proven to be pretty damn reliable, if expensive. If you want a low cost entry, then the AMS/MMU is the proven system.
My personal opinion about the Swapper is-- a cool try, but this isn’t the correct application for this design. It’s too big and the tech isn’t hobbyist friendly except for a tiny handful of users. And it’s an added cost to the money already spent for a filament changer.
elucubra@sopuli.xyz 1 week ago
The industrial ones may be tough, but the one in the video looks janky and the abundance of printed parts does not inspire confidence in its longevity. Also, it is an addon to an MMU, making the whole multi color set up closer to $500, and limited to bowden, which precludes flexibles. Once a tool has been swapped it must be heated to the proper temp for the filament.
I’m not intimately knowledgeable with subtractive CNC, but I own and have used a lot a hand router, so I’m familiar with the business end of the things. Reliability is not going to be the same with a dry tool or toolhead, than with an oozy nozzle.
The system is for bedslingers only, which are inferior to cartesian or CoreXY cube printers.
The INDX is way more capable, simpler (thus likely more reliable) made by Bondtech, which has a proven reliability and performance record.
The only scenario where I see this being equal or superior to a toolhead changer is, well, none.
Bluewing@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I did say that for as reliable as I know turrets to be, (decades of run time 10 to 24 hours a day), this is not the proper application for one. Like you, I don’t find the plastic parts to be very comforting.
The idea, despite being misguided, is an attempt to keep those perfectly good older bed slingers out of landfills by giving them extra capabilities to extend their life cycles.
Corexy IS faster and if you are a hobbyist buying your first or perhaps second printer I would recommend one and they are an excellent choice. But Bambu, Prusa, Soval, and Crealty still sell bed slingers for a reason.