Looking at something I’m playing with. Curious what you guys think about all the dual extruder set ups and if you actually use both often.
If you go dual definitely go for a chimera or similar. I personally think something like a cyclops would be the best choice if you just want to print two colors of the same filament type.
I love the idea for less expensive infill when using exotics, could be a money and material saver. I have a Taz 5 and their dual extruder setup is around $500, that’s too steep for me right now
I got a dual-extrude machine, don’t regret it, but seldom use it. Should have set aside a couple weeks to get the hardware and the toolchain fully dialed in, but life got in the way.
I have loads of opinions on this and while my general outspoken opinion is dual extrusion isn’t worth the hassle, I do use my chimera quite often and I just got a dual for one of my taz’s at work.
If you take the time to calibrate it dual is very fun.
Dual printing is in a different category. Consumers don’t want it and it is not mature enough to expect they can easily use it. It significantly changes the requirements, and brings the pain!
It doesn’t mean we designers should abandon it. It’s important work, but if you can’t bring features to ease the pain, increase reliability or extend the advantages, don’t bother. It’s relatively easy to add another extruder mechanically, but the software is lagging to get to that watershed moment that will bring compelling reasons for users to buy.
@Brook_Drumm Do you think the software lag has to do with doubling the tool paths/gcode through the printer control board? I know most printers use the Ramps 1.4/Mega combo or an all in one derivation of that combo, which would explain the lag. If that is the case, I wonder why raspberry pi isn’t an often utilized alternative. Python, in terms of language is a lot more economical and pi’s stock RAM is more than sufficient.
Thanks all. Valuable input.
Been at this for a while and most that I know in this community that I would consider veteran status have ran dual at one point or another, but to date… All their personal machines are single.
I personally have no use for extended slicing operations, nor dual colors, more nozzle height calibrations, etc. I’ll be on the single side of the vote.
First printer was a CTC Replicator, when it actually worked, I never used it, in fact I removed the 2nd stepper and hot end before I sold it on I never really saw a need for it. Things like dissolvable supports would be good, but it brings a lot of pain trying to get the offsets correct. Tbh, if I was going dual extrude, I’d be looking at dual carriage as well as it’s probably a lot easier to centre up.
@Michael_Anton1 Dual extrusion support in older firmware like Marlin is minimal. You have a tool change GCode and, if you are lucky, a few seperated runtime variables.
The philosophy is that only one extruder will be printing at a time so CPU workload is not greatly increased. The bulk of the extra work has been delegated to the slicer and consists of things like ooze shields and prime-and-wipe towers or, worse, the need for user-supplied custom GCode in tool-change hooks.
To me all of this seems like handling the symptoms of dual extrusion rather than creating mechanisms to eliminate those symptoms. Is it sensible to have one nozzle drooling filament while the other is printing? No, solutions like the CEL Robox’s pin-valved extruder are heading in the right direction to make dual extrusion a better experience.
I’ve done quite a few dual prints, but mostly with removable supports being the second material. I usually try to do single though.
@Neil_Darlow The last batch of dual parts I did, I tended to retract the material out of the hot zone completely when changing away from the tool, similar code reverses long retract on new start. Relatively easy to do in the tool change code if the slicer doesn’t specifically have a tool change retract setting.
I think it’s considerably easier than implementing a pin to block the nozzle and I’ve gotten pretty good results. I didn’t do ooze shields or purge towers either. Those tended to be points of failure, particularly when the two plastics weren’t very compatible by the choice of dissolvable support.
Print support from hips while printing from abs, then emerge in limonen to dissolve hips. Try to do that with single extruder.
Dual material, nylon and kevlar (carbon eats my nozzle alot, got a box full of nozzle), it’s usable
I have an Ultimaker original with dual extrusion and heated bed and I find that dual extrusion on my printer is quite challenging. The biggest problem I have is oozing out of the nozzle that is not printing. Despite of the ooze shield that I can set in Cura it still polutes the print a bit. But I did got some acceptable results with using 2 colors or 2 types of materials (f.e. PLA with FPE)
If I ever would go for a new printer with dual extrusion I would choose a printer with separate cariers for each nozzle and not one carier with 2 nozzles like I have now.
One of the more interesting polls, the 80/20 balance has remained for nearly all 100+ votes.
Another poll coming.
When I say “lag” I don’t mean in the controller. Since it does one color at a time it’s all the same for the controller.
I’m saying the development of software to make dual printing easier is less critical since it’s less than 20% of total customers. I’d bet it’s way less than that for normal consumers… Maybe less than 5% or less. Using disk printing on host software isn’t very friendly and designing a model for two colors is challenging. You have to split the two colors into separate files then combine them in the host software. And the file formats change. Then there is the issue of drooling hotends, affecting retraction and if it drools, then when it advances to print, the plastic volume is less due to loss of plastic… This makes starting a new color hard and it takes a second for the plastic to push through after the print head is already moving. So it’s challenging. There are some clever solutions, like an ooze shell that prints around the object, accepting these limitations and after removing the shell, the interior print looks better… But it’s non-intuitive. Since the requirements are higher and the rules change, it takes time to learn the shortcomings and overcome them
Brook