Crozekiel

This is basically IDEX (Independent Dual EXtruders) printing. Usually they will have two toolheads on one gantry, but there are some that have more than one gantry. There are pros and cons to both configurations, and compared to tool changers.

The market seems to be heading toward tool changers currently (they are kind of the “new-hotness” right now) because you can fit more of them in a smaller space and there is less weight on the gantry (which means better prints at higher speeds) and they produce a lot less waste material than the AMS-style multi-material printers.

Welp, I gotta eat my words on this one. Not only is it definitely doable, apparently it’s already a thing. I stumbled across this by coincidence just now.

https://reprap.org/wiki/Diamond_Hotend

I think the process is prohibitively complicated for filament FDM printers. From what I understand, mixing fluids that are in laminar flow would require a large working area which you don’t have in a 3d printer. On the fly, from the printer, is SO MUCH more than what a 3d printer is already doing. It would basically be a color mixing chamber, at melting temperature, and then extruding back into a new filament at the correct diameter to run through the rest of the printer - may as well do that separately from the print process.

However, I think this would work so much better without starting at filament and using pellets instead. There are pellet hopper FDM 3d printers out there, though not nearly as common as filament printers. But you could have a system of 4 hoppers of pellets that let out measured ratios into a primary hopper that agitates and mixes the pellets (while still solid) and then feeds them through print head like normal. Although, the normal size of pellets might be a bit big to get a good mix that isn’t just a splotchy mess, once the hoppers and mixing is figured out you should be able to find a path to smaller pellets.

That said, I do also like the idea someone else had of using a neutral color filament and then having a process of adding pigment somewhere along the way to the nozzle.

Filament won’t mix in the nozzle, it is laminar flow. That’s why the multi-color filaments still print multi-color instead of becoming a mix.

Also, as someone else pointed out, color printers do not mix ink, they put tiny dots on the page - like pixels on a monitor. In fact, basically everything you look at today with color is using tiny dots of color and dithering to make it look like a different color. So, it sounds more like your problem here is that FDM printing does not have the resolution needed to make the dithering effect indistinguishable at the distance you would like. Which may be fair, but it is more likely that someone invent a way to significantly increase the resolution of FDM prints than it is that they would find a way to mix any color you want from CMYK filament “on the fly”.

I think Omacom is just the small fish “player” wanna-be’s trying to do what the big guys are doing with AI. Playing 3 card monte with a few million dollars running the same few bucks around in circles so many times a quarter they all get to make numbers go big on balance sheet in the hopes of getting new real money from idiot “investors” before the FTC (or other regulatory body) wakes up and remembers they are supposed to regulate something occasionally and catches on.

Basically, yes.

This seems to be unrelated to Z-offset, as it’s happens regardless of print placement and orientation but follows infill direction with the more squished part being towards the end of the layer and the slightly less squished part being the beginning.

This should not be the case. You shouldn’t have too much material at the end of a layer and too little at the start (or vise versa). Does the result look the exact same no matter where on the bed you put it? Like it looks the same centered vs put in corners but keeping the same orientation and print order.

If it happens anywhere on the bed in the exact same way then I don’t think it is a bed mesh problem and wondering if there is some sort of e-step problem that is compounding over the course of the layer, but resets on a layer change. Maybe try relative positions vs absolute positions in the gcode settings to see if it changes anything?

However, if moving the print to a different part of the bed moved the “problem areas” then there is either a motion system issue or bed mesh issue. Something could be out of square, or a z-axis lead screw is out of shape, or even I’ve seen printer firmware just tossing out the bed meshes - they will still scan them, but then just tosses it out at the beginning of a print (could be problematic “beginning gcode” in the slicer doing that too).

I think what they meant by “catching up” would happen at later layers, not later in the same layer. Basically, those layers are bad themselves but putting down enough material in the right places that a future layer will go down correct and smooth. So layer 4 being fine basically agrees with above commenter.

Are we looking at layer 2 partially complete or layer 3 partially complete? Because while I see the obvious problem on the partially complete layer, I also see problems on the layer that is complete. The back right area has tell-tell signs of too low z-offset (the very thin pinch lines coming up) but as it moves to the front of the image it looks like the z-offset is too high (not closing the gaps at the ends of lines and defined gaps between lines). Even the layer that is in progress looks like the lines are coming apart as the print head moves from back to front, like the gap is bigger in the front than back.

This all shouts levelling problem or motion system problem.

Has it always done this?
Did you get the printer new? How long have you had it? Can you post a picture of the bed mesh? What temperature was the bed when you took the bed mesh?

I stared at that picture like it was a Where’s Wally for like 10 minutes before I came to check the comments and saw this note in OP’s message…

Came to basically say the same thing. Parts also on AliExpress, looks like the same pictures from eBay so might be the same products. “Fixing” the plastic joint that has so little surface area and is mangled as much as it is seems like it would be dubious at best.

If it were me, I would be looking at buying a replacement bracket first, and if that didn’t pan out, I’d probably be looking to 3d print something that would function as a new bracket or an entirely new headband.

I know it’s not the point but I hate that it is called the “oddcube” and isn’t even close to being a cube. :(