Considering the Prusa CORE One as first printer - any reason to reconsider?
Considering the Prusa CORE One as first printer - any reason to reconsider?
I've been waiting to finish up with some major life stuff before diving into the world of 3D printers. Now that is finally behind me, and I am currently trying to find out which printer I want so that I can place an order.
So far I've set my eyes on the new Prusa CORE One. It ticks a lot of the boxes that I think I am after, including:
- As open as I can get (before going into that Voron-stuff, which I think I'm not ready for). I don't want to be bogged down with having to run proprietary slicers through Wine and things like that. I am not sure how big of an issue that is with e.g. Bambu or Creality (if at all), but I've seen enough rug-pulls and enshittification processes that I don't really want to risk that. I want to be sure that I can use FOSS tools such as Blender and FreeCAD for design, and similarly open slicers, and the whole workflow will work just fine.
- As future-proof as I can possibly hope for. I think the upgrade path from the MK4 to CORE One shows that they are serious about sustainability and longevity of their devices, and as far as I can tell, I should have no troubles sourcing replacement parts. I also want to support companies with this philosophy.
- Has a decent print volume (I know there are bigger, maybe I will be constrained by this at some point?)
- Enclosed - a major reason I did not want the MK4S was that it was not enclosed (but maybe you can get an enclosure?). It will be placed in my study where I spend most of my computer time (which often times is a lot, so I imagine I will be in the room while it is printing). I imagine, with the additional filter, that it will be better with an enclosure. Also, it will be easier to keep good temperature control during prints, as it can get cold here during winter.
- Locally produced (I'm EU based).
I understand that other manufacturers provide more "bang for the buck" and that I in that sense will be overpaying feature-wise. I am fine with that given my emphasis on the above criteria.
However, I am a complete newbie to 3D-printing. I am sure there are some limitations I have not thought about, and I was wondering if there are any major things I have not thought about that would actually affect me negatively and should make me reconsider this model?
You're viewing a single thread.
@cyberwolfie I am happy MK4S owner and would recommend the CORE, but some considerations:
- Print volume IS small. Not having at least 250x250 x/y has been a step back from my previous printer.
- The platform is less open than I wished (or, better said, than they make us believe).
- I'd recommend getting the kit so you will get to know the printer better. However, CORE's build process difficulty is yet to be seen. I built my own MK4S and it was a fun weekend project.For many people the size will be fine. Most people can get along with 180 cubed for probably 80% of their printing needs. Not a lot of people need the really large print volumes.
I would assume that a CORE kit would come with Prusa's excellent assembly instructions. Which should make it quite easy to put together.
I'm starting to think that Prusa is switching their focus from consumer grade printers to entry level pro machines and better. Prusa can't really afford to be in that market as the race to the bottom accelerates. But there is a niche for small business use and full blown commercial use. Qidi seems to be the only player in that market right now. And the CORE seems to offer all the goodies that Qidi has with a much better reputation for reliability and support that would appeal to a small business.
@bluewing I am sharing my personal experience with the MK4S, since I went down from a 256^3 printer.
Belt tensioning on the MK4S Kit was a pain to do, so I am curious how belt tensioning for a core kit will go. I hope they give a better solution than the tuning app, as tensioning belts for a core xy is noticeably harder.
Neither of these are blockers anyway, like I said, I am happy with my MK4S.
Yeah, There are some maintenance things with CoreXY I'm not overly impressed with. The belts being one of them. Still, I think they are the future for consumer printers now. It's going to be interesting to see how the CORE does in the market.
I did consider an up grade to my Mk3s to Mk4 abilities. But in the end I didn't figure it was worth the money and effort for my needs. In the end, it might be considered slow now but it's a tank of a printer. I am considering upgrading the control system by adding Klipper to my Raspberry Pi and flashing new firmware for the old 8bit Rambo board. It sounds like it would get me a Mk3.5 level of control and speed.
- Print volume IS small. Not having at least 250x250 x/y has been a step back from my previous printer.
Hm, I don't think I can quite grasp how much of a difference it would make to have a couple of cm extra in each direction. For my actual planned projects, I know it will be sufficient (except for one, where none of the consumer grade printers would be, and I would need to splice multiple parts somehow). But I also know that the list of planned projects will expand much faster than I am able to plan, design and print...
- The platform is less open than I wished (or, better said, than they make us believe).
Hm, in what way have you experienced any problems with this? I understand that it is not fully open source, but as far as I could tell, you can't go much more open without going with a Voron?
- I’d recommend getting the kit so you will get to know the printer better. However, CORE’s build process difficulty is yet to be seen. I built my own MK4S and it was a fun weekend project.
I would love to get the kit, both as a learning experience and a fun project. However, they are not shipping the kits until April/May or something like that, while the assembled printers start shipping in January. I don't think I want to wait that long.
In practice, I haven’t found the print volume of my MK4 to be too limiting. Occasionally more X/Y would be nice, but plenty of parts that are too big for my printer would be too big for any printer and still need to be cut. The other issue is that even fast 3d printers are slow and I don’t really print things that take entire days. Even printing dactyl keyboard halves takes hours thanks to the need for supports, so I can’t imagine someone frequently doing really huge prints (particularly in height).
I have also thought that the prints where I need more volume would not be solved by an additional cm or two in the xy-plane, and would need to be spliced in some way. How is that process anyway? Do you use a glue gun or a 3D pen to do this splicing? My guess it will not look very pretty, but could I expect to be able to make watertight seals for example?
- When splitting a model into chunks, one important thing is to not just cut it along a flat plane, but instead design in tabs and slots so that the pieces locate and interlock.
- In addition to gluing pieces together with things like cyanoacrylate (super glue) and epoxy, it's also possible to solvent-weld them together with things like acetone or other solvents that depend on what kind of filament you're using (e.g. ethyl acetate for PLA). Such solvents can also be used for vapor-smoothing. They're relatively nasty chemicals, though, so you need ventilation and PPE and whatnot.
- Even an object printed as a single unit may not necessarily be watertight because of pinhole gaps between layers.
- In general, if you want your final object to be watertight, look good after being spliced together, or even just not look obviously 3D-printed, you should expect that you're going to have to sand/fill it (with e.g. bondo) and paint it.
- If you want to make something like a food-safe container or a sex toy (i.e. where it's important that the material both be non-toxic and not have any layer line crevices that could harbor bacteria), your best bet is to 3D-print a mold or blank, finish it as described above, and then use that to cast the actual finished part out of some other material like silicone or metal.
Thanks for the write-up! :)
There are a fair number of methods to join pieces into larger assemblies.
Some people have used a 3D pen to "weld" an assembly. But from my observation, it's not particularly strong. Super glues are popular for PLA. It bonds and holds well to PLA. PETG is better glued with epoxies vs super glues. But super glue will work in a pinch. Sometimes printing threaded parts is acceptable. But issues with fitment and strength of threads can be a problem. Simple machine screws and nuts are good for somethings. Even self-tapping screws are popular. Heat set brass threaded inserts are cheaply and widely available. And can be set with a cheap soldering iron. Various "snap together couplers" can be designed and 3D printed.
These are just a few ways to make assemblies with 3D printed parts. The trick is to learn how to choose what is the best for any particular model and that's on you.
Making a model hold water can be as simple as "the thicker is better" approach by adding more perimeters and top and bottom layers. Or it can involve applying various suitable paints and sealers. Again like fasteners, your use will most likely dictate the methods that you choose.
Edit to add: From what I can see, PrusaSlicer currently offers the best tools to create cuts and locators right in the slicer. With perhaps Cura a close second, (but I haven't use Cura in couple of years now).
Cheers! Saving this reply for when I have got my printer and need to figure out how to do things like this!
RE: Open-Source
> in what way have you experienced any problems with this?
For example, and I know is very niche, but I wanted to fix an issue with their app (I am an app dev), to discover that it isn't FOSS like the slicer.
Also as a CAD aficionado, I would love to get the actual step files and not just STLs.
But don't get me wrong, none of these was a blocker for me to get a MK4S.
I am also not sure if I will upgrade to CORE, but that's another story.
but I wanted to fix an issue with their app (I am an app dev), to discover that it isn’t FOSS like the slicer.
Prusa has other software than their slicer? What does it do?
Mobile app, web app, firmware, bootloader…
Ah, yeah, I would also have expected their app to be open source.
Are the step files not generated by the slicer?
No, .step file is an exchange format, (think .pdf files), that can be used across different CAD programs to import geometry so you can work on them.
Unlike the common .stl format, a .step file contains a majority of the internal information that was created by original CAD model. While an .stl file is just meshes and nothing else.
PrusaSlicer can use .step files directly to slice. But I'm not sure that other forks/slicers can. I like models in .step file because it's far easier to open them in whatever 3D CAD software I'm using to make changes to a model to suit my needs. I can do .st' files, but it's a pain to work with them.
@cyberwolfie so what I mean is files that I can open on FreeCAD and can be modified to create my custom parts (step files), rather than importing an STL, which leads to worse results / more difficult to modify.
This doesn't affect me directly much, but it does affect the community as a whole, and it's a step (heh) back from previous printers that do have the step files available.
Ah, I see! I have much to learn, but looking forward to getting started :)